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

411–420 of 440 posts

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#411

Post by boogies »

trs8080 wrote: post #301
phkahler wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> We saw the decimation of Lego-town as an opportunity to launch a critical evaluation of Legotown and the inequities of private ownership and hierarchical authority on which it was founded. Please note that the situation was resolved by the teachers utilising their position of power to impose the change they wanted. They want democracy and egalitarianism but it turns out they needed authority to impose that. Highly…

Teachers are "authority figures" because their knowledge of education is recognized, accepted, and legally certified. Children ages 5-9 are not always capable of self-governance and sometimes need the guidance of an authority figure to resolve conflicts. The "change they wanted" was for social harmony among students, and it was accomplished using rules that the children created and agreed upon.

The Legotown “leaders”/“builders” that the teachers disempowered were authority figures because their knowledge of Legos was recognized and accepted by the other children. There wasn’t much conflict (just submissive acceptance of the builder’s governance by the non-builders, and animated discussions on what to build together between the builders) until the teachers intentionally synthesized some with their Lego “game” in order to engrain their own preconceived biases (“critical judgments about people who have wealth and financial ease”) into the kids.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#412

Post by BaronVonSteuben »

I find it remarkable that with all the focus the teachers put on the "power" held by the kids, they barely acknowledged their own position of privilege and power over the students. The students had no choice/option to "actively shape [the] social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity" of the teachers, yet the teachers can (and did) do that to the children.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#413

Post by BaronVonSteuben »

efaref wrote: post #385
roenxi wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Land. Billionaires own thousands of empty luxury apartments in city centres, while the poor people who clean them travel in from the outskirts. And billionaires do effectively hoard things like rice. That's what the futures market they invest in is all about.

I don't disagree, but "the poor people who clean them" are doing that because it pays better than they could get elsewhere, otherwise they wouldn't do it (assuming no coercion on the billionaire's part, which would be illegal).

If the billionaires magically ceased to exist and poor people owned the apartments, I don't think they'd be paying the other poor people as much to come clean them.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#414

Post by BaronVonSteuben »

jacobolus wrote: post #336
DiffEq wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it wasn’t the legos causing the trouble. It was a few kids. Instead of correcting those kids that were being selfish jerks they blamed the toy and punished everyone. Well those kids will still be selfish jerks, the problem remains.

Kids aren’t selfish jerks because they are inherently bad, but because as kids they have strong emotional responses and poor emotional control, are self centered and bad at interpreting/understanding other people’s feelings, and haven’t learned effective alternative strategies for solving problems yet. Luckily, these are substantially trainable skills. Removing the toy that is the focus of a lot of interpersonal dram…

Are you sure that interpreting/understanding other people's feelings can be taught? Having worked with many kids, I'm not so sure about that.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#415

Post by BaronVonSteuben »

jerry1979 wrote: post #381
cwkoss wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I consider myself a leftist, and when I read the article, I also got a very strong feeling of disgust. For whatever reason, I identified mostly with the kids in the article. A few things caught my attention: - The teachers were concocting some way to fix the lego problem. - Their way to fix the problem was to exercise total, unrelenting control. - Their total power was juxtaposed with their bewilderment about the leg…

Could not agree with you more. That's what bothered me the most about the article. I consider myself a leftist as well and power dynamics are one of the main things that makes me so. I have a big dislike for most traditional power systems, especially where "power" is inherited (as wealth, but also just connected names that make you a celebrity just for being born). But if the "solution" to leveling out this power is exercising your own to force everyone to conform, the solution is worth than the disease (and in my opinion not necessary as there are better more democratic options out there).

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#416

Post by robomartin »

Inityx wrote: post #197
robomartin wrote: post #114

Wow. These people are truly demented. Teachers? No. Far from it. They are political activists living a delusion. What a terrible thing to do to children. The solution was simple: Every month we take everything apart. Sort the pieces into boxes. And cleanup. Then, we start the new month inventing new things. Darn near 18 yeas ago one of my kids built a massive lego kit. He loved it. One day he was playing and accident…

> The solution was simple: Every month we take everything apart. Sort the pieces into boxes. And cleanup. Then, we start the new month inventing new things. You're right, we should redistribute wealth!

Are you joking or is this a serious comment? Can't tell.

I hope it isn't serious.

This wealth redistribution nonsense is some of the dumbest ideology of our times. It comes from people who have no clue about how economies work --usually academics. In most cases these people have no experience whatsoever in the economy, have never built something, been responsible for making payroll or have any business experience whatsoever. In the case of the academics who push this garbage, they live in a reality distortion field. That's the only way a concept such as redistribution can survive contact with reality.

For those who would still insist on the delusion of redistribution. I have yet to see any of you support your comments with math. No, not a wall of links. Math. Simple math. Nobody every does that, it's always a holier-than-thou moral superiority stance supporting the delusion.

This is exactly like "save the planet" and switching our entire ground transportation fleet to electric cars in fifty years. Two modern-day delusions that continue to be pushed as though they were supported by physics.

Believing in something does not make it real.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#417

Post by jerry1979 »

BaronVonSteuben wrote: post #415
jerry1979 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider myself a leftist, and when I read the article, I also got a very strong feeling of disgust. For whatever reason, I identified mostly with the kids in the article. A few things caught my attention: - The teachers were concocting some way to fix the lego problem. - Their way to fix the problem was to exercise total, unrelenting control. - Their total power was juxtaposed with their bewilderment about the leg…

Could not agree with you more. That's what bothered me the most about the article. I consider myself a leftist as well and power dynamics are one of the main things that makes me so. I have a big dislike for most traditional power systems, especially where "power" is inherited (as wealth, but also just connected names that make you a celebrity just for being born). But if the "solution" to leveling out this power is…

I also feel a sense of injustice from unearned authority. The thing is, I like authority when it is earned: the authority of a surgeon in the operating room, the plumber under the sink, the accountant with their spreadsheet. I get the sense that they earned that authority because they already put in the hours and made the mistakes, and now they are ready to fill the space they exist in with competent decisions and well-practiced actions.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#418

Post by rdtwo »

phkahler wrote: post #262
ertjaet wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe not. but children do experience power imbalances in their own lives, particularly when dealing with their peers. and it's valuable to learn how to identify them, and how to build better systems that benefit everybody.

>> We saw the decimation of Lego-town as an opportunity to launch a critical evaluation of Legotown and the inequities of private ownership and hierarchical authority on which it was founded. Please note that the situation was resolved by the teachers utilising their position of power to impose the change they wanted. They want democracy and egalitarianism but it turns out they needed authority to impose that. Highly…

Very similar how communist revolutions happen. Inequalities are identified the people rise up and everything gets burned to the ground. All the old leaders removed and need inequalities spring from the ages.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#419

Post by rdtwo »

DiffEq wrote: post #320
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…

Except it wasn’t the legos causing the trouble. It was a few kids. Instead of correcting those kids that were being selfish jerks they blamed the toy and punished everyone. Well those kids will still be selfish jerks, the problem remains.

Essentially it’s a higher power burn it down approach. It would be like if the response to BLM was to raise cites where inequalities were happening. I’m sure most of the looters would not have minded that outcome.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#420

Post by rdtwo »

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.

They took the easy top down approach. That’s not how power structures are challenged in real life. Useful skills would have been to help weaker kids challenge power structures and teach stronger kids to defend them. That’s real worlds useful skills
Post reply on HN