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

361–370 of 440 posts

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#361

Post by disambiguation »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #139
ALittleLight wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> I'm actually impressed. Those are people that care about their job.

This is literally the point of the article.

They're showing their clients what a good job they're doing at instilling values and teaching life lessons.

edit: i mistakenly said they're a private business, they're a non-profit.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#363

Post by Quillbert182 »

jeromegv wrote: post #23
syshum wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point the evidence is pretty clear that is the case.. well maybe not "indoctrination" but for sure many many school systems do not share the value system of the parents sending their kids to the schools The question then becomes who's value system should "win", IMO it should be the parents, the parents should have the final say in their child's upbringing not the schools or "community".

What if the parents believe in god's creation of the universe and the science teachers want to teach evolution? Or vice-versa?

This is slightly off-topic, but I would like to point out that the belief that God created the universe and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive. I believe what you mean is Creationism, which is the belief that God placed everything exactly as it currently is and that creation will never change.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#364

Post by erik_seaberg »

disambiguation wrote: post #352
WalterBright wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

the average temperature is contrarian.

I try to “yes, and” more often but I find it harder to do constructively, so I usually upvote and move on.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#365

Post by Aeolun »

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…

Yeah, clearly we can just fabricate our way to more land in desired areas, nothing fixed pie about that at all.

I agree that most things aren’t fixed pie. But some of the most important things in life are, and people who get lucky in that regard have a massive advantage.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#366

Post by kortex »

geoduck14 wrote: post #353
bcrosby95 wrote: post #139

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.

>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. They ran psychological experiments on the children that spanned weeks or months. They deliberately incited them to see what would happen - without any direct guidance or approval from the parents . If I had found out…

Something tells me the kind of parents sending their kids to a school that is this hands-on and committed to early childhood development, probably know what they are getting in to - in fact they probably seek it out.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#367

Post by TheRealNGenius »

kleene_op wrote: post #282

I found this article pretty hard to read, mainly because of the overly sweet (and indigestible) tone, dripping good-sentiments and smarty attitude displayed by the author. Legos were among our favorite toys for me and my (6!) siblings. Sure we had a lot of arguments back then about who would get such and such rare pieces. But conflicts between young siblings rarely last long: we would always bargain, negotiate or che…

wow, 720 siblings!

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#368

Post by roenxi »

trs8080 wrote: post #324
roenxi wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...and trying to decide as a group how best to respond... > Is that supposed to be bad? Quite possibly. One of the big successes of the law and modern political traditions like liberalism has been demonstrating that the most successful path is when "we" don't respond and provide mechanisms to let individuals sort out their own differences in a 1:1 fashion, personally navigating the power dynamics. Strong group resp…

> Quite possibly. One of the big successes of the law and modern political traditions like liberalism has been demonstrating that the most successful path is when "we" don't respond and provide mechanisms to let individuals sort out their own differences in a 1:1 fashion, personally navigating the power dynamics. This is definitely not a big success. What we get from this mentality is billionaires hoarding resources…

> What we get from this mentality is billionaires hoarding resources

I'm always interested in this idea when it comes up because I don't understand what people think the billionaires are hoarding. For curiosity's sake could you give me a quick enumeration of the physical, real-world resources that you think the billionaires are using up? Like, do you think they have 10 million in rice hidden in a silo for a rainy day?

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#369

Post by stickfigure »

stopping wrote: post #295
stickfigure wrote: post #241

I was expecting something like "we don't wear shoes in the house". Honestly I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action suit from parents about this.

This comment can be interpreted in two different ways: Are you suggesting that the parents should have filed suit to counter wrongdoing by the teachers, and that you're surprised they let it slide? "The teacher hit their child, and I'm surprised the parents aren't suing them." Or are you surprised that the parents exercised restraint, defying an expectation bred from our overly-litiguous culture? "The teacher told th…

Parents have a legitimate grievance against manufacturers of a device that is known to cause painful, debilitating foot injuries. It's time to take a stand against BIG LEGO.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#370

Post by TeeMassive »

jacobolus wrote: post #137
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…

> 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…

Dealing with jerks or being a jerk and experiencing the push back is part of normal social development and self-discovery. The article doesn't really mention why this is a bad thing, and just say that "this is exclusion, bad feeling, thus banned". That doesn't really compare to physical fights, and even then rough and tumble play is necessary for development. The role of adults is not to put a rigid road but have a big arena with clear and solid barriers around.
Post reply on HN