8 ms·

> the builders began excluding other children. Occasionally, Legotown leaders explicitly rebuffed children, telling them that they couldn’t play. Typically the

> 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 fierce in their opposition. They explained that particular children “owned” those pieces and it would be unfair to put them back in the bins where other children might use them. Or to paraphrase: “A few of the kids were being jerks and it was making the other kids feel bad, and despite teachers repeatedly asking them to stop, they wouldn’t, so we decided (edit: after a lot of thought and discussion with the class) to take away the toy causing the trouble.” This is hardly “indoctrination” any more than it is indoctrination to break up kids’ physical fights or stop kids from taking/breaking each-others’ stuff.

legitster 5y ago
If you read the article, this was a months-long series of forced conversations. I don't think it's comparable at all to normal intervention.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  "A months-long series of forced conversations" is what interactive, non-lecture-based teaching looks like in the first place.
- diputsmonro 5y ago
  Essentially all schooling is a series of forced conversations. I know a lot of kids who didn't want to talk about math or Shakespeare, but our society has decided that it's important for people to learn those things. It's definitely valid to question what those things should be, but some conversations need to be "forced" in order to educate children about things they don't know and likely won't discover easily for themselves.
scotty79 5y ago
Isn't emotional regulation and conflict resolution like half of what children are supposed to learn?
assttoasstmgr 5y ago
Did you miss this part? > We recognized that children are political beings, actively shaping their social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity — whether we interceded or not. We agreed that we want to take part in shaping the children’s understandings from a perspective of social justice. I'm sure that the children of the Nintendo generation frequently discussed the power dynamic of King Koopa's dictatorship over the Mushroom Kingdom, and the systematically oppressed Shyguys, who have to cover their faces in public.
- polishdude20 5y ago
  I say, let the kids learnt these dynamics naturally without adult suggestions. These political ideas emerge from fundamental ways of social behavior. Let the kids learn these from a bottom up approach rather than a possibly flawed and skewed top down approach.
  - ertjaet 5y ago
    have you ever worked with young children? the method you propose will lead to bullying and fights. there needs to be some moderation.
    - stuartjohnson12 5y ago
      Usually that's the goal of people that suggest this kind of treatment of children. It's usually backed up by a circular is-ought that the kids who are the victims in the bullying and faults are culpable and ought to become stronger if they wish to avoid that happening to them. There has long been this subculture of actively encouraging bullying amongst children in order to "weed out the weak", and it's disgusting every time it's suggested.
      - ziml77 5y ago
        What does weeding out the weak even mean here? Like they might identify the ones who aren't good at defending themselves, but then what? Are they planning on taking all the weak children out back and putting them down?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
DiffEq 5y ago
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.
- jacobolus 5y ago
  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 drama is (sometimes) a quick way to diffuse the immediate conflict. Then talking together about how different people are feeling in a particular circumstance and getting group feedback on ways to solve problems constructively is the way to help kids improve at the skills they are lacking.
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    > Removing the toy that is the focus of a lot of interpersonal drama is (sometimes) a quick way to diffuse the immediate conflict. Then talking together about how different people are feeling in a particular circumstance and getting group feedback on ways to solve problems constructively is the way to help kids improve at the skills they are lacking. If all possible source of conflicts are removed than when significant conflicts are going to arise and be learned from? This is self-contradicting.
  - BaronVonSteuben 5y ago
    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.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  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.
TeeMassive 5y ago
Dealing with jerks or being a jerk and experiencing the push back is part of normal social development and self-discovery. The article doesn't really mention why this is a bad thing, and just say that "this is exclusion, bad feeling, thus banned". That doesn't really compare to physical fights, and even then rough and tumble play is necessary for development. The role of adults is not to put a rigid road but have a big arena with clear and solid barriers around.

legitster 5y ago

If you read the article, this was a months-long series of forced conversations. I don't think it's comparable at all to normal intervention.

crooked-v 5y ago
"A months-long series of forced conversations" is what interactive, non-lecture-based teaching looks like in the first place.
diputsmonro 5y ago
Essentially all schooling is a series of forced conversations. I know a lot of kids who didn't want to talk about math or Shakespeare, but our society has decided that it's important for people to learn those things. It's definitely valid to question what those things should be, but some conversations need to be "forced" in order to educate children about things they don't know and likely won't discover easily for themselves.

scotty79 5y ago

Isn't emotional regulation and conflict resolution like half of what children are supposed to learn?

assttoasstmgr 5y ago

Did you miss this part? > We recognized that children are political beings, actively shaping their social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity — whether we interceded or not. We agreed that we want to take part in shaping the children’s understandings from a perspective of social justice. I'm sure that the children of the Nintendo generation frequently discussed the power dynamic of King Koopa's dictatorship over the Mushroom Kingdom, and the systematically oppressed Shyguys, who have to cover their faces in public.

polishdude20 5y ago
I say, let the kids learnt these dynamics naturally without adult suggestions. These political ideas emerge from fundamental ways of social behavior. Let the kids learn these from a bottom up approach rather than a possibly flawed and skewed top down approach.
- ertjaet 5y ago
  have you ever worked with young children? the method you propose will lead to bullying and fights. there needs to be some moderation.
  - stuartjohnson12 5y ago
    Usually that's the goal of people that suggest this kind of treatment of children. It's usually backed up by a circular is-ought that the kids who are the victims in the bullying and faults are culpable and ought to become stronger if they wish to avoid that happening to them. There has long been this subculture of actively encouraging bullying amongst children in order to "weed out the weak", and it's disgusting every time it's suggested.
    - ziml77 5y ago
      What does weeding out the weak even mean here? Like they might identify the ones who aren't good at defending themselves, but then what? Are they planning on taking all the weak children out back and putting them down?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

DiffEq 5y ago

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.

jacobolus 5y ago
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 drama is (sometimes) a quick way to diffuse the immediate conflict. Then talking together about how different people are feeling in a particular circumstance and getting group feedback on ways to solve problems constructively is the way to help kids improve at the skills they are lacking.
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  > Removing the toy that is the focus of a lot of interpersonal drama is (sometimes) a quick way to diffuse the immediate conflict. Then talking together about how different people are feeling in a particular circumstance and getting group feedback on ways to solve problems constructively is the way to help kids improve at the skills they are lacking. If all possible source of conflicts are removed than when significant conflicts are going to arise and be learned from? This is self-contradicting.
- BaronVonSteuben 5y ago
  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.
rdtwo 5y ago
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.

TeeMassive 5y ago

Dealing with jerks or being a jerk and experiencing the push back is part of normal social development and self-discovery. The article doesn't really mention why this is a bad thing, and just say that "this is exclusion, bad feeling, thus banned". That doesn't really compare to physical fights, and even then rough and tumble play is necessary for development. The role of adults is not to put a rigid road but have a big arena with clear and solid barriers around.