9 ms·

The comments thus far show exactly what is wrong with HN. HN has become an echo chamber where we all love certain people/companies/ideas and immediately dismis

The comments thus far show exactly what is wrong with HN. HN has become an echo chamber where we all love certain people/companies/ideas and immediately dismiss any counter viewpoint. Instead of immediately discrediting the linked article because they're "haters" or "threatened", try reading it and understanding their point of view. I love Khan's work and what he's doing, but at the same time the article raises some valid points. You learn a lot more by examining both sides of a story than being a fanboi.

hnhg 15y ago
I welcome opposing opinions but this itself doesn't present both sides of the argument, nor any context to the one example given, and sounds to me purely like a bashing exercise.
- jordanb 15y ago
  I wouldn't expect an article named "The Dangerous Mr Kahn" to spend much type discussing the upside of the Kahn Academy. Going into it, it's obvious that it is an advocacy piece written by someone who's not thrilled with Mr Kahn's work. The OP's point is that hn is a discussion forum, which is most effective when the discussions are somewhat balanced. But since the Kahn Academy is a darling of this forum, this article is here just to be knocked down, and anyone not joining in is likely to be downvoted. That makes hn less valuable.
- alain94040 15y ago
  Seeing how the comments on this thread were so divided, I read the article, and I support the view that it's a criticism that is worth considering, even though it's not highly convincing. You can argue that covering WWII to Vietnam in 15 minutes is just mission impossible. But the way it's described in that article does raise concerns.
- chaostheory 15y ago
  > sounds to me purely like a bashing exercise. For the record, I like the Khan Academy and they do a lot of good; but I still think that's really unfair to say that given that the article brings up a really important point (regardless of its style of writing): Khan Academy history lessons are so abbreviated, that key, important points and figures in history are skipped. Why is this not good? One of the major key reasons we study history is so that major mistakes of the past are not repeated in the present or future. Now this is an extreme example that no Khan like outlet actually does, but what if they skipped over Jim Crowe laws in their history of the US? Going on somewhat of a tangent, reading this article reminds me of this TED talk about filter bubbles. http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu... Essentially Khan Academy and other ventures like it, may be inadvertently creating dangerous filter bubbles.
  - ThomPete 15y ago
    "One of the major key reasons we study history is so that major mistakes of the past are not repeated in the present or future." And yet we learn nothing from history even when we know what is considered factual. The things we learn from history that are important become implicit part of our culture, our DNA not our curriculum.
    - chaostheory 15y ago
      > 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 wouldn't have learned about things like the Trail of Tears, the Japanese Internment camps in Hawaii, and so on.
      - ThomPete 15y ago
        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. There is no right or wrong teaching in history. Only survivors to tell the tales.
        chaostheory 15y ago
        > 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?
        ThomPete 15y ago
- tptacek 15y ago
  It is not the obligation of every article and every essay and every editorial to carefully present both sides of every argument. Sometimes, it's sufficient to carefully present your side of a new argument, just to stimulate discussion. I disagree with Josh that this thread demonstrates HN groupthink (I actually found the comments to be pretty well balanced). But your comment demonstrates a fallacy that is very prevalent on HN, which is that every bit of source material has to be judged in HN's context, and anything that isn't suitably lawyered up and deferential is automatically faulty. The world is a pretty boring place when it provides nothing to stimulate your thoughts and, yes, disagree vehemently with.
ThomPete 15y ago
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 present history as fact but as I believe it is – a perspective. I would rather that my son grasp a few things about history and don't get the exact dates or details right. That he understands what history is as much as he knows what went into it. So in my mind the valid points you talk about are nothing but the authors own idea about mainly his own field which is history. In other words his own interpretation – how ironic. I agree that Kahn probably shouldn't be teaching history and I am sure with time that will be changed. But to claim that he is dangerous is simply missing the grander scheme of things.
- DrCatbox 15y ago
  Even if history is presented as a perspective, why choose Khans perspective? Why not choose another perspective? You missed the bigger picture of the article, which is that a single entity never should control re-telling of events. There should not be one perspective. One person, one entity, can not provide different perspectives, due to echo chamber effects and such, it is almost impossible.
  - natural219 15y ago
    Should we teach different things to different children, then, in order to promote educational diversity?
    - saraid216 15y ago
      That smells like a rhetorical question. But my answer would be yes.
      - troutwine 15y ago
        Interesting; can you elaborate? Surely it would be folly, say, to teach some children _wrong_ things simply for diversity. I doubt this is what you advocate, no?
jswinghammer 15y ago
I'm with you but some of this article is just hyperbole. The quote from 1984 seems out of place at best given the context.
Deestan 15y ago
Dismissing all negative comments as "fanbois" is just polluting the discussion.
mmaunder 15y ago
Much of the practical value in history is found when you examine events in some depth. For example, taking a deeper look at the German encryption system or the code breaking infrastructure at Bletchley. Or examining how an entire nation managed to keep the D-Day invasion secret until the very last minute. So, while this article might itself be a little breathless, I think it's valid criticism that glossing over History is unforgivable.
pbreit 15y ago
I hear you, but I think the headline really invites the strong counter-response. The use of the word "dangerous" is provocative to say the least.
woodall 15y ago
That is why SCOTUS allows dissenting opinions. Sometimes we just don't get it right the first time around and it is good to have a record of what we could have done better. But I'll be damned if I'm wrong on the internet!
reledi 15y ago
What I got from the article is that the author is blaming Khan for not explaining a few things in his history videos that may not be immediately obvious to a viewer. I think this is a _much_ bigger issue in classrooms. I've had many instructors and professors at my university skip over the details. Because (1) they assume we know it already, (2) they are too lazy to discuss or write it, (3) there is not enough time. Khan does an excellent job teaching in his math videos. Almost never have I felt like my questions weren't answered by him. He probably thinks as a beginner would and tries to make it as simplified as possible. He writes down everything. Even uses different colours for different concepts. Why? I don't know, maybe he wants to make sure his viewers benefit from his work. A classroom teacher couldn't care less, they still get paid at the end of the day.

hnhg 15y ago

I welcome opposing opinions but this itself doesn't present both sides of the argument, nor any context to the one example given, and sounds to me purely like a bashing exercise.

jordanb 15y ago
I wouldn't expect an article named "The Dangerous Mr Kahn" to spend much type discussing the upside of the Kahn Academy. Going into it, it's obvious that it is an advocacy piece written by someone who's not thrilled with Mr Kahn's work. The OP's point is that hn is a discussion forum, which is most effective when the discussions are somewhat balanced. But since the Kahn Academy is a darling of this forum, this article is here just to be knocked down, and anyone not joining in is likely to be downvoted. That makes hn less valuable.
alain94040 15y ago
Seeing how the comments on this thread were so divided, I read the article, and I support the view that it's a criticism that is worth considering, even though it's not highly convincing. You can argue that covering WWII to Vietnam in 15 minutes is just mission impossible. But the way it's described in that article does raise concerns.
chaostheory 15y ago
> sounds to me purely like a bashing exercise. For the record, I like the Khan Academy and they do a lot of good; but I still think that's really unfair to say that given that the article brings up a really important point (regardless of its style of writing): Khan Academy history lessons are so abbreviated, that key, important points and figures in history are skipped. Why is this not good? One of the major key reasons we study history is so that major mistakes of the past are not repeated in the present or future. Now this is an extreme example that no Khan like outlet actually does, but what if they skipped over Jim Crowe laws in their history of the US? Going on somewhat of a tangent, reading this article reminds me of this TED talk about filter bubbles. http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu... Essentially Khan Academy and other ventures like it, may be inadvertently creating dangerous filter bubbles.
- ThomPete 15y ago
  "One of the major key reasons we study history is so that major mistakes of the past are not repeated in the present or future." And yet we learn nothing from history even when we know what is considered factual. The things we learn from history that are important become implicit part of our culture, our DNA not our curriculum.
  - chaostheory 15y ago
    > 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 wouldn't have learned about things like the Trail of Tears, the Japanese Internment camps in Hawaii, and so on.
    - ThomPete 15y ago
      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. There is no right or wrong teaching in history. Only survivors to tell the tales.
      - chaostheory 15y ago
        > 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?
        ThomPete 15y ago
tptacek 15y ago
It is not the obligation of every article and every essay and every editorial to carefully present both sides of every argument. Sometimes, it's sufficient to carefully present your side of a new argument, just to stimulate discussion. I disagree with Josh that this thread demonstrates HN groupthink (I actually found the comments to be pretty well balanced). But your comment demonstrates a fallacy that is very prevalent on HN, which is that every bit of source material has to be judged in HN's context, and anything that isn't suitably lawyered up and deferential is automatically faulty. The world is a pretty boring place when it provides nothing to stimulate your thoughts and, yes, disagree vehemently with.

ThomPete 15y ago

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 present history as fact but as I believe it is – a perspective. I would rather that my son grasp a few things about history and don't get the exact dates or details right. That he understands what history is as much as he knows what went into it. So in my mind the valid points you talk about are nothing but the authors own idea about mainly his own field which is history. In other words his own interpretation – how ironic. I agree that Kahn probably shouldn't be teaching history and I am sure with time that will be changed. But to claim that he is dangerous is simply missing the grander scheme of things.

DrCatbox 15y ago
Even if history is presented as a perspective, why choose Khans perspective? Why not choose another perspective? You missed the bigger picture of the article, which is that a single entity never should control re-telling of events. There should not be one perspective. One person, one entity, can not provide different perspectives, due to echo chamber effects and such, it is almost impossible.
- natural219 15y ago
  Should we teach different things to different children, then, in order to promote educational diversity?
  - saraid216 15y ago
    That smells like a rhetorical question. But my answer would be yes.
    - troutwine 15y ago
      Interesting; can you elaborate? Surely it would be folly, say, to teach some children _wrong_ things simply for diversity. I doubt this is what you advocate, no?

jswinghammer 15y ago

I'm with you but some of this article is just hyperbole. The quote from 1984 seems out of place at best given the context.

Deestan 15y ago

Dismissing all negative comments as "fanbois" is just polluting the discussion.

mmaunder 15y ago

Much of the practical value in history is found when you examine events in some depth. For example, taking a deeper look at the German encryption system or the code breaking infrastructure at Bletchley. Or examining how an entire nation managed to keep the D-Day invasion secret until the very last minute. So, while this article might itself be a little breathless, I think it's valid criticism that glossing over History is unforgivable.

pbreit 15y ago

I hear you, but I think the headline really invites the strong counter-response. The use of the word "dangerous" is provocative to say the least.

woodall 15y ago

That is why SCOTUS allows dissenting opinions. Sometimes we just don't get it right the first time around and it is good to have a record of what we could have done better. But I'll be damned if I'm wrong on the internet!

reledi 15y ago

What I got from the article is that the author is blaming Khan for not explaining a few things in his history videos that may not be immediately obvious to a viewer. I think this is a _much_ bigger issue in classrooms. I've had many instructors and professors at my university skip over the details. Because (1) they assume we know it already, (2) they are too lazy to discuss or write it, (3) there is not enough time. Khan does an excellent job teaching in his math videos. Almost never have I felt like my questions weren't answered by him. He probably thinks as a beginner would and tries to make it as simplified as possible. He writes down everything. Even uses different colours for different concepts. Why? I don't know, maybe he wants to make sure his viewers benefit from his work. A classroom teacher couldn't care less, they still get paid at the end of the day.