3 ms·
This article surprised me. I thought it was going to be some news piece about how some school banned legos, like how some middle school banned dances. Instead
by iamwil 19y ago
This article surprised me. I thought it was going to be some news piece about how some school banned legos, like how some middle school banned dances.
Instead, it was an exploration on social and power dynamics between people through legos.
I have to admit, as someone can see how the invisible hand works, I also reacted when I read that the teachers thought a capitalist society was unjust. But in their classroom, the situation arose because the amount of wealth, "cool lego pieces" were fixed, thus giving a zero-sum game. In the real economy, wealth is not fixed because peoples' needs expand, and is not a zero-sum game overall. I'd like to see the same experiment if kids could create their own types of pieces. I suspect the same power imbalance will arise where some kids can make cooler pieces than others, but that doesn't mean it can't change as some kids can get better over time.
So they brought back the legos, and I was thinking that they might end up with more communistic/socialistic rules due to the teachers, but then at the end the kids made up their own rules, and the article listed some of the rules that the kids came up with:
* All structures are public structures. Everyone can use all the Lego structures. But only the
builder or people who have her or his permission are allowed to change a structure.
* Lego people can be saved only by a "team" of kids, not by individuals.
* All structures will be standard sizes.
To me, it sounds remarkably like open source software. Translated, it's stuff we hear in OSS all the time:
* Anyone can contribute patches, but only the maintainer and his trusted developers can commit the changes
* (a bit of a stretch here, but) All bugs are shallow with enough eyeballs
* Adhere to coding conventions you see in the code. 2 spaces for tabs, not 4.
- Xichekolas 19y agoWhile I very much agree with your statement of the zero-sum problem (as I posted above), I interpreted the rules they came up with totally differently... * All structures are owned by the state, everyone can use them, but only the person living there is allowed to decorate. * Groups take priority over individuals. * Everything must be the same, lest anyone feel superior/inferior. I think the lesson they taught kids was terrible (it's better if everyone is the same), but I liked the way they taught it by challenging the kids to examine their own assumptions. The problem was merely that the kids were examining them based on flawed premises, as you stated.
- randrews 19y agoYeah. I very much agree. So, the logical next question is, how would we use the same technique to teach kids better lessons? * Resources should go to whoever can make the coolest things with them. * Groups lead to compromises, great art is made by individuals. * People aren't equal. You can be unequal too, if you work hard.
- tlrobinson 19y ago4 space tabs FTW.
- dkokelley 19y agoThe problem with the last section of your post is that software and society don't necessarily work the same way (not the problem with your post, but the inherent problem in software and society in general). Because of the nature of information, which is what software really is in the long run, making it free and encouraging public use/discrimination benefits the software in the long run (and also increases the wealth in society as noted by other's referencing PG's wealth essay). With other physical forms of wealth (land, buildings, cars, etc...) socialistic principles do not apply in the same way. Encouraging privatization and individualism increases our wealth. Capitalistic ventures and behavior results in the greatest net gain of wealth, while socialistic behavior results in the greatest gain of information. When information is used for capitalistic ventures in where the line gets blurry.