Pedagogy & How to Raise Actualized People

[Auburn]

I'm not sure how to best ask this, but here are a few variations. Hopefully the essence of the question is somewhere in there...

How would you ideally educate children to fully realize their potential? And what would the best educational approach look like?

What pedagogy is most optimally suited to how humans absorb information, and what sort of teaching regimen/subject-matter is of most essential importance?
​

conspiracy theories welcome
I've heard that the Western education system is designed to be rote, heavy in memorization and rewards busybee/cog behavior suited for an economic system that just wants a rather mindless workforce.

Quite a different style than that of ancient Athenian education which focused on art/music, philosophy, manner of being/living and peace. Or of the Trivium education system of learning which taught children first and foremost how to properly and critically think, rationalize and debate.

Modern asian countries have a different style of education than the West, and are a lot more intense/demanding... but it's busybee in the same way as the West and doesn't truly encourage free thought.

Why is the modern education system how it is, and what do you think might be a better alternative? How would you structure the ideal school?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

That Athenian education list looks good. I would teach meditation.

 

[Cognisant]

At least in software development online certificates seem to be the way to go, people don't pay to be taught rather the self-teaching materials are given freely and they only pay to prove their competency, though tuition is still available if you're struggling to learn something or you wish to speed up the process.

To me that seems to be the superior education model, lots of small specific certificates which are updated on a yearly basis so people can prove that they've been keeping up with the latest developments whereas with a university course by the time you're finished the tools they taught you with could well be defunct.

 

[Reluctantly]

IMO a major problem with education is that it's institutionalized. It enforces an expected progression for students that doesn't allow for anything outside the curriculum, while also indoctrinating people into a system of education that is supported by big business and local government. You have to learn exactly what you are expected to, no more, no less, for better or worse, whether you like it or not or whether or not what you are learning amounts to any kind of useful or practical knowledge. And a lot of it is time-based and focused on one style of learning.

A good way to fix that is to allow alternative ways for people to learn and use their knowledge. Instead of forcing students to sit through x amount of years in a public school system, give them the option to learn what they need to in a way that suits their motivation, while also proving their knowledge by passing certain tests. The college system could also be replaced by similar certifications and tests that prove somebody can use the knowledge they have learned. Would also help if students could work on state funded projects together in order to advance and prove their ability and knowledge. This would let the state find cheaper ways to accomplish certain things, while allowing people an alternative from having to completely fund their own education, which is a huge deterrent; especially when it means x amount of years of your life at a college, accruing a debt that you can't easily pay back if you can't get a decent job. It would also help bridge the divide between people that have rich parents that can pay for a decent education (but have no drive) and those that don't (but have drive).

 

[Rixus]

One could argue that the system rewards hard work more than it does natural talent or free thinking because that's the world they're being prepared for. This whole we're all slaves and the economy is all imaginary to I'm not playing rebellion thing is all very well, but I still need to eat and put a roof over my head. So I'll keep the cogs of the machine going in exchange for enough to survive.

I believe it's also the job of us parents to prepare then in other ways. I do encourage free thought, answering back and questioning of my own rules and following their own interests, and importantly how to engage in banter and stand up for themselves. Sometimes other people who look after my kids can get very frustrated when they may not just do as their told without explanation (I figure if I can't explain to a child why they should or shouldn't do something, I've no right to tell them to) and of told off, may try to make their case for their innocence. I'm told their undisciplined. I do not believe this is the case.

I have a parenting disagreement with someone who believes herself a better parent because her children do not answer back, clean their rooms, fetch their washing down and put their plates in the kitchen and my do not. I think I'm a better parent because her eldest is a pathological liar with no sense of humour and is WAY overly sensitive. Whereas my eldest hasn't been in trouble in school for years, has a seat on the school council, holds a computer club where he teaches the other kids (and sometimes the teachers) to use computers, has his own YouTube channel that his classmates follow, took the lead part in a Shakespearean play, has some wicked video editing skills and doesn't get picked on. I think I'm doing better because I'm certain he's gonna do better than I did. So what if they're a little cheeky and don't clean their rooms without being reminded a few times.

 

[Tannhauser]

- focus more on one-to-one mentorship rather than the system with one teacher and 30 pupils
- let go of absolutely all notions of reward/punishment in context of learning
- remove all forms of testing/examination where pupils can optimize by memorizing and reciting.
- all curriculum must be presented with context, a measure of relevance and in the form of solutions to specific problems. Hammering people with random out-of-context information hour after hour (the current default style of teaching) is just dumb. And in general, spend a lot of time creating incentive for learning, as opposed to assuming incentive via reward/punishment and then just dropping information on people.
- remove 99% of the bureaucrats in the system and replace them with people with passion for the subjects

 

[The Gopher]

Or of the Trivium education system of learning which taught children first and foremost how to properly and critically think, rationalize and debate.

Just hearing from the people I know in education you can't critically think if you have nothing to think with. I'll have to ask them their opinion on this.

 

[Tannhauser]

conspiracy theories welcome
I've heard that the Western education system is designed to be rote, heavy in memorization and rewards busybee/cog behavior suited for an economic system that just wants a rather mindless workforce.

I think most people default to lazy-thinking/cog-behavior as their modus operandi by their very own nature. So it's not that somebody wants the system to be like that, it's just that the majority which shapes the system is comprised of lazy thinkers to begin with.

 

[Hadoblado]

- let go of absolutely all notions of reward/punishment in context of learning

Can you extrapolate on this? While I think this tends to be done extremely poorly, reward/punishment is how we learn.

 

[Tannhauser]

Can you extrapolate on this? While I think this tends to be done extremely poorly, reward/punishment is how we learn.

Well, consider this: if you can get a cookie as a potential reward, that reward is only a reward insofar it is a net payoff on an investment – the investment being time and effort. You would therefore benefit from minimizing the time and effort needed to get the cookie.

There was a bunch of research that showed that this is in fact a property of the human brain. When you introduce reward/punishment to a situation, the human brain wants to minimize time and effort and maximize the payoff. This was the basis of a very interesting book called "Punished by rewards" by Alfie Kohn, which looked at this phenomenon in the context of education. The interesting part is that if you replace the cookie with something like grades in the context of learning, you will have someone who wants to minimize the time and effort spent on learning stuff. That is clearly a bad scenario because to learn, you want to explore things, play around with them, be engaged in them on a deep level.

quotes from the book:

People who are offered rewards tend to: choose easier tasks, are less efficient in using the information available to solve novel problems, and tend to be answer oriented and more illogical in their problem-solving strategies. They seem to work harder and produce more activity, but the activity is of a lower quality, contains more errors, and is more stereotypical and less creative than the work of comparable nonrewarded subjects working on the same problems

The lesson [given to the students] is that school is not about playing with ideas or taking intellectual risks; it is about doing what is necessary, and only what is necessary, to snag a better letter or number. Most students will quickly accommodate us, choosing "to do that which will maximise the grade and not attempting tasks in which they might fail, even though they would choose to challenge themselves to a greater degree under other circumstances"

 

[Analyzer]

One could argue that the system rewards hard work more than it does natural talent or free thinking because that's the world they're being prepared for. This whole we're all slaves and the economy is all imaginary to I'm not playing rebellion thing is all very well, but I still need to eat and put a roof over my head. So I'll keep the cogs of the machine going in exchange for enough to survive.

I think most people default to lazy-thinking/cog-behavior as their modus operandi by their very own nature. So it's not that somebody wants the system to be like that, it's just that the majority which shapes the system is comprised of lazy thinkers to begin with.

Good thread. Education in the western world has been transformed into training for the past 100 years or more. This change happened as the classical curriculum of the Great Tradition(liberal arts) was being phased out in favor of the more mass-appealing Prussian model. This is to be expected if we assume everyone is educable and that democracy is the axiom in which we attempt to educate others through. The thing is it has come to serve the lowest common denominator of people in form of training like classes in cooking, English(they use to teach latin/greek), and those who are truly able to be educated have suffered. Of course self-education is still available, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the avenue educable people have taken.

On the other hand, ironically, being educated puts you in a disadvantage in the modern world where it's solely about the accumulation, production, and distribution of wealth. Being actualized is deemed as irrelevant, not the responsibility of education, and possibly dangerous as it leads to more sophisticated tastes. Paraphrasing the old saying, education sends him out to shift for himself with a champagne appetite amidst a gin-guzzling society.

Albert Jay Nock wrote a book in 1931 explaining this whole situation, essentially predicting what would happen.

 

[Auburn]

Spoiler

This was the basis of a very interesting book called "Punished by rewards" by Alfie Kohn, which looked at this phenomenon in the context of education.

Wow, he seems to have other books with excellent titles too:

• The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools (Heinemann, 2000)
• Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes (Houghton Mifflin, 1993/1999)
• The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing (Da Capo Books, 2006)
• The Schools Our Children Deserve: Moving Beyond Traditional Classrooms and "Tougher Standards" (Houghton Mifflin, 1999)
• Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason (Atria Books, 2005)
• What Does It Mean To Be Well Educated? And More Essays on Standards, Grading, and Other Follies (Beacon Press, 2004)

This is just the kind of author I was looking for. Thanks for bringing him up!
@Analyzer - And for Albert Jay Nock too. Definitely will read.

Ditto on the removal of the reward/punishment system. The athenians saw it very much the same way, and learning was more often an open forum of idea exploration.

Something that hasn't been brought up yet that I wanna discuss is:

the development of character
​

A good primer to what I mean is Alain de Botton and The School of Life:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28W7N6Th58

By character I mean fostering intelligent emotional control, an understanding of one's own psychology, self-reflection, having practical real-life lessons ("the moral of the story") embedded into the process of learning. Encourage the formation of unique values, of fortitude and human civility. Or what the athenians called being "strong and decent" - not just *heady.*

Any thoughts?

I feel like a human really is still half-baked if they are intellectually savvy but lack an understanding of the human dimension - both their own and that of the world. We live in a world where we have all these bizarre motivations driving us, and half the time we have no clue what they are or why we're going where we're going. We go throughout life not understanding any of them and drift along the winds of social inertia.

Some of us find out tidbits here and there if we go the extra mile, but really I think every child should learn about personal self-development, psychology (their own and others) and matters of the heart/virtue.

When I see the Western education system, I see one that is phobic of subjective opinion/ethics. So the only place that seems to address the question of morality/character is religion and religious schools integrate morality into their curriculum but in a very outdated way.

And all the while, the non-interference status quo of secular education on the topic of "how to be a proper human" leaves a vacuum that gets filled with things like the American Dream, where people conflate being "a proper human" being with having/sustaining economic class (because that's what the get rewarded/praised for) or some other poorly formed, and not-well-thought-out idea.

 

[Puffy]

This is a strong interest of mine. I've recently been put in charge of the curriculum of a software bootcamp/ agency I work for, so it's something I think a lot about.

I'll try and formulate a better response another time as I'm a bit tired now, but you might find some of the posts in this thread interesting: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=23341

(Yes, Kuu, I expect your input this time. )

 

[Puffy]

1. First and foremost, if I was going to start a school, I would want it to be independent. The more independent the more freedom me and the collaborators have with it.

2. I'd probably start out by addressing the problem of teaching adults and not children:

a) I can imagine being subject to a lot more limitation and regulation if I was teaching children. There's more risk involved.
b) A core problem with education is the motivation of the students. Children are forced into a school, for adults its a choice, and in theory will be more motivated.

3. Emphasis on testing. You must have as a fundamental attitude that the first time you deliver anything it will be riddled with issues. The best way to improve teaching resources is to observe people's reactions to them, get their feedback, and improve them on the basis of it with each iteration of the curriculum. The curriculum should always be improving.

4. Emphasis on student feedback. I'd run a session at the end of every week in which we talk about how that week went, how it could be improved, what they'd like more of, and get their feedback. I'd want students to feel they were actively engaged in the process, listened to, and that their input would be actioned upon week by week. Their well-being is first principle.

5. Emphasis on community. I'd want students involved in the running of the school, even in teaching, and involved in forms of communal outreach and project work. Students shouldn't feel there are barriers between them and other people in the organisation, and that if they want to take on responsibilities they can have them. I'd want to foster an open-minded community; we should be able to share ideas even about our own processes.

6. Teaching in the traditional form of running seminars or workshops shouldn't be the majority of the curriculum. Students should spend the majority of the time researching, solving problems, practicing crafts, and applying knowledge in some form. Seminars/ workshops are just guidance, the real learning occurs during the latter.

7. All resources would be open-source and SEO optimised so that the maximum number of people could benefit from them.

8. Any organisation I was a part of I would want it fundamentally to feel like a family. A lot of the infastructural decisions would revolve around fostering a living community.

-------

Initial thoughts, sure there's more.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

One would expect the reward/punishment system to subvert the learning process by essentially leveling it to the relevant emotions & allowing them to dominate the situation, to be central, to be the focus point.

The focus is simply diverted away into an inappropriate objective... The motives are corrupted, and therefore, the (learning) process is corrupted.

There's a difference between avoidance (or "punishment") / desire (or "reward") and understanding.

Hope for a reward and/or fear of punishment disconnects one from the experience of the process, and ironically (yet unsurprisingly), when the motives remain genuine in relation to the activity, one could say that the effect of such synchronicity results in reaping greater rewards as well as maintaining a higher endurance for punishment despite them not being the goal/motive/focus of one's actions.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Any-who, wasn't education in the cultures mentioned reserved & tailored to a certain class of citizens? Perhaps, for good reason.

Today the freedom is granted on the basis of "equality", and behold, the tyranny of the masses: education systems hi-jacked, corrupted, and now, nothing but a reflection of their slavish ways, and it is precisely this that they call "being educated", this re-labelling and enforcement of their nature(s).

Is there desire for an education genuine, or out of resentment, or arising out of other, false motivations (such as greed, a reward)?

Is "education" today not fundamentally ingrained within fear - a means to survival, a promoted platform to feed the fear?

Will it not just become another institution that adapts to the slavish passions which drive it?

 

[Hadoblado]

Well, consider this: if you can get a cookie as a potential reward, that reward is only a reward insofar it is a net payoff on an investment – the investment being time and effort. You would therefore benefit from minimizing the time and effort needed to get the cookie.

There was a bunch of research that showed that this is in fact a property of the human brain. When you introduce reward/punishment to a situation, the human brain wants to minimize time and effort and maximize the payoff. This was the basis of a very interesting book called "Punished by rewards" by Alfie Kohn, which looked at this phenomenon in the context of education. The interesting part is that if you replace the cookie with something like grades in the context of learning, you will have someone who wants to minimize the time and effort spent on learning stuff. That is clearly a bad scenario because to learn, you want to explore things, play around with them, be engaged in them on a deep level.

Interesting. I recognise both modes in myself (also, sounds like Ti/Te).

Arguably, getting shit done that you have no personal interest in is a valuable skill - though inappropriate as the core of an educational system.

So what do we do?

- focus more on one-to-one mentorship rather than the system with one teacher and 30 pupils
- let go of absolutely all notions of reward/punishment in context of learning
- remove all forms of testing/examination where pupils can optimize by memorizing and reciting.
- all curriculum must be presented with context, a measure of relevance and in the form of solutions to specific problems. Hammering people with random out-of-context information hour after hour (the current default style of teaching) is just dumb. And in general, spend a lot of time creating incentive for learning, as opposed to assuming incentive via reward/punishment and then just dropping information on people.
- remove 99% of the bureaucrats in the system and replace them with people with passion for the subjects

While this all sounds dandy, where do we get the resources to have 30x as many teaching hours payed for? Perhaps students should teach students? Teaching is a great way of consolidating what's learned.

How do we get people to care about learning stuff that they have no intrinsic interest in? Sure an engaging teacher makes an enormous difference, but again, there's a finite supply. I picked up some casual work at a private school, I see the way people teach. It's totalitarian and brutish.

Same with replacing the bureaucrats. Where do we find all these passionate people, and does their passion make them qualified to run things?

- all curriculum must be presented with context, a measure of relevance and in the form of solutions to specific problems. Hammering people with random out-of-context information hour after hour (the current default style of teaching) is just dumb. And in general, spend a lot of time creating incentive for learning, as opposed to assuming incentive via reward/punishment and then just dropping information on people.

I like the sound of this. Asking me questions has always held my attention more than telling me the answers to questions I didn't ask.

2. I'd probably start out by addressing the problem of teaching adults and not children:

a) I can imagine being subject to a lot more limitation and regulation if I was teaching children. There's more risk involved.
b) A core problem with education is the motivation of the students. Children are forced into a school, for adults its a choice, and in theory will be more motivated.

Yeah, adults who choose to return to university tend to do very well for themselves. Ideally the role of early education would be to achieve this same sense of ownership over ones learning, then let them go free.

3. Emphasis on testing. You must have as a fundamental attitude that the first time you deliver anything it will be riddled with issues. The best way to improve teaching resources is to observe people's reactions to them, get their feedback, and improve them on the basis of it with each iteration of the curriculum. The curriculum should always be improving.

4. Emphasis on student feedback. I'd run a session at the end of every week in which we talk about how that week went, how it could be improved, what they'd like more of, and get their feedback. I'd want students to feel they were actively engaged in the process, listened to, and that their input would be actioned upon week by week. Their well-being is first principle.

There's a lot of science out there already. Systematic changes to the curriculum also come at the expense of that curriculum. Obviously the curriculum needs to be adaptive, but the question of 'how adaptive?' is one that should be asked.

 

[Auburn]

So many great ideas here.

@Puffy - Despite the ease, I wouldn't select adulthood as the platform/timing to start the proper education methodology. I mean, when you go to University, finally it's about:

1. Voluntary education and subjects/classes (you're there cuz u wanna be)
2. You really get to think critically about the material, and are encouraged to author/doctor your own ideas.
3. You have a motivation (career/goal) other than your parents forcing you, or the government imposing it on you.

I think that's why universities really are more invigorating educational experiences. It's where institutions *actually try* to educate you properly and create thinking beings. It's certainly not perfect, and lacks a lot of elements, but it's closer..

By comparison, all our K-12 time really just amounts to government babysitting of children and giving them something to do (which they'll mostly forget later), while the parents are out in the workforce.

So I think if education needs reform most anywhere, it's in K-12. I feel K-12 should be empowering - mentally, physically, and practically - in a similar way to how college/uni is now... but it should also play the role of a good parent.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Equality (and freedom) is highly inefficient, tis' all.

Still mostly a myth even if it gains pull when it can afford to.

Any-who: grading/testing and entry standards are imperative for discriminating where pupils strengths/weaknesses/limits lie. Perhaps there are other methods at evaluating competency. The possibilities available ought to morph (preferably as early as possible) in relation to performance. That would mean, that, throughout compulsory academic years students will be granted, based on an ongoing evaluation system, an unequal & dynamic education (in terms of time granted, subjects & services available, standards to achieve etc.)

Another way of saying this is, their (possible) paths will continuously be limited and/or expanded, or determined, in accordance to ongoing performance from an early stage of the academic process.

It is better to decrease the possibilities in accordance with probabilities/tendencies/abilities rather than leave every possibility open as this begets confusion, unnecessary stress, and inefficiency.

 

[Auburn]

The [Helm] Academy of Individuation
- Spiritual | Mental | Physical -
​

[bimgx=400]http://imgur.com/DbHLTpS.png[/bimgx]
​

Inauguration:

Spoiler

Headmaster: Welcome to your first year at [Helm], school of practical individuation, and the first of its kind. For those of you whose parents have shipped you off to us without giving you much notice of what we are.... we're not a conventional school system by any note. [Helm] is not a place for cramming as many books as we can into the minds of our students, but about teaching you how to nurture your mind, heart and spirit.

[Helm] isn't a school aimed to give you accessories and skillsets to meet the present demands of life -- although we will certainly do that better than any other institution. It's first and foremost preoccupied with you. You are the most valuable possession you have, not your things or your abilities. As such, this is a school of self mastery where the highest aim is to build you into the most realized being you can be.

Vice-principle: Our first order of business is to assign the new students their houses. There are four houses in this castle - Alpha, Beta, Delta and Gamma. When I call your name, please come to the front and stand in front of Professor Holloway.

*ceremony happens*

This house will be your family, a community of students who share the same four natures that you do and where you can learn more about who you are. Please make the new students feel welcome.

Summary:

Spoiler

The Academy of Individuation is an academy of character development and how to be a human. Unlike other academies which are focused on giving you information about the world, this academy is also about teaching you about your own inner self and human nature.

The academy would aim to foster free thinking, emotional maturity, but also serious thinking about the nature of life and the world's condition. Students would be encouraged to dive deeply into subjects of interest (having identified their own nature and talents early on in the first few years) and prepare each student to approach the real world with a full understanding of the scope and nature of the field they have most affinity for.

Stats:

Spoiler

Type: Private
Housing: Dormitories (separate girls and boys)
Size: 40 acres
Student Population: 200-300 students
Aged: 11-18 years of age (middle+high combined)
(elementary is another topic)

Structure of School:

Spoiler

~~ Specialized Classes

​

The first 3 years are "lowerclassmen" and the latter 4 years are "upperclassmen."

The lowerclassmen spend their 3 years learning about themselves, their nature, their temperament, their emotional dimension and drives (as acquired by nurture, genetics, type and all dimensions testable). They also learn about humans in general and learn how to identify different temperaments and how they jive with theirs.

The upperclassmen spend 4 years;
- With year 1 focused on developing their secondary function, it's qualities and the concerns of its domain.
- With year 2 focused on developing their tertiary function, it's qualities and the concerns of its domain.
- With year 3 focused on developing their fourth function, it's qualities and the concerns of its domain.
- With Year 4 spend on integrating all psychological elements of themselves and becoming a completely whole person.

Lowerclassmen spend their 3 years being lead by the teacher that corresponds to their quadrant. All Ji-leads spend the first 3 years with the Ji-lead teacher as their "home teacher" per se. The same goes for Pe, Je and Pi. This way, students learn first to be themselves and untangle any irregular self-assumptions or compensations. It is also meant to foster self-esteem, self-acceptance and health.

~~ Mixed classes

Of course, that's not the only thing on the curriculum. The typology classes would only be 1 of many, and most of the other classes would be mixed, so you get students of all types in, say, science or math class. But the school would have self-development classes that divide up the students in order to more effectively target and raise them according to their starting nature, rather than trying a one-size-fits-all approach.

Curriculum:

Spoiler

Subjects:

#1: Totems & Rituals in Daily Life
Class Type: Core Class
Professor: Thomas Moore

Summary: If you are a first-year student, the first day of this class you will be given a block of wood and a chisel. You’ll be asked to imagine what animal best represents you and you’ll carve the animal out of the wooden block. For the remainder of the school year, in order to be allowed access into the class you’ll have to present your animal totem at the doorway.

This class is about day to day living, care for your soul and the construction of personal rituals. Your totem represents you, and keeping it always with you (not losing it) is both an exercise in discipline, and a symbol of continuity. This class teaches you to honor your progress during the year, and it is a home-base class to first-year students.

In this class you learn how to integrate everything else you learn in your school-year into your person (journaling), and grow with time. It’s a “progress checking” class where one also evaluates where they are in life, how far away they are from where they want to go, and what the next baby step is to getting there.

Every year the first day is dedicated to carving an animal totem. Second-year and older students have the option to create a new totem every year on the first day, if they feel the need to upgrade their perception (and thus totem) to better align with their new state of being.

Syllabus Includes Items such as:

· Creating a Personal Sacred Space (what are your affinities? What does your body need?)
· Journaling Daily (tracking progress, expressing difficulties, self-counseling)
· Handwork (sculpting, painting, construction)
· Personal Ritual Forming & Managing Routines/Labor
​

The class is also meant to teach self-reflection into the dualities of the student’s troubles. Essays and writing assignments would be focused around self-reflection on one’s goals, the problems they’re facing and how to view life in general.

#2: The Human Heart & Emotional Alchemy
Class Type: Core Class
Professor: Marie Felch

Summary: This class is about emotional self-awareness, a deep understanding of the human heart and how it ebbs and flows through different states. This class is a type of chemistry class for how emotions occur and shift into different emotions, given certain situations.

This class both teaches you how to honor your heart, it’s state, but also how to intelligently alter its disposition. Here you will learn how and why your chemistry with others is failing and also what alchemy can be performed in order to tactfully transform a situation or relationship into a better place.

Syllabus Includes Items such as:

· Awareness: Identifying and seeing your emotions from a bird’s eye view
· Detangling Troubles: How to work through certain distortions of the heart
· Alchemy: How to move others, how to dance the dance of hearts
· Relationships & Finding Compatibility
​

#3: The Heroic Journey
Class Type: Core Class
Professors:
---Alina Dionos (Ji)
---Hellen Maggie (Pi)
---Coren Dames (Je)
---Fin Felch (Pe)

Summary: This class is about purpose, meaning, aspiration and reaching for our full potential. There are 4 separate professors for this class, one for each energetic type. Aside from being assigned to a house (Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma) each student is also assigned a Heroic Journey teacher, according to their energetic type. So professor Dionos has a class filled with Compass types, and professor Maggie has a class filled with Worldview types, etc.

This class is about shining in one’s strengths, and sharpening that native power. It is essentially a class to teach you “how to be a Compass type” (etc), and to do so with excellence and specialization.

In this 7 year school system, the first 3 years of school are spent with the same teacher. But the 4th year is spent with the student’s supportive function’s teacher. The 5th year is spent with their third function’s teacher, and their 6th year is spent with their polar function’s teacher. And finally, the 7th year is spent back with their first teacher, but now revolves around integration of all four functions.

Syllabus Includes Items such as:

- Why journey; the existential question of purpose and motivation
- A higher calling
- Specialization & finding work that is most fulfilling
- Integrating into society & taking your noble place in the human tribe
​

Professor-Specific Classes include items such as:

· Professor Maggie (Pi):

o How memory works & How to learn
o World History, The Present & The Future
o How to enhance your scope
​

· Professor Dames (Je):

o The economy of life
o How to change the world
o Public speaking & Leadership
​

· Professor Dionos (Ji):

o Finding inner alignment
o Perfection & Imperfection
o Self-discovery
​

· Professor Felch (Pe):

o An exploration of all paths
o Directing your Energy
o The Polymath Life
​

#4: Healing Through the Body
Class Type: Elective
Professor: Sarah Vanges

Summary: This class focuses on the interdependent relationship that exists between the mind and the body. It is a class that, while listed as an elective, is highly recommended for all students. Here, you learn how the emotional dimension can be healed through the body, and how the body’s health contributes to overall strength and willpower/motivation. This in turn affects every student’s performance in other classes.

Professor Vanges walks the class through a variety of artforms for establishing and nurturing this mind-body connection, such as yoga, acupuncture, tai chi and meditation. This class is a little bit physically intensive for the uninitiated, but there are different levels of intensity you can choose between. Professor Vanges hosts 4 classes, each more intense than the last.

Class types include:
· Level 1: Meditation, Stretching & Diet
· Level 2: Yoga, Tai Chi & Aerobics
· Level 3: Acupuncture, Massage & Physiotherapy
· Level 4: Endurance Training, Marathons, Martial Arts

#5: Math, Geometry & Physics
(too tired to fill this one out, but progresses in difficulty with the years)

#6: Language Arts / Creative Writing
(too tired to fill this one out, but progresses in difficulty with the years)

#7: Science / Chemistry / Computers
(too tired to fill this one out, but progresses in difficulty with the years)

 

[Seteleechete]

Well, consider this: if you can get a cookie as a potential reward, that reward is only a reward insofar it is a net payoff on an investment – the investment being time and effort. You would therefore benefit from minimizing the time and effort needed to get the cookie.

There was a bunch of research that showed that this is in fact a property of the human brain. When you introduce reward/punishment to a situation, the human brain wants to minimize time and effort and maximize the payoff. This was the basis of a very interesting book called "Punished by rewards" by Alfie Kohn, which looked at this phenomenon in the context of education. The interesting part is that if you replace the cookie with something like grades in the context of learning, you will have someone who wants to minimize the time and effort spent on learning stuff. That is clearly a bad scenario because to learn, you want to explore things, play around with them, be engaged in them on a deep level.

quotes from the book:

Makes me wonder if restrictions on knowledge itself could be used as a reward like some fictional school systems I have read about. "You will be taught how to do x but only if you succeed in test y". Making knowledge itself something to strive for. (Disregarding it being impossible to set this up in current society). I am starting to see some logic in that knowledge being easily obtained cheapens it.

Though something like setting knowledge/actualized ability to use what you learn on a pedestal rather than results may be achievable. Of course that would prevent easy comparisons and tracking of ones progress.

I have to point out that a large part of education lies in indoctrination. A school teaches skills but it also inevitably teaches how it wants its students to think. Setting up and planning around this often hidden/unseen area of learning is key.

A simple change in attitude from the sourounding environment from a result driven to a knowledge/usability driven approach would be enough to achieve this but be harder to track.

 

[Auburn]

I recently came across Finland's model of education:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlOfZL_J5fo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN9P8uHEtUg

What do you guys think of this system?

Here's the main points I gathered from some online sources:

1. No schooling until age 7 (kids should be kids)
   ----School Starts: 9:00-9:30am
   ----School Ends: no more than 5 hours later
   ----School Breaks: ~75 minutes of recess a day (break after every lesson)
   ----Homework: No more than 30 minutes of every day
2. Non-competitiveness
   ----No regular testing (focus is on cooperation and just learning)
   ----Some testing only at age 16+
3. Highly educated teachers
   ----(masters degree or higher, as important as MD's and lawyers)
4. Often multiple teachers per classroom (up to 3)
   ----(ratio of teachers to students is 6-8 to 1)
5. Often, same teacher stays with students for multiple years
6. Culture of Reverence for Education
   ----(held in high regard culturally, prioritized by the Gov.)
7. Culture of Trust
   ----Professional independence of teachers
   ----How students are tested (not often, only at end)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I recently came across Finland's model of education:
(links removed)

So you're giving us a politically loaded video as a summary of the system?
How about some direct sources?

No schooling until age 7 (kids should be kids)
----School Starts: 9:00-9:30am
----School Ends: no more than 5 hours later
----School Breaks: ~75 minutes of recess a day (break after every lesson)
----Homework: No more than 30 minutes of every day

9am... and who's supposed to take care of the kids after their parents leave to work from around 7am till 9am? Why not have the starting time coincide with when parents leave for work which would allow them to take their kids to school and would have them operate on the same productivity level in the morning.

Non-competitiveness

----No regular testing (focus is on cooperation and just learning)

----Some testing only at age 16+

How do they measure their student's progress before 16? How can they tell when they're having problems? What are the alternatives to the standardised testing that they're relying on there? Because lack of feedback is a terrible choice.

Competition is a valid incentive for many people, removing it without providing alternative motivations seems to foster mediocrity or the so called "special snowflake" attitudes to life.

Highly educated teachers

----(masters degree or higher, as important as MD's and lawyers)

High education doesn't always equate to high competence. MD seems to be a pretty standard requirement for education workers in Europe so I can't comment on how it's different in the US.

Often multiple teachers per classroom (up to 3)

----(ratio of teachers to students is 6-8 to 1)

Less students per teacher is great but it's very expensive to provide, so it's not any innovation, it just means that they have a much higher public personnel budget compared to US or some other bigger countries and what's very likely they have less children per mother on average.

Often, same teacher stays with students for multiple years
Culture of Reverence for Education

----(held in high regard culturally, prioritized by the Gov.)

That could be great, or could be disastrous. Teaching efficiency increases if you stay longer in the same group of students with the same teacher, as they adjust their methods to fit one another. Problem there is if one is stuck with a misfit for too long before they move or the system/parent notices the hindrance. Especially risky with the "independence of teachers" from the final point. This could mean a lot of what's going on in the classroom wouldn't be properly monitored and many errors wouldn't be addressed as often as they could.

Culture of Trust

----Professional independence of teachers

----How students are tested (not often, only at end)

Very vague, again, I'd need to look at direct sources and more concrete data to tell more.

 

[Auburn]

So you're giving us a politically loaded video as a summary of the system?
How about some direct sources?

Videos are more engaging than text!
But Cenk does get really worked up for no reason there; sorry about that. Please ignore those political undertones if u can. I don't mean to debate politics here.

I just thought the vid did a good job of contrasting the USA system with Finland in a few minutes.

9am... and who's supposed to take care of the kids after their parents leave to work from around 7am till 9am? Why not have the starting time coincide with when parents leave for work which would allow them to take their kids to school and would have them operate on the same productivity level in the morning.

There are buses, from what I understand. And they go everywhere.
Of course I'm sure each family is different, but most prolly have a stay-at-home parent, that can take them if they want.

How do they measure their student's progress before 16? How can they tell when they're having problems?

By actively being engaged in the learning process. Teachers walk around the classroom and help out those in need. One teacher is at the front teaching, and another 1 or 2 are helping students.

The teachers are trained to listen to each student and ask how they're doing. They'd know if a child is struggling because it's not depersonalized education. It's much more helpful and direct than tests, I think.

What are the alternatives to the standardised testing that they're relying on there? Because lack of feedback is a terrible choice.

As mentioned above, they get their feedback by actually asking the student directly about how they're doing. And prolly looking over their work to see if they're getting the hang of it.

High education doesn't always equate to high competence. MD seems to be a pretty standard requirement for education workers in Europe so I can't comment on how it's different in the US.

Right but the whole point is that in Finland they make a point of having their teachers' competence be high. Teachers are taught to be "excellent" teachers and they learn things like supporting and engaging the class and caring about the individual learning journeys of the students. From what I understand a teacher in Finland wouldn't get certified without also having the right attitude and ability to support students.

Less students per teacher is great but it's very expensive to provide, so it's not any innovation, it just means that they have a much higher public personnel budget compared to US

Right. They choose to prioritize education higher in their national budget. The US could budget out just the same amount, but the two nation's priorities are different.

...or some other bigger countries and what's very likely they have less children per mother on average.

I've never heard of that before. How so?

That could be great, or could be disastrous. Teaching efficiency increases if you stay longer in the same group of students with the same teacher, as they adjust their methods to fit one another. Problem there is if one is stuck with a misfit for too long before they move or the system/parent notices the hindrance. Especially risky with the "independence of teachers" from the final point. This could mean a lot of what's going on in the classroom wouldn't be properly monitored and many errors wouldn't be addressed as often as they could.

All education systems are at risk of having poor teachers. But Finland is probably among the best at mitigating this risk. Like I said above, they train teachers to be good/helpful teachers -- not just workers.

And even if the teacher is incompatible with a student's style, the redundancy of teachers itself would safeguard this. Another teacher may be able to explain it to certain students in a way they understand better.

Plus the presence of multiple teachers forces each teacher to be at their best since they can always be called out by the other teachers if they're doing something really harmful.

So here there's actually teacher-monitoring (by other teachers) and more personalized student aide. A win win.

Very vague, again, I'd need to look at direct sources and more concrete data to tell more.

Sure thing... I'm still looking into it myself but found it quite interesting. Ty for the reply.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I've never heard of that before. How so?

In the more developed countries there's less children per woman on average. So it's natural that for the same budget there will be less children per classroom in the future and teachers would have more time to spend on every child.

That's what I see in my country, they are afraid to close down public schools due to popular demand and to protect teachers from unemployment, so you start seeing schools in more remote areas with 10 children per classroom or sometimes less.

Sometimes they merge a few schools together to save money, but many of those schools operate on a smaller population.

 

[Puffy]

I like this thread and hope people continue posting educational models. Even if we see fallacies and flaws in them it's interesting to read them together contrasted in a single thread. One of my resolutions for the new year is that I'm going to do a focused study on the history of education.

Two school-systems I'd like to read into, largely out of curiosity:

Summerhill School (think you'll find this an entertaining read, Auburn) - a controversial example of a democratic school.
Waldorf education - I've read a few books of the founder Rudolf Steiner, and have friends who went to the schools and praise them so I'm curious.

There's a lot of science out there already. Systematic changes to the curriculum also come at the expense of that curriculum. Obviously the curriculum needs to be adaptive, but the question of 'how adaptive?' is one that should be asked.

Links pls.

I was thinking of a design theory book called A Pattern Language. The book reduces a notion of good architecture or spatial organisation down to a language of patterns that augment each other (example of a pattern: every room should have two sources of light). Each pattern was not come to through conjecture but extensive user-testing in which consensus was reached that the presence of that pattern is desired. One of the underlying ideas of the methodology being that good design isn't about designers enforcing an individually conceived vision on users but something that is arrived at and verified by a user-centred perspective.

My idea of adaptiveness isn't wild structural re-inventions but slowly wearing the shoe in by giving students a regular chance to vocalise to those teaching them what they liked about that week, what they disliked, what they'd like to see more of, etc. If you run the same curriculum three times, you'll begin to spot patterns in the feedback that can help you guide your lesson-planning, make students feel more involved and listened to, and gradually refine a curriculum that is continually self-reflexive, student-centred, and composed of well tested patterns. To me, it's just wasting valuable information if you don't listen to the people you're actually designing the curriculum for.

So many great ideas here.

@Puffy - Despite the ease, I wouldn't select adulthood as the platform/timing to start the proper education methodology. I mean, when you go to University, finally it's about:

1. Voluntary education and subjects/classes (you're there cuz u wanna be)
2. You really get to think critically about the material, and are encouraged to author/doctor your own ideas.
3. You have a motivation (career/goal) other than your parents forcing you, or the government imposing it on you.

I think that's why universities really are more invigorating educational experiences. It's where institutions *actually try* to educate you properly and create thinking beings. It's certainly not perfect, and lacks a lot of elements, but it's closer..

By comparison, all our K-12 time really just amounts to government babysitting of children and giving them something to do (which they'll mostly forget later), while the parents are out in the workforce.

So I think if education needs reform most anywhere, it's in K-12. I feel K-12 should be empowering - mentally, physically, and practically - in a similar way to how college/uni is now... but it should also play the role of a good parent.

Sorry, my point wasn't that I think adulthood is the best time to start a proper educational methodology. The education of young people is something of utmost importance to me as it's a formative time that has a large impact on the rest of their lives. If you trial and mess up with young people it will cause more damage than with adults. My point was more that if I was going to experiment with education, I'd prefer to use adults as my guinea pigs first.

I'm unsure what university education is like in the USA but in my country I found the teaching methodology flawed. It was rare to find a lecturer who was genuinely interested in teaching and didn't just see it as a distraction from their research. I taught myself at university to a great extent. While I agree factors you raise like freedom contributed to me excelling, I'd note not everyone likes this and prefer more structure.

 

[Auburn]

Oh, that book's from Christopher Alexander! He's super high on my list of must-reads right now. Lor introduced me to him via "A City is Not a Tree." Genius man from what I've read. I agree with the concept of organic evolution of cities, and habitats as a whole.

Maybe we can explore how this applies to education? I had a talk with Kuu the other day where he told me "yeah you see to make this school you'd need to make a better civilization" and i partly agree. A school can't exist in isolation. An ideal school would fail to produce thriving youth in a city that has a directly antagonizing culture. But I came up with a possible solution to this.


Have you noticed that college towns often spring from universities? The uni/college (which often also has a k-12 nextdoor) becomes the central hub of a community.

I lived in a college town a few years back and I can see how much camaraderie there is, since alumni often buy housing around the campus. What if a similar idea was carried out here? What if the alumni of this hypothetical education model built a hub around the school where the school's culture could expand beyond graduation?

I think that would allow the education to be *complete* and healthy, as the second generation (born from the 1st graduates) will eventually attend the school, and the culture is passed down from the very roots.

Do you think design principles can then be used to naturally grow the town? I wonder how such an idea would play out. I dream of making a school like this one day...

p.s. still reading your links.. good stuff.

 

[Puffy]

Lor introduced me to him as well when I was writing my thesis. He's turned out very influential to me. The people I work with love Alexander, we have his books on our shelves.

Sure I'd like that, it's late here so I might have to revisit the discussion.

I'm actually working as a part of a co-operatively run school at the moment that has a democratic influenced model (i.e. where student's views on curriculum are valued as much as teachers.) My views in this thread are likely biased towards that while I'm exploring whether I think it works or not. I've been promoted to direct the curriculum and am implementing my own reforms, so my current plan is to gain a lot of organisational and head-teaching experience here while I research and consider the various models, then potentially go solo and start my own school if the opportunity arises later on.

I agree with kuu and yourself, it's a large problem. To me I would want the creation of a school to come with its own culture, in which students as much become a part of and learn from, and cultivate a community in which people have collective responsibilities, involvement in the running of the school, and engagement with the surrounding community. Like you say as education isn't purely academic but also about character, community-building and ethos. The only thing to be careful of is that the culture of the school shouldn't become too remote, and adequately prepare the student to transition into the outer culture.

At the same time, maybe the point is that the surrounding culture is antagonistic and we want people exposed to a different way of living so they can spread the seeds elsewhere?

>> Do you think design principles can then be used to naturally grow the town? I wonder how such an idea would play out. I dream of making a school like this one day...

They certainly can! I think their principles can be used to design curriculums too potentially. But what form do you see the hub based around a school looking like? You mean students will start-up their own businesses and build their own housing, effectively a self-contained community? Maybe I misunderstand you.

The other option is that you have a business component of the school (likely a better option if the school is for adults). Like, for example if the education was vocational, like computing, art, or design, the school can also support itself as an agency in which students can graduate into. Then it's culture is able to be self-sustaining, and students are able to remain within it if they choose to and the business model is viable?

 

[Columbo]

- focus more on one-to-one mentorship rather than the system with one teacher and 30 pupils
- let go of absolutely all notions of reward/punishment in context of learning
- remove all forms of testing/examination where pupils can optimize by memorizing and reciting.
- all curriculum must be presented with context, a measure of relevance and in the form of solutions to specific problems. Hammering people with random out-of-context information hour after hour (the current default style of teaching) is just dumb. And in general, spend a lot of time creating incentive for learning, as opposed to assuming incentive via reward/punishment and then just dropping information on people.
- remove 99% of the bureaucrats in the system and replace them with people with passion for the subjects

all wonderful ideas.

my wife is a teacher. her biggest waste of time and passion by far are dolts/ troublemakers who are not there to learn but to be in state funded daycare. thus i add to the list:
-remove dolts (at some cutoff level its actually best for everyobe else in society if the stupid kids are not allowed to sully language and the written word with their inevitably grotesque contributions
anyways)
-remove troublemakers who are not interested in learning and are merely there for the daycare
-remove the disruptors and chronically physical discipline problems

which then begs the question:
what is the ideal student teacher ratio? 1? 3? 6? etc?
at some point when a class gets to a certain size there will almost certainly be dolts and troublemakers and daycare recipients...

 

[Auburn]

I look forward to hearing about what you learn.

They certainly can! I think their principles can be used to design curriculums too potentially. But what form do you see the hub based around a school looking like? You mean students will start-up their own businesses and build their own housing, effectively a self-contained community? Maybe I misunderstand you.

Possibly, yes. It's hard to answer this without getting into a lot of (still-tentative) details. But I've tried to outline my general plan (at present) in this doc. Still very rough, but for the sake of sketching out a vision...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B48AAvkk-onYYU1tbHhvZTZ4X1E/view?usp=sharing

 

[Rualani]

So many great ideas here.


By comparison, all our K-12 time really just amounts to government babysitting of children and giving them something to do (which they'll mostly forget later), while the parents are out in the workforce.

So I think if education needs reform most anywhere, it's in K-12. I feel K-12 should be empowering - mentally, physically, and practically - in a similar way to how college/uni is now... but it should also play the role of a good parent.

I was looking at the budget for my county in Indiana and roughly half of it was being sunk into K-12. No one knows how to make the budget work well I guess O.O

 

[Auburn]

Two school-systems I'd like to read into, largely out of curiosity:

Summerhill School (think you'll find this an entertaining read, Auburn) - a controversial example of a democratic school.
Waldorf education - I've read a few books of the founder Rudolf Steiner, and have friends who went to the schools and praise them so I'm curious.

I just spent my whole evening looking into these two, especially Summerhill. My head is still tingling. How did I not know about these... I can't even...

*tosses hands up in the air* my work here is done!!
I feel so happy to know these schools exist. I honestly had no idea. I'm still processing the reality that there are over 1,000 (Waldorf) schools around the world that already apply like 90% of the ideas I had in mind for an ideal system, even down to temperament-based learning groups, emphasis on play and creative learning, practical/hands-on...

I think my poor shriveled heart just grew a size.

 

[Puffy]

I just spent my whole evening looking into these two, especially Summerhill. My head is still tingling. How did I not know about these... I can't even...

*tosses hands up in the air* my work here is done!!
I feel so happy to know these schools exist. I honestly had no idea. I'm still processing the reality that there are over 1,000 (Waldorf) schools around the world that already apply like 90% of the ideas I had in mind for an ideal system, even down to temperament-based learning groups, emphasis on play and creative learning, practical/hands-on...

I think my poor shriveled heart just grew a size.

(:

If you want more on democratic education:

* Pedagogy of the oppressed by Paolo Freire: http://www.msu.ac.zw/elearning/material/1335344125freire_pedagogy_of_the_oppresed.pdf
* Deschooling Society by Ivan Illich: http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/deschooling.htm
* Rethinking Schools Magazine: https://www.rethinkingschools.org/index.shtml
* What is democratic education? http://democraticeducation.org/index.php/features/what-is-democratic-education/
* Cooperative decision making: http://www.vernalproject.org/papers/Process.html, http://starhawk.org/pdfs/Empowerment_Five-Fold-Path.pdf

I've found my brief experiences with democratic education (in a cooperative organisational model) so far to be powerful. There's a certain trust you have to put in the community around you when everyone, students or mentors, become 'owners' of the curriculum (and it can be a little draining for introverts). But a large part of it, for us at least, is based upon there being processes and patterns (archetypes) that evolve and are refined iteratively over time off the basis of collective experience. And people moving into roles based upon their ideas and natural affinities.

I'm unable to describe the intrinsic 'goodness' you feel from voting in a circle, where you're face-to-face and accountable to the community as equals and there's an open relation between everyone. It stands to see how my idealism will fair over time though.

 

[redbaron]

Most actualized people aren't the product of in-depth systematic involvement by their 'superiors' (parents, teachers) and are simply the product of being given a goal, the resources to achieve it and the motivation to persevere.

You give people goals and you give them what they need to do it and you'd be surprised at the result and the ingenious ways that even the seemingly inept can come up with.

I don't know how the end result of Finland's education system will hold up, but less testing and less pressure to keep up short-term performance is a good thing, provided that the long-term expectations are met and that it's not a negligent environment in the interim i.e. the only real test of importance is the one at the end (let's say every 6 months), so gaps in knowledge are overlooked in the short-term.

I really wish I could find the studies I read about parents who make their kids do things they don't like to do, "for their own good" but it's pretty much the worst thing to do. It mostly just becomes a source of anxiety and stress, and performance is usually poor because their interest is low. These children learn to perform primarily for the sake of avoiding chastisement and so develop the habit of taking as many shortcuts and staying focused only on fulfilling specific criteria that will garner praise or recognition (regardless of actual quality of work done).

People need to learn to simply get things done of their own accord, to make their own executive decisions about how they're going to achieve a task, and to understand that failure isn't to be scorned but instead discussed and understood so that we can improve and that success is based on long-term patterns of gradual improvement and/or continued effectiveness and not singular moments of excellence.

When someone displays effective behaviours, they should be reinforced positively and ineffective behaviours are spoken about objectively and in 'win/win' perspectives. It teaches them going into the adult working world that when there's two people with what initially seem like conflicting wants, they can both get what they want.

As well as the fact that success is about improving yourself and doing better and better, it's not about simply cutting others down. This last point is probably the biggest pattern I see between successful and 'successful' people. The former group approaches challenges with an objective mindset of making something more efficient or of improving their ability while the latter approaches it subjectively and views success relative to how well other people do at something.

Because one person is focused on actual improvement and not relative improvement, they nearly always perform more consistently and to a greater level than the other. The other group that views things in relative terms considers themselves to have succeeded simply by virtue of other people's failures. These people are just the worst kind of people to work with in any environment, and yet they make up the majority of people which is something that I think modern schooling encourages because it's all about where you rank in a particular 'percentile'. Marks are graded based on the class average against what's meant to be an objective measurement of ability.

I think this system is pretty shitty and it's a product of the fact that majority of people are a part of the class that views success in relativistic terms, so they don't see what's wrong or the sorts of shitty behaviours that such a system produces in people who're there for recognition more than actual improvement.

 

[redbaron]

I just spent my whole evening looking into these two, especially Summerhill. My head is still tingling. How did I not know about these... I can't even...

*tosses hands up in the air* my work here is done!!
I feel so happy to know these schools exist. I honestly had no idea. I'm still processing the reality that there are over 1,000 (Waldorf) schools around the world that already apply like 90% of the ideas I had in mind for an ideal system, even down to temperament-based learning groups, emphasis on play and creative learning, practical/hands-on...

I think my poor shriveled heart just grew a size.

Kind of want to know where most of these people end up though.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm currently trying out a practice by which children (5-12yo) can explore their aggressive tendencies.

I noticed that a lot of the children at our service (particularly boys) seem intrinsically drawn to violent interactions. If they're not actually being violent, they're talking about violence or bragging about it.
But this sort of naive engagement that's suppressed by rules and regs glorifies violence without helping them learn how it works. They're told it's never the answer, but they're taught that it *is* the answer whenever an adult isn't around to tell them it isn't. They don't know how to handle themselves, or to respect the people around them when play is even close to rough.

So everyday I take everyone interested out for a tussle.

There's a lot of variant games. We don't strike, we don't blind-side, we don't grab clothes, and we have a tap out rule.

The casualty rate is high. Last week I had to fill out incident reports for a blood-nose, two children struck in the stomach, a hard hit to the head, and a burst ear drum. But the children are next-level engaged, and even when they get hurt, they're wanting back in asap. They're developing resiliency, self-control, mutual respect, planning/strategy, and coordination.

 

[Auburn]

@Hado - How's the group been since your last post?

What you wrote sounds really healthy; really how I think children learn to "get along" and be social, integrated humans. Isn't it odd how our systemizations can be far less intelligent than what our bodies and biology know is best for us? We learn about life by engaging with life, not with rules. After all, humans have been growing up and adapting for millenia through direct contact with reality -- and the 'rules' that reality makes evident by its own accord.

Artificially imposed rules goes against natural selection, and divorces us evermore from the real state of the world; making us less adept at handling the real world proportional to the degree that we divorce from it or substitute it with systemic proxies.

I also just came across this awesome TED talk about education:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0H7b9faIBo

 

[Hadoblado]

Really well... for the most part.

I'm going to have to adjust some of it unfortunately, specifically how this works with girls in the group. I'm a man in the child-care industry, which puts the chances of me facing accusations of sexual misconduct higher than I'd like (despite sexual misconduct being extremely rare in the industry - 0.4% of all cases). I'm about to start running a program solo, and unless I've got another educator there to witness play I'm going to need to restrict these sorts of interactions.

Outside of this impending difficulty, the outcomes for the children have been absolutely fucking ridiculous. They've gone from naively charging head-first (into the dirt) to being savvy, coordinated, opportunistic, and resilient terrors, all in the space of a few weeks. While they still have difficulty getting me all the way to the ground, they will get me off my feet every time now. They're also universally much more steady on their feet (unless they're deliberately taking a fall for fun). I used to be able to reliably put them on the ground with a half-second's attention with one arm. Now I'd be hard-pressed to get them down within 5 seconds using two arms and a leg. They over-extend less; their aggression is calculated.

One of the little bastards almost broke my nose this morning... It was his first day of kindergarten...

Outside of the donkey-kick-to-my-face incident, their self-control has improved vastly, and I'm able to now have the rough-play inside within a designated area, which would have been impossible before.

 

[The Gopher]

... aren't you breaking the first rule of fight club?

 

[Hadoblado]

... aren't you breaking the first rule of fight club?

Good news! Now I've been asked to formally break the first rule of fightclub!

The higher-ups expressed appreciation for my 'rough-play' policy and want me to produce some content to try and reproduce my practice at other services across the state. They want me to talk at a conference, but it's on the other side of Tas and I'm working/at uni too much to make it, so I'm going to make a presentation for someone to do on my behalf.

 

[cheese]

You should really do the presentation yourself. Sounds like a great opportunity. Take the time off; could open important doors.

 

[Auburn]

@Hado - did you end up going? ..or how'd it go for your fill-in?

I also found another vid about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR0_sZtCfJ0

This one talks about Sudbury schools, which I think is what Summerhill falls under. And I found a list of the existing ones online:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sudbury_schools

I want to redo my childhood

 

[Hadoblado]

The timing didn't allow me to go in the end.

I went and did a whole bunch of research and explained it all in detail to the person who approached me over it. I don't know how their presentation went or what they used, but if there is interest there might be another opportunity for me to explain it in person. I don't think there will be though, all the people it's presented to are women (statistically more likely to take a carer role than play role) who have been in the industry longer than I have (don't need no whippersnapper telling me how to run my business) and not all of them are able bodied.

I've also had some issues with concerned parents. There is a nasty stigma around rough and tumble play because it resembles aggression (when in actual fact behavioural outcomes are the opposite of aggression). It's understandable though, if you've got a child who's rough as guts and you're already worried about how they're getting along with other children, it's easy to see this sort of thing as encouraging bad habits. I'm still doing it, but there is some small tension as I can tell the parents are having difficulty articulating their concerns.

Their teamwork's improved. Now they're trying to Hoth me from behind with skipping ropes XD.

 

[redbaron]

Back2topic

Would you say this kind of structured physical exertion is an important or impotent part of raising actualized people?

Moreover, should raising actualized people even be a priority?

Front2topic

 

[bvanevery]

but I still need to eat

food stamps

and put a roof over my head.

auto repair

The main disadvantage is it's been hard to get a date. One reason I live in Asheville NC is people don't automatically condemn this lifestyle. A lot of people are doing it. But I've yet to meet a "mentally healthy" woman who's gonna drop what she's doing to participate in my world. And I don't need some drug addict.

I keep working on strategies to overcome this. I have trouble finding things to do, that women also like to do.

 

[bvanevery]

Moreover, should raising actualized people even be a priority?

Well if you're Evil, meaning you believe in the domination and subjugation of other human beings for your own personal aggrandizement, then clearly you don't want anyone self-actualized. You want the largest number of worker bees slaving away contributing their scant life energy to your personal largesse.

If you aren't Evil, and maybe at most confused about what society wants vs. what you as an individual want, then it should be at least within your enlightened self-interest to look out for yourself.

In short, I don't believe in having other people set your life goals for you. No matter what kind of goofy "betterment of humanity or the planet" they may claim. They have no way of substantiating the purported benefits of anything they claim. Understand it in simpler terms: they want to help themselves to your life energy, and will say all kinds of blather to profit from you.

 

[Hadoblado]

Moreover, should raising actualized people even be a priority?

Yes. Depriving people of their autonomy and agency is necessary when a child is born in order to ensure their safety. But this is just a necessary evil. There's little point in them achieving agency if when they do, they don't have any options available to them. Whatever a child grows up to do, you want it to be as much determined by their preference as possible, as opposed to what you have decided is good for them, or what the environment you provided allowed them to do.

Would you say this kind of structured physical exertion is an important or impotent part of raising actualized people?[/QUOTE

I think it's very important to have the option available. Some children won't want to, but if they do want to and it's not an option then they're missing out on some pretty big opportunities for development. Without going into details about where the structure comes from, most children enjoy physical games because it provides many different ways to learn.

Personally I run it so that there is always structured physical activity available, but it's completely voluntary (just like pretty much everything else I provide). Not only this, but they have power over how that structure works. The rules are a constant negotiation. This gives them the tools to establish structured play in the absence of an adult.

So basically, if as a child you chose not to partake, then that's not going to stop you becoming actualised. If a child isn't interested, they're probably not learning. But if as a child you never had the opportunity for this kind of play, you were probably behind in your physical and social development compared to where you would be otherwise.

 

[Black Rose]

The best thing to do is to show them what to do when they do not know what to do. Being stuck is the worst thing for a kid that usually enjoys learning and doing projects. It is also a basic support system. They need somewhere to go. they need future planning, like what to do after graduation. Independence is a skill so not just academic stuff. Practical things. My sister lived with her friends when she dropped out. I had no friends, can't drive. I was 2 years at a transitional living center. Never learned, never had moms support to go to college successfully. So the point of having a child is to teach it to take care of itself. They are supposed to have fun but sometimes they don't know what to do. That's when they need to remember what their adult parent ould do. They would be mature and think about analyze find a solution, not give up, do not hurt yourself trying too hard, be realistic. Actualized people know how to do it because they became it because they got around setbacks, they troubleshooted the large number of solutions needed to attain actuality. So allow kids to learn and play and help them when they don't know what to do.