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

Why We Banned Legos (2006)

rethinkingschools.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 440 posts

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#71

Post by ALittleLight »

notriddle wrote: post #68
ALittleLight wrote: post #45

I feel visceral disgust reading this article. It seems like the kids were playing with each other in a healthy way and the teachers interposed themselves to change how the kids were playing for political and ideological reasons. This is disgusting to me because I think it's analogous to physical abuse. A teacher hitting a child is bad not just because it's a violent crime, but also because children are especially vul…

Intervening when some of the kids are hogging all the pieces doesn't seem all that unreasonable, especially since, in this case, the adults noticed it was mostly older kids not letting any of the younger kids play with any of the pieces. That's not a healthy environment. That's literally the big man screwing over the little man.

I don't have a problem with telling kids they have to share if they can't work it out. I do have a problem with the 90% of the article that was about the teachers pushing their ideological beliefs on the children who defenseless against the adults indoctrinating them.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#72

Post by a_shovel »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #66
ALittleLight wrote: post #45

I feel visceral disgust reading this article. It seems like the kids were playing with each other in a healthy way and the teachers interposed themselves to change how the kids were playing for political and ideological reasons. This is disgusting to me because I think it's analogous to physical abuse. A teacher hitting a child is bad not just because it's a violent crime, but also because children are especially vul…

On the one hand, the kids had developed a system that excluded other kids from playing. Past generations would use this as an opportunity to teach sharing and taking turns. These teachers, on the other hand, took it as an opportunity to teach socialism and collectivism.

I really want to know what you see the difference to be.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#73

Post by andrewflnr »

Breazy wrote: post #58
andrewflnr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't help, just change the number of pieces involved in the conflicts. Speaking from experience, you can never have so many Legos that you don't want more.

When I was a kid my mother bought me and my two brothers a 5 gallon bucket of lego at a yardsale. We played with those bricks A LOT but no matter how much we built the bucket never seemed to drop below half full. There are only so many bricks you can place a day before your fingers feel like they're going to bleed. Of course, we weren't keeping builds around forever either. That's the real trick I think. Lego should…

I don't know, my sister and I kept a lot of things around for a long time, in a similar way to the Legotown in the article.

But I'd agree that probably doesn't work if you have a bunch of kids trying to play with the same set. It has to be very clear that everyone is borrowing the Legos, and anything that survives the day's session needs some consent from everyone.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#74

Post by UnpossibleJim »

andrewflnr wrote: post #22
xigency wrote: post #11

Why not buy more Legos rather than remove them?

It wouldn't help, just change the number of pieces involved in the conflicts. Speaking from experience, you can never have so many Legos that you don't want more.

Or, better yet, use it as a teachable moment. They are teachers. Teach. Instead of doing that, they removed the problem instead of facing it. Instead of explaining it to children who lacked the tools to deal with the issue, or the language to express their thoughts completely, they used their lack of language to trap them... from the article:

>>Carl: “We didn’t ‘give’ the pieces, we found and shared them.”

Lukas: “It’s like giving to charity.”

Carl: “I don’t agree with using words like ‘gave.’ Because when someone wants to move in, we find them a platform and bricks and we build them a house and find them windows and a door.”

These children seemed to squirm at the implications of privilege, wealth, and power that “giving” holds. The children denied their power, framing it as benign and neutral, not something actively sought out and maintained. This early conversation helped us see more clearly the children’s contradictory thinking about power and authority, laying the groundwork for later exploration.This is twisting language to trap, like a debate. Something a child is not prepared for. They have neither the understanding of the power structure nor the conversation they've enganged in. They've been punished for crimes they don't fully comprehend and lost the chance to learn engineering, team play and concession, while the teachers have missed out on a very teachable moment because, "We 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" - but, in truth, it was an exercise in laziness.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#75

Post by DennisP »

wvenable wrote: post #39
generalizations wrote: post #8

What's with all the paywall comments? I don't see one, with or without my adblocker running.

It's completely unviewable to me no matter how I try and get at it. Preview of Article: Why We Banned Legos To read the rest of this article: Become a subscriber to read this article. Already a subscriber? Log in here.

https://archive.is/TKoOJ

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#76

Post by andrewflnr »

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #74
andrewflnr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't help, just change the number of pieces involved in the conflicts. Speaking from experience, you can never have so many Legos that you don't want more.

Or, better yet, use it as a teachable moment. They are teachers. Teach. Instead of doing that, they removed the problem instead of facing it. Instead of explaining it to children who lacked the tools to deal with the issue, or the language to express their thoughts completely, they used their lack of language to trap them... from the article: >>Carl: “We didn’t ‘give’ the pieces, we found and shared them.” Lukas: “It…

Did you read to the end of the article, where they brought the Legos back?

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#77

Post by [deleted] »

adamrezich wrote: post #44
einpoklum wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indoctrination is when you're inculcated with a doctrine. That's not what happened with the children described in the article. But if you mean affecting children's values and social outlook, then indeed, teachers do that. Sometimes they do it unconsciously, in which case it's typically the prevailing social values, explicit and implicit, which children are imbued with; sometimes it's more conscious.

how is this not what happened here? children were playing with legos, adults step in and mandate how play should occur based on their observations and the values they think the kids should develop. the way they describe how the kids play with legos—looking for the "cool pieces", feeling ownership over things they built—is the default way that all kids end up playing with legos in a group setting. somehow we all turne…

[deleted]

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#78

Post by slowmovintarget »

a_shovel wrote: post #72
slowmovintarget wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand, the kids had developed a system that excluded other kids from playing. Past generations would use this as an opportunity to teach sharing and taking turns. These teachers, on the other hand, took it as an opportunity to teach socialism and collectivism.

I really want to know what you see the difference to be.

Sharing and taking turns is interpersonal generosity which works very well in the real world. Socialism and collectivism is enforced resource allocation typically requiring authoritarian rule which typically becomes oppressive when manifest in the real world.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#79

Post by cwkoss »

ALittleLight wrote: post #45

I feel visceral disgust reading this article. It seems like the kids were playing with each other in a healthy way and the teachers interposed themselves to change how the kids were playing for political and ideological reasons. This is disgusting to me because I think it's analogous to physical abuse. A teacher hitting a child is bad not just because it's a violent crime, but also because children are especially vul…

"visceral disgust" seems like such a superlative reaction to have at this.

I didn't realize there was so much McCarthyist fear in the HN community. I wonder to what extent this is new, or if it has always been this way.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#80

Post by _dain_ »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #66
ALittleLight wrote: post #45

I feel visceral disgust reading this article. It seems like the kids were playing with each other in a healthy way and the teachers interposed themselves to change how the kids were playing for political and ideological reasons. This is disgusting to me because I think it's analogous to physical abuse. A teacher hitting a child is bad not just because it's a violent crime, but also because children are especially vul…

On the one hand, the kids had developed a system that excluded other kids from playing. Past generations would use this as an opportunity to teach sharing and taking turns. These teachers, on the other hand, took it as an opportunity to teach socialism and collectivism.

>On the one hand, the kids had developed a system that excluded other kids from playing.

according to the teachers. they are not a reliable unbiased source here. they are seeing everything through a marxist lens of exploitation.

but we don't have the kulak-kids' side of the story.

Post reply on HN