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

181–190 of 440 posts

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#181

Post by munk-a »

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.

HN is a place that attracts professionals of a particular enough field that it has avoided any internal siloing (i.e. Subreddits). Within Tech you can see nearly every political view represented - within SV in particular you'll find a very strong neo-Libretarian movement that's sprung up (in part) due to opposition against taxation - this group in particular is quite strongly anti-socialist.

It has (at least for the last five years while I've been here) always been this way - there is a very wide spectrum of humanity represented here.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#182

Post by fallingfrog »

V__ wrote: post #111

I agree with some commenters that this article has some very 'woke' conclusions which might over interpret what the children actually thought or did. Nonetheless, I find it very concerning that multiple commenters here think, that trying to get children to share and play nice together is indoctrination/socialism/etc and that anything that isn't based on total self-reliance must be wrong.

There is a very distinct strain of American thought that says freedom means the biggest or richest get whatever they want. Which is ironic because that’s actually exactly what tyranny is. But in that framework, fairness is tyranny, because they see themselves as the strong and feel that it is their birthright to take what they want from those they see as weak.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#184

Post by Inityx »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #131

So the adults banned Legos because they didn't understand how Legos and children work, and temporary prohibition was the only solution that allowed them to restore their utopian play model.

> and temporary prohibition was the only solution that allowed them to restore their utopian play model.

uh, no, temporary prohibition was the only thing that allowed space for the kids to gain perspective and think critically

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#185

Post by crooked-v »

legitster wrote: post #156
jacobolus wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the builders began excluding other children. Occasionally, 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. [...] These negotiations gave rise to heated conflict [...] Kendra suggested a big cleanup of the loose Legos on the floor. The Legotown builders were…

If you read the article, this was a months-long series of forced conversations. I don't think it's comparable at all to normal intervention.

"A months-long series of forced conversations" is what interactive, non-lecture-based teaching looks like in the first place.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#187

Post by DennisP »

ertjaet wrote: post #127
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?

I mean, it obviously has inequities, so yes.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#188

Post by ALittleLight »

crooked-v wrote: post #153
ALittleLight wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is exactly about teaching children to blindly accept hierarchy. The teachers tell them what they can play with and when, how they can play together, and why. Why should the children accept the student-teacher hierarchy? Are they old enough to question it? I suspect you have more in common with the teachers politically than you and I have in common. Perhaps you think it's good for the students to be politi…

> Conversely, I would not share my politics with children, even abstractly. Except, everything is politics . Even basic empathy is now (unfortunately) a prominent political issue.

Everything is physics is more correct, but that doesn't mean kids in an art program need to be learning about quantum dynamics. It strikes me as a leap in logic to say "Everything is politics, therefore we need to indoctrinate young children according to my progressive left politics."

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#189

Post by bombcar »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #124
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.

The kids had their own rules they came up with entirely on their own which resulted in the Lego being taken away.

Then they continued to have to figure out what to say to get the Lego back.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#190

Post by fleddr »

crooked-v wrote: post #151
fleddr wrote: post #82

With "equity", your talent, merit, assertiveness, skill, charisma or just plain luck do not matter. Outcomes should be equal regardless of any of that. How very exciting that young children are forcefully rewired to adopt this idea that undermines the very basis of our society. The message to the kids that were dominant, most active, passionate, hardest working or simply cruel on legotown is quite clear: don't bother…

> talent, merit, assertiveness, skill, charisma or just plain luck One of these things is not like the others. The thing that's not like the others is also effectively the same as the primary factor noted in the article (age differences). > teachers > very rich Teachers already sacrifice significant earnings just by choosing to be teachers, then spend even more on top of that out of their undervalued salaries purchas…

I must have hit a nerve with some teachers.

"One of these things is not like the others."

Intentionally so. To go into your example, age difference. Age matters in the real world, so pretending it can be nullified is a delusional "lesson".

Your parents have power over you. Your teachers do. Your manager at work. Older people have most wealth and political capital. Age matters whether you like it or not.

Same for other aspects, like luck. Other kids can be lucky to have rich parents, or to have been born with superior talent. They're going to do better compared to less fortunate ones.

Pretending all these factors do not exist or aggressively wiping them out in a playful scenario is not the lesson these kids need.

Post reply on HN