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

121–130 of 440 posts

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#121

Post by fivestarman »

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…

You think that taking toys away from kids when they aren't playing nicely is psychologically hurting them, and equivalent to physically beating them? This caused you visceral disgust?

What world do you live in?

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#122

Post by slowmovintarget »

trs8080 wrote: post #106
slowmovintarget wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Says you. Some of us believe that sharing and taking turns is a social obligation -- not a generosity -- necessary to living in a functioning society. Even more of us believe that a small minority should not be allowed to hoard all resources for themselves while others have nothing.

I believe that sharing and taking turns is a social obligation, and why we should teach our children to share and take turns. I believe sharing and taking turns is necessary to a healthy, functioning society. I also believe that a small minority shouldn't hoard resources in general, but especially not when others have nothing.

I don't believe that socialism and collectivism are suitable fixes to poverty or income disparity.

Put another way, I suspect we share values but disagree on policy.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#123

Post by cwkoss »

cwkoss wrote: post #79
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.

No post body was provided.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#124

Post by bcrosby95 »

bombcar wrote: post #16

They banned them because the teachers hadn't been paying attention (and kids were hoarding the "good pieces"), and brought them back with three rules: 1. everyone can play with any structure but you can't change someone else's structure 2. play has to be together 3. all structures must be a standard size So, Minecraft claims.

The kids came up with the rules, not the teachers, which seems like a pretty important distinction here.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#125

Post by dmonitor »

trs8080 wrote: post #106
slowmovintarget wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Says you. Some of us believe that sharing and taking turns is a social obligation -- not a generosity -- necessary to living in a functioning society. Even more of us believe that a small minority should not be allowed to hoard all resources for themselves while others have nothing.

Social obligation enforced by what? The sword?

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#126

Post by frazbin »

In the thread: engineers who are terrified of having their toys taken away.

I disagree with your conclusions on this article, but I hope to see you in the next Apple App Store discussion!

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#127

Post by ertjaet »

DennisP wrote: post #69

> 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. Maybe that's why I've seen lots of redditors claim that you can't be a billionaire without being a sociopath.

so you're acknowledging that our current political/economic system has built-in inequities? that playing by the rules is not a virtue in and of itself, especially if the rules cause harm to others?

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#128

Post by Breazy »

a_shovel wrote: post #118
cracrecry wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was in Cuba, the official maximum salary you could earn(e.g as a doctor or teacher or baseball player) was something like $20. People from the party earned more than $3000 through outside deals. I had also been in Norway that people call socialist but is actually quite capitalistic. Most socialists have an idealization of what collectivism "should be". They compare "real capitalism"(an implementation of capita…

This is article about teaching children to share Lego toys. If you want to compare it to communist autocracies, you'll need to at least tell us how they're at all related to each other.

> This is article about teaching children to share Lego toys.

No, it's about using lego to teach teaching kids about capitalism and power structures.

> Exploring power, ownership, and equity in an early childhood classroom

> 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.

Seriously, count how many times the article mentions "power", and count how many times it mentions "share".

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#129

Post by legitster »

ertjaet wrote: post #100
legitster wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They spent WEEKS doing this! And did you get the part where all of their "sessions" with the kids were being recorded and analyzed? And the things they said were used against them in future lessons?

"reflecting on things that you've learned is indoctrination, actually"

I'm not calling it indoctrination. But I am calling it a flawed and abusive-sounding methodology.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#130

Post by bee_rider »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #78
a_shovel wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are children. While they are still figuring out what good behavior look like, inevitably some of the behavior that we expect normal adults to exhibit will have to be imposed top-down.
Post reply on HN