Live data from Hacker News

Why We Banned Legos (2006)

rethinkingschools.org

231–240 of 440 posts

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#231
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 othe…

Seems like a pretty positive lesson to me: teaching kids that these power structures exist, are harmful, and that they need to be mindful not to take advantage of power; that they should instead strive for equity.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

No, they were made to write new rules together this time. Nothing in the article stood out to me as coercive. The teachers made the kids actually think about what they were doing and discuss openly, instead of each kid blindly indulging their own self-interest.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#233
post #107

Seems like they could have solved the problem by never retaining any state. After you are done playing with legos it goes back in the box, and anyone can use it again.

Easy solution. But they said in the article that they wanted to oppose the system that the kids were building

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#234
post #17

This article is the best argument for unsupervised free play that I've seen. Adults have no business moralizing and interfering as children negotiate relationships on their own. It's developmentally important. Children who lack that experience will constantly look for authoritative arbiters of the relationships. That's the soil that societal authoritarianism grows in.

This is the best comment here. The most successful children in elementary school are the ones who have gone through those social conflicts in preschool and worked things out for themselves. Sometimes that means mental conflict, sometimes that means not engaging with your peers and then having to forgive, barter, trade, etc.

Sometimes that means being fucked up mentally and physically while the adults in your life look on, making excuses.

Yeah, that’s a recipe for success.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#235
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a good way to have the unpopular kids build destroyed every week.

Oh, no not voting on particular builds, the vote is "dismantle all structures" yes/no I agree, specific builds would probably lead to unhealthy dynamics.

Then you have a lot of kids just wishing for more natural disasters, and other kids repeatedly feeling powerless against it.

Kinda interesting, I kinda like it

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#236
post #107

Seems like they could have solved the problem by never retaining any state. After you are done playing with legos it goes back in the box, and anyone can use it again.

Yeah, but it's less useful to apply that notion to how we operate our society and private property. It's better to start with a system that doesn't require overthrowing the government and redistributing wealth very often.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#237
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you sure? When I talk about free markets, I usually get a strong net negative reaction here.

In stats class in uni we spent a good deal of time discussing the issues with different types of polling. Internet polling was "newish" at that point and so there were interesting debates going on with whether it'd suffer from the same effects as other voluntary polls (TL;DR it does).

When a poll is voluntarily responded to, even if the poll is eligible to the entire population you want to poll, you'll end up with some pretty heavy biases - first off the middle is always underrepresented - people who don't have strong feelings on a topic won't bother taking the time to reply and people who aren't familiar with the topic at all will generally (generally there are obviously people who reject this) decline to respond out of shame. So then you're left with the group of supporters and opposers - it turns out that, as a general rule, you should expect an across the board negative bias on any polls: if I asked "Is vanilla ice cream the best ice cream?" I'll end up getting a much stronger response from the people who disagree compared to those that affirm - when it comes to our attention things we don't like naturally draw more of our attention so that accounts for a decent part of the bias... Additionally the status quo tends to be underrepresented because people who are comfortable with the way things are are less likely to view broadcasting that belief as important... in general underdogs fight a lot harder.

So, back to your point... when discussing anything on the internet, regardless of the forum, expect the responses to be unrepresentative of the population in general and instead be composed of a higher proportion of dissenters than actually exists.

That all said, I do think HN has a notable left-lean. I think technology in general tends to underrepresent strongly religious individuals (there are exceptions: see larry wall) and the tech centers tend to congregate around educational centers which tend to be more liberal than the country as a whole.

Lastly, HN prides itself on being (or aspires to be) a relatively politics free zone - so a large number of people will downvote comments just because they lean in either political discussion because they don't want the conversation to turn into a miniature scale representation of modern US politics.

So yes, you get a strong reaction when advocating free markets just like other people get strong reactions when advocating socialist policies.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were able to take a situation with an easy way out, and instead took the hard way out and were able to get a bunch of elementary school kids to mutually agree to a set of rules for fair lego play. I'm actually impressed. Those are people that care about their job.

Disagree. One of the benefits of kids playing together is that they learn to settle their own problems. I would call it socialization, they learn to interact and negotiate with other people. There are costs to this. Sometimes the kids will fight or some kids will be left out and perhaps adults will need to intervene to get things back to a good baseline. But the benefits are that you become prepared to work, play, an…

> The resolution is that the teachers lay down rules about how the kids can play with legos.

It looks like you didn't actually read to the end of the article, given that the resolution is that the teachers get the children to work out their own rules about the Legos that all of them feel is fair.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say, let the kids learnt these dynamics naturally without adult suggestions. These political ideas emerge from fundamental ways of social behavior. Let the kids learn these from a bottom up approach rather than a possibly flawed and skewed top down approach.

have you ever worked with young children? the method you propose will lead to bullying and fights. there needs to be some moderation.

Usually that's the goal of people that suggest this kind of treatment of children. It's usually backed up by a circular is-ought that the kids who are the victims in the bullying and faults are culpable and ought to become stronger if they wish to avoid that happening to them.

There has long been this subculture of actively encouraging bullying amongst children in order to "weed out the weak", and it's disgusting every time it's suggested.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should really read the article. A hierarchy formed where children were actively being regulated and excluded by other children. The teachers guided a conversation that allowed for everyone to participate equitably. Your last sentence says a lot. It's sad to expect your children to performatively participate in community but return to selfish behavior when it no longer benefits them.

I did read the article. Did you? This wasn't one guided conversation - this was months of them. And the children were being recorded and their answers analyzed regularly. Even if I accepted the diagnosis in the premise, I do not want to take their word about their own results.

> This wasn't one guided conversation - this was months of them.

Yes, complex topics often require prolonged discussion. "Conversation" can imply an active exchange over the course of time.

> And the children were being recorded and their answers analyzed regularly.

If you had read the article, you would know that the initial conversation was recorded so the teachers could take notes.

Taking notes and analyzing students' answers is literally part of the job description of a teacher. Teachers are not babysitters, they're educators.

Post reply on HN