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

291–300 of 440 posts

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#291

Post by WalterBright »

Apocryphon wrote: post #258
WalterBright wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can't subdivide a lot in Monopoly, nor build taller buildings on it.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#292

Post by cwkoss »

drekipus wrote: post #235
cwkoss wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, I like the idea, but have a feeling that if I was a teacher having to deal with the social and emotional aftermath, I might like it less.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#293

Post by Apocryphon »

WalterBright wrote: post #291
Apocryphon wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can't subdivide a lot in Monopoly, nor build taller buildings on it.

So? That has no bearing on any ideology.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26881799

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9050666

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#294

Post by kehrin »

golemotron wrote: post #15

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.

Might makes right, huh?

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#295

Post by stopping »

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 their child to be quiet. I'm surprised the parents aren't suing!"

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#296

Post by WalterBright »

a_shovel wrote: post #255
ertjaet wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Teaching kids a failed philosophy just sets them up for failure as adults. There's an infinite universe of things to teach - why not teach them something useful, something that works?

> Therefore we must not allow the policy to succeed

Oh, but we do allow it to succeed. There are no laws against communes and worker collectives in the US. Any group can form one. And many have - thousands of them.

They all failed on their own.

You and your like-minded colleagues are welcome to give it a try. Nobody is going to try to stop you. You can ask Bernie to supply the funds (he's rich) and be your leader. I only ask that you come back in a year and tell us how it went.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#297

Post by [deleted] »

ALittleLight wrote: post #150
trs8080 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had actually read the article, you would know that this is a private after-school program whose participants are "upper-middle class and socially liberal." Your comment sounds like "MY values aren't being taught so this is child abuse!" Maybe some parents don't agree with your values? Maybe they want their children to learn about cooperation and empathy instead of blindly accepting hierarchical power structure…

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…

[deleted]

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#298

Post by WalterBright »

newaccount74 wrote: post #252
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?

Growing the pie means kids can do work that is paid in legos. They can trade legos amongst themselves. Provide something else they can "buy" with their work, like maybe treats or videogame time. Maybe give out a lego if a kid gets 100% on a quiz.

The free market doesn't provide things for free. All living things work to survive.

Giving out free legos will indeed engender feelings of fairness. But a lego in a free exchange for work does not.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#299

Post by OrvalWintermute »

farmerstan wrote: post #279
trs8080 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had actually read the article, you would know that this is a private after-school program whose participants are "upper-middle class and socially liberal." Your comment sounds like "MY values aren't being taught so this is child abuse!" Maybe some parents don't agree with your values? Maybe they want their children to learn about cooperation and empathy instead of blindly accepting hierarchical power structure…

The teachers DID interpose themselves. They removed the legos after the Legotown was damaged even though the kids didn’t want that. Only after months of jumping through hoops and patting themselves on the shoulder did the kids get the Lego back. There are easier ways of teach kids how to share without not only depriving them of toys but making them feel utterly powerless over a random event and having the teachers un…

It bothered me when I read about the removal of Legos - I perceived this as group punishment.
Post reply on HN