Skip to main content
Post a Comment

Should Schools Teach Personality?


A response to Should Schools Teach Personality?

The push to discipline, while seeming 'good for kids' is questionable for several reasons:

  • Why not teach openness to ideas, another quality shown correlated with academic performance.
  • Conscientiousness is a slightly more conservative quality, while openness is a liberal quality (it is the stronger correlate of political viewpoint), and this just seems to push the same negative conservative agenda.
  • The blame for failure is simply pushed further on to students, without any awareness about larger societal issues and/or social issues impacting one's ability at discipline.
  • Teaching personality might have secondary negative effects


As to the last point, I have read of a study showing an inverse correlation between conscientiousness and fluid intelligence, and an increase in g with some dimensions of intelligence, although it was not verified in a follow-up study:

Original: What Facets of Openness and Conscientiousness Predict Fluid Intelligence Score?

Attempt to verify: Personality-intelligence interface : the relationship between conscientiousness and intelligence



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky My rating: 5 of 5 stars I finished reading this crying. It is a work of neurobiology, social science, anthropology, and history, but ultimately it is a work of great humanity, suggesting ways that humans, our groups, our systems, and our societies can be made better. View all my reviews
Post a Comment
Read more

A Journey — if You Dare — Into the Minds of Silicon Valley Programmers

My responses in a NY Times comment section for the book, Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World by Clive Thompson : #1 - Link Although I've been a software developer for 15 years, and for longer alternating between a project manager, team lead, or analyst, mostly in finance, and now with a cancer center, I found it funny that you blame the people doing the coding for not seeing the harm it could cause. First, most scientific advancement has dark elements, and it is usually not the science but how it is used and sold by business people that is the problem. This leads to the second problem, in that it is not coding that is in itself problematic, but specifically how technology is harnessed to sell. It is normal and desirable to track users, to log actions, to collect telemetry, so as to monitor systems, respond to errors, and to develop new features, but that normal engineering practice has been used to surveil users for the purpose of selling. Blaming
Post a Comment
Read more

Don't learn to code. Learn to think.

A response to  Don't learn to code. Learn to think. : Below is is my usual response when I see an article stating that everyone should learn to code:  Rather than programming, it is more important to impart the thinking of computer science (CS) than a specific implementation. Programming can be an end point for some students, but it is likely that programming itself will be increasingly automated, so that one needs more the general concepts common in CS. Even then, programming itself is to some degree a grunt task that one progresses beyond:  The following are typical components of a CS degree: algorithms & flowcharting systems thinking logical systems and set theory object-orientation & patterns probability, statistics, mathematics All of the above can be useful in an increasingly automated and data-driven world.
1 comment
Read more