TheRPGSite

I posted this link in another thread about ownership of imaginary elements in RPGs that made me think of it, but I figured it should probably be posted here for more general comment:

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/lego212.shtml (http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/lego212.shtml)

So, they were trying to teach kids socialism via Legos?

 How weird.

- E.W.C.

I am profoundly disturbed by that... all of that.  While I'm having a hard time articulating why, I would say that I think all the teachers involved should be kept far far away from children everywhere.

The weird thing was, as I was reading I'd go 'ouch, bad' then read reasoning and nod along going 'yeah, okay, that's cool...' then I realize what I was agreeing with.

I felt like I was someone in the 40k universe being tempted by chaos....:eek:

If my kid was in that school he'd have been out so fast the vacuum he left behind would have sounded like thunder when it imploded.

-clash

Those little kids built an entire civilization on their own and the teachers shut it down because it was too much like real life?

Holy fucking shit.  Do they breath oxygen on that planet?

Quote from: fonkaygarryThose little kids built an entire civilization on their own and the teachers shut it down because it was too much like real life?

Holy fucking shit.  Do they breath oxygen on that planet?

Sadly, Fonkay, this is Seattle we are talking about. They don't breath oxygen, they breath the fumes of their own insanity there. I know... I've been there, I've met the Seattlites.  They say they come in peace but I am very very afraid...

Quote from: SpikeSadly, Fonkay, this is Seattle we are talking about.

For those who haven't already read this article, some more insight on the area and WotC here (http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/23/wizards/index.html).

Quote from: John MorrowFor those who haven't already read this article, some more insight on the area and WotC here (http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/23/wizards/index.html).

This article is the gift that keeps on giving :D

Regards,
David R

Let us not forget that this is the same region that spawned Blue Rose. Not an exact geographic matchup, but close enough for orbital strikes.....:D

What's interesting about these communist teachers is that they didn't consider themselves as part of the experiment. And of course they were.

While discussing power and ownership, they failed to mention that the teachers had all the power, and the teachers had ownership of the legos. When left to themselves, the kids created a capitalist, class-based society. Only when the teachers asserted their power - "you can't exclude that kid, you can't hog all the pieces" - and when the teachers took control of the means of production (seizing legos) were they able to alter the social structure and make it "collectivist."

Marx's communism said that a communist state would naturally arise when capitalism collapsed from its own contradictions; the people would grab power for themselves and distribute everything fairly. Lenin decided he wouldn't wait for that, and that before the people could take control of the means of production, Lenin himself had to control everything, so he could redistribute it fairly. Of course really in the end he kept everything.

The children don't have a true collectivist society if the teachers can take their lego from them, or decide who has which bits of lego. True communism is not possible unless the workers control the means of production. If a priviliged elite control it, then it's not communism, it's Leninism, even worse than Tsarism.

I think what really offended the teachers was that some of the kids were asserting control of things, subverting the power and ownership of the teachers.

Quote from: SpikeThe weird thing was, as I was reading I'd go 'ouch, bad' then read reasoning and nod along going 'yeah, okay, that's cool...' then I realize what I was agreeing with.

And what is that?  :confused:

Man, screw you guys. >.>

Quote from: JimBobOzWhile discussing power and ownership, they failed to mention that the teachers had all the power, and the teachers had ownership of the legos. When left to themselves, the kids created a capitalist, class-based society. Only when the teachers asserted their power - "you can't exclude that kid, you can't hog all the pieces" - and when the teachers took control of the means of production (seizing legos) were they able to alter the social structure and make it "collectivist."

Correct, which made it particularly ironic when they talk about democracy near the end of the article, as if the kids had free say in what happened.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect, which made it particularly ironic when they talk about democracy near the end of the article, as if the kids had free say in what happened.

There needs to be some saying like, "communism takes capitalism's wealth pyramid and turns it into a needle tower in a swamp." Only snappier.

Quote from: flyingmiceIf my kid was in that school he'd have been out so fast the vacuum he left behind would have sounded like thunder when it imploded.

-clash

While I find your sentiment admirable, I must caution you that children;s bodies can only withstand a few G's safely, so what you might like to do could be harmful.

I wonder if I was the only one reading the article thinking to myself "It's LEGO, not LEGOS" ?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI wonder if I was the only one reading the article thinking to myself "It's LEGO, not LEGOS" ?

No.  But there are only so many times you can shout that at the screen.
The computers, they do not listen to us.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI wonder if I was the only one reading the article thinking to myself "It's LEGO, not LEGOS" ?

No, me too, in fact that's all I can think about while trying to read the article.

Quote from: fonkaygarryThose little kids built an entire civilization on their own and the teachers shut it down because it was too much like real life?

Holy fucking shit.  Do they breath oxygen on that planet?

Heh, that was my first reaction as well. I think the teachers are 'projecting' just a little too much.

QuoteAll structures are public structures. Everyone can use all the Lego structures. But only the builder or people who have her or his permission are allowed to change a structure.

      Lego people can be saved only by a "team" of kids, not by individuals.

      All structures will be standard sizes.

You have no right as an individual, you must conform to the collective. You will be marginalized. Individual effort will not be rewarded.

.....WTF is wrong with people?

Quote from: NazgulHeh, that was my first reaction as well. I think the teachers are 'projecting' just a little too much.



You have no right as an individual, you must conform to the collective. You will be marginalized. Individual effort will not be rewarded.

.....WTF is wrong with people?

I agree that the individual is being crushed in america. Between school "uniforms" and employers dictating things like hair length, facial hair, etc, plus discriminating against people with tatts or piercings, the america worker is basically being forced into this "dilbert" mold, and now they're trying to get kids indoctrinated into conformity and uniformity, and to accept "Beacuse I said so!" as a reason for the elimination of individuality.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI wonder if I was the only one reading the article thinking to myself "It's LEGO, not LEGOS" ?

It's actually "Lego Building Blocks", which is what I was thinking of.  Years ago (1970s), Lego put a flyer in their products talking about how they weren't "Legos" because they were concerned that their product would become "legos" rather than "building blocks" and, thus, cause them to lose their trademark on the name "Lego".

It would have been interesting to see pictures of the creations in question.

I have an image in my mind that before the teachers imposed their utopian ideals on the children, the created city must have had a grand center with all kinds of "cool stuff", and it also had a slum of sorts with small, modest buildings created by the children who kept playing, but who were outside of the main power structure.

After the teacher imposed rules, I imagine everything is uniform, and the grandiose structures of the old city don't exist.  Instead, I picture things as much more homogenous and bland, and the creation as being much lesser overall.

Quote from: AnemoneAnd what is that?  :confused:

See, the thing that I was nodding along with is the 'feel good everybody shares alike' mentality, and the concept that when teachers provide a resource for play (legos... screw you guys, I've always added that S to the end...) that it is not fair or right that some children are left out.

Sound good and right.

But that's not the entire picture.  First we have some apparently very sharp, very creative young minds engaged in an ambitious cityscape project, complete with a very well developed political and social structure. Rather than encourage this, and introducing means of involving the oastricezed children (perhaps by exercising their authority as the providers of the legos to begin with) they were upset that their own collectivist communist ideals were not being followed and they tore it all down as they indoctrinated the children into their personal political views.

Then you have the trading game later on.  When you read the rules presented by the winners (and why was it the winners who got to make the rules exactly? Oh, yes, indoctrination and condemnation of the capitalist culture they live in... right)  did you find the rules were inherently designed to allow them to maintain their monopoly on 'winning pieces'?  No, they were designed, if poorly, to introduce more 'fair play' by forcing stronger competitors to trade.  Then when they won again the teachers encouraged them to feel guilty about having the power.  WTF!  While the article doesn't specifically state it, I would not be at all surprised to find that they deliberately slanted the play from the start to give a student an overwhelming advantage (for example: were green blocks really the most valuable prior to 'Liam' selecting all the green blocks for himself, or did they decide after selection that it would make the lesson more valuable if one player started with a monopoly on the power?)


In short what I was nodding along with that I really REALLY don't like is the fact that these people decided to do the exact opposite of encouraging children.  Indoctrination is bad enough by itself, but the entire purpose of this seems to be destroy these kids chances of being useful contributing members of society.  


Did that answer your question?

I was shocked reading this. Right next to me is an old GDR Kindergarten, the whole staff from the olden days, and I know many GDR teachers. They aren´t as communist as those shitheaded teachers are.

I´m delighted at your reactions.
This is the first time I got a fuzzy feeling at a RPG site.

Spike, you have put into words almost exactly what I was thinking while reading, but couldn't quite put into a cohesive sense of what made me feel disgusted. Thank you.

EDIT: Raise your hand if you even considered the possibility that the teachers destroyed the cityscape...

Quote from: James J SkachSpike, you have put into words almost exactly what I was thinking while reading, but couldn't quite put into a cohesive sense of what made me feel disgusted. Thank you.

EDIT: Raise your hand if you even considered the possibility that the teachers destroyed the cityscape...

Thanks. I had to really examine exactly what I was thinking to put it into words... I was worried I was jumping at shadows when I first went 'WTF?!'...

Consider my hand raised.

The ultimate dead end of socialist education.

On the plus side, I'm suddenly looking forward to the rebelling teenagers who strike out against everything they've had forced on them.

That was a damn strange article. It gets a :wtfsign:

I agree. Teaching kids to share is horrible, first of all. Second of all, go capitalism! Hoo~ah!

:rolleyes:

The point is, they weren't teaching the kids to share. They'd like to think that they were.  They feel that they were imparting some enlightened approach that only they are beknighted to pass on due to their intellectual superiority. But what they were doing was not letting a bunch of eight year olds play with the lego to fan thier own vanity.

Sick, actually...

Capitalism and sharing, contrary to popular belief, are not mutually exclusive.

Quote from: SpikeLet us not forget that this is the same region that spawned Blue Rose....

And Shadowrun. And MageKnight. And Oathbouund. And. . . well. . . lots of stuff that doesn't suck ;)

Quote from: jdrakehAnd Shadowrun. And MageKnight. And Oathbouund. And. . . well. . . lots of stuff that doesn't suck ;)

I loved Oathbound too.

It's like I don't know you anymore, James!

Quote from: Thanatos02I agree. Teaching kids to share is horrible, first of all. Second of all, go capitalism! Hoo~ah!

:rolleyes:

You did notice that the 'sharing' was pretty much used only as an excuse to teach a collectivist/socialist agenda, didn't you? No one I know objects to teaching children to share, wether it be by decree and direct arbitration (you will allow Jimmy to use those Legos over there...) or by more independent methods (you should share with Jimmy... why don't you try playing WITH him?).  

That is far from the case here.   Sharing is not even the primary concern, otherwise they wouldn't have done that little trading game that took up the second half of the article.

Sounds to me like some of you would prefer that the kids be given knives and enter the 'circle of death' to earn the right to have milk and cookies.

Quote from: GRIMSounds to me like some of you would prefer that the kids be given knives and enter the 'circle of death' to earn the right to have milk and cookies.

....Coming soon to pay-per-view in your local town.

Quote from: GRIMSounds to me like some of you would prefer that the kids be given knives and enter the 'circle of death' to earn the right to have milk and cookies.

You obviously haven't been paying enough attention to my posting history. OF COURSE I support the circle of death for milk and cookies idea.  I'm a freakin' social darwinist at heart! :cool:

Quote from: Abyssal MawI loved Oathbound too.

It's like I don't know you anymore, James!

These last two years have been full of personal growth. Sometimes my rough edges still show, but I've been working on grinding them down. Part of that growth has manifested as me trying new things (e.g., playing games that I wouldn't normally play). As a result, I've found some new things that I like ;)

Quote from: jdrakehThese last two years have been full of personal growth. Sometimes my rough edges still show, but I've been working on grinding them down. Part of that growth has manifested as me trying new things (e.g., playing games that I wouldn't normally play). As a result, I've found some new things that I like ;)

Now I feel bad. I've regressed. I barely walk upright anymore.

Here's to you, mang!

That's just a chilling article.  It's like these teachers are androids with anti-fun beams shooting from their eyes.  This kind of thinking should be corrected with a pommel horse, leather cuffs, a speculum, and gerbils with fur heavily spiked by hair gel.

    My own solution to solving the "fairness" of Lego piece distribution is "save up and buy your own f****ing Legos"

The teachers are (a) taking the children's play the wrong kind of seriously and (b) encouraging the children to do the same.  You can see it right at the start, where they're talking about carefully preserving the work that the children have put in, protecting it from the world of childhood play.

Is the rest of the article fucked up?  Yes, yes it is.  But I think that there is the root of it.

They're Lego blocks, people.  You don't need to freakin' measure out what a "fair" allotment of space for each house is.  What you need to do is to say, come the end of the day, "Okay!  That's some great work.  Let's take a picture of it, and when we get it developed we'll get to send it home with you, but after we take the picture it's time to take the legos and put them back in their boxes."

I mean, c'mon ... every kid knows that a Lego that's in some built thing is one less lego you have to build the next thing.  Disassembled legos are the natural ground state from which fun emerges.  If you value the ability of the kids to have fun then you show that by giving them disassembled legos to have fun with, not by preserving their lego-structures.

You can say "Yes, I take your efforts seriously, I take your passion seriously, I value and admire all those things about you" but simultaneously say "... but I do not view this LegoTown as a sacred or protected artifact."  Valuing the end results of the play is no substitute for valuing the play itself.

But tearing down the nascent Legotown would have required adults to assert the authority that comes with their responsibility to provide a sane learning environment ... and since authority is Alway Bad In Every Circumstance (tm), we can't have that.  Far better to drive everybody's sanity straight off a cliff by trying to convince kids that they're secretly enacting a socio-economic drama rather than ... oh, I don't know ... responding to the screwed up passive aggressive bullshit of their teachers.

Excellent analysis, Tony!

-clash

Quote from: Koltar....Coming soon to pay-per-view in your local town.

Muppet Babies: Battle Royale

You know, I seriously considered coming in here with a seriously thought out discussion about the article. There seems to be some obvious misreadings, and the knee-jerk reactions I see are so bad I'm surprised there arn't physical injuries. But mostly, this thread already looks like the 'socialism, boo!' circle-jerk I didn't quite expect. Trying to discuss this wouldn't even come close to ending well.

Really, I shouldn't even have bothered to post this, but it's a replacement for the better thought out paragraphs I already had, and my ego demands that I post something for my time... - . -

Sorry you feel that way, Thanatos. I didn't knee jerk anything, I read the damn thing, thought about what I read and made my decision on my feelings based on careful thought.

If you want to post an alternative take on the matter, by all means do so.  Simply shouting that we have it all wrong or don't understand what we read isn't gonna convince anyone of anything. Ever.

It's one of those articles where someone slapped a really dumb title on it which colours the rest of the article and gives rise to the audience reading it in the worst way possible. If it was titled "The Political Consequences of Economic Distributions in Educational Settings: Elementary Schools" no one would be getting as upset.

As for the article itself, it sounds like a bunch of kids took over all the LEGO, then bullied everyone else into acting as if the clique owned it.

QuoteA group of about eight children conceived and launched Legotown. Other children were eager to join the project, but as the city grew — and space and raw materials became more precious — the builders began excluding other children.

QuoteOccasionally, Legotown leaders explicitly rebuffed children, telling them that they couldn't play. Typically the exclusion was more subtle, growing from a climate in which Legotown was seen as the turf of particular kids. The other children didn't complain much about this; when asked about Legos, they'd often comment vaguely that they just weren't interested in playing with Legos anymore

QuoteWhen the children discovered the decimated Legotown, they reacted with shock and grief. Children moaned and fell to their knees to inspect the damage; many were near tears. The builders were devastated, and the other children were deeply sympathetic. We gathered as a full group to talk about what had happened; at one point in the conversation, Kendra suggested a big cleanup of the loose Legos on the floor. The Legotown builders were fierce in their opposition. They explained that particular children "owned" those pieces and it would be unfair to put them back in the bins where other children might use them.

All emphases mine. I chose examples right at the start of the article because I know most people won't read more than the title and the first few paragraphs.

The teachers took an explicitly political angle on this problem, which one might agree or disagree with (they could also have looked at the interpersonal aspects to see if there was a psychological reason), but it's clear that this was not a good situation that the teachers fucked up - it was a divisive and cliquish situation which they resolved (successfully, even).

I want to point out that the article discusses the work of teachers for the benefit other teachers.  They're using the available time with a group of mixed age children ("25 children... ages 5 through 9") for two to two-and-a-half hours a day to teach through play and activities.  They're not babysitters, their job is not to make sure all the children are occupied until it's time for nap.  Their job is to grab what opportunities present themselves in a non-classroom setting to teach something.  In that context, it's not "just Lego" -- it's a teaching opportunity.  

Why the big stress about exploring the notions of what ownership and power mean?  Why the fear that -- ZOMFG! -- there might be communism in grade school?  And why assume that whatever system or power structure the (big) kids came up with need not be questioned?  It's not like the kids came up with it an a vacuum.  These kids have models (parents, siblings, other schoolmates, television, etc.) from which they unconsciously draw.  Why assume that the power structure they created/repeated would automatically be something to protect?  Are teachers just supposed to watch the Lego rendition of "Lord of the Flies", or should they grab the opportunity to explore the situation with the kids?  

I'm amazed at the knee-jerk reaction of "sharing bad!" and especially "regulated sharing BADDD!!!"  Would I have worked the same way as these teachers?  Probably not -- that's why I'm an engineer and not an elementary school teacher.  Do I see potential problems in the final version of Legotown?  Yes.  Duh.  But I still think exploring the issues is a valuable thing to do with the kids.  It's the effort of going through the thinking that matters.  

I'm sure some of these kids gave the teachers the answers which they thought was expected, the "correct" answer.  Kids always do, don't they?  But they still had to go through some thinking about the issues, and when over time they form their more definitive opinions and attitudes about property and power, they'll at least have reflected a bit, rather than just absorbing unconsciously and unquestioningly the model they see around them.  Maybe they'll even figure they had it right with the first Legotown approach.

Sharing is not bad. Regulated sharing is not always bad. ENFORCED sharing is bad. The State (in this case the teachers) should not be in a position to enforce sharing of resources by dint of Authority through Force. THAT'S the problem with it, IMO. Exploring the issue is NOT demolishing the town and then dictating what will be done with the remnants. Exploring it is discussing it and THEN letting the class decide what to do. That's how *I* would've handled it.

:raise:

Interesting. I disagree with the principles applied, but not with the general concept of exploring power in society with a group of children like that. That the parents were not consulted, the teachers went into it with a specific 'moral lesson' to teach (don't even bother with some quibbling "What about teaching kids don't kill people" bullshit, mmmk?), and pursued teaching a  socialist ideal over an understanding of how the world operates make it, for me anyhow, a Bad Idea.

Still.

:raise:

Interesting.

Some other kids destroyed the town, not the teachers. The teachers decided to get more involved when one of them proposed putting the LEGO pieces back into a container for public use, and the eight kids who had been building LEGO town asserted that this was unfair because they "owned" the pieces (because they had been using them for the past few weeks, not because their parents had bought them or something). They had also been asserting their ownership of the LEGO bin more generally, preventing other children from using it without the right to do so.

I do agree that the use of force to grab the personal property of the kids would be problematic, but the kids in question are more akin to a gang that's seized control of a public resource, not Lockean settlers establishing ownership through the improvement of fallow resources.

My bad; it was an accidental demolition. The teachers just decided to outright ban the Legos.

That's even better, and a more pointed example of Authority in action. If everyone can't have Legos, even though Legos are available to be had, then nobody will have them.

To be honest, they should have interfered with the dominance of the bins at a minimum before the cityscape was destroyed.   The real life lesson learned is that simply asserting ownership does not provide actual ownership or something like that...

Quote from: SpikeTo be honest, they should have interfered with the dominance of the bins at a minimum before the cityscape was destroyed.   The real life lesson learned is that simply asserting ownership does not provide actual ownership or something like that...

I think the point is that there were a LOT of lessons that could've come from this experience, but most of us have a problem with the one that was chosen.

They didn't ban LEGOs, though. That's just the misleading title. What they did do was refuse to agree that the kids who claimed ownership of the LEGOs had such ownership. They then made everyone play a series of (somewhat tedious-sounding) games designed to reveal how certain kinds of assertions about ownership can be unfair despite seeming initially plausible. Then they let the kids rebuild LEGO town, but only if they let everyone who wanted to play build it, and then they imposed certain rules on how one could obtain and use pieces. According to the paper, this successfully resolved the situation with the clique in a way that was satisfactory to everyone.

I contacted the main author of the article and asked her what had happened.  She said:

QuoteThank you for asking rather than making misguided assumptions, as  many folks have done. [Note: I did not discuss the content of this thread, so she must be referring to previous questions and assumptions she's seen.] A group of children, not part of our program, used the classroom over a weekend and played with and broke Legotown, not aware of our program's practice of saving (and not touching) kids' work. Teachers at Hilltop would never, ever take apart kids' work. It was an accident, pure and simple--kids using materials that they were unfamiliar with in a space that they were unfamiliar with (our school is housed in a church, so there are other people in our spaces over the weekend).

The teachers did not demolish what some of the children had built.  However, when they saw an opportunity to, well, teach, they took it.  They did not hand the Lego tub right back -- that would immediately resulted on the children trying to pick up right where they left and/or having a fight over the pieces.  They started the exploration of power and ownership, and once it was well on its way, reintroduced the Lego component.  Doesn't sound like cause to send the National Guard, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: SpikeTo be honest, they should have interfered with the dominance of the bins at a minimum before the cityscape was destroyed.   The real life lesson learned is that simply asserting ownership does not provide actual ownership or something like that...

So a traditional approach would have been to take the kids aside and say "Liam, those are not your green blocks, they're the church's.  You can have three, and Kyla and Carl and Drew can have three each," etc.  Then a couple of days later, Drew would have had no more green blocks, and Liam would have had them all.  Liam would have said, very earnestly, that Drew traded them or that he was helping Drew because he was good with building.  Nothing new, nothing learned -- and the adults still get to enforce an external distribution scheme.  Instead, the teachers actually tried to explore the whys and hows of ownership and power.  It may not be the ideal experiment, but it beats gobbling up status quo without ever wondering :"Why?"

You must have had very soft spoken parents and teachers growing up if the adults in your life couldn't tell you to 'share' and make it stick.    Maybe I phrased it awkwardly in my post.

'No, Liam, you have to share the legos.'

'But it's my cityscape.'

'No liam, it's not. If you can't share the legos, then you don't get to play with them. Here is some play-doh.'

End of story. The great thing is, once the adults have established that they control the Legos, not the kids, then they don't have to repeat that scene, just remind them that if they don't share, they don't play.

Or am I the only one that was raised that way? :confused:

So your problem is that they _didn't_ ban LEGOs?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSo your problem is that they _didn't_ ban LEGOs?

Mine? No. I'm saying that they didn't assert their authority to correct the situation at any point. They turned to touch feely conversations and 'how do you feel' moments and guilt trips instead.   During the comments about the 'trading game' they invented, they  pointed out they were teaching the kids to feel guilty that the deck was somehow stacked in their favor, but that in life the some people just do have it easier...

telling "liam" to share, or else, and enforcing that 'or else' by removing his 'right' to play with the legos as the 'stick' is the traditional method. Not removing the legos all together (which is another traditional method...).

When the adults in my young life said to share, you shared. They had any number of ways to enforce it. ANY number of ways.

These people never, apparently, said or enforced the saying of 'Share'... they went into a communal life lesson mode.  One of those 'feel good heartwarming' things that, sadly, doesn't have much to do with the way the world works. Teaching children to feel guilty about succeeding (not, that is to say, to feel guilty about not working with others... they didn't apparently feel the need to teach THAT lesson...) is a shitty thing to do.

You've got some weird ideological rant thing going on here, and I'm not sure where to begin pointing out how distinct it is from the account we have of the situation or what a reasonable interpretation of events would tell us is plausible to presume based on that account.

Edit: Oh heck, here's one:

You object to "collectivism" and insist that authority and force must be used to combat it, or possibly proactively to prevent it from developing. That's a weird viewpoint, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. The traditional objection to "collectivism" is precisely that it relies on authority and force to make people do what the "collectivists" (whoever they happen to be) want, instead of relying on rational persuasion and respect for individual dignity. It's unclear why you would object to "collectivism" if you think authority and force are required to live in this world.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThey didn't ban LEGOs, though.

Then why, as the last sentence of the first section of the article, written by the teacher(s), do we have this statement:

"After nearly two months of observing the children's Legotown construction, we decided to ban the Legos."

I find it hard to believe the person writing the article misquoted herself. But hey, I could be wrong.

Quote from: WerekoalaThen why, as the last sentence of the first section of the article, written by the teacher(s), do we have this statement:

"After nearly two months of observing the children's Legotown construction, we decided to ban the Legos."

I find it hard to believe the person writing the article misquoted herself. But hey, I could be wrong.

She was being melodramatic (the article, as I said, is badly titled and a bit weirdly written). The important thing is to read what form the actual "ban" took. They set aside the LEGO bin for a few sessions, played a couple of games involving ownership of the LEGOs, then let everyone play with the LEGOs again when they were satisfied that the lesson had been learnt. The resolution at the end is actually that more children are playing with the LEGOs than prior to this experience.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou've got some weird ideological rant thing going on here, and I'm not sure where to begin pointing out how distinct it is from the account we have of the situation or what a reasonable interpretation of events would tell us is plausible to presume based on that account.

Edit: Oh heck, here's one:

You object to "collectivism" and insist that authority and force must be used to combat it, or possibly proactively to prevent it from developing. That's a weird viewpoint, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. The traditional objection to "collectivism" is precisely that it relies on authority and force to make people do what the "collectivists" (whoever they happen to be) want, instead of relying on rational persuasion and respect for individual dignity. It's unclear why you would object to "collectivism" if you think authority and force are required to live in this world.

Did I object to authority or force being used? Of course not.  I don't think many, if any, 'anti-collectivists' do object to it on those grounds.  The objection to a collectivist mindset or agenda has nothing do do with people having authority. It's an absurd position to make.

The problem here is not even that I'm objecting to Collectivism. I do, but it isn't the point. You want to go be a collectivist? Fine, go live in your hippie commune with other like minded collectivists and leave me the hell alone. I do not conform.

No. You are either missing the point or setting up strawmen. The point is that they are teaching children to 'not succeed in life' and to 'feel guilty if they do'.  Maybe it's because it's poorly written. I know that they can't have set out to do that in so many words. It is, however, the end result.

Hell, it seems to me that they are actually trying to teach that the Haves make the rules and the Have-Nots can only suffer in silence.  Maybe it's true for a large number of people, but thats not what you teach, what you teach is the ability to reach for those god damn green legos, and if you try hard enough you just might get them.  Sure, people will fail. But you don't fucking teach people to fail just because it happens a lot, you fucking teach them to succeed to maximize their chances of doing so.  

Hell, I'll reach for the goddamn cliche. You teach them to HOPE.


Nothing is ever gained by teaching them it ain't worth trying.

Quote from: SpikeHell, I'll reach for the goddamn cliche. You teach them to HOPE.

Nothing is ever gained by teaching them it ain't worth trying.

Why did I just now picture you standing on the wing of a fighter plane giving an inspirational speech just before the mission to destroy the alien city-killer?

Quote from: AnemoneAre teachers just supposed to watch the Lego rendition of "Lord of the Flies", or should they grab the opportunity to explore the situation with the kids?

It wasn't "Lord of the Flies" and they didn't "explore" the situation.  They made sure that the children drew the conclusion that they wanted them to draw.  First they claim:

"[...] Into their coffee shops and houses, the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive. As we watched the children build, we became increasingly concerned."

"[...] We didn't want simply to step in as teachers with a new set of rules about how the children could use Legos, exchanging one set of authoritarian rules with another. Ann suggested removing the Legos from the classroom. This bold decision would demonstrate our discomfort with the issues we saw at play in Legotown. And it posed a challenge to the children: How might we create a "community of fairness" about Legos?"

"[...] We knew that our personal experiences and beliefs would shape our decision-making and planning for the children, and we wanted to be as aware as we could about them."

"We also discussed our beliefs about our role as teachers in raising political issues with young children. We recognized that children are political beings, actively shaping their social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity — whether we interceded or not. We agreed that we want to take part in shaping the children's understandings from a perspective of social justice. So we decided to take the Legos out of the classroom."

Then they claim:

"After nearly an hour of passionate exchange, we brought the conversation to a close, reminding the children that we teachers didn't have an answer already figured out about Legotown. We assured them that we were right there with them in this process of getting clearer about what hadn't worked well in Legotown, and understanding how we could create a community of fairness about Legos."

I don't know.  It sounds like they already had a pretty good idea of what the answer was going to look like to me.

At one point, they claim:

"The person with the most points would create the rules for the rest of the game. Our intention was to create a situation in which a few children would receive unearned power from sheer good luck in choosing Lego bricks with high point values, and then would wield that power with their peers. We hoped that the game would be removed enough from the particulars and personalities of Legotown that we could look at the central Legotown issues from a fresh perspective.[/b]"

...where previously, they said...

"A group of about eight children conceived and launched Legotown. Other children were eager to join the project, but as the city grew — and space and raw materials became more precious — the builders began excluding other children."

In other words, they assume that whatever advantage the eight children who "conceived and launched" the project were unearned and simply a matter of good luck.  It couldn't possibly have been initiative, planning, hard work, cleverness, or anything else.  And rather than teaching the other children to compete or step up and do their own thing, they take the project away from the kids who came up with it and, despite their claims to the contrary, make sure authoritarian sharing rules are imposed on all of the children.

And let's not pretend that the teacher's primary mode of teaching was a reasoned argument.  It wasn't.  It involved emotionally jerking the kids around with rigged thought experiments and games designed to "prove" the point they wanted to "prove".  And let's not pretend that the kids couldn't pick up on what answers the teachers approved of and didn't approve of.  And let's not pretend that the children were intellectually capable of raising any real objections to the teachers or fighting back.  Having a political or philosophical debate with an 8 year-old is hardly an even match with no power or class differential, so why pretend otherwise?

And for those who want to know what's wrong with the concept of "social justice", here is a good place to start:

http://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3476146.html
http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/11/10/sowell/
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleid.18140/article_detail.asp

And what you should notice, after reading those pages, is that the rules that the students came up with didn't involve the fair distribution and allocation of resources but, instead, focussed on the results the students were allowed to achieve and how they could be used.

Quote from: SpikeYou must have had very soft spoken parents and teachers growing up if the adults in your life couldn't tell you to 'share' and make it stick.    Maybe I phrased it awkwardly in my post.

'No, Liam, you have to share the legos.'

'But it's my cityscape.'

'No liam, it's not. If you can't share the legos, then you don't get to play with them. Here is some play-doh.'

End of story. The great thing is, once the adults have established that they control the Legos, not the kids, then they don't have to repeat that scene, just remind them that if they don't share, they don't play.

That teaches your rules to the kids, but it doesn't teach the kids to think about the rules themselves, about what the rules are about, how they're constructed and why, and whether they're good rules.  Your objective in this situation appears to  be the regulation and adjudication of who gets the Lego bricks.  The teachers' was to get the kids to think about ownership and power.

Besides, I thought the BAAAAD thing was those evil teachers telling kids how to share.  Now you're unhappy because they didn't do that?

QuoteThe problem here is not even that I'm objecting to Collectivism. I do, but it isn't the point. You want to go be a collectivist? Fine, go live in your hippie commune with other like minded collectivists and leave me the hell alone. I do not conform.

Oh my, no.  You do not conform to anything, I'm sure.  But, you see, these teachers didn't conform either -- they didn't conform to what you want or think.  Bummer.

Viva Ayn Rand and objectivism!!

Time to start reading the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged to thoe kids.

- E.W.C.

Quote from: WerekoalaWhy did I just now picture you standing on the wing of a fighter plane giving an inspirational speech just before the mission to destroy the alien city-killer?

Oh. I do that every Friday. Someone has to teach them alien sumbitches a lesson.

:emot-clint:

Quote from: SpikeDid I object to authority or force being used? Of course not.  I don't think many, if any, 'anti-collectivists' do object to it on those grounds.

Actually, it's the most common objection out there. You see it on libertarian websites, in the works of John Locke (and other thinkers like Robert Nozick and Murray Bookchin), in Ayn Rand novels, in anarchist political texts and so on. Using force to coerce others to do what you want is pretty widely held in individualist circles to be unacceptable, except perhaps in a situation where someone's life is at stake.

QuoteThe objection to a collectivist mindset or agenda has nothing do do with people having authority. It's an absurd position to make.

Authority _and_ force. Especially using one's authority to force others to do things.

QuoteThe problem here is not even that I'm objecting to Collectivism. I do, but it isn't the point. You want to go be a collectivist? Fine, go live in your hippie commune with other like minded collectivists and leave me the hell alone. I do not conform.

You might think you're a snowflake, but the truth seems to come from deleting the "snow" prefix. Your point in the above quoted text is a bunch of pejorative rhetoric with nothing behind it. I am not a "collectivist", so telling me to "go live on [my] hippie commune.." is kind of pointless. You also being incoherent in demanding that you be left alone after advocating the use of force to coerce others - including children - to do what you want.

QuoteNo. You are either missing the point or setting up strawmen. The point is that they are teaching children to 'not succeed in life' and to 'feel guilty if they do'.

Actually, that's a strawman. Please don't use fallacious modes of reasoning, especially if you're going to baselessly accuse others of doing so. If you wish to assert that they are teaching children not to succeed and to feel guilty if they do, you must do a great deal more work to actually show that the teachers are teaching them this, rather than just asserting it and hoping that we will agree. Please show us the sound logical structure that leads from the printed words in the article to the conclusions you have reached. Remember, we are unsympathetic to your worldview, so you cannot simply assert or assume things without giving good grounds to do so.

QuoteHell, it seems to me that they are actually trying to teach that the Haves make the rules and the Have-Nots can only suffer in silence.

This is the sort of declaration that makes it clear that you are in the thrall of an "ideology" in the Marxist sense - a system of pseudo-justifications which suppresses the reality of a situation on behalf of the logic of the justifications. No reasonable person reading the article would draw such a conclusion. The game is clearly presented as being intentionally unjust, and serving to call the children's attention to the injustice of the situation, including the injustice of the winners getting to make the rules. After that, the teachers then discuss it with them, and propose alternate arrangements that would avoid that injustice. Nothing you have said accords with what our evidence - the written account - relates.

QuoteMaybe it's true for a large number of people, but thats not what you teach, what you teach is the ability to reach for those god damn green legos, and if you try hard enough you just might get them.  Sure, people will fail. But you don't fucking teach people to fail just because it happens a lot, you fucking teach them to succeed to maximize their chances of doing so.

That's so abstract it doesn't deal with anything at all, let alone apply to this situation. The only way it could apply is if you're advocating that the teachers encourage conflict between the children - fighting and stealing - over the mere possession of LEGOs that are supposed to be public anyhow.

You may wish your children to be raised to be rapacious bandits - demanding what they please from others and using any means, including force, without recourse to morality or justice. Rational people do not.

Where did I EVER say it was a bad thing to teach them to share?


Strawman much?


I started my comments in this thread about how difficult it was for me to come to grips with the conflict I felt over the article.   I've admitted from the first that there appeared to be good and laudible goals involved (the sharing thing), but that I increasingly felt, as I read and pondered, that those were merely excuses used to allow the teachers to indoctrinate the children to something much different than mere 'sharing'.


But then, I'm obviously not the only one here with an ideology to push, obviously.

Quote from: SpikeWhere did I EVER say it was a bad thing to teach them to share?


Strawman much?

No, it isn't. You advocate, in the post immediately above my last one, that the children struggle in some way to attain those green bricks. No mention is made that the the children with the green bricks should share them, merely that any course of action that is required to get the green bricks is good.

QuoteI started my comments in this thread about how difficult it was for me to come to grips with the conflict I felt over the article.   I've admitted from the first that there appeared to be good and laudible goals involved (the sharing thing), but that I increasingly felt, as I read and pondered, that those were merely excuses used to allow the teachers to indoctrinate the children to something much different than mere 'sharing'.

Certainly. And in place of the teachers teaching the kids about a possible way to share bricks, you advocate using force to coerce the children if they don't immediately do what the adults want.

QuoteBut then, I'm obviously not the only one here with an ideology to push, obviously.

Actually, you are. Don't misuse language so baldly. No one else has chosen to go off on rants full of unfounded claims and obvious misreadings of the text.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineActually, that's a strawman. Please don't use fallacious modes of reasoning, especially if you're going to baselessly accuse others of doing so. If you wish to assert that they are teaching children not to succeed and to feel guilty if they do, you must do a great deal more work to actually show that the teachers are teaching them this, rather than just asserting it and hoping that we will agree. Please show us the sound logical structure that leads from the printed words in the article to the conclusions you have reached. Remember, we are unsympathetic to your worldview, so you cannot simply assert or assume things without giving good grounds to do so.


.

Really?

QuoteTo make sense of the sting of this disenfranchisement, most of the children cast Liam and Kyla as "mean," trying to "make people feel bad." They were unable or unwilling to see that the rules of the game — which mirrored the rules of our capitalist meritocracy — were a setup for winning and losing. Playing by the rules led to a few folks winning big and most folks falling further and further behind. The game created a classic case of cognitive disequilibrium: Either the system is skewed and unfair, or the winners played unfairly. To resolve this by deciding that the system is unfair would call everything into question; young children are committed to rules and rule-making as a way to organize a community, and it is wildly unsettling to acknowledge that rules can have built-in inequities. So most of the children resolved their disequilibrium by clinging to the belief that the winners were ruthless — despite clear evidence of Liam and Kyla's compassionate generosity.

Let me see, one I have someone using Meritocracy as a dirty word.  That's a bit odd to me. Then I've got three instances where they teach children that life isn't fair and that their ability to succeed in life is based on being lucky or cheating.

And not one instance of telling them to 'keep trying' or 'hard work and playing smart can let you win'.

In fact, we have a reinforcement of the idea that winners setting the rules will only make rules that allow them to keep winning, despite evidence to the contrary.

QuoteLiam instituted this rule: "You have to trade at least one piece. That's a good rule because if you have a high score at the beginning, you wouldn't have to trade, and that's not fair."

Kyla added this rule to the game: "If you have more than one green, you have to trade one of them."

Don't see a strawman there.  I see absolutely shitting teaching.

Quote from: KoltarViva Ayn Rand and objectivism!!

And that goes too far the other way.  Blech!

Quote from: SpikeReally?

Yes, really.

QuoteLet me see, one I have someone using Meritocracy as a dirty word.  That's a bit odd to me. Then I've got three instances where they teach children that life isn't fair and that their ability to succeed in life is based on being lucky or cheating.

The first part is only sort-of-true. They _are_ trying to teach children that capitalism isn't fair (not "life" - the two are not synonyms, so stop using them as such). The second part of your statement is completely false. They are in fact trying to teach the children that succeeding in life involves consensus-based and community-oriented actions. They say repeatedly in the article that they are trying to do this.

QuoteAnd not one instance of telling them to 'keep trying' or 'hard work and playing smart can let you win'.

That's because the latter would be a lie, and the former would simply frustrate the children. The game is rigged from the start, and the purpose of it within an educational context is to help the children realise that the game is unfair, not to actually get as many green blocks as possible (that's merely the goal within the game). They also explain this in the article.

QuoteIn fact, we have a reinforcement of the idea that winners setting the rules will only make rules that allow them to keep winning, despite evidence to the contrary.

You have misread this, as so much else in the article. The teachers point out that even good intentions on the part of the winners - their individual efforts to make the game more fair - still do not overcome a fundamentally unjust system. This is why they discuss things with the children afterwards, and attempt to smooth things over between them.

QuoteDon't see a strawman there.  I see absolutely shitting teaching.

Your viewpoint is unjustified. Stop asserting things without any proof or justification. It's annoying, and it's a clear sign that you've been subject to some "shitting[sic] teaching" yourself.

These teachers are incompetent, and were my child one under their care I would personally see to their removal from both their post and their profession- permanently.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNo, it isn't. You advocate, in the post immediately above my last one, that the children struggle in some way to attain those green bricks. No mention is made that the the children with the green bricks should share them, merely that any course of action that is required to get the green bricks is good.



Certainly. And in place of the teachers teaching the kids about a possible way to share bricks, you advocate using force to coerce the children if they don't immediately do what the adults want.



Actually, you are. Don't misuse language so baldly. No one else has chosen to go off on rants full of unfounded claims and obvious misreadings of the text.

You do realize, having read the article, that there are two seperate events involving legos going on. One involves sharing (the cityscape) the other involves a trading game where Green blocks were the most valuable peices.  Obviously, in the trading game one would not simply hand wave sharing, as that violates the concept of 'trading game'.  


Why does everyone 'against me' here seem to think that telling me that I advocate authority excercising that authority is somehow an arguement?  Yes. Authority, being exercised by those who have it, is not inherently good or bad. In this case, it would have been good to do it.   This isn't an arguement about authority.  It's not even an arguement about the inherent values of collectivism. It's about teachers doing creepy bad stuff with children's minds.   They, at no point I can find, made any effort to actually teach the children to share prior to destruction of the cityscape or in its aftermath.  Instead they taught them that Capitalist Meritocracies are unfair places to live.  Funny thing, that, I know my fair share of immigrants who would vehemently disagree with that position.


Oh, so I'm the only one with a horse in this race and I'm not currently holding two seperate arguments with people who apparently are on radically opposite sides of my position? Really now?

While I'm all for smashing the state and dismantling capitalism as much as the next guy or gal, I can't help but think that trying to indoctrinate 6 to 9 year olds in any sort of political ideology might be a bit counter-productive. I can imagine one of these kids growing up bitter and becoming the Bill Gates of his generation and buying enough green Legos to fill the mall of America...

Really, I think the lesson of "sharing good, not sharing bad" could be taught in a better fashion. Hell, you want to teach them how unfair the "system" is, just let the kids who hog the Legos keep hogging them til it all goes down Lord of the Flies style. ;)

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe first part is only sort-of-true. They _are_ trying to teach children that capitalism isn't fair (not "life" - the two are not synonyms, so stop using them as such). The second part of your statement is completely false. They are in fact trying to teach the children that succeeding in life involves consensus-based and community-oriented actions. They say repeatedly in the article that they are trying to do this.

And can you give me an example in the real world were a pure "consensus-based and community-oriented" large scale society has succeeded better in life that a capitalist meritocracy?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat's because the latter would be a lie, and the former would simply frustrate the children. The game is rigged from the start, and the purpose of it within an educational context is to help the children realise that the game is unfair, not to actually get as many green blocks as possible (that's merely the goal within the game). They also explain this in the article.

Actually, it's not a lie.  Beyond the fact that capitalism isn't rigged nearly as much as the game is (despite the teacher's claims that it "mirrored the rules of our capitalist meritocracy"), you'll notice that in the second round of the point game, there was a third winner.  How did this child manage to rise to the top even though the rules were rigged to keep the winners winning?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou have misread this, as so much else in the article. The teachers point out that even good intentions on the part of the winners - their individual efforts to make the game more fair - still do not overcome a fundamentally unjust system.

Correct.  But what's the alternative to that fundamentally unjust system?  A bucket full of red 2x4 legos that are all the same?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYes, really.



The first part is only sort-of-true. They _are_ trying to teach children that capitalism isn't fair (not "life" - the two are not synonyms, so stop using them as such). The second part of your statement is completely false. They are in fact trying to teach the children that succeeding in life involves consensus-based and community-oriented actions. They say repeatedly in the article that they are trying to do this..

rules can have built-in inequities  From the article.  Yes, Capitalism is not 'Life', but that's simply a cheap way to avoid the point.  the 'System is unfair', the 'rules of our society are unfair'.  They are talking about life, if you fail to see that, I don't know what to say to you. Just the absense of that particular word does not invalidate it in the least.   If you hold that they are teaching that consensus based and community oriented actions are the keys to success in life it falls on you to prove that not only is this true, but it is more true than personal ambition and effort are keys to success in life. A reasonable look at the successful people in the world today, and through history, succeeded more because they worked at it, not because they gave half their efforts to their neighbors.  

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat's because the latter would be a lie, and the former would simply frustrate the children. The game is rigged from the start, and the purpose of it within an educational context is to help the children realise that the game is unfair, not to actually get as many green blocks as possible (that's merely the goal within the game). They also explain this in the article..

A lie?  Prove it.  I can repeat my anecdote about my economics professor, who with 17 dollars in his pocket built a construction company he sold 2 decades later for millions of dollars.  I can point out any number of immigrants who came to our capitalist meritocracy and because they worked hard and were smart wound up living good lives.  Playing smart and workign hard DO let you win, that's the fucking point of our society.  And if 'keep trying' leads only to frustration, you obviously hate the 'If at first you don't succeed, try try again' catchism.  I didn't make it up, but I do believe in it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou have misread this, as so much else in the article. The teachers point out that even good intentions on the part of the winners - their individual efforts to make the game more fair - still do not overcome a fundamentally unjust system. This is why they discuss things with the children afterwards, and attempt to smooth things over between them..

And you miss my point. The teachers stacked the deck. The system wasn't fundamentally unjust, the trading game was.  The teachers made up the game to prove their point about society. That's what we call 'Dirty Pool'.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYour viewpoint is unjustified. Stop asserting things without any proof or justification. It's annoying, and it's a clear sign that you've been subject to some "shitting[sic] teaching" yourself.

If your attacks against the arguements are weak, attack the author.   I feel pretty damn justified, and I've given you quotes from the article itself.  What more proof do you want?

Quote from: SpikeAnd you miss my point. The teachers stacked the deck. The system wasn't fundamentally unjust, the trading game was.  The teachers made up the game to prove their point about society. That's what we call 'Dirty Pool'.

Heh.  Capitalist society may or may not be fundamentally unjust.  What I can say with certainty is that the game those teachers made is a pretty pathetic game.  It's not unjust in any entertaining way ... it's just a bad game.

I love-love-love the way that the teachers choose to interpret the report of actual play:

• The winners propose rules that are disadvantageous to them, but which clearly make the game more interesting?  Do the teachers say "Oh ... I guess they're more interested in having a fun game (or possibly even in being fair!) than in winning"?  Noooo ... they say "Well, that was surprising ... uh ... let's not think about it!"
  
• Kids who are getting screwed say "This game stinks, there's nothing interesting for us to do!" ... do the teachers say "Oh ... maybe we didn't make a very good game"?  Noooo ... they say "Now we see the violence inherent in the system!  Behold the children expressing the frustration of the disenfranchised working class throughout the world!"

These people are sadly blinded by (a) their particular Deep Political Message and (b) their rock-solid certainty that everything must have a Deep Political Message.  They even come out of the whole sequence of events thinking "The kids have learned the importance of fairness and collectivism" instead of the far more obvious lesson of "The kids have learned that we, the teachers, have a bug up our collective butt about power and ownership, and are therefore showing us the behavior we want to see so that we won't force them to play another badly designed game."

Heh.  JimBob should set up a fund to ship cheetos to this school :D

*Headspin*
O.C.P. Does not compute.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd can you give me an example in the real world were a pure "consensus-based and community-oriented" large scale society has succeeded better in life that a capitalist meritocracy?

No, because you haven't clarified what you mean by "succeeded better in life" or how a society has a "life" to "succeed" in. I am uninterested in listening to mealy-mouthed rants about the glories of your favourite form of political organisation. Please save them for your blog.

QuoteActually, it's not a lie.  Beyond the fact that capitalism isn't rigged nearly as much as the game is (despite the teacher's claims that it "mirrored the rules of our capitalist meritocracy"), you'll notice that in the second round of the point game, there was a third winner.  How did this child manage to rise to the top even though the rules were rigged to keep the winners winning?

I am doubtful that the number of winners in a classroom game increasing from two to three demonstrates the fundamental fairness of capitalism itself, everywhere and throughout all time.

QuoteCorrect.  But what's the alternative to that fundamentally unjust system?  A bucket full of red 2x4 legos that are all the same?

There are plenty of potential ways that we could organise our political economy. Capitalism is certainly one of those ways, but not the only way. I am uninterested in being drawn into a situation in which we throw unsupported talking points at one another, hoping to sway a non-existent audience. I am interested only in talking about this particular situation in this particular classroom.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou object to "collectivism" and insist that authority and force must be used to combat it, or possibly proactively to prevent it from developing.

Authority and force were used to create collectivism here, and it didn't "develop" at all.

Quote from: KoltarViva Ayn Rand and objectivism!!

Fuck Ayn Rand and take objectivism out the back and put a bullet in its neck.

The teachers were abusing their power. Teachers, like parents, have power and authority so as to guide children towards maturity - maturity means a balance of individual responsibility and credit, combined with co-operation with the group. These teachers were experimenting with the children, much like the teacher who did the famous blue/brown eyes division in her classroom. Except she at least had some real-world lessons to teach; they did not.

Notice that they always took the most negative view of things when they were naturally developed by the children. For example, one kid claimed he should have a fine house since he'd built the fire station. In their imaginary city, he'd made efforts towards the public good - making the effort to build a fire station, which could prevent the destruction of other buildings. He didn't build just a mansion, he built a public building, and then as his reward claimed the right to build a mansion.

A decent society is not about absolute equality, about everyone having a house of the same size and appearance; a decent society is about equity, fairness. Those who contribute a lot to their society should be rewarded for it, those who contributed little or simply hoard things should receive nothing. Children in play instinctively have this sense of equity and fairness, they prefer games where everyone has an equal chance of winning, whatever their personal ability.

The teachers then imposed a system where everyone had the same regardless of effort, where nothing distinguished anyone from anyone else. If you built the fire station you got the same reward as the guy who built nothing. Which is communism, the street sweeper getting the same pay as the carer for orphaned troubled kids.

Equity and fairness - children understand it, even if those teachers didn't.

If the teachers were interested in teaching the children to share and include, they could have taught the lesson in other ways. "Okay, Fire Chief, aren't you going to hire some firemen? How about these kids over here with no lego bricks? You can't put out any fires unless you hire some firemen." This would have generated a little exchange of bricks, and right of control over the little figures being firemen, encouraging social play over individual play. The excluded children would have been included.

But the teachers didn't want equity and fairness, or sharing and socialising and inclusion. They just wanted everyone to be the same and indistinguishable. That's like Stalinisn, or modern corporatism, everyone the same like a factory product.

No.

Quote from: SpikeYou do realize, having read the article, that there are two seperate events involving legos going on. One involves sharing (the cityscape) the other involves a trading game where Green blocks were the most valuable peices.  Obviously, in the trading game one would not simply hand wave sharing, as that violates the concept of 'trading game'.

Once again, you have misread the article. The trading game is thought up by the teachers in response to a situation involving re-establishing the cityscape, when a number of students in a clique assert that they own all the LEGOs and that other students must be deprived of using them. The purpose of the trading game bears directly on that situation, by demonstrating how certain kinds of assertions of ownership of valuable resources can lead to unfair outcomes.

QuoteWhy does everyone 'against me' here seem to think that telling me that I advocate authority excercising that authority is somehow an arguement?

That sentence doesn't make any sense. It also fails to accurately describe my position. The charge I have made is summed up in my first response to you quite clearly. You claim to abhor collectivism and indoctrination, but advocate the use of authority and force to compel children to act in certain ways. I pointed out that the objection to collectivism is normally to be found in a rejection of authority and force, and you have not yet responded to that.

QuoteYes. Authority, being exercised by those who have it, is not inherently good or bad. In this case, it would have been good to do it.

To do what exactly? Use one's authority and the threat of force to bully the children into sharing, rather than demonstrating to them why sharing is preferable over not sharing? Authoritative demands are preferable to reasonable discussion?

QuoteThis isn't an arguement about authority.  It's not even an arguement about the inherent values of collectivism.

Then why did you bring it up and write so many words on that very subject? Please be consistent.

QuoteIt's about teachers doing creepy bad stuff with children's minds.   They, at no point I can find, made any effort to actually teach the children to share prior to destruction of the cityscape or in its aftermath.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The written report does not provide information either way. Since it is typical in most elementary school classes to be taught that sharing is good, we have more reason to consider it plausible that the author simply did not record this information rather than to assume, as you do, that they did nothing at all to teach children to share.

I should also point out that it is peculiar that you consider using authority and the threat of force to be reasonable, but playing games to be "creepy".

QuoteInstead they taught them that Capitalist Meritocracies are unfair places to live.  Funny thing, that, I know my fair share of immigrants who would vehemently disagree with that position.

Jesus Christ agrees with my position, not yours. Please don't bring in irrelevant authorities who cannot be questioned. It's also inconsistent, since you said earlier on in the same post that you didn't think that the merits of individualism or collectivism were relevant. Please make up your mind.

QuoteOh, so I'm the only one with a horse in this race and I'm not currently holding two seperate arguments with people who apparently are on radically opposite sides of my position? Really now?

I am not ideological. I don't know or care who the other person you're referring to is.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI am uninterested in being drawn into a situation in which we throw unsupported talking points at one another, hoping to sway a non-existent audience. I am interested only in talking about this particular situation in this particular classroom.

So let's talk about this particular situation. These teachers had a specific goal - to teach the glories of collectivism - to a bunch of eight years olds.  If you can't see that this was their purpose, or if you don't see the problem with trying to instill a particular ideology in eight year olds that aren't your own children - then I'm at a loss as to how we could continue other than to hurl unsupported talking points at each other.

So, are you of the opinion that these teachers didn't set out to teach that collectivism is the opitmal system of social organization?

Are you of the opinion that it's OK to attempt to indoctrinate 8 year olds in the ideology of the teachers (there is no mention that this is a particular ideology of the school - something that parents would expect to be taught)?

Would you have the same reaction if the teachers had seen the kids spontaneously creating a collectivist approach to Lego City, but after a disaster were taught capitalism as the optimal system of social organization (under the guise of "exploring power")?  To eight-year-olds?

If they were truly attempting to explore power, wouldn't they have covered more than just their preferred ideological bent?

I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't have a problem with these teachers because their world view matches your worldview...

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThey are in fact trying to teach the children that succeeding in life involves consensus-based and community-oriented actions.

Which is, of course, an objective Truth...

I could be wrong, but I try to go by what people write...

Quote from: Spikerules can have built-in inequities  From the article.  Yes, Capitalism is not 'Life', but that's simply a cheap way to avoid the point.

No, it's an example of how you are abusing language.

Quotethe 'System is unfair', the 'rules of our society are unfair'.  They are talking about life, if you fail to see that, I don't know what to say to you. Just the absense of that particular word does not invalidate it in the least.

That last sentence does not make sense. You are the one who conflated life with capitalism. Many people would disagree. They would not use the two as synonymous. They might refer to "life under capitalism" or something like that instead. "The rules of our society" whether capitalist, communist or whatever else, do not exhaust the extension of the term "life".

QuoteIf you hold that they are teaching that consensus based and community oriented actions are the keys to success in life it falls on you to prove that not only is this true, but it is more true than personal ambition and effort are keys to success in life. A reasonable look at the successful people in the world today, and through history, succeeded more because they worked at it, not because they gave half their efforts to their neighbors.

That's a sweeping statement without justification. It's preceded by an inaccurate summation of my position, and the position of the teachers. Please justify the latter and correct the former.  

QuoteA lie?  Prove it.  I can repeat my anecdote about my economics professor, who with 17 dollars in his pocket built a construction company he sold 2 decades later for millions of dollars.  I can point out any number of immigrants who came to our capitalist meritocracy and because they worked hard and were smart wound up living good lives.

The structure of this argument is a basic fallacy well known since the 18th century. Please do not use it. I am also uninterested in arguing whether collectivism or individualism, socialism or capitalism, is superior. You yourself said earlier that this point was irrelevant. Please be consistent.

QuotePlaying smart and workign hard DO let you win, that's the fucking point of our society.  And if 'keep trying' leads only to frustration, you obviously hate the 'If at first you don't succeed, try try again' catchism.  I didn't make it up, but I do believe in it.

I am uninterested in your thrilling testament of personal belief in the merits of hard work. Please stick to relevant matters.

QuoteAnd you miss my point. The teachers stacked the deck. The system wasn't fundamentally unjust, the trading game was.

Do you mean "capitalism wasn't fundamentally unjust, the trading game was"? The trading game certainly was unjust. Do you wish to change your statement that the merits or demerits of capitalism are irrelevant?

QuoteThe teachers made up the game to prove their point about society. That's what we call 'Dirty Pool'.

Not really. If the teachers had made up the game's rules to benefit themselves somehow it would be suspicious. The main problem you seem to have is just that they disagree with your opinions on political economy, and that rather than rely on authority and coercion to make the children do what they want, they played a game to convince them.

QuoteIf your attacks against the arguements are weak, attack the author.   I feel pretty damn justified, and I've given you quotes from the article itself.  What more proof do you want?

You are not justifying your arguments. It is beginning to seem questionable if you understand what I mean when I ask you to do so. I mean that I would like it if you provided rational arguments that show your assertions to be true. plausible or reasonable to presume, rather than just asserting very contentious things, and then, when pressed, asserting them again, but now couched in irrelevant material.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe teachers then imposed a system where everyone had the same regardless of effort, where nothing distinguished anyone from anyone else. If you built the fire station you got the same reward as the guy who built nothing. Which is communism, the street sweeper getting the same pay as the carer for orphaned troubled kids.

It's what Marx calls 'crude communism'.

QuoteUniversal envy constituting itself as a power is the hidden form in which greed reasserts itself and satisfies itself, but in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such are at least turned against richer private property in the form of envy and the urge to level everything down; hence these feelings in fact constitute the essence of competition. The crude communist is merely the culmination of this envy and desire to level down on the basis of a preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited measure.

Quote from: James J SkachSo let's talk about this particular situation. These teachers had a specific goal - to teach the glories of collectivism - to a bunch of eight years olds.  If you can't see that this was their purpose, or if you don't see the problem with trying to instill a particular ideology in eight year olds that aren't your own children - then I'm at a loss as to how we could continue other than to hurl unsupported talking points at each other.

I do agree that the teachers wanted to teach the children that consensus-based communities and resource sharing were preferable to communities based on private ownership and control of resources. I don't think "collectivism" is a particularly useful term to describe this though, nor "ideology".

I also am not convinced that it is problematic that they were doing so with children who were not their own. This is because I am unconvinced that parents have much right to push their own political viewpoints on their children. Ideally, teachers help form the characters of our children. They allow them to develop into persons capable of moral and political reasoning. As reasonable people, we should realise that our own moral and political understandings are imperfect and finite, and therefore not object to our children being exposed to other viewpoints.

QuoteSo, are you of the opinion that these teachers didn't set out to teach that collectivism is the opitmal system of social organization?

There is no system of social organisation called "collectivism". They certainly set out to teach the children that developing consensus within a community about issues that affect that community and sharing resources within that community are superior ways to act to asserting ownership claims and confronting or excluding others when they attempt to trespass on one's ownership claims.

QuoteAre you of the opinion that it's OK to attempt to indoctrinate 8 year olds in the ideology of the teachers (there is no mention that this is a particular ideology of the school - something that parents would expect to be taught)?

The words "indoctrination" and "ideology" here are pejorative. I do think the teachers intended to cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature, and specifically, the ones I stated just above. I think that activity of this kind, even if not these specific positions, is not just something teachers do, but something everyone does. We constantly try to persuade others that our opinions are correct. So long as we don't try to dishonestly persuade them, there is nothing wrong with this.

That to me, by the way, is what I would hold to be the most important question here: Was the method the teachers took dishonest in some way? Was it outside the bounds of ordinary persuasion? People have asserted opinions both ways, but only JimBobOz has actually provided a justification for his opinion.

QuoteWould you have the same reaction if the teachers had seen the kids spontaneously creating a collectivist approach to Lego City, but after a disaster were taught capitalism as the optimal system of social organization (under the guise of "exploring power")?  To eight-year-olds?

Yes. As I said earlier, I am not a "collectivist" or even a socialist. I am not defending the teachers because I agree with their specific positions.

QuoteIf they were truly attempting to explore power, wouldn't they have covered more than just their preferred ideological bent?

Now that's a good point (except for the "ideology" part). I don't agree that it makes what the teachers did dishonest though. They clearly were trying to persuade the children that their viewpoint was correct - they were not dishonestly claiming to be presenting a dispassionate viewpoint of both system.

QuoteI have a sneaking suspicion that you don't have a problem with these teachers because their world view matches your worldview...

As I've said several times, that's pretty ridiculous. I am not a socialist, whereas they are. Actually, if you look at my posting history in the discussions here, you'll see that I assert the necessity of individual human freedom and dignity more stridently than just about anyone else.

QuoteWhich is, of course, an objective Truth...

If you say so. I like consensus-based communities, but I am unconvinced that there is something called "succeeding in life" which they do, or that it is an objective "Truth" that they do this activity.

QuoteI could be wrong, but I try to go by what people write...

That's doubtful. I've said several times on this thread alone that I am not a socialist or "collectivist" prior to this post. Heck, did you read the list of names I dropped when correcting Spike about his assertions on arguments regarding "collectivism"?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI also am not convinced that it is problematic that they were doing so with children who were not their own. This is because I am unconvinced that parents have much right to push their own political viewpoints on their children. Ideally, teachers help form the characters of our children. They allow them to develop into persons capable of moral and political reasoning. As reasonable people, we should realise that our own moral and political understandings are imperfect and finite, and therefore not object to our children being exposed to other viewpoints.

My own daughter, who has just started school, is continually being exposed to viewpoints (not to mention grammatical constructions) of which I disapprove. And it's not just the teachers.

There's not much to be done except teach her how to think for herself. Maybe I'm all full of shit and she'll tell me why one day.

The more I read it, the more I think it's written so badly and with such a passion for collectivist ideology, that it's impossible to know exactly what happened...

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinThese negotiations gave rise to heated conflict and to insightful conversation. Into their coffee shops and houses, the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive. As we watched the children build, we became increasingly concerned.

OK - the teachers feel the town built on capitalist principles is unjust and oppressive, and they were concerned.

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinWe assured them that we were right there with them in this process of getting clearer about what hadn't worked well in Legotown, and understanding how we could create a community of fairness about Legos.

OK, so the teachers want to get clearer about what hadn't worked in Legotown.

But now go back to the description of the building of the town and reactions to the destruction of it.

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinDiscussions like the one above led to children collaborating on a massive series of Lego structures we named Legotown. Children dug through hefty-sized bins of Legos, sought "cool pieces," and bartered and exchanged until they established a collection of homes, shops, public facilities, and community meeting places. We carefully protected Legotown from errant balls and jump ropes, and watched it grow day by day.

So the builders were collaborating?  So the builders were cooperating, it's just that they were not sharing with the other kids.

Now, eight kids "conceived and launched" Legotown. The number must have grown, but we're not sure how many were involved before the end.

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinA group of about eight children conceived and launched Legotown. Other children were eager to join the project, but as the city grew — and space and raw materials became more precious — the builders began excluding other children.

So the originators closed doors after the addition of more chidren - to the point that resources became scarce. If we make a relatively safe assumption of the addition of 4 more children, we have just under half the class involved. How many more wanted to join?  We don't know, we can't be sure.

So we don't know just how many kids felt cheated by the unsharing Legotown builders. But there is an indication about how the rest of the class felt about Legotown:

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinWhen the children discovered the decimated Legotown, they reacted with shock and grief. Children moaned and fell to their knees to inspect the damage; many were near tears. The builders were devastated, and the other children were deeply sympathetic.

Now, those are some mature 8 year olds. If they really felt cheated, wouldn't they have been happy at the opportunity to get at the Lego blocks now? Instead, the react with shock, grief, and sympathy for the builders.

What becomes clearer and clearer is that the teachers had a problem with the way things were going. The teachers didn't like the natural conception, launch, and succes of Legotown because it didn't fit their ideology. When given the chance to, as Spike points out, just tell the kids to share more in the rebuilding, they decide to hide their own authoritarian power by making it seem to the kids as if they reached this conclusion as the natural Truth of social structures.

It's sick, actually.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI do agree that the teachers wanted to teach the children that consensus-based communities and resource sharing were preferable to communities based on private ownership and control of resources. I don't think "collectivism" is a particularly useful term to describe this though, nor "ideology".

Wow, and you claim Spike is playing games with the language? Jesus, that's a stretch. Why don't you call it CBS/RS theory and get Edwards to join you?

OK - that's a bit harsh. But man, you're turning cartwheels to keep certain things being labeled a way you don't seem to prefer.  Could it be it strikes to close to home?  Is one's preference for consensus-building blah blah blah so strong that one feels the need to indocrinate 8 year olds not an ideology?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI also am not convinced that it is problematic that they were doing so with children who were not their own. This is because I am unconvinced that parents have much right to push their own political viewpoints on their children. Ideally, teachers help form the characters of our children. They allow them to develop into persons capable of moral and political reasoning. As reasonable people, we should realise that our own moral and political understandings are imperfect and finite, and therefore not object to our children being exposed to other viewpoints.

Ummm...OK.  I dont' have the right to teach my children as I see fit?  I'll tell you what, you raise your children that way, and I'll raise mine the way I see fit, K?  I mean, no offense, but what the fuck would give anyone the right to say I can't "push [my] own political viewpoints on [my] children?"

Now I happen to personally believe in exposing my kids - when the time is right - to various political thoughts.  I'm sure they will go through periods of various perspectives - fight with me sometimes, agree with me other.  But until they are 18, I'm responsible for them and I'll push whatever idea on them that I see fit.

But you, or the article (or both), are missing that ingredient.  Where are the parents in this?  Except for references to demographics and being "socially liberal," we have no idea if they object or not. The teachers simply take it upon themselves - the parents don't even get a chance to object.

Now you may like calling yourself reasonable for not objecting to having your children exposed to these ideas - it's really just a cute way of calling someone who does object unreasonable..so..yeah..fuck you, then, ok?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThere is no system of social organisation called "collectivism". They certainly set out to teach the children that developing consensus within a community about issues that affect that community and sharing resources within that community are superior ways to act to asserting ownership claims and confronting or excluding others when they attempt to trespass on one's ownership claims.

Oh...umm...sorry...system of economic organiztion then.  Again with the games.  You know what the fuck was meant.  OK, let's play your game, what word would you use describe your long, biased description? Biased, you say?  When it's consensus or sharing, it's "developing" or "superior."  But when it's ownership, it's "asserting" and "confronting" and "tresspass." You can't see your own bias?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe words "indoctrination" and "ideology" here are pejorative. I do think the teachers intended to cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature, and specifically, the ones I stated just above. I think that activity of this kind, even if not these specific positions, is not just something teachers do, but something everyone does. We constantly try to persuade others that our opinions are correct. So long as we don't try to dishonestly persuade them, there is nothing wrong with this.

That to me, by the way, is what I would hold to be the most important question here: Was the method the teachers took dishonest in some way? Was it outside the bounds of ordinary persuasion? People have asserted opinions both ways, but only JimBobOz has actually provided a justification for his opinion.

WTF?  The defintion of indoctrination is "To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view."  What term would you use for teachers that "cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature?" I can see why you didn't find their excercise dishonest - look at your response!  You can't respond, so you're calling into question the use of word that are plainly defined in any dictionary.  The entire excercise was dishonest - from the reasons for it's implementation to it's facade of learning over indoctrination.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYes. As I said earlier, I am not a "collectivist" or even a socialist. I am not defending the teachers because I agree with their specific positions.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf you say so. I like consensus-based communities,

Hmmm...you can call it what you like.  But "consensus based" "resource sharing" sounds an awful lot like "The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively" - the definition of "collectivism."

Quote from: PseudoephedrineAs I've said several times, that's pretty ridiculous. I am not a socialist, whereas they are. Actually, if you look at my posting history in the discussions here, you'll see that I assert the necessity of individual human freedom and dignity more stridently than just about anyone else.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat's doubtful. I've said several times on this thread alone that I am not a socialist or "collectivist" prior to this post. Heck, did you read the list of names I dropped when correcting Spike about his assertions on arguments regarding "collectivism"?

Yeah, see, you say this.  And it's why I say you seem to be conflicted.  "Consensus-based" and "resource sharing" and individual human freedom are a bit at odds.  If the consensus says I should give up my property..oh wait..it's not mine, it's the community's...so where again does my indivdual human freedom come into play?  I'm free as long as I don't try to own anything of my own?  Unless, of course, you are assuming the "consensus-based" "resource-sharing" is voluntary - which totally takes you out of the realm of "consensus-based" "resource-sharing."

And drop all the names you like.  It means nothing.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNow that's a good point (except for the "ideology" part). I don't agree that it makes what the teachers did dishonest though. They clearly were trying to persuade the children that their viewpoint was correct - they were not dishonestly claiming to be presenting a dispassionate viewpoint of both system.

No, they hid the entire dishonest indoctrination mess behind the facade of "exploring power." Makes the skin crawl.

Quote from: James J SkachWow, and you claim Spike is playing games with the language? Jesus, that's a stretch. Why don't you call it CBS/RS theory and get Edwards to join you?

OK - that's a bit harsh. But man, you're turning cartwheels to keep certain things being labeled a way you don't seem to prefer.  Could it be it strikes to close to home?  Is one's preference for consensus-building blah blah blah so strong that one feels the need to indocrinate 8 year olds not an ideology?

I am very careful in how I describe things because I think proper descriptions of things are important. I think it is impossible to know many things or to arrive at correct conclusions about them without proper and accurate descriptions of them. My gripe with Spike is precisely that he isn't as careful in describing things as I am. I think many of the terms being thrown around in this debate by others are pejorative and inaccurate, and I refuse to get suckered into using them.

QuoteUmmm...OK.  I dont' have the right to teach my children as I see fit?  I'll tell you what, you raise your children that way, and I'll raise mine the way I see fit, K?  I mean, no offense, but what the fuck would give anyone the right to say I can't "push [my] own political viewpoints on [my] children?"

Your children are people too, albeit people of a diminished capacity. Just as it's wrong to coerce other people to do what you want without good reason, it's wrong to coerce children to do what you want without good reason. Children do have a diminished capacity, so what constitutes a "good reason" is broader than it is with an adult, but it has a limit.  

QuoteNow I happen to personally believe in exposing my kids - when the time is right - to various political thoughts.  I'm sure they will go through periods of various perspectives - fight with me sometimes, agree with me other.  But until they are 18, I'm responsible for them and I'll push whatever idea on them that I see fit.

Your children are not your property.

QuoteBut you, or the article (or both), are missing that ingredient.  Where are the parents in this?  Except for references to demographics and being "socially liberal," we have no idea if they object or not. The teachers simply take it upon themselves - the parents don't even get a chance to object.

When I was a child, my parents would ask me what I did at school that day, and I would tell them. If the parents of these children are not even taking that much interest in their children, I am highly unsympathetic to them. If they are, they would presumably learn about events like this. But you are correct that we have no idea if they object or not. It therefore does not follow that the parents did not have a chance to object. We simply lack information to establish a conclusion either way.

QuoteNow you may like calling yourself reasonable for not objecting to having your children exposed to these ideas - it's really just a cute way of calling someone who does object unreasonable..so..yeah..fuck you, then, ok?

:rolleyes:

If you don't like being called "unreasonable", then don't be so unreasonable.

QuoteOh...umm...sorry...system of economic organiztion then.  Again with the games.  You know what the fuck was meant.

Yes I do. What was meant was a pejorative term that inaccurately describes what was going on, but that reduces a complex situation and set of positions into easy talking points.

QuoteOK, let's play your game, what word would you use describe your long, biased description? Biased, you say?  When it's consensus or sharing, it's "developing" or "superior."  But when it's ownership, it's "asserting" and "confronting" and "tresspass." You can't see your own bias?

It's not my "bias". I was recording there what the teachers wanted to teach in the kind of language they would use. Once again, you don't seem quite capable of understanding that I am not a socialist, or a "collectivist" or whatever the term of approbation is this week.

QuoteWTF?  The defintion of indoctrination is "To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view."  What term would you use for teachers that "cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature?" I can see why you didn't find their excercise dishonest - look at your response!  You can't respond, so you're calling into question the use of word that are plainly defined in any dictionary.  The entire excercise was dishonest - from the reasons for it's implementation to it's facade of learning over indoctrination.

You have to justify the last statement, not just assert it.

I don't think it was indoctrination because I disagree that the definition you just provided conveys the entirety of the meaning of the word. "Indoctrination" means that the doctrine or position being advocated is presented in a dogmatic way, and without much critical investigation. I think that this accords with a perfectly ordinary way of using the word.

Please don't pretend in future that dictionary.com is an authoritative and exhaustive source on what words mean and how words are used.

I think that the teachers did not teach the children in a dogmatic way, and they tried to operate within the critical capacity of the children. They say that they had extensive discussions in class about how the children felt, and some of the children are recorded as disagreeing with the teachers. Because of this, it does not seem like it was "indoctrination".

QuoteHmmm...you can call it what you like.  But "consensus based" "resource sharing" sounds an awful lot like "The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively" - the definition of "collectivism."

Actually, they sound very different. One describes how a social group acts - by building consensuses and by sharing resources amongst its members. The other describes a system or set of principles that is very abstract. Reducing one to the other is sloppy at best.

QuoteYeah, see, you say this.  And it's why I say you seem to be conflicted.  "Consensus-based" and "resource sharing" and individual human freedom are a bit at odds.

I don't recall advocating "resource sharing", and merely saying that I like consensus-building in communities is hardly contrary to favouring freedom and dignity.

QuoteIf the consensus says I should give up my property..oh wait..it's not mine, it's the community's...so where again does my indivdual human freedom come into play?

I don't know. This is a silly example that seems to exist as part of a rant rather than real reflection on how such a society would operate.

QuoteI'm free as long as I don't try to own anything of my own?  Unless, of course, you are assuming the "consensus-based" "resource-sharing" is voluntary - which totally takes you out of the realm of "consensus-based" "resource-sharing."

Please save this kind of self-righteous bloviating for your personal blog. I am uninterested in it.

QuoteAnd drop all the names you like.  It means nothing.

You seem dedicated to demonstrating that I am sort of secret socialist. I fail to see how this is relevant. I am not, but even if I were, it would not make my arguments any less valid or sound.

QuoteNo, they hid the entire dishonest indoctrination mess behind the facade of "exploring power." Makes the skin crawl.

So does the idea that you have children.

Quote from: JimBobOzFuck Ayn Rand and take objectivism out the back and put a bullet in its neck.

 Jeezus...it was just a joke one liner.

Quote from: JimBobOzAuthority and force were used to create collectivism here, and it didn't "develop" at all.

It doesn't seem to be quite _that_ simple. It's a bit like planting something. The soil has to be right for the plant in order for it to go. You don't just drop the seed down from on high, command it to grow, and bam, there's your azaleas or whatever.

The kids clearly had sentiments that were suitable to a sort of organisation that shared resources like LEGOs, and some sentiments that weren't. What the teachers did was use their authority as teachers to pick activities that would encourage the kind of sentiments they like and discourage the kind that they didn't like.

That's not "force" and it's not really an inappropriate use of "authority", especially since it's part of the reason that we give teachers authority over children in the first place.

Now, it's true, the sentiments that they chose to encourage, and the kind of form they chose to give to those sentiments isn't to my taste, but I don't think it was especially nefarious. The children aren't guaranteed to grow up bolsheviks, and more of them get to play with the LEGOs than before.

Psuedo: I am going to have to stop arguing with you here. You do nothing but attack me, rather than respond to what I say.  In fact, I keep waiting for a response from you that isn't just a lot of

'Nyah Nyah, you wrong... and a poopy-head'. So far the closest you've come is an appeal to authority (Jesus Christ) like I give two fucks about what some dead guy has to say in support of your ideology... oops, you refuse to admit to it being an ideology. Well, me caveman grasp of words not good enough to use other word. So: Ideology.  

I could go on about the hierarchal nature of civilizations and the human animal, and the proper use of authority and power, particularly when engaged in a training or educational system.  But you have a closed mind on the subject and seem to think that I am in some weird way contradicting myself.  So, I won't waste my time with you.

This is pretty much why I didn't bother, you know? Spike, man, I don't have anything against you, but it's like you're not reading what Psuedo is saying. And, Psuedo, I respect what you had to say here, but you're not going to get anything for your effort in this thread.

I don't know what it is, but this kind of topic rarely goes well, on the internet or in person. Personally, I don't feel emotionally invested in discussing teaching techniques and their like on a rpg site, so I don't, suffice to say that the people who are feeling 'sick' or the like have seriously misplaced where they ought to be feeling their outrage, and from whom.

These teachers? Maybe naive, but not nefarious. Worried about indoctrination? Man, these are not the people you need to worry about.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNo, because you haven't clarified what you mean by "succeeded better in life" or how a society has a "life" to "succeed" in. I am uninterested in listening to mealy-mouthed rants about the glories of your favourite form of political organisation. Please save them for your blog.

With respect to "succeeding in life", I simply used a variation of your own phrase, which you didn't define, either.  So feel free to define what you mean by it.  As for how a society has a "life" to succeed better in, look at the society from top to bottom and assess the bottom, average, and top.

As for rants about the glories of our favorite forms of political organizations, yes, let's save them for blogs instead of indoctrinating children in them like these teachers did.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI am doubtful that the number of winners in a classroom game increasing from two to three demonstrates the fundamental fairness of capitalism itself, everywhere and throughout all time.

Define what you mean by "fair".  Because how you define that word will determine what you consider good and what you don't consider good.

But that wasn't the issue I was responding to.  Spike claimed, "And not one instance of telling them to 'keep trying' or 'hard work and playing smart can let you win."

In response, you claimed, "That's because the latter would be a lie, and the former would simply frustrate the children."

The fact that an additional child was able to win the second round despite the fact that the game was rigged to prevent it suggests that the latter wasn't a lie.  And teaching children to give up as soon as they get frustrated and don't see instant results is an awful lesson to teach.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThere are plenty of potential ways that we could organise our political economy. Capitalism is certainly one of those ways, but not the only way.

Sure.   We pick all sorts of other organizations including totalitarianism and fascism, but don't you think the quality of the results should have at least some bearing on whether a "political economy" should be considered good or bad?  Or are you simply engaging in the postmodern game of denying differences so you can claim everything is the same, in order to justify a choice that's clearly inferior?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI am uninterested in being drawn into a situation in which we throw unsupported talking points at one another, hoping to sway a non-existent audience.

Apparently you've never gotten a letter or message from a lurker telling you that your "unsupported talking points" have swayed them.  Maybe you should try supporting your "talking points" or at least pick some that sound sensible to the lurkers you think are "non-existent".

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI am interested only in talking about this particular situation in this particular classroom.

Given that the teachers lesson was based on how to organize a "political economy", that broader context matters, don't you think?  Would you have been just as defensive of them if they were teaching the children to organize their Lego usage based on the free enterprise system and free trade capitalism?

No...actually...what we do is read Pseudo and respond with actual definitions of words of the English language.  In response, we get "that doesn't fully cover what is meant when the word is used..." Bullshit.

Look, words mean things. If you want to assume that I meant indoctrination as pejorative - good, I did!  That doesn't mean the word isn't accurate; it doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Likewise collectivism, etc.

So, Pseduo, you can go play your semantic games with someone else. Words do have meanings.  In this particular case, they've been used correctly.  You've successfully derailed the point of the conversation by tangents about the meanings of words even though they've been used properly because the use seems to offend your delicate sensibilities - they're so...judgemental!

Face it - these teachers had an agenda; to teach that capitalism (a word you don't seem to have a problem using as a simple label as opposed to a long-winded set of terms to better describe a complex situation) is unjust. They weren't trying to explore "power" or any other bullshit.  They just wanted the kids to come away with the same political view as they have (which is perfectly valid if that's what the parents wanted - but we have no idea as they don't talk about that) but in such as way as to hide the fact that they used their power to do so.  They wanted everyone - including the reader of the article, to come away with the belief that the kids just naturally came to the conclusions that the teachers wanted (Capitalism=Bad, Collectivism=Good). It's a dishonest sham.

They wrote this article as if it's some proof of something - as if this example is to be followed.  Look - we can teach collectivism! Look - we can teach kids Social Justice! Look - we can teach kids that Capitalism is BadWrong! And they come to the conclusion naturally!

If you want to dodge that discussion with a word dance, find another partner.

Quote from: droogMy own daughter, who has just started school, is continually being exposed to viewpoints (not to mention grammatical constructions) of which I disapprove. And it's not just the teachers.

Yes, but the question is whether you or someone else has more of a right than you do to shape your daughter's opinions and way of looking at the world.  That was the claim.  Even though I don't personally agree with your political perspective, I don't think that teachers or other people (including me) have the same rights as, or even more rights than, you to shape how your daughter thinks (except in cases of gross physical or psychological abuse).  She's your daughter, not mine.

ADDED:  I think that this is a fundamental issue off respecting other people, even if you disagree with them, and it's the foundation of democracy.  Once you disrespect people because they have different opinions, it's just a skip and a jump to all sorts of nastiness.

Meanwhile, just a few (non Lego) blocks away, look what else is happening in the neighborhood of Queen Anne. Even though there is an unequal distribution of hats, this school presses on without imposing a hat ban for "...five months of naming and investigating the issues of power, rules, ownership, and authority..."

(http://www.stannesea.org/program/images/preKKKKKK.jpg)

Hopefuly they'll be able to survive without learning gems like "Collectivism is good."

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI am very careful in how I describe things because I think proper descriptions of things are important. I think it is impossible to know many things or to arrive at correct conclusions about them without proper and accurate descriptions of them.

Defining things with the"proper descriptions" to assure that people "arrive at correct conclusions" is called "spin".  You may not think that's what you are doing, but it is.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineMy gripe with Spike is precisely that he isn't as careful in describing things as I am. I think many of the terms being thrown around in this debate by others are pejorative and inaccurate, and I refuse to get suckered into using them.

In other words, you don't like Spike's spin and would rather substitute your own under the guise of being more careful about your use of language.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYour children are people too, albeit people of a diminished capacity. Just as it's wrong to coerce other people to do what you want without good reason, it's wrong to coerce children to do what you want without good reason. Children do have a diminished capacity, so what constitutes a "good reason" is broader than it is with an adult, but it has a limit.

And who gets to determine what a "good reason" is and, once there is a "good reason", who gets to coerce them?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYour children are not your property.

As you've said, children are "people of a diminished capacity".  Whose responsibility are they and what does it mean to be responsible for a child?

Out of curiosity, do you have any children?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf you don't like being called "unreasonable", then don't be so unreasonable.

You, of course, aren't being unreasonable, right? :rolleyes:

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYes I do. What was meant was a pejorative term that inaccurately describes what was going on, but that reduces a complex situation and set of positions into easy talking points.

As various people have pointed out, it quite accurately describes what was going on.  Why do you think "collectivism" is a pejorative term?  What sort of complexity was present in this situation that's unjustly reduced or ignored by that term?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt's not my "bias". I was recording there what the teachers wanted to teach in the kind of language they would use.

OK.  So then do you agree that the teachers were biased?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineOnce again, you don't seem quite capable of understanding that I am not a socialist, or a "collectivist" or whatever the term of approbation is this week.

So you don't agree with the ideology that the teachers were teaching, then?  What is your point in defending the teachers, then?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou have to justify the last statement, not just assert it.

Several people already have.  At the very least, they were dishonest when they claimed:

"After nearly an hour of passionate exchange, we brought the conversation to a close, reminding the children that we teachers didn't have an answer already figured out about Legotown. We assured them that we were right there with them in this process of getting clearer about what hadn't worked well in Legotown, and understanding how we could create a community of fairness about Legos."

It's quite clear, based on other statements made in the article, that they already know what kind of answers they wanted and were imposing their own ideas on the children about what had and hadn't worked.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI don't think it was indoctrination because I disagree that the definition you just provided conveys the entirety of the meaning of the word. "Indoctrination" means that the doctrine or position being advocated is presented in a dogmatic way, and without much critical investigation. I think that this accords with a perfectly ordinary way of using the word.

Ah, but they were being dogmatic.  They didn't present both sides and focused on particular perspectives that they wanted to encourage.  And if you look at most of their discussions and exercises, they focused on feelings rather than rational arguments.  They were jerking the children around emotionally with a one-sided lesson.

Quote from: PseudoephedrinePlease don't pretend in future that dictionary.com is an authoritative and exhaustive source on what words mean and how words are used.

And please stop pretending that you are the "authoritative and exhaustive source on what words mean and how words are used".  You aren't, either, just because you are obsessed with spinning words to mean what you want them to mean.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI think that the teachers did not teach the children in a dogmatic way, and they tried to operate within the critical capacity of the children. They say that they had extensive discussions in class about how the children felt, and some of the children are recorded as disagreeing with the teachers. Because of this, it does not seem like it was "indoctrination".

They didn't simply discuss how the children felt.  They made sure that the children felt certain ways about things by framing issues in certain ways.  In other words, the article records that several children felt that at least some of the inequality in Legotown was justified but the teachers didn't accept those feelings as valid.  And the trading game was designed to capture all the negatives they perceived capitalism as having but none of the positives.  If you can't see a political and social agenda or indoctrination in what the teachers were doing, you either are incredibly dense, incredibly irrational, or you agree with the political and social agenda of the teachers and are both dishonestly trying to distance yourself from their views and methods and are unhappy with how it's being described because you do agree with it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineActually, they sound very different. One describes how a social group acts - by building consensuses and by sharing resources amongst its members. The other describes a system or set of principles that is very abstract. Reducing one to the other is sloppy at best.

So it's "sloppy"?  Is it inaccurate in this case and, if so, why is it an inaccurate description?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI don't recall advocating "resource sharing", and merely saying that I like consensus-building in communities is hardly contrary to favouring freedom and dignity.

What do you mean by "consensus-building"?

Quote from: PseudoephedrinePlease save this kind of self-righteous bloviating for your personal blog. I am uninterested in it.

Perhaps because you don't have an answer for it.  I find it quite convenient that whenever anyone gets to the gist of the problem, you fall back on spin and personal attacks.  

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou seem dedicated to demonstrating that I am sort of secret socialist. I fail to see how this is relevant. I am not, but even if I were, it would not make my arguments any less valid or sound.

And you seem quite adamant about denying that you share the political views of the teachers yet seem to agree with them and defend them at every turn.  As for the validity and soundness of your arguments, it would help if you started making some real arguments instead of simply disagreements over definitions, casual dismissals and personal attacks, and unsupported assertions.  You may think you are making whiz-bang arguments but as far as I can tell, you are simply spinning and framing but aren't actually saying much of anything.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSo does the idea that you have children.

Which explains why you are so casual about wanting to take control of people's children away from them.  And it's why I'd prefer that you, and people like you, get nowhere near any real political power.

Quote from: malleus arianorumMeanwhile, just a few (non Lego) blocks away, look what else is happening in the neighborhood of Queen Anne. Even though there is an unequal distribution of hats, this school presses on without imposing a hat ban for "...five months of naming and investigating the issues of power, rules, ownership, and authority..."

(http://www.stannesea.org/program/images/preKKKKKK.jpg)

Hopefuly they'll be able to survive without learning gems like "Collectivism is good."

Did you notice the only two without hats were a female and an Asian child?

I think this is a good teaching opportunity regarding White Male Oppression, personally.

Won't somebody think of the children?

If you guys would like a Lego game to teach children about the joys of capitalism, I think I found one for you...

http://www.io.com/~sj/PirateGame.html (http://www.io.com/~sj/PirateGame.html)

:yarr:

Quote from: James J SkachNo...actually...what we do is read Pseudo and respond with actual definitions of words of the English language.  In response, we get "that doesn't fully cover what is meant when the word is used..." Bullshit.

It may surprise you to learn that dictionary.com - where you got your definition from - is not an exhaustive source of meaning for words in the English language. I wouldn't surprise me, but then, I'm not an idiot.

QuoteLook, words mean things. If you want to assume that I meant indoctrination as pejorative - good, I did!  That doesn't mean the word isn't accurate; it doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Likewise collectivism, etc.

"Collectivism" is a useless term used by people on the internet who want to pretend to know what they're talking about. And yes, your terms being pejorative is a problem - because you are using terms that do not accurately describe anything in reality. Instead, you appear to be playing some variation of "libertarian boggle", trying to pack as many loaded and inaccurate terms into a single statement as you can.

QuoteSo, Pseduo, you can go play your semantic games with someone else. Words do have meanings.  In this particular case, they've been used correctly.  You've successfully derailed the point of the conversation by tangents about the meanings of words even though they've been used properly because the use seems to offend your delicate sensibilities - they're so...judgemental!

See, James, this is why you're just not paying attention. I'm very judgmental, and I see nothing wrong with being so in these kinds of debates. But I demand correct judgments, not bullshit ones. You are spouting bullshit ones.

QuoteFace it - these teachers had an agenda; to teach that capitalism (a word you don't seem to have a problem using as a simple label as opposed to a long-winded set of terms to better describe a complex situation) is unjust.

That's because we know what I'm talking about when I say "capitalism" in regards to the article, because the teachers identify the aspects of capitalism they consider important. The word "collectivism" does not appear in the article, and was introduced by Spike. I have no idea what he means by it, since this discussion started when I pointed out that he was being inconsistent in his evaluation of what constituted collectivism.

QuoteThey weren't trying to explore "power" or any other bullshit.  They just wanted the kids to come away with the same political view as they have (which is perfectly valid if that's what the parents wanted - but we have no idea as they don't talk about that) but in such as way as to hide the fact that they used their power to do so.

Actually, they didn't hide that fact at all. That kind of basic inaccuracy undermines your arguments.

QuoteThey wanted everyone - including the reader of the article, to come away with the belief that the kids just naturally came to the conclusions that the teachers wanted (Capitalism=Bad, Collectivism=Good). It's a dishonest sham.

No they didn't. Once again, a simple reading of the article will show that the teachers openly decided to do so. There is no dishonesty here.

QuoteThey wrote this article as if it's some proof of something - as if this example is to be followed.  Look - we can teach collectivism! Look - we can teach kids Social Justice! Look - we can teach kids that Capitalism is BadWrong! And they come to the conclusion naturally!

The last part is a lie. It's not even consistent with the doctrine of human development that Marxism claims is true, let alone being based on anything in the article. Marxism holds that the development of individuals is dominated by their environment rather than their nature. Educating people in philosophical matters with an explicitly partisan viewpoint is how one comes to correct conclusions under Marxism. There is no need for a Marxist to pretend that people come to some conclusion "naturally" (a term no Marxist would use).

Now, the teachers might be some other kind of socialist than Marxist, but most socialists hold relatively similar viewpoints. Political education in the socialist tradition has no need for people to realise it "naturally" nor any desire to hide what it is doing - inculcating a specific political viewpoint.

This is why the accusation that the teachers dishonestly hid what they were doing is so bizarre. It's hard to know much about socialism - either in practice or theory - and seriously claim that they would do that.

QuoteIf you want to dodge that discussion with a word dance, find another partner.

Actually, you started responding to me, not vice versa.

Quote from: SpikePsuedo: I am going to have to stop arguing with you here. You do nothing but attack me, rather than respond to what I say.  In fact, I keep waiting for a response from you that isn't just a lot of

'Nyah Nyah, you wrong... and a poopy-head'. So far the closest you've come is an appeal to authority (Jesus Christ) like I give two fucks about what some dead guy has to say in support of your ideology... oops, you refuse to admit to it being an ideology. Well, me caveman grasp of words not good enough to use other word. So: Ideology.

Just as you have misread the article, you've pretty obviously misread everything I've written. Heck, my first reply to you dealt pretty clearly with a specific problem in your assumptions that you've yet to clarify.

QuoteI could go on about the hierarchal nature of civilizations and the human animal, and the proper use of authority and power, particularly when engaged in a training or educational system.  But you have a closed mind on the subject and seem to think that I am in some weird way contradicting myself.  So, I won't waste my time with you.

Actually, I have a very open mind on the subject. That's precisely why I am defending the teachers, while you seem to wish that they had simply done the conventional thing - bossed the students into doing what the teachers wanted.

Quote from: Thanatos02This is pretty much why I didn't bother, you know? Spike, man, I don't have anything against you, but it's like you're not reading what Psuedo is saying. And, Psuedo, I respect what you had to say here, but you're not going to get anything for your effort in this thread.

Still mate, you've got to charge out and tilt every once in a while, or else the bastards will think they're the only ones who know what a lance is.

Quote from: JimBobOzFuck Ayn Rand and take objectivism out the back and put a bullet in its neck.

Bob agrees with you, angry flower that he is.....

Quote from: John MorrowYes, but the question is whether you or someone else has more of a right than you do to shape your daughter's opinions and way of looking at the world.  That was the claim.  Even though I don't personally agree with your political perspective, I don't think that teachers or other people (including me) have the same rights as, or even more rights than, you to shape how your daughter thinks (except in cases of gross physical or psychological abuse).  She's your daughter, not mine.

Fundamentally, she's not mine either. I don't have the right to shape her at all, I have the power.

Having been a child, a school student, a parent and a teacher, I can say pretty confidently that unless the parents are really falling down on time with their kid(s), the chances of anything a teacher does counteracting home influence all on its own are pretty remote. At most, you may awaken the most alert brains to another way of looking at things.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineStill mate, you've got to charge out and tilt every once in a while, or else the bastards will think they're the only ones who know what a lance is.

Well, I can respect that. But for me, debates like these will have to wait until I've finished uni. I've got a limited amount of energy for heated debate, and it's all used on academic papers right now.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt may surprise you to learn that dictionary.com - where you got your definition from - is not an exhaustive source of meaning for words in the English language. I wouldn't surprise me, but then, I'm not an idiot.

I'd like you to point out where I claimed it was. I'm merely pointing out to you that I didn't use it.  I used a different source based on the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.  So you keep going back to a meaningless side discussion about dictionary.com to avoid the real issue.

And I don't think any single dictionary is an exhaustive source of the meanings of word in the English Language.  It might surprise you that it is a valid source of meaning for words in the English Language.  It doesn't surprise me, but then I'm not a cowardly fucktard trying to derail an argument based on my own criteria I add to words (say, adding the "in a dogmatic way" requirement being added to indoctrination) so that they don't really mean what they really mean. This is also often referred to as moving the goal posts.

"Well, it would be indoctrination if they did it in a dogmatic way."
"But that would be adding a requirement to the defintion of indoctrination. Most people would not require being dogamtic, it not being part of the standard definition of the word."
"Yeah, well, I see it as a pejorative description that requires dogmatic, so it's not indoctrination."

Umm...ok...that's one way to debate a subject.  It's a stupid, meaningless, cowardly way to.  But if it's all you got, you go for it.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine"Collectivism" is a useless term used by people on the internet who want to pretend to know what they're talking about.

Or, it could be a real term about how some people think the society should approach issues of ownership, particularly the means of production, which in this instance seems to describe the teachers' perspective.

"I don't like the term collectivism.  Yeah, there's a definition for it with a meaning and everything.  But in my personal opinion it's only used by people who want to pretend they know what it's talking about."

Again, a fucktard argument, but if it's all you've got, you go for it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineAnd yes, your terms being pejorative is a problem - because you are using terms that do not accurately describe anything in reality. Instead, you appear to be playing some variation of "libertarian boggle", trying to pack as many loaded and inaccurate terms into a single statement as you can.

OK.  Can you explain to me, being an idiot and all, where you've made one argument about how the terms do not apply to the teachers or their perspective? I mean, they say so themselves!

Quote from: articleOur intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSee, James, this is why you're just not paying attention. I'm very judgmental, and I see nothing wrong with being so in these kinds of debates. But I demand correct judgments, not bullshit ones. You are spouting bullshit ones.

Ohhh...the "I'm smart and you're a poopyhead" argument.  Again, if it's all you got, you go for it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat's because we know what I'm talking about when I say "capitalism" in regards to the article, because the teachers identify the aspects of capitalism they consider important. The word "collectivism" does not appear in the article, and was introduced by Spike. I have no idea what he means by it, since this discussion started when I pointed out that he was being inconsistent in his evaluation of what constituted collectivism.

See above, where they specifically use the word "collectivity."  Or maybe you didn't read the article?  Ya know, it's pretty stupid to try and discuss an article you haven't read.  I mean, I wouldn't do it, but I'm not a fucktard.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineActually, they didn't hide that fact at all. That kind of basic inaccuracy undermines your arguments.

They hid it from the children.

Quote from: articleWe knew that the examination would have the most impact if it was based in engaged exploration and reflection rather than in lots of talking. We didn't want simply to step in as teachers with a new set of rules about how the children could use Legos, exchanging one set of authoritarian rules with another. Ann suggested removing the Legos from the classroom. This bold decision would demonstrate our discomfort with the issues we saw at play in Legotown. And it posed a challenge to the children: How might we create a "community of fairness" about Legos?

Notice how they never tell the children what's going on?  Oh, they like to say things like they didn't want to just exchange a set of rules for a different set.  But does that preclude them from telling the children, up front, what the goal was? No, we'll remove the Legos- as a "bold" decision that will "demonstrate our discomfort." Yeah, nothing to see here.  Move along.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe last part is a lie. It's not even consistent with the doctrine of human development that Marxism claims is true, let alone being based on anything in the article. Marxism holds that the development of individuals is dominated by their environment rather than their nature. Educating people in philosophical matters with an explicitly partisan viewpoint is how one comes to correct conclusions under Marxism. There is no need for a Marxist to pretend that people come to some conclusion "naturally" (a term no Marxist would use).

Again, depends on your audience. You don't want to shove it down the kids throats - kids tend to rebel, yeah?  so let them think it's just the natural Truth, come to through their own exploration of power and ownership. The teachers do have a specific ideology.  They are attempting to educate these kids in that explicitly partisan viewpoint. Sounds like, dare I say, Indoctrination.

And WTF is the marxism bullshit?  You pass over the first three statements (which, btw, support the idea of indoctrination - even including your dogma requirement) and focus on the last. I'm not sure whether or not official marxism requires that the people being indoctrinated have to know they are being indoctrinated. But I didn't bring up marxism, you did.  I didn't claim these teachers were marxists.  You just claim it's a lie and then prove it's a lie by insisting marxists wouldn't act a certain way? Talk about spouting bullshit arguments.

You are at least consistent in this regard.

Quote from: Nazgul

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

Bob agrees with you, angry flower that he is.....

Try reading the book and then review the cartoon.  You'll see that while there are certainly things to criticise about Objectivism, the point behind this cartoon is not among them.

I was responding to Jim's rage with something funny. Not making 'deep political statement'.

Lighten up.

Quote from: WerekoalaDid you notice the only two without hats were a female and an Asian child?

I think this is a good teaching opportunity regarding White Male Oppression, personally.

Won't somebody think of the children?

Puh-lease! You can't have Oppression without statistics.

Probability of White Male Oppression = 10/19 * 9/18 = 26.32%

So the REAL lesson is that White Male Oppression is fair 26.32% of the time.

DISCLAIMER: I can't identify the sex or race of the kid being eaten by the face-hugger-hat but I figure he's not an Oppressive White Male since he couldn't even oppress his way out of a paper hat! :keke:

Quote from: PseudoephedrineEducating people in philosophical matters with an explicitly partisan viewpoint is how one comes to correct conclusions under Marxism.

Which is why the phrase "political correctness" is so spot-on and such an effective smack-down.  It identifies their attempts to impose their partisan viewpoint on language in an often fairly lame and sometimes unintentionally humorous attempt to force people to come to the conclusions they consider "politically correct".

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThere is no need for a Marxist to pretend that people come to some conclusion "naturally" (a term no Marxist would use).

No, but they did invent the phrase "politically correct" and now complain when it's applied back at them by others.

Just in case anyone has missed the obvious.  NOW we are Tangency.

;)

Quote from: GabrielJust in case anyone has missed the obvious.  NOW we are Tangency.

Not until we have a porn day and pictures of kittens. ;)

Quote from: GabrielJust in case anyone has missed the obvious.  NOW we are Tangency.

;)

Nobody has gotten banned yet.
Er, well, the joke was obvious, so...
But I have to admit I thought the same thing, but it's not a bad thread as net discussions tend to go.

Quote from: John MorrowWhich is why the phrase "political correctness" is so spot-on and such an effective smack-down.  It identifies their attempts to impose their partisan viewpoint on language in an often fairly lame and sometimes unintentionally humorous attempt to force people to come to the conclusions they consider "politically correct".

Marxists didn't invent the term "political correctness". A bunch of university students and administrators broadly on the left, but holding a fairly wide variety of theoretical and political commitments did.

QuoteNo, but they did invent the phrase "politically correct" and now complain when it's applied back at them by others.

They probably do. This doesn't seem particularly relevant to our discussion though.

James, your last post is just the most ridiculous and incoherent hypocrisy. I don't think you even know what you're arguing anymore, since you loop around contradicting yourself from one segment to another. You've clearly lost your head just because I called you an unsuitable parent. Why don't you settle down a bit and figure out a position or two that you actually believe, instead of just trying to contradict me sentence by sentence? You are babbling and ranting now, trying to score points instead of even defend a particular position.

I was unaware you called me an unsuitable parent.  When did that happen?

Or is it just that you've spent all this time basing your ideas on the fact the I was misapplying the word "collectivism" only to be show that the teachers used the term to describe exactly what they were trying to promote.

Yeah...they would tend to want to make me want to leave a discussion, when someone shows the distinct proof that I'm talking out my ass...so I can see why you'd want to leave it alone now.

But you can't make it seem like that, so again, you make assertions you can't back up.  What parts are circular? What positions am I trying to defend and failing?

See, you've staked out a position that's refuted by the very article on which this discussion is based. It's a shitty place to be, but I don't have to worry about it as it's your position. So you go ahead and characterize my response as ranting and babbling if that's all you've got.

I'm now of the opinion that from your first post you have been a troll, nothing more.

James, you haven't held a consistent position in a couple of posts. You ask me what positions you're trying to defend, and I honestly don't know, because you keep on contradicting yourself. You seem like one of those people who gets so caught up the idea of winning an argument that they fail to keep track of what exactly they think about the issue.

You've contradicted yourself repeatedly. You confuse me describing other people's points of view with me advocating a particular point of view, and you don't seem to understand how one rationally justifies an assertion. You make wild and obviously untrue claims like that I am a socialist; You don't understand socialist theory or socialist paedogogy; You whine about the kinds of methods of analysis I use and the methodological points I make, then adopt them whole-heartedly when you think they can give you an advantage.

You called me a troll, but it's you who jumped into a discussion to spout ludicrous, unsupported rants that were only marginally related to the topic. If you want to see a troll, go look in the mirror.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineMarxists didn't invent the term "political correctness". A bunch of university students and administrators broadly on the left, but holding a fairly wide variety of theoretical and political commitments did.

Various sources I've looked at trace it back to Marxist, Stalinist, and/or Maoist documents going back to the 1960s even before left-leaning university students and administrators got a hold of the phrase.  

The Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness) claims "The term "political correctness' is said to derive from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary to describe the 'party line'."  The Answers.com version (http://www.answers.com/topic/political-correctness) says, "Originally used by old-guard communists to mean toeing the party line[...]".  If you have a better description of the phrase's origins, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThey probably do. This doesn't seem particularly relevant to our discussion though.

It's relevant (A) because it describes the concept you were talking about and (B) it's development shows how a term or phrase coined in earnest and with positive intentions can turn into a pejorative because of how people react to what it describes and those who promote it.

Quote from: John MorrowVarious sources I've looked at trace it back to Marxist, Stalinist, and/or Maoist documents going back to the 1960s even before left-leaning university students and administrators got a hold of the phrase.  

The Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness) claims "The term "political correctness' is said to derive from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary to describe the 'party line'."  The Answers.com version (http://www.answers.com/topic/political-correctness) says, "Originally used by old-guard communists to mean toeing the party line[...]".  If you have a better description of the phrase's origins, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

The wikipedia entry you cite continues "...By the 1970s this term, re-appropriated as a satirical form of criticism, was being used by some on the Left to dismiss the views of other Leftists whom they deemed too doctrinaire and rigid. It was in this sense that the popular usage of the phrase in English derived"

The Answers.com disagrees only insofar as it says that "political correctness" was appropriated as a satirical term by members of the Right to attack progressive causes.

Both seem to trace the origin of the phrase's ordinary use in English to this period (the 1970's-80's), rather than back to Stalinism or whatnot, and in both cases, the ordinary use is an appropriation intended to assist one in demeaning various viewpoints and causes associated with the Left, rather than a term used seriously by people described by others as "politically correct" to self-label.

QuoteIt's relevant (A) because it describes the concept you were talking about and (B) it's development shows how a term or phrase coined in earnest and with positive intentions can turn into a pejorative because of how people react to what it describes and those who promote it.

I must admit, it's still unclear how this bears on the discussion, which is about socialist paedogogy and more generally, education that teaches students controversial political opinions. I don't deny that it might, but can you explain further why it is? The students were being taught something that might fall within the broad umbrella of "political correctness". This isn't intrinsically bad.

For example, I don't call black people "niggers" because I realise that to do so is politically unacceptable (both to me and to others), and I realised so from being taught that conducting myself in this way was unacceptable. That sort of thing is hardly some nefarious Bolshevik plot we have to protect our kids from.

It's unclear why learning about alternative economic arrangements is worse than learning not to call people "niggers", except that most of us agree that calling people "niggers" is a bad thing to do, while we do not agree about which economic arrangement is best.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineBoth seem to trace the origin of the phrase's ordinary use in English to this period (the 1970's-80's), rather than back to Stalinism or whatnot, and in both cases, the ordinary use is an appropriation intended to assist one in demeaning various viewpoints and causes associated with the Left, rather than a term used seriously by people described by others as "politically correct" to self-label.

The relevant point is how it went from being a Marxist term and a term used seriously and then self-mockingly by people on the left to such an effective way to demean the Leftist obsession with language and terminology.  Perhaps you think that was all accidental and inexplicable, but I don't.  And I think the explanation will explain how terms like "collectivism", "indoctrination", and so on can be both accurate and pejorative.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineFor example, I don't call black people "niggers" because I realise that to do so is politically unacceptable (both to me and to others), and I realised so from being taught that conducting myself in this way was unacceptable.

I do find it curious that you do apparently find it politically acceptable to toss it out a racist word to make a point in fairly trivial Internet discussion when eluding to it would have been sufficient.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat sort of thing is hardly some nefarious Bolshevik plot we have to protect our kids from.

No, but I also wouldn't say that teaching children not to use that term or various perspectives about racism has no agenda nor would I say that using examples of the sort described in the article to illustrate the problems with racism was "exploring" the issue in a neutral way or letting the children "discover" racism is bad on their own.  Let's call it what it is instead of pretending that it's something else.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt's unclear why learning about alternative economic arrangements is worse than learning not to call people "niggers", except that most of us agree that calling people "niggers" is a bad thing to do, while we do not agree about which economic arrangement is best.

That is a large part of why it is problematic.  It's also problematic because they claimed they were doing something that they weren't and because they were emotionally jerking around 8 year-olds.  And I don't think anyone who disagrees with what these teachers were doing have hidden the fact that they disagree with their political, social, and economic perspective or, at the very least, their methods.

Quote from: John MorrowThe relevant point is how it went from being a Marxist term and a term used seriously and then self-mockingly by people on the left to such an effective way to demean the Leftist obsession with language and terminology.  Perhaps you think that was all accidental and inexplicable, but I don't.  And I think the explanation will explain how terms like "collectivism", "indoctrination", and so on can be both accurate and pejorative.

Then please provide such an explanation.

QuoteI do find it curious that you do apparently find it politically acceptable to toss it out a racist word to make a point in fairly trivial Internet discussion when eluding to it would have been sufficient.

I am not "politically correct", if that's what you thought. I am not even on the left. I think the word is problematic when you are hurling it at someone as an insult, or using it to classify and demean an entire group of people. It has no magic power. Mentioning it in an example does not sour milk or cause women to miscarry. Are you implying I am a racist because I mentioned teaching children not to use the word "nigger" is a beneficial but politically-charged task of educators? That seems a rather silly interpretation.

Also, to head off something at the pass - I am using the words "use" and "mention" here as the terms are used in philosophy of language, where they are means of referring to different referents a term's utterance might point to.

QuoteNo, but I also wouldn't say that teaching children not to use that term or various perspectives about racism has no agenda nor would I say that using examples of the sort described in the article to illustrate the problems with racism was "exploring" the issue in a neutral way or letting the children "discover" racism is bad on their own.  Let's call it what it is instead of pretending that it's something else.

No one is pretending it is anything than an attempt to persuade the children of a particular political viewpoint. The authors haven't and I haven't. I stated quite some time ago that if someone wants to assert that the authors were dishonest in teaching the kids about socialism, they should provide some evidence that the authors were dishonest.

So far as can be discerned from the evidence of the article, they seem to have made it clear through their discussions with the students that they preferred resource-sharing and consensus-based societies. They prefer these kinds of societies, and they made the class play games that would model certain problems with current economic arrangements and highlight the more persuasive elements of the economic models they prefer. You might disagree with the message the teachers are teaching, but they don't seem to've taught it dishonestly.

QuoteThat is a large part of why it is problematic.  It's also problematic because they claimed they were doing something that they weren't and because they were emotionally jerking around 8 year-olds.

It should be pointed out that neither James J Skach nor Spike think that emotionally jerking around 8 year-olds is wrong. As Spike said, he disagreed with the way they were jerked around (not that they were jerked around), and Skach has revealed that he feels his children are his property and should hold the same viewpoints he does.

Now, the claim that they were emotionally jerking around 8 year-olds, but it's unclear that they were. They were certainly persuading the children and putting them in situations where the teachers' preferred political viewpoint was the optimal one, but that isn't really "emotionally jerking [them] around", unless you consider any attempt at persuasion as such.

QuoteAnd I don't think anyone who disagrees with what these teachers were doing have hidden the fact that they disagree with their political, social, and economic perspective or, at the very least, their methods.

I never claimed that they did. I claimed that they did not provide sufficient justification for their positions. I think the teachers are just as open about their disdain capitalism as anyone else has been in their disdain for "collectivism". I don't think that makes either group dishonest.

Pseudo, if you want to defend sophomoric armchair communism, you might as well package it more nicely, maybe even entertaining or with any artistic value. Like Pete Seeger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucczIg98Gw).

Quote from: SettembriniPseudo, if you want to defend sophomoric armchair communism, you might as well package it more nicely, maybe even entertaining or with any artistic value. Like Pete Seeger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucczIg98Gw).

Er, I realise English isn't your first language, but you do realise I'm not defending communism, right? I'm actually defending just about the most standard classical liberal position in existence (and one of the few that I like) - the right of all opinions to be voiced in the public sphere, whether we agree with them or not.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine[...] you do realise I'm not defending communism, right? I'm actually defending just about the most standard classical liberal position in existence (and one of the few that I like) - the right of all opinions to be voiced in the public sphere, whether we agree with them or not.

No, you're not.

When you're J. Random Geek on a forum, then you're voicing an opinion. When you're teaching children, then you're imposing an opinion.

Compare:

• JimBobOz speaks to the chef next to him in the kitchen, "Americans are stupid." That's voicing an opinion, my fellow adult is well-equipped to decide whether they think I'm wrong or right, they've the mental faculties to decide for themselves.
  
• JimBobOz speaks to his five year old nephew, "Americans are stupid." That's imposing an opinion, because a five year naturally looks up to me as their uncle (or teacher), and will assume what I say is true.

It's not right to impose my opinions on children, whether they be opinions in favour of communism or capitalism or Christianity or whatever. Children should be provided with varying opinions so that as they mature and come to understand them, they can choose what the think is good for them.

So, you're not defending the teacher's right to free speech, you're defending their right to impose their ideas about society on children under their care - their communist ideas. You are, thus, defending communism.

Bollocks. How should children be "provided with varying opinions" if anyone with any authority telling them about those opinions counts as "imposing" the viewpoint onto them? If anything, the teachers imposed less than in an ordinary classroom. They don't mention testing the kids for marks on their ability to share or giving detention to the ones who disagreed, or any other punishment or loss being inflicted for disagreement. If discussion without punishment counts as "imposition" then what doesn't? How are these opinions provided to children so that they can make choices about them?

Besides that, I'm not so sure that just because the teachers try to convince the kids that consensus-building and resource-sharing (the teachers aren't "communists", Kyle, at least not based on any information we have about them) are good that the kids will adopt those positions as true.

As an example, I was told all sorts of things by my teachers that I disagreed with, even as a child. And despite whatever "imposition" they made on me then, I still disagree with much of what they believed. I imagine it's the same with you, and with most everyone else on this forum.

Because children are most accepting of the opinions of their parents and their teachers; it's their opinions which are imposed, rarely than merely voiced; context matters. The context of the home or the classroom is of imposition, the children have no choice.

Marks and punishment are not important to a child, except in that they reflect approval or disapproval. Approval and disapproval were well-expressed by these teachers without any need for grades to be given or bottoms smacked.

Notice also that when some children were excluded from the Lego in the beginning, there was no consideration as to whether the children were choosing to exclude themselves - not every child likes Lego. The teachers could have offered these children other toys, but instead they insisted that everyone play with the Lego. Nobody could choose not to involve themselves in the imaginary Lego society. Child Thoreaus were not permitted their Walden Ponds, child intentional communities were not permitted their Ithaca Villages. Why? So the teachers could experiment on them.  

Consensus wasn't built in the classroom, a mode of behaviour was imposed on the children. Resource-sharing was likewise imposed. The children were forced, not encouraged or given suggestions. The teachers did not simply try to convince the children that consensus-building and resource-sharing are good, they imposed them on them. Imposing unanimity of expressed opinion and equal sharing of resources is communism in its practiced form. Note for example how the teachers expressed approval of the student who said that everyone's house should be exactly the same - that's not simply equal share of resources, that's uniformity - you can have equal resources but build different things with them - and uniformity, too, is an example of communism as practiced.

Don't underestimate the influence of parents and teachers. Our parents' and teachers' teaching does not determine us, but it does shape us. Imagine for example a child brought up as Amish; they may not grow up to be devoutly Amish and live that lifestyle, but it's very unlikely they'll convert to Wahhabi Islam. When considering our parents and teachers, we focus on our differences from them, and are often unaware of our similarities. If a third person were to view us both, they'd see our similarities. Don't underestimate the influence of parents and teachers.

No parent or teacher can avoid imposing some views on the child - shaping them in some way. But beyond certain universally good things like basic courtesy and honesty, we should minimise our shaping.

Your last statement, before descending into the attempt to paint me as ranting to avoid the discussion, is that I responded to you, not the other way around.  This is true.  What is interesting is that before this discussion evolved into an argument over the meanings of words, I asked you a series of questions. Those questions and your answer for review:

Quote from: James J. SkachSo, are you of the opinion that these teachers didn't set out to teach that collectivism is the opitmal system of social organization?

Quote from: PseuduephedrineThere is no system of social organisation called "collectivism". They certainly set out to teach the children that developing consensus within a community about issues that affect that community and sharing resources within that community are superior ways to act to asserting ownership claims and confronting or excluding others when they attempt to trespass on one's ownership claims.

The authors of the article are the most likely authority to legitimately characterize their own efforts.  This way, there doesn't need to be a discussion as to whether or not descriptions are accurate according to whom.

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra Pelojoaquin Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation.

Quote from: James J. SkachAre you of the opinion that it's OK to attempt to indoctrinate 8 year olds in the ideology of the teachers (there is no mention that this is a particular ideology of the school - something that parents would expect to be taught)?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe words "indoctrination" and "ideology" here are pejorative. I do think the teachers intended to cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature, and specifically, the ones I stated just above. I think that activity of this kind, even if not these specific positions, is not just something teachers do, but something everyone does. We constantly try to persuade others that our opinions are correct. So long as we don't try to dishonestly persuade them, there is nothing wrong with this.

Leave aside whether or not they are pejorative or if they are accurate.  Combining your language with the teachers provides the following:

The teachers intended to cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature, specifically the superiority of collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation.
 
The remainder of your response as to whether or not this practice (in the pervious sentence) is OK, and I'm paraphrasing so please correct as you see fit, is that it is acceptable as everyone does it. As long as the attempt to convince is honest, there's nothing wrong with it.

So now we're up to:
It's acceptable for the teachers to cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature, specifically the superiority of collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation, as long as the attempt is honest - as it is a common human practice to convince others.

Quote from: James J. SkachWould you have the same reaction if the teachers had seen the kids spontaneously creating a collectivist approach to Lego City, but after a disaster were taught capitalism as the optimal system of social organization (under the guise of "exploring power")? To eight-year-olds?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYes.

Perhaps the most straightforward answer in the entire thread.

Quote from: James J. SkachIf they were truly attempting to explore power, wouldn't they have covered more than just their preferred ideological bent?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNow that's a good point (except for the "ideology" part). I don't agree that it makes what the teachers did dishonest though. They clearly were trying to persuade the children that their viewpoint was correct - they were not dishonestly claiming to be presenting a dispassionate viewpoint of both system.

To tie it all together, I'll sum up a bit.

• The teachers set out to instill a certain set of beliefs in the children.
• In your opinion, this is acceptable as long as it's honest because everyone does this.
• You would defend the teachers just as strongly if the sets of beliefs were flipped.
• While a true examination of power probably should have covered more than the set of beliefs of the teachers, it's still not dishonest because they did not claim to be presenting a dispassionate viewpoint.

Only, the teachers were dishonest. As JimBob points out, the first problem is in the position of authority these teachers have over the children.  It might not be overtly employed, but to paraphrase "it's inherent in the system."

Now one might argue that this could be mitigated by making it very clear to the children that the authority of the teachers should in no way influence the children's decisions. In fact, the authors appear to make this attempt (whether for the children's benefit, the audience's, or the teacher's own guilt is unclear):

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinAfter nearly an hour of passionate exchange, we brought the conversation to a close, reminding the children that we teachers didn't have an answer already figured out about Legotown. We assured them that we were right there with them in this process of getting clearer about what hadn't worked well in Legotown, and understanding how we could create a community of fairness about Legos.

This is dishonest at best, an outright lie at worst. They did have the answer, at least with respect to the characteristics of the system they believed should be used in rebuilding Legotown:

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinWe saw the decimation of Lego-town as an opportunity to launch a critical evaluation of Legotown and the inequities of private ownership and hierarchical authority on which it was founded. Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation.

You may not like the terms used to describe the teacher's beliefs or there actions. Based on common definitions and usages (including the authors' use of one of the words in question), they are accurate; but you can feel free to argue otherwise.  Whether or not "collectivism" is what the teachers wanted to promote or if "indoctrination" should require a dogmatic approach, attempts to focus on this aspect completely miss the point.

The teachers, in a position of authority, set out to cause the children to develop certain political viewpoints. To do so, they told the children that they didn't already have the answers figured out. This is dishonest. If you wish to disagree with that, I'd be happy to discuss it further – to see your counter argument that this was simply an exercise in learning that led the children to a conclusion not influenced by the teachers' preconceived outcome. We can discuss how the games created depicted ownership as a product of sheer good luck and exchange of onwership as a zero-sum game. We can explore whether those are valid excercises for a group that claims to the children to be exploring issues of power and ownership without prejudice.

If you want to argue about the meanings of words, that can be done elsewhere.

When did I say that I supported emotionally jerking children around?

Quote from: JimBobOzBecause children are most accepting of the opinions of their parents and their teachers; it's their opinions which are imposed, rarely than merely voiced; context matters. The context of the home or the classroom is of imposition, the children have no choice.

Then why is the ordinary imposition of the classroom acceptable, but this imposition isn't? After all, history lessons in ordinary classrooms have specific political viewpoints which they attempt to convince the children of. Should children not be taught history because it, under your view, necessarily involves imposition? That seems to follow from your position.

QuoteMarks and punishment are not important to a child, except in that they reflect approval or disapproval. Approval and disapproval were well-expressed by these teachers without any need for grades to be given or bottoms smacked.

It's unclear why merely expressing approval and disapproval alone now counts as imposition. If the children were made to suffer for dissenting, by being shamed, by losing marks or by being punished with things like detention, it would be clear how the teachers are imposing on them. But for someone, even someone you respect, to say "I disagree" or "I disapprove" is not an imposition. It's part of the give and take of public discussion.

I agree that if imposition were going on, it would be bad, but I think that you're stretching here to call this "imposition", and to show that what the teachers have done is wrong. I don't like the position they did advocate in the classroom, but I don't think their methods of advocating it were pernicious.

QuoteNotice also that when some children were excluded from the Lego in the beginning, there was no consideration as to whether the children were choosing to exclude themselves - not every child likes Lego. The teachers could have offered these children other toys, but instead they insisted that everyone play with the Lego.

Only in the sense that they looked at some issues they thought were involved in the LEGO situation and then led a classroom activity based on them. Teachers setting up activities that involve the whole class might be an imposition, but it doesn't seem like a particularly nefarious one.

QuoteNobody could choose not to involve themselves in the imaginary Lego society. Child Thoreaus were not permitted their Walden Ponds, child intentional communities were not permitted their Ithaca Villages. Why? So the teachers could experiment on them.

Your first statement there is unsupported by evidence. The children were all involved in the LEGO game, but nobody says anything about mandatory participation in LEGOtown beyond that.

As to the little Thoreaus and Ithaca Villages, once again, this does not seem to be a specific charge against these teachers so much as a rejection of teaching as such. Is your critique meant to be a general critique of modern education? Because it seems like it is over-general, applying to any attempt by a teacher to coordinate a classroom, to persuade students of a viewpoint, or to get everyone involved in an activity.

QuoteConsensus wasn't built in the classroom, a mode of behaviour was imposed on the children. Resource-sharing was likewise imposed. The children were forced, not encouraged or given suggestions.

That's contrary to what is stated in the article. Do you have information about this situation outside of the article? According to the article, the children discussed things extensively with the adults.

QuoteThe teachers did not simply try to convince the children that consensus-building and resource-sharing are good, they imposed them on them.

What sort of activity is this "convincing" that does not also fall under "imposition" as you've defined the term? How does it work if it doesn't involve discussing things openly with the children without threat of punishment?

QuoteImposing unanimity of expressed opinion and equal sharing of resources is communism in its practiced form. Note for example how the teachers expressed approval of the student who said that everyone's house should be exactly the same - that's not simply equal share of resources, that's uniformity - you can have equal resources but build different things with them - and uniformity, too, is an example of communism as practiced.

Once again, it's unclear how they "imposed" on the students except by approving and disapproving of certain opinions the students had, or how this differs from any other sort of education.

QuoteDon't underestimate the influence of parents and teachers. Our parents' and teachers' teaching does not determine us, but it does shape us. Imagine for example a child brought up as Amish; they may not grow up to be devoutly Amish and live that lifestyle, but it's very unlikely they'll convert to Wahhabi Islam. When considering our parents and teachers, we focus on our differences from them, and are often unaware of our similarities. If a third person were to view us both, they'd see our similarities. Don't underestimate the influence of parents and teachers.

I'm not. But it's a far stretch from "we are influenced by our teachers and parents" to "Communist teachers produce communist children" especially when those kids live in an otherwise semi-capitalist society. Your own example turns against you here. Just as the Amish are unlikely to convert to Wahabbism, children raised in a capitalist society are unlikely to convert to violent Marxist-Leninism (which seems to be the fear here, with all the mentions of communism and Stalinism).

QuoteNo parent or teacher can avoid imposing some views on the child - shaping them in some way. But beyond certain universally good things like basic courtesy and honesty, we should minimise our shaping.

This doesn't seem to leave any role for education, once again. We certainly shouldn't try to make children in our own image by any means possible, but I fail to see why it's bad to try to persuade them in all the same ways we try to persuade a reasonable person. Honesty and rote custom don't seem like a firm foundation for moral character just by themselves.

A child needs to learn how justification and judgment work, what kinds of arguments are good ones and which bad, what kinds of things are good and bad and why they are, and so on. We can teach them these things in a reasonable and dignifying manner, and that's what education, ideally, does. If we can't do those things without doing something bad in the process, then we can't teach kids.

Quote from: SpikeWhen did I say that I supported emotionally jerking children around?

When you stated that the adults should have stepped in and started shouting and issuing commands and using threats of punishment to get the children in line. That shit is terrifying to kids, and doing it just involves using fear to get them into line with what you want.

What the teachers didn't say :

 "Those damn kids !! They were having fun! How dare they.(!) Next thing you know they'll want add rules and maybe even dice.  We don't want them addicted to anything  RPG -like . Oh no!! "

 
 - E.W.C.

Quote from: KoltarWhat the teachers didn't say :

 "Those damn kids !! They were having fun! How dare they.(!) Next thing you know they'll want add rules and maybe even dice.  We don't want them addicted to anything  RPG -like . Oh no!! "

 
 - E.W.C.

But they would have, if they knew what an RPG was. They would have stopped the bad-wrong fun before 'brain damage' set in. :p

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhen you stated that the adults should have stepped in and started shouting and issuing commands and using threats of punishment to get the children in line. That shit is terrifying to kids, and doing it just involves using fear to get them into line with what you want.

And you say I didn't read your posts.

a) I never even once mentioned shouting, for or against.  

b) adults routinely issue commands, to children, to each other. In fact, it is becoming fairly widely accepted amongst the pychologoical professionals that lack of discipline in childrearing is creating serious, long lasting social ills.  If you don't tell children how to be adults they don't learn it on their own. Sadly, this requires occasionally issuing commands.  If you have a trouble with that, then there is nothing more for us to talk about, we are simply too far removed on perspectives.

c) "Ashley, you know it hurts mommy when you cry. please don't cry. Ashley, honey? C'mon, everyone on the plane is looking at us... Ashley, baby. Stop crying.... please?"

SO does not work.  Occasionally you will encounter an intractable child who simply does not do as they are told... just because they are told. So yes, an appropriate punishment may sometimes need to occure. Removing legos from a child who has refused to share is hardly emotional jerking around.

d) Fear? I think the only fear in your post was the shouting. See response A.  In other words, you made that shit up.  Hardly surprising. You have participated in this thread for the sole purpose of telling everyone else they are wrong, while consistently refusing to establish your own defined position. When people call you on something, with REFERENCES, you have consistently shifted your 'goal posts'.  I'll repeat it... your only purpose here apparently is to pronounce 'Me smart, you poopy-head.'.   That is a terrible horse to back in any arguement.  From that I can only conclude that you do support the teachers (since you seem to be picking arguements based on that support) but don't actually have any substance to base your arguements on, so instead you are reduced to trying to tear everyone else down.  

I've got one response to that.

Fuck you, and thanks for playing.

"Solidarity forever..."

TonyLB made some good points.

The teachers made a shitty game, overenforced it and allowed a personal political agenda to govern how they taught the children in a very intrusive way.

That's not really cool whatever the agenda.

By contrast, when I studied politics at 16 the first thing our teacher did was explain to us his personal political beliefs so we could take account of them in what we were taught and whether it persuaded us.  Of course, he was dealing with older children, but I think he would have been equally careful had he been dealing with younger kids.

Teachers forcing their politics down the kids throats is just not cool, regardless of what the politics in question are.  

In the end though, they'll have taught the same lesson most teachers do, go along with teachers rules and you can avoid dumbass punishments.  I doubt they taught much more than that.

Quote from: BalbinusTonyLB made some good points.

I don't agree that you can just make this statement.  Where are your sources to back this assertion up.  If you can't provide any, you're just making this up.

Quote from: BalbinusThe teachers made a shitty game, overenforced it and allowed a personal political agenda to govern how they taught the children in a very intrusive way.

Shitty is a pejorative term. Games are, by their very nature, fun. You must not understand fun or games or you would not have called them shitty. "Overenforced" is not a word.  It's only used by people on the Internet who have no idea what they are talking about.

Everyone knows that Marxist Theory dictates that political agendas are not a tool to govern, only to be shaped into political action. And Socialists all agree that you can't own property so you can't teach in an "intrusive" way. It's completely ignorant to assign these characteristics to these Socialist/Marxist teachers as it goes against everything known about Marxists Theory and Socialist Practice.

Quote from: BalbinusThat's not really cool whatever the agenda.

People who argue bullshit positions use the word "cool." I know this because you are arguing a bullshit position and are using the word "cool."

Quote from: BalbinusBy contrast, when I studied politics at 16 the first thing our teacher did was explain to us his personal political beliefs so we could take account of them in what we were taught and whether it persuaded us.

Your personal experience means absolutely nothing.  No experience means anything - this has been established by Nihilism since the 19th Century.

Quote from: BalbinusTeachers forcing their politics down the kids throats is just not cool, regardless of what the politics in question are.

"Force?" "Politics?" It's like you're using some conservative word jumble and seeing how many pejorative terms you can put in a single sentence. Did the teachers line the children up and yell at them to share (as Spike apparently thinks they should)? That would have been "force." This was simply an excercise to help the children understand how consensus-building community-based decisions are superior to the assertion of individual property rights as an extension of the power inequity of ownership.

Quote from: BalbinusIn the end though, they'll have taught the same lesson most teachers do, go along with teachers rules and you can avoid dumbass punishments.  I doubt they taught much more than that.

It's clear that you are only upset because you disagree with the consensus-building approach these teachers used to prove that community based resource sharing is superior to the arbitrary nature of ownership and the violence that always accompanies the assertion power through ownership. While I personally, am not a Socialist, I do believe consensus-building is a good goal and that the approach used by these teachers is a proven methodology in modern education.  Your rants indicate that you have no clear understanding of the pedagogical approaches of the 21st century and are merely spouting bullshit rhetoric.

:rolleyes:

Skach, you're not doing a very good job parodying me, if that's what that was about. You're just showing everyone how much of a maniac you are.

Quote from: SpikeAnd you say I didn't read your posts.

a) I never even once mentioned shouting, for or against.

It's true, and I retract the comment. However, you did advocate threatening them, and your repeated comments expressing contempt for "touchy-feely" ways of handling children and for "hippies" seem to leave shouting at them well within the allow techniques of parenting.

You also made the following comment, apparently approving, that "When the adults in my young life said to share, you shared. They had any number of ways to enforce it. ANY number of ways." That seems to approve of a policy that allows parents to be quite ingenious in punishing their children for disobeying them, and it certainly doesn't rule out force or threats of force.

When I pointed out earlier that you seemed to be approving of force, you did not deny that you were. Are you now denying it, and if so, how do you reconcile it with your earlier statement: "Did I object to authority or force being used? Of course not."

Quoteb) adults routinely issue commands, to children, to each other. In fact, it is becoming fairly widely accepted amongst the pychologoical professionals that lack of discipline in childrearing is creating serious, long lasting social ills.

Well, it's true, "pychologoicists" are dumb bastards by nature and as a group, they no doubt believe such poorly-formed generalisations as the one you stated. But in developmental psychology and in sociology, there is no such consensus prescribing what form parental discipline should take, or definitively characterising the effects of one form over another. The closest you get is a popular disavowal of violence against children, but that's hardly the same thing as what you're talking about.

Quotec) "Ashley, you know it hurts mommy when you cry. please don't cry. Ashley, honey? C'mon, everyone on the plane is looking at us... Ashley, baby. Stop crying.... please?"

SO does not work.  Occasionally you will encounter an intractable child who simply does not do as they are told... just because they are told. So yes, an appropriate punishment may sometimes need to occure. Removing legos from a child who has refused to share is hardly emotional jerking around.

Removing the LEGOs isn't what is being referred to. Earlier in this discussion you presented an example where an adult made a demand of a child with the threat of punishment if the child didn't follow the demand. The adult in the example didn't explain themselves to the child, they merely demanded. It was your example - you could have written it any way you pleased - and you chose that exchange.

You also continuously denigrate ways of parenting that involve appealing to the child's rationality, both in your example here, and in your complaints earlier in this thread. If you are not appealing to the child's reason, then you are appealing to their emotions. I'm much of the "ANY number of ways" the parents you approve of used to get their kids in line involved emotionally jerking them around, with threats, demands, punishment and perhaps occasionally bribes.
 

Quoted) Fear? I think the only fear in your post was the shouting. See response A.  In other words, you made that shit up.

Actually, you advocated the adults threatening the children, as I explained above.

QuoteHardly surprising. You have participated in this thread for the sole purpose of telling everyone else they are wrong, while consistently refusing to establish your own defined position. When people call you on something, with REFERENCES, you have consistently shifted your 'goal posts'.  I'll repeat it... your only purpose here apparently is to pronounce 'Me smart, you poopy-head.'.   That is a terrible horse to back in any arguement.  From that I can only conclude that you do support the teachers (since you seem to be picking arguements based on that support) but don't actually have any substance to base your arguements on, so instead you are reduced to trying to tear everyone else down.

For someone who advocates toughening today's kids up, you're a pretty big sniveller. "Pychologoicist", heal thyself! It's true, I am a mean guy, but I adhere more closely to the standards of rational discourse than you do. I haven't had to shift my goal posts - my position has remained identical throughout. I have chosen to criticise your views instead of presenting my own simply because your views are more ludicrous and therefore more interesting. As your views wriggle and writhe, I've had to focus on different parts of them, but not because my own position has changed - merely because the course of the discussion has moved from focusing on one point to another.

My position can be clearly stated without ideological language, rhetoric or similar nonsense. It is simply this:

The teachers did nothing wrong. They did not do anything illegal, they did not do anything immoral. I think they did no harm to the children. I do not like the political position they advocated, but I do not think they should be punished in any way for advocating such a position.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSkach, you're not doing a very good job parodying me, if that's what that was about. You're just showing everyone how much of a maniac you are.

"Parodying" isn't even a real term. Besides which, though no known definition of the word includes it, parodying requires doing so in a dogmatic way. Please don't assume that the dictionary is a source of information about what a wrod means - not without consulting my defintion first.

Demonstrating my insanity to everyone is, as everyone knows, impossible.  Not "everyone" in the world is reading this, so how could "everyone" be shown something?

"Maniac" is pejorative term. Since you can't determine my actual mental health via the Internet, it's much better to use the term enthusiastic.  My post was "enthusiastic."

Oh, and you've yet to refute the notion that the teachers lied to the students when they claimed to not have the answer. Guess you've got nothing to say to that post - or at least nothing thats not a dodge.

Pseudo:

More with the only tearing down other's arguements?  Do you even have a position to take?

Oh, yes, right: Psychologists are dumb. Great position.  Not even an attack on my arguement, just a random drive-by on mental health professionals... attacking some random background to a support of my arguements.  Reaching much?

Shouting is not force, nor is it particularly discipline inducing. It's shouting and threatening behavior, which, with your SINGULARLY dogmatic approach to language, you should recongnize are two seperate things.  Indeed, while the strictest and most literal interpretation of threaten would suggest it is impossible to use any threat without being 'threatening' it is well established that words have nuance.  So, yes, If necessary I do advocate certain useages of threats to enforce authority.  Authority is fairly meaningless without some sort of threat to back it up.  

If I read you correctly, which is admittedly hard since you are so much smarter than everyone here... well, really since you refuse to put forth an opinion of your own, the only thing you advocate in child rearing is some sort of 'lord of the flies' approach. Let the little bastards do what they want.  Unless, of course, some pie in the sky collectivity lesson could be taught instead.

I find it particularly amusing to see you say you don't shift your goal posts.  This is in light of the fact that you have yet to express an reason for arguing in this thread other than 'every voice should be heard'.... that is, arguing for the sake of arguing.  And in light of the exchange regarding the term politically correct, where you were shot down quite handily, with references, then immedeatly shifted your goal posts in an attempt to invalidate the call.




While I don't have a cute link to a comic site for 'internet flamewarriors', I none the less call upon the powers invested in me to hearby label you, Psuedophendrine, a Tar Baby. Your obvious tactics are simply to instigate others into straying forth in their arguements so you can attack... not the arguement itself, but the verbal weapons they deploy. Your secret weakness is that you are unable to form an opinion of your own, thus can not attack unless attacked first.  

Seeing as this is the third time I've called you on it that I can remember off the top of my head, I am well and truely done with you.   I leave you the wasted battlefield, to enjoy the scent of your own bullshit which litters it.

How about if we make a LEGOs roleplaying game or setting ?

Something inspired and weird should come out of all of this.

- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarHow about if we make a LEGOs roleplaying game or setting ?

Something inspired and weird should come out of all of this.

There's Mechaton (http://www.indiepressrevolution.com/xcart/product.php?productid=16212&cat=0&page=1)....

Quote from: KoltarHow about if we make a LEGOs roleplaying game or setting ?

Something inspired and weird should come out of all of this.

- Ed C.

I think that's the recommendation for Savage Worlds mini purposes.

Or am I just thinking of Rich Stokes' 50 Fathoms game?

We could--but I don't want to be the one writing the rules about what point value each block has and how to assemble them into 'fair and balanced' killer deathbots. I mean . . . I'm a schoolteacher and people might get the wrong idea. ;)

Quote from: droogThere's Mechaton (http://www.indiepressrevolution.com/xcart/product.php?productid=16212&cat=0&page=1)....

That sounds rather amusing, though I really need to see pictures of or witness actual play to be sure. :D  Were we at a different site that supported such, I would indeed rep you for that link.

Pictures? I can do that....

(http://www.lumpley.com/mechaton/5gen1p.jpg)

(http://www.lumpley.com/mechaton/5gen3.jpg)

(http://www.lumpley.com/mechaton/5gen4.jpg)

(http://www.lumpley.com/mechaton/battle2/battlefield.jpg)

(http://www.lumpley.com/mechaton/battle2/grinder.jpg)

Quit that!  This thread and finding pictures online of a Lego Nimitz class carrier and a 8 foot long Venator class Star Destroyer has made me want to buy Legos.  I have too much junk lying around.  I cannot buy Legos.  Don't make me buy Legos!

Dammit, making me want to spend money on Star Wars Lego kits! :)

HFS, this thread's still going on?  Tell you what, give the blueprints for this (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.lipson/escher/lego_relativity.jpg) to the kids and tell them that until this Legotown is built just right, you'll keep failing them.  That'll learn 'em, and they'll be too busy for that commie talk.