Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dangerous Mr. Khan

nas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 253 posts

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#51

Post by ojbyrne »

jcarreiro wrote: post #42
ThomPete wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it and normally consider myself pretty open minded. But then you read things like this. "Here Mr. Khan stands exposed as possessing a historical perspective steeped in academia’s standard issue, postmodern, left-leaning narrative of cultural relativism, multiculturalism, and moral equivalence. " And in my mind the author is exposed. I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't pres…

> I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't present history as fact How else could it possibly be presented? Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say that history is "a perspective"? Can one change history simply by deciding to view it differently, somehow?

Our knowledge of the past is like memory - we don't actually remember what it was like when we were 3 - we remember remembering what it was like when we were 3.

It's filtered through secondary sources that are never completely reliable, and there is information lost because people die without telling anyone what they saw or did, or there's confusion, or, in war, the winner's perspective is presented as the only facts.

In the US, the obvious example is the history of the west, and the natives of North America. It was once viewed as the bringing of civilization to savages for their own good. Now its viewed as genocide. Because its being viewed from a different perspective.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#52

Post by michael_dorfman »

jcarreiro wrote: post #42
ThomPete wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it and normally consider myself pretty open minded. But then you read things like this. "Here Mr. Khan stands exposed as possessing a historical perspective steeped in academia’s standard issue, postmodern, left-leaning narrative of cultural relativism, multiculturalism, and moral equivalence. " And in my mind the author is exposed. I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't pres…

> I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't present history as fact How else could it possibly be presented? Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say that history is "a perspective"? Can one change history simply by deciding to view it differently, somehow?

History is not comprised of a set of value-neutral facts. History is a narrative constructed out of fact and interpretations, and every history has a viewpoint.

Without question, one changes history by deciding to view it differently. If it didn't work that way, we'd only need one history book and we'd be done.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#53

Post by nl »

BasDirks wrote: post #46
mattmcknight wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Either have the lesson be able to provide an accurate and correct mental model, or make the learner explicitly aware that what they are learning is incomplete/unprecise/whatever." Khan does the latter, it is called an overview. I think this aspect of the original critic's article displayed his lack of understanding of an incremental and iterative approach. If we waited until he had completed every lecture on history…

"Khan does the latter, it is called an overview." It is an overview, but absurdly condensed. A skill like calculus can be thought in brief, clear overviews; you either understand _it_ or you don't. History is no such _it_.

Perhaps.

And yet few historically literate people understand the intimate workings of the alliance system prior to WW1[1] - but it is a vital piece of background information that explains a lot about what happened.

In my view, "the great powers had alliances and went to war to support one another" sums it up reasonably well, despite ignoring viral things like the 1839 Treaty of London[2], etc.

For someone studying post-Vietnam US history (say), I think the Kahn summary might be a reasonable background. Probably not sufficient in itself, but reasonable.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_I#Web_of_al... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London,_1839

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#54

Post by TeMPOraL »

BasDirks wrote: post #46
mattmcknight wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Either have the lesson be able to provide an accurate and correct mental model, or make the learner explicitly aware that what they are learning is incomplete/unprecise/whatever." Khan does the latter, it is called an overview. I think this aspect of the original critic's article displayed his lack of understanding of an incremental and iterative approach. If we waited until he had completed every lecture on history…

"Khan does the latter, it is called an overview." It is an overview, but absurdly condensed. A skill like calculus can be thought in brief, clear overviews; you either understand _it_ or you don't. History is no such _it_.

It's not about "you understand" xor "you don't understand". It's about level of detail.

The idea of 'overview' I have in mind is similar to how mipmapping and LOD works in video games/computer graphics.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#55

Post by amouat »

jcarreiro wrote: post #42
ThomPete wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it and normally consider myself pretty open minded. But then you read things like this. "Here Mr. Khan stands exposed as possessing a historical perspective steeped in academia’s standard issue, postmodern, left-leaning narrative of cultural relativism, multiculturalism, and moral equivalence. " And in my mind the author is exposed. I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't pres…

> I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't present history as fact How else could it possibly be presented? Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say that history is "a perspective"? Can one change history simply by deciding to view it differently, somehow?

Have you never heard the phrase "History is written by the victors"?

The problem is trying to determine what is objective fact - you often end up relying on witness statements, some of which will be lies or misremembered. And then you have to decide which facts are "most important", which events were the prime causes of a second event.

Unfortunately there is an unquestionably large amount of perspective and subjectiveness in history.

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#56

Post by astine »

The author's complaint seems to be that the Khan Academy's history lectures give an overly simplified view of history and that this, along with their availability, will make them more attractive to students who, the author fears, will watch Khan Academy videos in lieu of studying the topics in depth. This, he fears, will lead to a cultural forgetfulness of what the author considers to be the important moral lessons of WWII.

It's an important objection. There is a real tendency towards laziness among human begins and an easy availability of a simplified history could discourage people from deeper study. A simplified history from only one viewpoint is even worse. But I think he's pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Wikipedia is already a far greater threat on that matter and their are plenty of simplified versions of history available, some even taught in schools. Sal is only example of this (and possibly a product as the author alludes.) The proper solution would be more, and more in depth videos from other perspectives. I know some people who might be willing to do just that...

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#57

Post by michael_dorfman »

eyko wrote: post #50

I believe it's still a very good way to get students to actually read a book. In 15 minutes, Khan does a great job, and the author of the article... well, he fails to get that. The idea behind it is getting children interested in history enough that they would pick up a book. It's not, as I understand it, the only account of history they're expected to have. And to think otherwise is to think stupid.

In 15 minutes, Khan does a great job

A great job of what, exactly?

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#58

Post by chaostheory »

ThomPete wrote: post #39
chaostheory wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The things we learn from history that are important become part of our culture, not our curriculum. How does it become part of our culture if it's not part of our curriculum? Given my own personal tastes (when I was a child), I would have skipped everything in history except for WWI, and WWII. Even with WWI and WWII, I probably would have only focused on the battles and not the social issues if given the chance. I…

And many people don't learn about those things because they are brought up in difference cultures. But to claim that some history books are better than others is just wrong. (I know you are not claiming that) You will naturally learn your countries history albeit not to the point where you can become a history professor but it's not the end of the world. History is perspective it can't be anything but perspective. Th…

> You will naturally learn your countries history albeit not to the point where you can become a history professor

How? Through video game blockbusters like Call of Duty or summer movie hits like Saving Private Ryan?

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#59

Post by nsomaru »

jcarreiro wrote: post #42
ThomPete wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it and normally consider myself pretty open minded. But then you read things like this. "Here Mr. Khan stands exposed as possessing a historical perspective steeped in academia’s standard issue, postmodern, left-leaning narrative of cultural relativism, multiculturalism, and moral equivalence. " And in my mind the author is exposed. I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't pres…

> I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't present history as fact How else could it possibly be presented? Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say that history is "a perspective"? Can one change history simply by deciding to view it differently, somehow?

> Can one change history simply by deciding to view it differently, somehow?

It's often the case that history is not repeated as a mere sequence of events, but also as an interpretation as to _why_ those events occurred, and how factors at the time contributed to their occurrence.

Maybe we can admit that their is then also an element of conditioning to history as well as one of 'fact'?

Re: The Dangerous Mr. Khan

#60

Post by tealtan »

jcarreiro wrote: post #42
ThomPete wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it and normally consider myself pretty open minded. But then you read things like this. "Here Mr. Khan stands exposed as possessing a historical perspective steeped in academia’s standard issue, postmodern, left-leaning narrative of cultural relativism, multiculturalism, and moral equivalence. " And in my mind the author is exposed. I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't pres…

> I am hoping that my son grows up being taught by postmodernist that don't present history as fact How else could it possibly be presented? Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say that history is "a perspective"? Can one change history simply by deciding to view it differently, somehow?

The idea is that there are always too many facts and data, and it's a history textbook's job to present a curated set of information that forms an easy to understand narrative.

This often means that perspectives from less influential / marginalized groups are downplayed or even ignored.

Much of postmodernist history is about recognizing that this always happens and that there are always multiple perspectives to a historical event.

Post reply on HN