Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dangerous Mr. Khan

nas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 253 posts

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#61

Post by wccrawford »

jeffreymcmanus wrote: post #8
wccrawford wrote: post #6

So, their biggest problems with Khan are that he doesn't go into enough detail and that he doesn't pick sides in the wars? Wow, that -is- dangerous. He might teach children to think for themselves or something! As for the Skinner Box, the internet is anything but. Yes, you tend to only see things you want to, etc... But there is nothing stopping you from seeing other things, and most sites will step out of your comfo…

It's challenging to think for yourself when you don't have enough information to make reasoned decisions.

It's even harder when you're given a biased view of the facts and don't realize there might be more.

The fact that he doesn't provide -everything- has a plus side in my book: It forces them to seek out more information if they want to have an opinion.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#62

Post by henrikschroder »

jcarreiro wrote: post #42
ThomPete wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it and normally consider myself pretty open minded. But then you read things like this. "Here Mr. Khan stands exposed as possessing a historical perspective steeped in academia’s standard issue, postmodern, left-leaning narrative of cultural relativism, multiculturalism, and moral equivalence. " And in my mind the author is exposed. I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't pres…

> I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't present history as fact How else could it possibly be presented? Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say that history is "a perspective"? Can one change history simply by deciding to view it differently, somehow?

Because pretty much all historical retellings are biased by the author/storyteller. There's both unintentional bias, and intentional bias in how historic events were portrayed.

Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Bloodbath#Christian_t...

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#63

Post by ajscherer »

A visit to the wikipedia entry on the National Association of Scholars may help you understand the author's perspective.

The first half of this article makes a reasonably convincing case that Mr. Khan is a much worse history teacher than math tutor. The second half of the article makes a totally convincing case that the author understands the Internet worse than Khan understands anything.

I guess in his nightmare scenario the "algorithms of the Internet" will one day cause everyone's web-browsers to redirect every request to one of Mr. Khan's fizzy history lectures where he just glosses right over the moral infallibility of the US, the inherent superiority of western culture, and the fact that Jesus died for your sins. The same algorithms will doubtless prevent the author from creating his own history videos clarifying those topics for people. After all, Mr. Khan appeared on Charlie Rose!

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#64

Post by ThomPete »

chaostheory wrote: post #58
ThomPete wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And many people don't learn about those things because they are brought up in difference cultures. But to claim that some history books are better than others is just wrong. (I know you are not claiming that) You will naturally learn your countries history albeit not to the point where you can become a history professor but it's not the end of the world. History is perspective it can't be anything but perspective. Th…

> You will naturally learn your countries history albeit not to the point where you can become a history professor How? Through video game blockbusters like Call of Duty or summer movie hits like Saving Private Ryan?

How is Saving Private Ryan different from the US schools interpretation of 2nd World War?

How is Call of Duty different than a soldiers account of how a battlefield looked like? They are after all consulting soldiers.

I am not talking about learning historical facts but about growing up in a culture that has a memory of a past. Things that naturally flows between people.

I knew of 2nd world war before I had history, I knew of JFK before I had history. And I am Danish.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#65

Post by TeMPOraL »

chaostheory wrote: post #58
ThomPete wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And many people don't learn about those things because they are brought up in difference cultures. But to claim that some history books are better than others is just wrong. (I know you are not claiming that) You will naturally learn your countries history albeit not to the point where you can become a history professor but it's not the end of the world. History is perspective it can't be anything but perspective. Th…

> You will naturally learn your countries history albeit not to the point where you can become a history professor How? Through video game blockbusters like Call of Duty or summer movie hits like Saving Private Ryan?

For example.

Also during dinners at family table, chit-chats, watching TV news, reading newspapers, magazines, visiting museums, etc.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#66

Post by wccrawford »

bbg wrote: post #17

+1 for the idea that history is more than an "incoherent torrent of factoids" I heard Khan say recently on the Colbert Report that he read the Wikipedia article on the French Revolution as his source before making his video on the subject. That's fine for his purposes, but somewhere up the information food chain someone must actually read the sources, weigh them, interpret, compare, and do all the other work of under…

"It's hard to imagine that those 'educated' by Khan can take up this work, or if they do, that by the time they become competent, they will regard his videos as anything other than inconsequential in their effort."

It's a starting point. A good starting point is more important than is usually realized. The start Khan gives, you can now do in-depth research into the history to flesh it out. Without a good overview to start with, you can quickly get bogged down in the details and lose all interest.

Lord knows that's how history classes were for me. They'd pick 1 tiny piece of it and give you way too much information to process and remember, then move on to the next and ignore the previous info completely... Until the test.

A good overview would have let things settle a bit before getting into the details.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#67

Post by bbg »

wccrawford wrote: post #66
bbg wrote: post #17

+1 for the idea that history is more than an "incoherent torrent of factoids" I heard Khan say recently on the Colbert Report that he read the Wikipedia article on the French Revolution as his source before making his video on the subject. That's fine for his purposes, but somewhere up the information food chain someone must actually read the sources, weigh them, interpret, compare, and do all the other work of under…

"It's hard to imagine that those 'educated' by Khan can take up this work, or if they do, that by the time they become competent, they will regard his videos as anything other than inconsequential in their effort." It's a starting point. A good starting point is more important than is usually realized. The start Khan gives, you can now do in-depth research into the history to flesh it out. Without a good overview to…

Interesting. Do you now see yourself as deeply engrossed in history and doing the real work necessary to become a competent historian? If so, then your example is a counterpoint to my argument. If not, then we're talking about two different things :)

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#68

Post by chaostheory »

kenjackson wrote: post #44
chaostheory wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sounds to me purely like a bashing exercise. For the record, I like the Khan Academy and they do a lot of good; but I still think that's really unfair to say that given that the article brings up a really important point (regardless of its style of writing): Khan Academy history lessons are so abbreviated, that key, important points and figures in history are skipped. Why is this not good? One of the major key reas…

I seriously doubt a history lesson in 15 minutes that covered WWII to Vietnam is meant to be comprehensive. With that said, when I was in school we regularly covered a thousand years in a single page. And in many cases complete eras as pertained to geography were skipped altogether. To this day I don't think I could tell you the name of a single African King pre-1900. With that said, one of the things I still prefer…

I agree with everything you just wrote, but I think you're missing the point of my post. I was just merely giving reasons as to why people shouldn't dismiss the article.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#69

Post by salmankhan »

Hi Everyone,

This is Sal here. I wanted to respond directly on the author's page, but they seem to be having a problem taking comments.

The reason why I make history videos is that many people I know (many of whom are quite educated) don't even have a basic scaffold of world events in their minds (or the potential causality between events). Most American high school and college students would find it difficult to give even a summary of the Vietnam War or the Cuban Missile Crisis. Many of these people have sat through years of traditional history classes (taught through state-mandated books by "experts"). Even more worrying is many experts who have taken one side or another of a historical issue and view their viewpoints as facts (this is the tone of most history books).

If the author really watched my videos, he would see that I start most of them telling the listener to be skeptical of anything I tell them or anyone tells them; that no matter how footnoted something is, in the end it is dependent on people's accounts--the people who weren't killed--which are subject to bias (no matter how well-intentioned). Very few history books or professors do this. If anything, they create a false sense of certainty.

As for the "one voice" issue, I don't see how a guy making digestible videos that inform and encourage skepticism (on YouTube where anyone else can do the same) are more dangerous than state-mandated text books. I don't see how lectures that are open for the world to scrutinize (and comment about on YouTube and our site) are more dangerous than a lone teacher or professor who can say whatever they like to their classrooms with no one there to correct or dispute them.

Finally, there is nothing I would like to see more than other teachers/professors/experts adding their voice to the mix. Rather than wasting energy commenting on other people's work with pseudo-intellectual babble, why don't they produce their own videos and post them on YouTube? If someone can produce 20 videos that seem decent and want to do more as part of the Khan Academy, we'll point our audience at them. If our students respond, we'll figure out a way that they can potentially make it a career.

regards, Sal

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#70

Post by wharryman »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #28
ThomPete wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it and normally consider myself pretty open minded. But then you read things like this. "Here Mr. Khan stands exposed as possessing a historical perspective steeped in academia’s standard issue, postmodern, left-leaning narrative of cultural relativism, multiculturalism, and moral equivalence. " And in my mind the author is exposed. I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't pres…

That comment got me, too, but I don't think it invalidates the other arguments. History teachers need to teach students why history is important, and it's not so you won't be embarrassed when the press asks you about Pal Revere. History teaches us lessons that help us make better decisions today. (In case its not clear, I'm mostly agreeing with you. :)

     There are multiple and various reasons for studying history, whether this is articulated clearly in everyone's mind or not.  Establish a baseline cultural past, instill moral values (ex. glorifying Person X's accomplishments), predict future results of actions, and entertainment are reasons that also spring to mind just off the top of the mind.
     If history is being taught simply to teach decision-making skills, then using a case study format would be one possible way to improve the current teaching methods.
Post reply on HN