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

251–260 of 440 posts

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#251

Post by ziml77 »

stuartjohnson12 wrote: post #239
ertjaet wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eve…

What does weeding out the weak even mean here? Like they might identify the ones who aren't good at defending themselves, but then what? Are they planning on taking all the weak children out back and putting them down?

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#252

Post by newaccount74 »

WalterBright wrote: post #142

"assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive" "launch a critical evaluation of Legotown and the inequities of private ownership and hierarchical authority on which it was founded. Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation." The teach…

I think it should be up to the teachers wether they focus on teaching about markets or teaching about collaboration; both are valuable lessons for later life.

However, I am curious what you think a free market solution to this problem would have looked like? To me it looks like there was a free market before the intervention. What would "growing the pie" look like in this case?

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#253

Post by drekipus »

munk-a wrote: post #200
drekipus wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine and would teach the kids about tyranny and how to overcome it. But isn't this about the teachers intervening? How are kids to fight against the teachers?

> But isn't this about the teachers intervening? How are kids to fight against the teachers? The teachers intervened in the situation (essentially issued an injunction) while organizing a forum to mediate a solution. Also, just to be clear, adults must be tyrants where children are concerned - you can't logically bargain with emotionally immature humans. Occasionally somebody is going to get sent to the car or a time…

> adults must be tyrants where children are concerned - you can't logically bargain with emotionally immature humans. Occasionally somebody is going to get sent to the car or a time out.

Yes you're right. Perhaps my whole take is "it's not how i would have done it" & "is not the lessons I would be trying to teach."

As someone who had to punch upwards to climb out of poverty, I'm trying to think how a young me would take this lesson. I probably wouldn't even really get it, I probably wouldn't have been able to be in this class. But if I were..

I just find it conflicting. I'd be interested in seeing where the kids are now and/ where they came from.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#254

Post by 908B64B197 »

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…

> 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.

It's a school district in Seattle. How many teachers do you think 5x'ed their net worth with the appreciation of their property alone in the last decade? How many of them voted no against public housing being built near their property?

Private ownership doesn't look so bad anymore, does it!

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#255

Post by a_shovel »

ertjaet wrote: post #209
WalterBright wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fine idea. Too bad it always results in collapse or starvation and then collapse.

oh no we taught the kids to share and now they're starving and the classroom has collapsed

This is how that argument usually goes.

"This policy proposal might be helpful. Is it? Let's see: The policy is socialist in nature + socialism killed millions in authoritarian communist regimes = this policy will kill millions. Therefore we must not allow the policy to succeed."

I can't imagine how they ignore the flaws. People do this, without exaggeration, unconditionally for every socialist policy.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#256

Post by KerrAvon »

assttoasstmgr wrote: post #155
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…

Did you miss this part? > We recognized that children are political beings, actively shaping their social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity — whether we interceded or not. We agreed that we want to take part in shaping the children’s understandings from a perspective of social justice. I'm sure that the children of the Nintendo generation frequently discussed the power dynamic of King Koop…

As a matter of fact, yes, we NES latchkey kids actually did discuss the social dynamics of the Super Mario world.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#257

Post by mwcampbell »

WalterBright wrote: post #219
Aeolun wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> teach socialism and collectivism You mean (ridiculously simplified) taking turns and sharing? There’s nothing inherently different between these things.

Taking turns and sharing is reasonable when there is a fixed pie, such as you're in a lifeboat with 3 others and a gallon of water, or you're in a classroom with a fixed supply of Legos. However, fixed pies almost never happen in a free market, and are not a valid model for a free market. I've seen socialists before using fixed pie economics in classrooms to extol the evils of free markets. The Monopoly game was inve…

Isn't the whole world a fixed pie? Sure, technological advances let us make more efficient use of our resources, but they're still finite.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#258

Post by Apocryphon »

WalterBright wrote: post #219
Aeolun wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> teach socialism and collectivism You mean (ridiculously simplified) taking turns and sharing? There’s nothing inherently different between these things.

Taking turns and sharing is reasonable when there is a fixed pie, such as you're in a lifeboat with 3 others and a gallon of water, or you're in a classroom with a fixed supply of Legos. However, fixed pies almost never happen in a free market, and are not a valid model for a free market. I've seen socialists before using fixed pie economics in classrooms to extol the evils of free markets. The Monopoly game was inve…

Monopoly was invented by a Georgist to illustrate the ills of land grabbing.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#259

Post by analog31 »

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…

From what I gathered, only some of the kids were playing the way they wanted. In any event, letting the game continue would have been a political choice as well.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#260

Post by [deleted] »

WalterBright wrote: post #208
munk-a wrote: 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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN