Scared stiff Church-authored pedagogic faith and faithful brutes for hire 2016 by Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord) © The author, Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord), asserts his right to be identified as the author of this work. Marte: Fear: Internalizing the taught aggression: Miss Marte, in grey wool ski-hat, is from Rogaland, the south-western corner of Norway. She is visibly full of fear this morning and tries to learn how to deal with that fear, how to make the fear go away. This is the fear-aggression-connection in human cognition. Marte is in the English language teaching course, like myself. We have just spent four weeks at the same 'teaching-exercise-venue' school ("praxis-school", where 'praxis' is supposed to be 'exercise' but is run as apprenticeship without contract and functions as a nonmandated by law sifting-organ by criteria no one can discuss rationally in the open without verifying its unreasonability and its harmful nature. The {university public school} liaison has structured their arrangement in a way that enables the maximal efficiency of itself as that sifting-organ, and has inserted its sifting-capacity into each set of courses (each course-program) as a filter only they can see and only they have access to and only they can operate. The public is supposed to take their word for it when they testify to their own soundness. That secret filter is standing between any individual and his or her access to the exam stage, which is openly accessible to scrutiny by anyone; the 'filter' thereby being a 'plucking-away-stage' the Parliament never discussed and never debated openly as the required stage before the exam that it is and has been for ages, maybe since the beginning of time; a blocking device that sifts by wholly subjective criteria and on wholly subjective grounds of evaluation, with no retrospective transparency, wholly operated by sympathy as one of the chief criteria, its operators never having to adhere to objectively verifiable criteria when 'it', its dominant keepers of an old churchauthored pedagogic set of principles, prefer not to, which is whenever there is an unwanted dissident to get rid of. THAT is the rational fear we see on the faces of those among the candidates who aren't busy hiding it with superficially happy gestures. Naturally, it forces all candidates into likemindedness, happy consensus* 1 and a state of mind that remains non-investigative of problems, and speaks of none other than a dissident's personal quality of being 'annoying', for example how annoying individuals are when they bring up annoying facts; and the lecturers make sure to teach them exactly HOW annoying such facts are. [* 1 cf. note on page 5] Miss Marte is here learning how to not become the target of the nuisance-targeted aggression she is observing in the lecture-hall this morning, 11.Nov.2015, displayed as a concerted effort that is truly frightening to most young adults like Marte and particularly to anyone among true lovers of science, regardless of age, Ed-Sci included. The visible part of today's spectacle begins in the preceding 45 minutes as the lecturer twice invites the whole audience to participate which means anyone can raise their hand and pose a question or make a comment, an implicit question but demonstratively, by handand face gestures and verbally explicit refusals, the female lecturer (cf. Simultaneous chatter style pedagogy, Soerfjord 2016) refuses one particular in the audience (myself) to ask or comment on anything at all, right from the start, hence regardless of the relevance my question might have to the matter or topic recently lectured on. escalating to a mock physical assault: In other words, it is a 'black-listing' of one individual student from the shared dialogic activity in the segments reserved for that particular activity, an Ed-Sci-student who has presented evidence that disproves a consensus essential to the rationale of the current set of methods in Norwegian (even Scandinavian) teacher-training, which I also say, in my articles, is an unlawful set of methods. We enter the scene at the recess between the two 45-minute-segments of the lecture: (in what follows, 'Øystein' is not his surname) In comes Dr. Øystein: On his face is the same expression of a darkened mood that he displayed two months earlier when I talked to him in privacy about the abuses that were going on in the so-called 'group-work' he had just arranged and supervised without seeing (he and his colleagues are selectively blind to it) the way the censorship exerted by socially domineering individuals in these groups terrorises people into silently acquiescing to the will of one individual grabber of social power, or verbally agreeing (typically with 'her'I never saw a male doing it in such group-work); the domineering forming alliances against dissenting individuals, threatening and excluding, each alliance dictated by one socially dominant individual team-member's opinion; a censorship against individuals with different or better ideas after which Øystein informs the practice-venue-school (himself or through UiO Department Head Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde) about a candidate that "can be domineering", and I quote the recipient of that 'information' (Coordinator Miss May Britt Esse Berge), who says to me in a sharp tone: "ILS informed me that you can be domineering"* 2 ILS being the University of Oslo (UiO)'s Institute for Teacher-education and School-research (Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning). * 2 "ILS informerte meg om at du kan vaere dominerende" spoken as I inform her in privacy of the abusive dialogue in the 'group-work' among us candidates at that practice-venue: Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade School, 20 km south of downtown Oslo. He, Dr. Øystein, displays the same darkened face a month later, (Oct.2015) in the 25-student sized 'seminar-' (theme-oriented) class, as I perform my scheduled presentation of an article on Vygotsky and inform my peers about a translation error* 3 (English to Norwegian) by its two authors: UiO-professor of pedagogy Ivar Braaten (Bråten) and his co-author Anne-Cathrine Thurmann-Moe, a UiO-educated (bachelor in pedagogy; "candidatus") off-campus adviser on pedagogical matters (* 3 details further down). What we have in that act of "informing" the practice-venue school, is: How to murder a dissenter's career It brings about the following a week later, at the practice-venueschool (Flaatestad): Miss May Britt Esse Berge, in the regularly occurring 'summing-up-meetings' she arranges – where all 'her' candidates are gathered around a long table and Miss Berge in a clock-wise direction asks each of the 16 or so candidates to 'share their reflections', some taking 12 and others 18-22 minutes to do so – only when I'm up suddenly adding "but make it short", as she points my way with her index-finger and utters my name, noticeably less invitingly than with the rest, on account of the undisguisable value-modulating snap "but make it short" that seemed to come out of the blue, but had its origin in the darkened mood I saw on Dr. Øystein's face the week before; the same as in the left margin photo-series, a mood that led to his act of taking revenge for my critique by "informing" about his internally felt 'knowledge' of myself being "domineering" in spite of Unreasonable concepts need aggression to protect them from threatening facts. the very essence of my critique to Dr. Øystein being the way their 'group-work' enables precisely the domineering to dominate socially. There is a killing of science by socially enforced censorship in many of these groups the minute the groups are left to themselves; hell, even right before the lecturer's eyes while the lecturer is present in the same room. We are here talking about blinded and deafened collec-tively bound lecturers who lead teacher-candidates into the same blind-deaf state of mind, tied to a set of inherited power-pointslide-driven slogans authored by no one alive since the 18th century. It is, as I will now show, a church-authored model from the age of a church-run higher education operated by hired-in men of the dark (Norw. mørkemenn), as dark as the mood I put on display in the left margin here, a mood that brings the good Dr. Øystein into such a rage that he commits the act of a bodily enacted threat of physical violence, a mock physical assault. And the mentioned Miss May Britt Esse Berge, at the practicevenue-school (Flaatestad 7th-10th grade school 20 km south of downtown Oslo), does her selectively addressed, monotone and in a more rapid speech - "but make it short" downgrading of a candidate pointed out by the 'Institute'. She does it in two consecutive summing-up meetings: singling out one individual only among the 16 candidates present, methodically teaching everyone (she is a teacher, teaches by the method of doing things) that he isn't quite as welcome as the rest; reminding this particular candidate only (a candidate she has no first-hand prior knowledge of at all other than the "information" sent to her from "the ILS", meaning from the darkmoodied Dr. Øystein directly or indirectly, through department head Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, saying this particular candidate "can be domineering", and telling him to "make it short" but not reminding any of the others of the same, instead distinctly warning them all of the loss of affection that will strike them too if they dare become as investigative about consensus-threatening matters as I am; which, naturally, they do not, would not think of after this. I only needed 4 minutes, incidentally, to share the insight I reflected on: specifically the need for the content of teaching, as a principle, to be guided only by the Parliament-authored principles for teaching and its content (as put forth in our 'Law for teaching' and in our 'national teaching-plan') and NOT by the means available for testing nor by principles or guidelines for testing. That is one very annoying insight in the ears of Miss May Britt Esse Berge, evidently so – Miss Berge who says "That is a power we have" ("Den makta har vi", cf. my audio-recording of it published on you-tube), as she warns me that they are "sending a 'doubt in candidate' report on me to the Institute", the "ILS" in the UiO's Faculty of Ed-Sci, where the agents of selectively dark mood ('instrumental rage', in the morbid BurrhusFrederic-Skinner-ish manner of 'reinforcing' desired behavior by rewarding it with 'loveliness-stimuli' and methodically discourage unwanted behavior by the opposite, an unpleasant stimulus that lowers the probability of the 'bad' behavior in the entire population) then take moody action, visibly so, in the seminar-chambers and then in the lecture hall, with 250 candidates in it, by demonstratively, Fast scrolling makes the photo-series into a motion-picture, its original format: surprisingly childishly, black-listing the dissident who embarrassed them by digging up such evidence as I have brought forth. And this childish mobbing and bullying is what they thereby teach the whole audience of Norwegian teacher-candidates. It is: a crime we are looking at here. One specific detail I shared in one of these 'around-the-table'type 'conditional-loveliness'-stimulus-operated meetings, where Miss Berge's pre-emptive strike "but make it short", aimed at me alone, who never talked at length, as if I was more likely than any of them to be bothering all of them if I let it drag out – the problem of 'test-method-dictated content', hence 'test-method-limited' content incidentally, was one major weakness I observed both in Miss Maria Sofie Olsson's teaching and in the slur-filled non-scientific rhetoric of the second of the two ad-hoc-evaluators sent to verify the reported 'doubt' during that teaching-practice period (Dr. Øystein was the first; and when he couldn't point to any problems with my teaching, they sent Lisbeth M. Brevik whose incompetent and emotional ranting I audio-recorded in its entirety. The method of consistently and systematically enabling abuse in the 'team-work'-sphere tainted the teacher-course from its early phase and on through its 'practice-period', and Miss May Britt Esse Berge's demonstrative "but make it short"-discrimination, as just described, made it into the civil disobedience case I say it is, disobedience of §1-1 in our Law for teaching, by not teaching future teachers HOW to teach in adherence to some of its most important explicit orders: to "promote" "a scientific way of thinking" among children, and to teach them a set of explicitly listed principles that we may sum up tentatively as a 'liberal', 'tolerant' and 'inquisitive' mindset. When Miss Maria Sofie Olsson, our assigned guidance-teacher in English language teaching, realised I have a PhD in pedagogy, with some insight into 'team-work', and a Master in English, while she had none beyond the extra-classes she took recently in English teaching, she grew downright evil and hateful on me and stubbornly refused to entertain my request for her to immediately assist us in the ongoing group-dialogue, which, as I informed her of each of the three times I went to her during that half hour period, was in a quite unhealthy state, to put it mildly (cf. Appendix I). Maria just sat where she sat, throughout, chewing her food, refusing to walk 20 meters and see what she could help with. THAT is not a 'pedagogue', not in English and not in any subject worth teaching children, much less teachercandidates. I remember Miss Marte, my fellow teacher-candidate, one day asking Miss Maria Sofie Olsson whether English was the field of her higher education. The reply from Maria Sofie Olsson was that she "was educated in media, but actively sought to teach more English ... and it can be good for teachers, especially English teachers, to change to another field after a while". Based in part on Maria Sofie Olsson's dishonest cooking of the report she sent to the UiO Institute (ILS) about myself, I must wonder whether this was not the 'media-teacher' becoming an 'Englishteacher' by helping a present English-teacher away from that position, bullying the previous English teacher away from that job; 'helping' her work environment to agree it's a good idea; opportunistically elbowing herself to it socially, being as it is that I consider her patently void of essential qualifications as an English teacher both linguistically and pedagogically; and, in part based on her abuse of 'scientifically oriented' teacher-candidates like myself, ethically unqualified as well. Like Dr. Oeystein before her, Miss Maria Sofie Olsson refused to hear about any 'unhealthy quality' of the group work that she had designed in 'her' work-place, designed by leaving it alone to its own inherently emerging design by whatever emerging socially dominant alliance that manages to grab censorship in the entity they romantically call 'group', 'team' and not so romantically manipulate as their formal pseudo-alibi when filling out the report form with ample formal pseudo-reasons for 'extraordinary evaluation' of a candidate based on 'declared felt doubt' in the candidate, a 'declared doubt' that is followed by ad-hoc upgrading of all remaining 'practice' to 'exams' aka 'listening-in' by 'evaluators' sent from 'the Institute' to look for reasons to eject that particular candidate only, which, naturally, teaches the rest of the candidates: how lucky they are to escape the same 'special' treatment and what it takes to escape it. This is: the part of reality that our stupidly deferring Minister of Education refuses to understand, as did the stupidly deferring Ministers before him all stupidly deferring and delegating to the perpetrators. What we have here is students of pedagogy (learning-sciences) and teacher-candidates being trained to be critically thinking about non-allied individuals among them but critically numb about any scientific matter of fact relevant to consensus when its bearing on consensus is detrimental to it, paralyzing the very engine of science itself. That 'engine' is: debate without threat * 1 Teachers at the practice-venues explicitly teach children to always reach "agreement" with their learning partner, while never also saying 'they must seek or reach the best solution' or 'the best argument should win'; in other words, what we have here is a group-politics-promoting teaching, quite contrary to §1-1 of Norway's Law for teaching; in patent and consistent violation of its mandate to "promote a scientific way of thinking". And no one reacts when I report this ! The order, in §1-1 of that law, to teach a "scientific way of thinking", is an order for all to: Teach all children scientifically and ethically sound forms of debate, threat-free, exclusion-free. that is: excluding nothing beyond what the facts exclude, and arguing for the facts; excluding no argument, nor its conclusion, even when it proves faith wrong. This is what "a scientific way of thinking" MEANS, as written in §1-1 of our Law for teaching. Fact-based thinking and fact-based arguments is what that is. And the LAW says our teaching MUST "promote" it. But schools actually do the exact opposite. They undermine it by consistently and systematically forcing the individual child to 1 "reach agreement with learning-partner" rather than 2 "stand up for the good principles" and 3 "tell someone if you see somebody being abused" verified by myself at Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school in this is a threat, kinetically amplified: 2015 the first, the 1 'agreement-imperative', written on the whiteboard by Maria Sofie Olsson (witnessed by myself); 2 the second never uttered, 3 the third explicitly contradicted by Maria Sofie Olsson about dialogic abuse among teacher-candidates saying "the abused must tell themselves", as she tried to teach me I shouldn't tell on, snitch on, a female teacher-candidate who grabbed what she thought was 'leadership' of the 5-member team by enforcing her own censorship, forcing two other females into silence (Appendix I). They wouldn't speak their minds even when I explicitly asked them to "share your ideas", but mutely nodded in the direction of the female censorshipoperator (cf. Appendix I), who the next minute verbalizes a 'voting' by saying "We have majority, after which she looks at the two muted females to make sure they're not opposing her, and demands '3-4 votes against my vote' when she vetoes all I say, every time I say something. And she did the exact same thing the next day, in the 7 additionalmembers 12-member team: by way of incessant vetoing, thereby muting all but myself and another female (I only took notes at that stage), pushing all into doing everything the way she wanted and adding nothing to it, all the way; the 'leadership-demanding' female interrupting only to talk incessantly, not merely to insert a detail, until everyone just stop trying to speak their mind, one by one, and grow mute. And both the 'Institute' and the practice-venue actually reward her for that, time after time, in the middle of my repeatedly making them aware of the acute pathos. To the university Institute and the practice-venue-school, the alleged 'pedagogues' and their alleged 'administrators', it was the teller the one who tells of the pathos who was the pathos, just like parents of mob-targets in school have been telling the media for decades. This is an error in the HEADS of the teachers trained by the erroneous methods and quote-fraud I am pointing at. Mobbers (Norw.: mobbere) are 'a mob-leader and an audience' together, and the 'mob' (Norw: mobben/mobberne) is a GROUP always. 'Going against a majority' never constitutes 'mobbing' (not even in Norwegian); and the notions 'mobbing the majority' and 'a relatively weak individual mobbing a group' are oxymorons: 'acutely stinging stupidities' without a referent in the world. They do not exist. 'An individual tyrannising a group' isn't 'mobbing' but something else, even in Norwegian. Understand what 'mobbing' is; do not 'vote' on it. This is the reality in which the Minister of Education's passivity by deferring and delegating to the 'local majority' in this case the 'mob' or 'mobbers' (Norw: mobben/mobberne) in the right sense of the word: the perpetrators takes on the sick hue that I say is its pervasive essence; meaning the Minister is a social pathos of its own, one that we need to fix. The Parliament and the Minister are playing games with the public in this regard. They shun the problem by delegating it away from themselves; allowing the 'Institute of teachertraining' to 'interpret away' ALL good principles authored in the LAW written by the Parliament. The Minister and his clerks shun the duty of specifying HOW to follow that law, WHAT TO DO in order to "promote a scientific way of thinking among children" (law for teaching §1-1), and what NOT to do. I am pointing at things NOT to do; and, lo and behold: they are the core doctrine and the main methods in Norwegian (Scandinavian) 'domain-enforced' pedagogy as taught in Norwegian teachertraining, which therefore is sick to its CORE, that is: sick from its core this is a threat, kinetically amplified and outwards to its very skin-surface methodological features the core being mainly a set of made-up learning-theoretical quotes falsely attributed to Jean Piaget; the skin-surface methodological features being details in the learning-environment design: the 'seek-agreement' and 'reach-agreement'-imperatives combined with the lack of full-class debate, which ought to be the dominating form of dialogic activity* 4 ; the problem of 'test-method-limited teaching', and the pseudo-Socratic dialogue of 'looking for the necessary present confusion' in order for pupils to have a 'self-modification-moment', being four main elements, all pretty sick and in dire need of invasive surgery. But beware, the patient will object. Her noise will be beyond anything you ever heard. She will be screaming for a 'vote'-taking to vote logic out the window. * 4 Groupor pair-debates allow pockets of subtle social censorship, the social filter that stops potentially good ideas from reaching plenum. Only teacherscaffolded full class debate, ideally against the teacher rather than student vs. student, rewarding the use of logic, can maximize the healthy qualities and minimize tendencies towards social censorship of valid arguments. The 'leader-as-a-Dominator'-idea is a neurosis-pathos that I say young adult teacher candidates need to be educated against and taught to actively avoid. The better leader-role is the Word-Accommodator. Pedagogy desperately needs help from Philosophy in this regard; and on Philosophy's terms, not their own, the way some of them try to make Philosophy among 'their' competencies but not understanding what they are reading for example the way some use Immanuel Kant's On Pedagogy to defend youth autonomy, hence youth-gang autonomy, when that whole book says the exact opposite: we need to "form" the child "so that it one day can be able to be free" {damit es einst Frei sein könne} (Appendix III), but where they take Kant's in the context -"natural need to be free" ("von Natur...Hang zur Freiheit") to mean "natural ability to be free (Über Pädagogik §5). Lars Løvlie at the UiO does it, though he must know better; because the facts speak to him just as much as they do to me. The difference is the perspective of 'looking for facts to use' and the perspective of 'looking for what facts speak'. The latter is a different capacity, the scientific. Do not let Pedagogy make Philosophy 'their own' territory. That is what they want, but they are void of that capacity, on account of that capacity depending on the will to do what needs to be done in order to understand it. It is that particular 'will' they are void of, though they will say anything even say they have that 'will' just to be allowed to be left alone with the 'philosophy'-literature recommended for their activity. It is Philosophy that needs to be told and enabled to move in on pedagogical territory; not the reverse, which is the corrupt way Ed-Sci's offices use all resources as tools for their defence of status qua. The 'always-reach-agreement' imperative was observed by myself to be a consistently operated explicit rule at Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school 20 km south of downtown Oslo in the autumn-semester of 2015, specifically in the teaching of English in 7th to 9th grade classes taught by Miss Maria Sofie Olsson. On behalf of the 'Institute', each of the 'practice-venues' do the 'dirty' work that allows the university institute to 'blame' someone else when they exclude a teacher-candidate exclude a "student", No wonder why UiO's security guard followed me 1 km on foot towards down-town Oslo in his attempt to have the police confiscate the videorecording reformatted to this photo-strip. NOT an apprentice and use somebody else as alibi for the exclusion, somebody with the false appearance of being a 'third party'. The arrangement provides the pseudo-objectivity they put in the "report form on doubt in candidate" no, this is not a joke; they actually call it that, "report-form on doubt", and do not even appear to feel the least stupid as they do. The 'declared doubt' triggers the upgrading of all 'exercise' to ad-hoc extra-exams by universityemitted special inspectors sent to inspect aka 'listen in on' ONLY the one they 'doubt'* 5 while the rest of the students of pedagogy carry on with their 'exercise' or stand by and observe the target of the felt 'doubt'; learn the 'low value to impute' to that candidate, taught by modeling (by example); learn the value of NOT being the 'pendingexclusion-threatened' class-mate or fellow teacher-candidate; happy for NOT being singled out for the same special treatment, and quickly 'learning' what is being taught here, internalizing it, and joining that consensus. * 5 The obvious alternative to 'ad-hoc' inspections of selected individuals is to do it the maximally objective way: sending a team of PhDs from a broadened Faculty of Ed-Sci, with competencies involving Philosophy, Linguistics, Communication and Psychology and with the mandate to observe ALL teacher-candidates in the practicevenue they happen to be visiting on a given day, splitting the candidates between them randomly, as in the case of the University of Hong Kong (HKU). It is a detail that alone makes the Scandinavian method look rather ridiculous. What we are looking at here is, of course: grave abuse of 250 teacher-candidates by Dr. Øystein, Mr. Jon Arild Lund and the visually incognito female talking to Jon Arild Lund on the photo-strip (visually anony-mous on the UiO staff-list), and the female lecturer (also hiding her face on the staff-list); as well as the three female administrators back-stage: Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde (with a 20-30-year-old photo on the staff-list, obviously with a rational fear of being recognized), Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien and Miss Rita Hvistendahl all three behind lock: locked card-swipe and pin-code-operated sealed walls fencing them off from the elevator-and stair-case. They are obviously afraid obviously aware of their own abuses, but equally obviously view their role as equally special: 'justified semi-secret agents of pedagogy', beyond law and beyond the assumed tenets of scientifically, ethically and legally sound pedagogy. It is a never-ending series of ad-hoc extra-exams aka 'listening ins' that awaits 'the doubtee', the one they 'feel doubt in' and have reported as a candidate they 'doubt'; as many ipso facto designated extra-exams as it takes to get rid of that individual; observing and "listening in" while composing the verdict on whether the university institute's observation confirms the practice-venue's 'doubt' or not (really?) while doing no valid comparison with peers' performances in real time, nor in any other 'time-scale'. In other words, it isn't the absolutely weak, nor the relatively weak performer relative to OTHER PEERS, that are being singled out in this way, it is the ones they 'doubt on their own internal and inscrutable and uninvestigable scale of doubt' – a God-given doubt that never gets to be threatened by 'the doubtee actually passing the REAL exam', because the individuals they 'feel doubt in' are not even allowed to try to pass the real course-exams, regardless of what the required police-certificate says of the 'not-unsuitable-by-their-criteria' status. Certain domineering individuals feel 'doubt' in a candidate, and based on it deny the candidate access to the final exams ! That is one pretty crazy concept, one I say doesn't fit inside a healthy mind, but begins to push reason aside and demand a certain blindness. This is exactly how totalitarian state-police driven non-democratic societies have operated in the past, whether in the east-block or pre-WW2 Germany closed societies. in sum: The 'felt-doubt-based' inquisitionand eviction-panel is of course a circumnavigation of the educational-scientifically valid fairly objective a:)pre-exam screening by academic score and police-report, and the further sifting by fairly objective b:)official exams for everyone, until c:)job-interviews sift them personality-wise if the law allows it even then. It is a:)the police-certified statement of non-record of relevant crimes, and the academic merit by which entry to the course is granted in the first place, that make up the valid hurtles until b:)the common exam-phase the x)'doubt'-based ad-hoc selective 'listening-in' type in-course sifting or evaluation, with the possibility of getting the grade F for 'failed' in a work-environmentsituated non-contracted pseudo-apprenticeship type situation, then being patently unlawful. The purple x-factor here does not belong. It must be removed by Parliament. It is unlawful, unethical and unscientific, therefore invalid. (Summation:) 1. Parliament must install validity in the separation of the qualified from the unqualified here. I merely point to the obvious: Unqualified teacher-candidates with a valid police-certificate must be stopped at the course-exams or not stopped at all the above 'x' in the equation must go and the 'c'-hurtle, job-interview-phase and possibly temporary work-contractarrangements) take care of that later. A loss of laborunion-acquired benefits may be the price to pay. It is nonetheless necessitated by the corruption in Scandinavian teacher-educating institutions and the abuses involved. This is therefore what human rights and law dictate, partly explicitly and partly implicitly. The 'doubt-based-exclusion'-enforcing syndicate is a state-within-the-state. It is undemocratic and contrascientific. It works to eliminate holders of certain academic opinions. It even eliminates messengers of evidence that falsifies established beliefs, evidently so, which makes it contrary to science itself, as patently so as it being a systematic violation of: §1-1 of our Law for Teaching which dictates: the principles all of our schools are to teach and promote; hence dictates the principles all teacher-candidates must learn to teach in the same schools, hence must learn themselves in their pedagogical studies, hence must practice continuously in their pedagogical studies. They must practice them to learn them, and learn them to teach-and-promote them. So without their continuous-practice in teacher-education, no 'learning' of them in teacher-education, no 'teachingand-promoting' of them to and among children, and neither any adherence to that §1-1. None worth bragging of, anyway. I did my best during 4 weeks at Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school. I'll do it again, somewhere in teacher-education. I'm doing the job that the Parliament's inspectors should be doing, the ones Parliament should be sending continuously; the Parliament we should ridicule openly for not sending any, hence not knowing anything worth bragging of about any of this. I send them video-links and photostrips of these ignorant fascists in operation. Still no reaction in Parliament. The 'teach-them and promote-them'-command in the so-called Law for teaching §1-1 logically implicates i.e., constitutes an implicit 'practicethem-continuously', a 'learn-them', and a 'learn-toteach-and-promote-them' while teacher-candidates in higher education command. That is the actual validity that this particular law which says it is specifically valid for 1st grade to 12th grade schools has in the teaching of the future teachers and promoters of the same principles in 1st to 12th grade schools. That means it has a logically implicit validity in one special part of 'higher' education too: teacher education. But teacher-educating institutions do not understand or, the humans who drive forth their will within these institutions refuse to behave as if they acknowledge this fact. They need to be told to do so, and in great detail, by Parliament. Teacher candidates must practice them consistently, all of these principles in the lecture-halls and in the seminar classes in order to learn them; and they must learn them before they can learn to teach them to anyone else. And, because of the current pathos having spread into the environment of teaching school-children, the mentioned principles must be thoroughly learned, preferably BEFORE any so-called 'practical teaching-exercise', which, if 'being liked' is to remain a criterion for passing, would need to be separated from the course programs and take place in proper work-contracted settings, after all exams have been completed and all diplomas and degrees issued, in order to be free from the conflict of interest inherent in any 'liason' between 'Institute' and 'work-environment'. The quality of 'the product' produced by a teacher is not directly 'profit-measured', nor can it be measured directly in profitabilitywise increments it isn't a product you can measure instantly in quantifiable dimensions, so the task of 'evaluating' it cannot be performed accurately and consistently in an objective manner; hence there can bo no legally valid 'observation of a doubtee', 'evaluation of a person doubted in'. This is, of course, the obvious reason why we do not have, at least not in public education, regular 'apprenticeships' in the teacher's sphere. What we have instead is the attempt to have the 'Institute-and-practice-venue-school' liason behave as if it is an apprenticeship but without offering the benefits that always follow regular apprenticeships. That, of course, is just plainly dishonest dishonest by the universities and dishonest by our government. That dishonesty is a form of social stupidity, a lack of collective intelligence. It is as evil as it can be, and has resulted in a huge scientific discrepancy in Ed-Sci, the one I am pointing at with this photo-documentary, ridiculing people who solidly need to be ridiculed for the fraud I have proved them to be. (Summation:) 2. Consistently threat-free debates is requirement no.1 for all obligatory 'team-work'; and the larger the team, up to 'the class as a team' entity, the better safety against threats and exclusion-tendencies can be provided by the lecturer, a structure we may call: the open-debate-society in one large team, threat-free. That is the building of 'team-spirit'; and the lecturer must be present throughout, consistently and systematically enforcing explicitly formulated valid principles for schientifically and ethically sound teamwork dialogue, throughout team-work-rules. A dialogue that adheres to such principles is not a form that arrives by itself; it is the unhealthy version that arrives 'by itself', so to speak, as habits of abuse. The bully-by-alliance machinery of the 'small-teamsleft-alone'-paradigm we see defended by the representatives in the left margin here is the opposite of healthy team-spirit, the opposite of all reasonably healthy pedagogical learning-environment-designs. The principles laid forth in §1-1 of our Law for teaching must all be thoroughly internalized. They are essentially opposite of the Facebook-world-operated principles. They are essentially what makes the school an example to the rest of society rather than a parttaker in lesser-principles-driven activities detrimental to our society. It is of course formal mobbing, formal bullying in gang, when the institute-practice-venue alliance makes the 'excercise-teaching' into pseudo-exams exclusively arranged for the candidate they want to 'formally doubt out of their way before the real exams'; exams which they, quite on the contrary, must evaluate by a scientifically transparent standard with something near full retrospective objectivity. It is a dangerous stupidity, this, though, one that in some matters turns them into judges of what they understand nothing about and in other matters judges of what they regretfully rule on fully aware of: the contempt they feel towards the individual candidate they 'feel doubt' in when they fill in the 'felt doubt' in formal documents that 'formally' allow the receiving office (the same office that sends 'information' about 'doutful' candidates to the people who then 'fornally doubt') to make practice into individual-targeted ipso facto extra-exams, by sending 'observers' who evaluate (hence 'extra-exams') and then evict; by criteria no Parliament has ever discussed. The Parliament merely collectively IMAGINE the affairs to be in order when the 'Institute' defends their consensus and procedures. My documented research shows these affairs to be a shady affair with unscientifically based belief as the motive of objectively verified scientific fraud: made-up quotes that do not adhere to the real quotes (Piaget 1967, cf. Soerfjord 2015). It is of course a scientific scandal they must try to run away from. And run they do, while throwing stones. That is what we are seeing in the persistent aggression on the face of Dr. Øystein as he executes his mock physical assault on myself in the lecture hall on 11.Nov.2015 (photos left margin), one that includes an initiated martial arts technique followed by a mock headbutt and a follow-up assault he diverts in the last split of a second, a mock assault in which he uses martial-arts foot-moves and exaggerated torso-sways as if preparing an impact to occur with a generated momentum steps that I too once learned and know enough about to recognize. It is either theatrics orchestrated to intimidate without the signaled impact or intimidate with the use of an aborted impact; and the target has no way of knowing whether the signaled impact will occur or not. The mere signaling of the impact is of course in itself physical abuse. It is an initiated physical assault, a gesticulated threat of physical violence. I also know that such is among what all martial arts forbid anyone among them to use as provocation against any non-threatening individual like myself. The method so aggressively protected: The university institute and practice venue school alliance operates a sifting-organ that no one can operate legally on campus within the bounds of formal operations. They do so in part by 1:)using the micro classmate-group, the 'candidate-team' where whoever they want to evict is a 'member', as a formal alibi. Consequently their official report forms take the shape of veritable gossip-files, in which you see things like "the practice-guideteacher couldn't find him, because he was in the toilet brushing his teeth" (genuine quote), when the only reason why anyone even knew what he (myself) was doing in the toilet is because he told his peers he was going there and why, therefore a sign of coordinating and letting them know how to find him (me), which they indeed did when they needed to, a reality quite opposite of what the report form made it into (a habit of disappearing, 'teeth-brushing-neurosis' or anything that isn't good); "didn't move quickly" (genuine quote), when the candidate (myself) simply used a cane to walk and couldn't run the stairs when the rest did; and "did not fit in with his peers", when he (I) in fact was the one to speak up about a person's abuse* 6 against another peer in the group, but the excercise-venue and the Institute both repeatedly answering that "they", the abused, "must tell themselves" ( 1 "De må si fra selv!") and "it is not your duty" ( 2 "Det er ikke din oppgave!" to tell on their behalf, audio-recorded by me) direct quotes of 1 Miss Maria Sofie Olsson at Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school 20 km south of downtown Oslo, and 2 Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, "Leader of Instruction" at the UIO Institute for Teacher-education and School-research (Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning, ILS); who both uttered this objectively and verifiably positively wrong (ethically, policy-wise and legally false) claim, a claim she made repeatedly into my audio-recorder, in the presence of Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde ('Department Head') and Dr. Oeystein, two claims by which the carriers of the two voices ( 1 Olsson and 2 Engelien), as well as their immediate supervisors and subordinates, prove how positively unqualified they are in Pedagogy: Miss May Britt Esse Berge (practice-leader at the practice-venueschool Flaatestad), Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, (Head of Dept., UiO) and Institute-Leader Miss Rita Hvistendahl, as well as the faculty leadership in Ed-Sci (uv-fak) and the 'Rektor'-titled gentleman who smiles on camera when being interviewed on tv. The so-called "Rektor", the ultimate position as 'overseer of academic activities', proves to be a major obstacle to the Parliament-authored will, particularly for 'the teaching of pedagogy', the so-called 'LearningSciences', 'the sciences of learning and teacher training'. (* 6 cf. their photos further down, left margin). Organisation map: http://www.uio.no/om/organisasjon/organisasjonskart/ (a map that tells a lie) University board, Rektor to the faculties to the faculties Faculty of Educational Science red line: academic chain of command / grey line: administrative chain of command as it turns out, a purely abstract 'chain-of-command'-map, in view of the fact that rektor's only science-oriented command is "Use your own judgment", at times uttered as "Follow normal procedures". There is no academic judgment whatsoever being passed 'down' from rektor, nor 'down' from the 'Faculty' leadership. Hence, a purely abstract map drawn to show lip-service to the Parliament via the Ministry of Education a Minister-Rector-Dean dead-end detour of good principles that Parliament, on our behalf, labels in that §1-1 of our law for teaching, to indicate what we want, as if the locally empowered cf. the specimen in the left margin here could be trusted to FILL IN THE BLANKS on what to do and what NOT to do. In reality, what we have is Institute-situated King-power, the power to dictate what words like "being responsible for", and 'good enough' or "sufficiently" in "sufficiently high quality", in the general Law for higher education (Lov om universiteter og høyskoler) are supposed to refer to; the power to, on behalf of local grabbers of censorship-privilege, invent and prohibit referents to "shall learn critical thinking", referents to "promote" and "scientific perspective" in "promote a scientific perspective", all LIPGLOSS in §1-1 of the for public schools and the publically funded Law for basic and advanced instruction, the so-called "Instruction-law" (Opplaeringsloven). Øystein extends his right foot to where I stand. And the politicians who write these principle-lable-limited lawparagraphs openly admit to the perception of their own role as 'pointers to principles', thinking it is the proper limit of their responsibility and the rest being up to the battling local agents or the courts. That is where I say they are wrong, tragically and darkly comically wrong, as wrong as they can be. It is local fascism nationalized. As it turns out, schools teach the 'Big-Brother'-voting of reality into 'social existence'. In plain words, they teach what in Norway is called "mobbing", 'abuse by gang-power'; abuse by the social unit consisting of a leader and the leader's supporters, essentially chimpanzee-behaviour. The problem with that is we're homo-sapien. We have: social needs of a higher order than that. These two bodies of laws the 'law for higher education' and 'law for teaching' are therefore nothing more than the singing of a song consisting of the headings of unwritten chapters that should outline the specifics, classes of specifics, and median and wider categories of specifics that in their maximized universal form constitute the very principles they only mention the LABELS of; pseudo-laws that leave all in the hands of the local perpetrators now ridiculed by evidence. These photos show a ridiculous truth, the truth of what we are actually getting for our money; systemic fraud in public services, organized fraud, in the end organized theft of public funds by way of organizational abuse in defence of the scientific fraud I in fact have proved (Soerfjord 2015-2016). These 'institutes' of teacher-training are not engaged in 'science', not Ed-Sci or any 'science'. It is 'politics' and 'income-securing' that is their business. And therein lies the seed of it, the seed that attracts people willing to have their ethics formed by higher command, a higher command that promise them promotion if they excel in their duty as protectors of their organisation. It is essentially what allows dictators to get into the game and challenge the world and reality itself. And Dr. Øystein ..... here is an "amanuensis" with hopes for promotion to higher grounds, higher than the position of being called "servant" amanuensis , which evidently means 'at the hand', hence 'servant', or 'assistant', an abbreviation of "assistant of the professor", "professor-assistant"; but not 'assistant professor', much less 'associate professor', a point that will be demonstrated below. The significanse of that is essential. They are all being pushed down, kept low, without the title that merely describes what they actually do for a living - 'profess' (teach). Kept on a title-step below their actual job, with too few carrots on a stick hung up for all of them to have one, some of them sabotage the better jumpers and some of the worst among them win the title of the 'most agreeable', or 'most sociable' among the competitors for the same advertised job-title, a title that simply calls them what they are already, all of them - 'teachers', not 'assistants of teachers'. These Institute-situated consensus-defending offices have allowed a particular quote-falsification through decades, have not interfered; have benefited from the peaceful agreement, and have not tried very hard to understand it. No one can, without spoiling their own jump for one of the few carrots hung up before them. But, nonetheless, it is in itself scientific treason. So, when somebody explains a consensus- threatening discovery to them, they in this case all females (Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, the email-writer; Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, the orally threatening; and Miss Rita Hvistendahl, the Institute-leader behind and beyond) people who have not educated themselves in the topic and have no research-experience in cognitive theory go to war against the sucker who shared the fact with them. First they ignore the scientific information. Then when their own pals at the Ministry 'order' them to respond, after I bother them long enough to piss the whole Ministry off they have Dr. Eyvind Elstad, the Dr. Polit., Doctor of Political Science, NOT PhD in Education, write three sentences in which he says my information about the forged 1967 Piaget-quotes is "irrelevant". The three females attach Elstad's letter to an email to the sucker (me) that says "because Dr. Elstad says it is not important, it is not important" (Quoteand citation-fraud at the UiO, Soerfjord 2015); then send 'their' personell after the one who found out what they have done, a task we see Dr. Øystein (Oeystein) here happy to execute, Dr. Øystein and other proponents of "self-modification" who refuse to self-modify. Dr. Øystein's male colleague in the background, whom I believe I have identified as Mr. "1st Consultant" Jon Arild Lund (photo p.69), is some-what more calm and collected, but he too is bent on getting me out of there; and when he finds no valid reason, he proceeds to use the one they created the need for by openly discriminating me; the female lecturer eliciting audience participation and questions but specifically denying me to ask any, in front of a 250 student large class of which only 3 raise a hand, my hand included, blatantly creating the need for it the use of my Sony-cam, to put the empirical sample on record. So the male behind Dr. Øystein is as lacking of scientific and ethical integrity as Dr. Øystein and the rest of that mob-team for hire. The Norwegian metaphor "mobbers" ("mobbere") lexically alludes to their gang-bully-behaviour. The notion is 'mobbing', and it always involves 1)the 'singling out of an individual' or a relatively weaker group, and the audience is a part of the 'mob', whether they know it or not. Its definition is such that it is always wrong, in the same sense of all the unacceptable referents of the notion 'ganging up on someone'. It involves 2:'marking the target with some mark that indicates a lower value', and 3:always conditionally, to be unleashed if the individual refuses to accept being discriminated: the verbal or physical, as here gesticulated threat of physical violence or forceful physical degradation; and, if relevant, always 4:physical removal. They are the elements and the pattern of extreme or derelic forms of organized religion and hate-groups, the opposite of science; the opposite of what Parliament has ordered education to be about. These elements are the essential nature of mobbing: 1:singling out an individual target, a unique target or a representative of a category, or singling out a smaller or weaker group, 2:marking with a lower value, 2:threatening and/or discriminating, and 3:physically removing if the marking, threatening and discrimination doesn't satisfy the mob or bend the target into submission. The English notion 'bully' covers most of it. Add the implicit notion of the always associated 'gangbehaviour' and you're spot on: mob-bullying, bullying with a forced or voluntary audience audience of the event or audience of the storytelling of the event; bullies who may appear benign when alone, and often charismatic or extraordinarily extrovert, as if socially hyper. Their aggression frighten entire teams into silence, moving some to pedagogic faith, not Ed-Sci: a self-appropriating dynasty has hijacked Norways's offices of Ed-Sci. report them to the office responsible for the misery, whereafter the office rids itself of the messenger, predictably so, every time. I have observed mob-bullies like Dr. Øystein here and Jon Arild Lund all my childhood and school-years; and here they are again in teacher training of all places, where they absolutely should not be, where they should have no role or be kept in control by specific and legislated instructions that define outline the limits of – their function; specific work-instructions issued directly by parlia-ment, legislated specific instructions and limitations, the only way to do it. Without such, these publically funded employees expand their power into an ipso facto 'police-force' against 'unwanted "scientific thinking" ', the very thing §1-1 says we MUST engage in and "promote" among children. Study the photos of the part of the audience remaining seated in the recess, further below, and ask yourself: how many of these young adults are likely to follow my example and engage in the kind of "scientific thinking" that leads to the possibility of discovering anything that proves consensus wrong ? Such a legislation as the above mentioned is a 'controlresponsibility' that cannot be delegated to the 'Institute', nor to the faculty; and nor to the Rector, the University President or its 'board'. Why? Because they all delegate all all the way down to the 'Institute', to the colleague-group that is currently enforcing the problematic 'alike-thinking' that has prevented errors from being corrected in Ed-Sci, and still does; the pressure towards 'alikethinking' that I mentioned to the Minister of Education in the Q&Asession of a symposium on education held in Oslo on 17. March 2016, and which every single question in the Q&A session was about. in sum: 3. Regardless of the funding-model of a nation's universities, we need a teacher-education without any form of 'selective practical-test-regime' (needs to be void by law), inspections or evaluations or 'sittingin' or 'listening-in' applied only towards some trainees/teacher-candidates between initiation of a course-program and the last of the course-exams. We need legislated criteria of assessment in Ed-Sci, and legislated limitations to the mandate of such assessment criteria. 4. Instead, assuming we discard the idea of moving all practical training to the sphere of payed and contracted apprenticeship; we only have the following option, the only alternative logically permissible by the ethical and scientific criteria that apply to all public affairs: a)Maximally independent inspector-teams made up of the academics who teach these students of pedagogy at the teacher-educating institutions (universities and colleges/'schools of higher education': Norw. "hoeyskoler"); inspector-teams that inspect all trainees/candidates equally frequent and for equal lengths of time each time, twice or so per semester for a 45-minute session; once extra when an inspector finds the need for it; b)all inspectors by law inspecting independently of what anyone else might think about any of the candidates, even 'reported doubt'; -Having planted his right foot under my torso 9 photos ago, he moves as if to topple me by momentum on impact as he launches at me while shifting his torso's weight over to the foot he planted under me, a standard martial arts move, and he moves as if to move to its impact. c)inspectors that by law remain shielded from all information passed to them that might influence the assessment, by formal or informal channels, about anyone doubting anyone among the trainees or having any opinion or knowledge of them at all; d)each inspector by law remaining beyond influence of anyone from the faculty or the practice-venueschool; and, last but not least, e)the assessment's mandate being purely formative. That is, the assessment is only to be for the benefit of forming the remaining part of the tutoring, by the inspector personally there and then, and by the senior teacher advising the trainee, extra courses and/or written exams when needed but no practical-performanceassessment with a pass-or-fail mandate. Why not? Because the criterion 'qualified-to-teach' cannot be defined fairly beyond clarity of speech and content knowledge during the 'excercise' itself, as long as conduct is within the psychologically normal and lawful; and selective 'non-excercise' is fundamentally unfair, so unfair that it is a human-rights-violation. Besides, whoever narrows teaching down to a mechanic movement-recipee type list of criteria that must be met and which trainees are to follow slavishly, commits a grave error. Some trainees will get away with a lot of mistakes, while others don't, because it cannot be assessed accurately when it cannot be quantified. For instance, if 'moving too little while teaching', while also 'being disliked' and other similar elements form 'an evaluated whole' (Norw."helhetsvurdering") used as ground for failing a trainee, then Parliament MUST quantify HOW much a trainee must 'move while teaching', HOW WELL he must be liked', and so on. Otherwise there can be no such pass-fail-criterion applied and the assessment can then only be formative. And THAT is how we produce a diverse army of teachers for a diverse population in a modernly diverse democracy. Do you understand? Some of the highest ranked universities of the world already have assessment-procedures aligned with precisely the particular insight that I am now explaining to you. It is something that dominant office-holding profession-groups in Norway and Scandinavia haven't been forced to accept yet. 5. Racism and biases of cultural or ideological kinds* 7 -are enacted in formal discourse, and assessment is one such medium for it when assessment has a mandate to fail along parameters that no one can quantify along ! It is a recipee for fascism. And we have it already. The sifting by assessment-criteria along parameters no one can quantify and never were even legislated, is a poison within our teacher-education. his gaze redirected towards my face, after I shifted my upper body to the left, holding the Sony-cam off my right shoulder. I once was the target of an attempted robbery as I rode my bicycle along the canal in Sevilla at 2 AM. The would-be robber was on a light motor-bike in the bicycle-lane, an inch behind my rear-wheel. I looked into the cold reptile eyes of a dangerous person. So I have seen this expression before. But seeing it on the face of a university lecturer is unexpected, and in teacher-education of all places. * 7 'Ideological bias' includes discrimination of science itself, and that is how such assessment corrupts science itself. A science allowed to assess in such a way corrupts itself. That is what we see in the photo-series here and below: Agents of Ed-Sci obstructing Ed-Sci, doing irreparable harm to all of us; harm that we can repair, but hardly until the next generations. The teacher-candidates you see in the photo-strips below are already damaged, and, I'd say: for life by being forced to learn the contempt taught in that UiO course-program sampled by my sony-cam on 11.Nov.2015. LOOK AT THEIR FASES (below photo-strips) AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF. Public discourse is where biases and discrimination are expressed and enacted on a social level. Public discourse, when designed in a way that allows it to happen, is the very 'operator' of bias and discrimination that are merely potential without the structural disursal flaws that allow them. Assessment along unquantifiable parameters is: a discrimination-operator. It can be expected to operate one form of discrimination or another in any given location; all forms of it in a collection of locations. Assessment along unquantifiable parameters not only allows the protection of unscientifically based consensus, it allows all the other forms of discrimination as well, which is why it is our responsibility to end it. Assessment does not refrain from certain forms of discrimination when allowed to operate any form of it. It jumps into all of them, in a given collection of locations say, a country one big bite: racism and all forms of cultural bias. It does not stop at the discrimination of scientifically based dissidence in the dialogue-segments of lecture hall discourse (left margin sample): the unlawful exclusion of, and modeling of contempt against, a science-minded teacher-candidate who discovered their quote-fraud, before 250 teacher-candidates who bring that antithesis of insight with them into their work among school-children, whom I think deserve more insightful role-models than that. Assessment along unquantifiable parameters embraces, indulges, accommodates, enables, encourages and enforces discrimination of all kinds. It does not know how to distinguish one form of discrimination from another, not even on the level of the most independent individual assessor. Assessment as 'felt doubt'-based, targeted against individuals that the practice-venue or the faculty or anyone else, feel 'doubt' in, is a disriminationoperator. This is an aggression that defendss proven quote-fraud and grave corruption in office, as I have documented (Soerfjord 2015), in defense of a church-authored Bible-compatible learningmodel from the Dark Ages. 6. The formative-limited mandate of the practicalcompetence-assessment can only be secured if legislated into law, and defined in detail. It is defined loosely in 4e) above. More concrete on the notion of 'formative only': A relatively positive evaluation within the 'formativeonly' assessment frame-work of teaching-practice in Ed-Sci studies means 'keep up the good work' and a relatively less positive or even negative evaluation means 'increase focus on particular elements' in the continued practice; where a)'practice' shall mean 'rehearsal' and is not to be bound to 'pass or fail' criteria along unquantifiable parameters: cannot, because practical performance assessment then becomes a discrimination-operator in our society, the one we have today (cf. the specimen in the left margin here), a discourse operator that cannot isolate contempt against a scientific evidence-bringer from other forms of discrimination, cultural or racial cannot, because it is impossible. If a society's public discourse CAN operate one, it operates ALL forms of discrimination. Only God could isolate one of them, I suppose, if he existed. These people in the left margin here cannot even be honest about the basic Piaget-quotes they EXPLICITLY pretend to build on, in every lecture on learning-theory (Soerfjord 2015). They are intrinsically dishonest. I wouldn't recommend leaving them alone with children, not even their own. Just LOOK at the hate in those eyes in the left margin on account of a damn quote that does not go their way! The central 1967 Piaget-quote does make their entire house of learning-theory-cards crash, true, but that is their problem. They are the ones who cook quotes (each time they mechanically repeat what they inherited about Jean Piaget and are not allowed to even question) and falsely assign them to Piaget in defense of their factually Bible-compatible cognitive model, cooked in pre-rennaissance times in a churchrun higher education. They do it in many contries, but the Scandinavian monster must be the worst, in its infinite stupidity; because here they combine that pseudo-model with a systematic enabling and rewarding of the idiotic role 'incessantly talking censorship-operator' who so far, each time in my empirical sampling, has been a young female'. She talks incessantly and refuses everyone else to contribute, and no work can begin until everyone limit what they say to what she already understands; or else she'll veto it with "No, I think we should" (Appendix 1) or just interrupt it and begin talking incessantly, making it a take-over, each time. She waits for 2 or 3 to surrender to her by growing silent and deferring to her; then threatens the remaining team-member by calling a vote, by which she claims 'majority' for her version only, and a black-out habit we should all be worried about? or should we let Parliament keep ignoring the fact that 'rektor' ignores the fact that the 'institute' ignores it while capitalizing on it ? His 'institute' the females who put him up to this sort of behavior might one day promote him to an administrative position in which he can hire others like himself. tells the teacher of pedagogy that there is a 'noncontributor' on the team. If the teachers then dislike the censorship-targeted individual, which they do if he ever called on them to assist the pathological dialogue enroute, holding them responsible for it, he is threatened further by the teacher either 'granting' a dominant-alliance-driven (it is really teacher-driven) eviction from the 'team', in 'mandatory team-work in Ed-Sci of all places; or a teacher sends rumours to the 'practice-venue' ahead of time, (in this case Dr. Øystein, directly or via the institute administrators) identifying a candidate that the 'practice-venueschool' may formally 'doubt', which, when the 'doubt-in-candidate'-report is made, lets the institute elevate all 'excercise' to actual 'practical exams' for that individual and no one else, even as soon as a week or two into what remains 'practice' for the rest of the candidates. The ipso fakto extraordinary-exams for 'selectedfor-exclusion'-doomed individuals are labeled by a lie to "sitting-ins" ("listening-on" - "påhør") performed by one among themselves as assessor, a new assessor next time if the presently assessing fails to find many or any mistakes, a never-ending series of teaching-exams, with assessors in the classroom who evidently, demonstratively, despise you and want to get rid of you, in itself abuse, and doubly so when these are teacher-candidates singled out for 'pass-orfail'-mandated assessment of unquantifiable entities - grave abuse. These alleged 'assessors' write down all the mistakes they can think of until they cook an 'overall assessment' ("helhetsvurdering"), without assessing any of the 'not disliked', hence 'not-doubted' by the practice-venue-schools, who really use the alleged 'practice' as a first stage to simplify all successive jobinterviews by getting rid of people who ask questions they don't want to answer, people who present the REAL version of quotes they have counterfeit. By filing the 'formal doubt' they get rid of teachers who might otherwise fool them on a later job-interview. This is personality-sifting unlegislated in Parliament, unlegislated Scandinavian law, unlawful law street law. The outcome is predetermined. You see that when you read the assessments they base their 'failed'ruling on; and the 'failed' is unwarranted by the causes they in fact give: nothing but rumours, amounting to 'bullying' in writing. It is an assessmentlocated discrimination-operator that Parliament never approved officially the selective 'claimed felt doubt'triggered turning of 'rehersal' to: the point of inferred physical impact, two of his equally incompetent colleagues in the background, all of them school-bullies who made their inclination a career, cloning an army of like-minded mobbers blind to mob bullying (mobbing) among children. Assessors in Ed-Sci not knowing the limits of the application of assessment-criteria, the limitation of the role they can rationally play in Ed-Sci, is at the core of this pathology. extraordinary exams along unquantifiable parameters exams that candidates 'not doubted' do not have to go through at all. These ipso facto never-ending series of extraordinary-assessment, with accumulative pass-failmandate, of selected individuals' mannerism in the work-environment, matters that cannot be objectively assessed, only loosely, with a formative purpose, of course, is mobbing; and letters that speak of 'failed practice-period' likewise, especially since the 'rehersal or practice' referred to is cancelled the minute you put a 'special assessor' in the classroom to assess with accumulative 'pass-or-fail'-mandate; especially a hostile assessor, which they by definition declare themselves to be from the very beginning of the 'doubt'-claim. And all this on account of feelings, which we see they have plenty of, the aggressive and rather irrational contempt kind in particular all of which, naturally, is unlawful. It makes institutes of Ed-Sci violators of law and human rights, not to mention violators of tenets of pedagogy. All of it, even as a mere structurally given possibility, calls for: major restructuring. If the censorship-targeted individual candidate tells them there has to be rules taugh for such teamwork in advance; rules like 'all team-members have the right to contribute and not have the contribution they offer to add to the collective product excluded by anyone in the team', they really despise you, like the left margin sampled specimen here, whom I told after the very first so-called team-work session he taught by not teaching it at all not teaching one single inclusive behavior type principle; actually no principle at all for team-dialogue or healthy cooperation, none whatsoever; ethics?, an intense stupefying void, the classical bully. Dr. Øystein is a firm believer in what he does. If asked, he might call it "self-regulation", imagining the 'team' to be 'one person' who regulates 'its' own learning. If you point out to him the abuse of individuals who dissent with the dominance-grabber and the alliance-partners who acquiesce to her domination, which I did in Sept.2015, Dr. Øystein's face turns into what you see in the left margin, which it did. That was the first time Øystein (Oeystein)'s face turned dark as I spoke, in early September two months before this mock-assault of his on myself in the lecture hall; for saying "Excuse me, I too have a question", and not taking a "you must be quiet, or else" threat for an answer when everyone else among the 250 present can ask and comment all they want, in dialogue-segments meant for it and explictily invited by the female lecturer; The initiated physical assault becomes a mock physical assault in the last split of a second. Until then it is an initiated physical assault that advances into its final stage, the beginning of the impact-stage, but then breaks off. At the same time it is a bodily enacted threat of the infliction of physical inury. then letting my friend the Sony-cam record the remaining witnesses to it in the recess. In order to get a job in 'their' institute (the ILS of the Univ. of Oslo), the current holders of these offices (the "We" from the lips of Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien: "We require anyone who apply for a job with us to ...") require that a PhD work for a minimum of one year as a teacher beforehand; which no one gets to do unless they agree with all their opinions first, including their quote forgery; that is, one must at least pretend to agree with it or pretend to not understand that it is forgery, and otherwise be a PhD with a "view on learning" that "leader-of-instruction" Miss Engelien herself is able to grasp mentally all of which naturally excludes the possibility of the UiO being mentally able to hire anyone like myself (the UiO, like the rest, having only the fictitious academic command line from rektor to institute, and none from the Parliament). I, naturally, would suggest all of the institute-elite ought to be fired, the entire female troika (Suhr Lunde/Engelien/Hvistendahl) along with the Dr. polits (Dr.Polits-pretending-to-be-PhD-in-pedagogy, Mr. Eyvind Elstad for one) who, together with not so intelligent brutes help them stay there, in that particular institute one among three institutes in the UiO's faculty of Ed-Sci. 7. a)The assessment of practical performance in the sphere of teacher-studies does not meet the standards it must to be elevated into any form of 'pass or fail' type assessment, nor made a part of a 'pass or fail' mandated assessment, not for anyone and not on behalf of anyone. Proposition: All acts of assessing teaching-skills along unquantifiable parameters by 'pass-or-fail'mandated criteria belong in the sphere of employment and contracted apprenticeship. Assessment along 1: unquantifiable parameters by 2:'pass-or-fail'-criteria gives us 3: the sphere of employment and contracted apprenticeship. only. In education, we may reasonably assess the unquantifiable entities we find along unquantifiable parameters but only formatively, assessing where to aim our focus. ¤ (Kant called a 'logically valid' structure one that has 'logical truth', the criteria of which he says are as follows) * 9 Immanuel Kant the physics-, mathand logicprofessor's definition of logical validity (validity: 'strength')¤, in his lecture notes published 1800 and 1801, is this: logical validity is an argument whose reasons are all possible to be true at the same time ("criterion of possibility: contradictionrule, the requirement that reasons not contradict one another": consistency) and are sufficient to necessitate one particular conclusion only ("criterion of sufficient reasons: the hanging together of the reasons with what follows {the conclusion}" causing absurd conflict with the opposite conclusive claim). So logical validity is 1:consistency of all claims involved in the argument and 2:cohesion between reasons and conclusive claim. 1 is verified by a consistencytest, to demonstrate absence of contradiction, and 2 by a reduction-to-absurdity-test in which we replace the conclusion by the opposite claim and demonstrate a contradiction arising. An argument with reasons (premises) that contradict one another is not logically valid by this standard. It is Immanuel Kant's standard and Ludwig Wittgenstein's standard. Modern statisticians have since invented 'self-contradictionindependent logical validity', but the purpose for it is self-serving: for storage of self-contradicting statistical data. The problem with that is that they too must lie to hide some underlying motive, the statistics-limited benefit of it; and they had to create a validity-test that does not work, not quite, because the test (put in the opposite conclusion and verify a contradiction) is not really a 'reduction to' absurdity when the argument tested already has contradicting reasons/premises in it. Yet they still call it a 'reduction-to-absurdity-test'. An uglier problem is the fact that the prominent proponents for this validity-theory pretend that it is grounded in a naturally occuring phenomenon: {the observation that all valid arguments are self-contradicting after we switch to the opposite conclusive claim}1 to which "DA!" is all there is to say and proceed to argue that {'therefore, if we come across an argument with contradicting premises, it is valid'}2, where {1+2} is an argument called 'affirming the consequent', which even they say is 'logically invalid', which it is. So they use a verifiably invalid argument form to argue for the propriety of their theory of validity. It is circular reasoning, so that is why it is invalid. And they make billions in book-sales. The stuges who do this are: Paul Tidman, Howard Kahane and Alan Hausman, professors of math and statistics etc., together with their publisher: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston, MA. They have taken over all teaching of 'logic' in all universities on planet Earth. No wonder why deductive logic isn't a mandatory bachelor-level course in today's 'higher' education, and I only mention this because I think it ought to be. I hate to sound like some logic-nerd (nerd: 'uncool person'), but I think it's pretty cool to prove these fraudsters the asses they are. b)Assessment along unquantifiable parameters by 'pass-or-fail'-mandated criteria, selective targeting of 'assessees' (subjects to be assessed) and non-random selection of subjects is maximally unreliable. unquantifiable parameters + 'pass-or-fail'-mandate + non-random selection of a few subjects _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ = maximally unreliable assessment Add the element of 'inner-process'-based mental -process-based selection and we are within the envelope of corrupted processing. unquantifiable parameters + 'pass-or-fail'-mandated criteria + non-random selection of a few subjects + mental-process-based selection _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ = corrupted processing Add the element of 'negative' to make it 'negativemental-process-driven' such selection - 'doubt'triggered and we have motive: motive-driven corrupted processing. unquantifiable parameters + 'pass-or-fail'-mandated criteria + non-random selection of a few subjects + mental-process-based selection + 'negative mental process' ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ = motive-based corrupted processing NOW add the element of 'study-sphere' and what do we get? Do the math, eh, algebra or something* 8 : * 8 It is actually called deductive logic, with partially implicit premices (I am a PhD in logic as well as pedagogy). Arguments of a sociological nature tend to be very large, requiring the principle of charity (benevolence), by which we assume all the non-explicit premises one may benevolently think of to be implicitly included in the premise-structure; and once they are all in, the conclusion is a given, objectively so. That is what the word "logic" means: "of the words", that is: 'of the meaning of the words of the premises spoken or assumed in the argument' ('premise' meaning 'what is set forth'). The conclusion, hence, is not an opinion; it is actually the opposite of an opinion. The facts 'set forth' by the phenomena represented by our all true* 9 premises make the conclusion 'a truth about a fact', necessarily so; which means that a claim that in any relevant manner is opposite of that conclusion is 'necessarily false', objectively so. Saying or thinking otherwise is having a warped reason, being either a fool or insane whether individually or, as in this case, two paid witnesses to a hate-crime, accomplices to it even by the mere non-interference with it, but active parttakers by planning (which is what the female does as she speaks to Jon Arild Lund) and backing the bully they send in front of them; two alleged 'administrators', among the many we could simply get rid of and spend our collected taxes on better projects. The two, plus the assaulting brute on his way towards me are sent by Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, on behalf of Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, on behalf of Miss Rita Hvistendahl enforcers (by way of quote fraud and administration-fraud) of politics that contradicts the Parliamentauthored politics legislated in §1-1 of the law for teaching. All under the noses of a parliament who refuses to interfere; in collectively voted-into-effect passivity by principle-label-limited legislating-behavior thwarted-by-interpretation by institutesituated 'administrators'. It is the structure of left-wing fascism. It walks like left-wing fascism. It talks like left-wing fascism. Hence, as the saying goes, for all practical purposes, it will necessarily have to be said to be the duck that it walks and quacks like. Is not a Dr.Polit. who, on behalf of the UiO's Institute for teacher-education and Schoolresearch, replies to my written letter where I warn about the ongoing quote-fraud, by saying "it is not important", a quack? I should say so. Dr.Polit. Eyvind Elstad is that man. (a 10 years old photo, I estimate) snippet from: http://utdanningsforskning.no/kilderpersoner /personerforfattere/eyvind-elstad/ collectively. If we put in 'uneducated and abusively singleminded' instead of 'a fool or insane' we have euphemized it maximally. Personally, I'd stick with the un-euphemized version of it: 'collective fool', ominously spring-loaded, ready to snap into an unhealthy rage and a mechanical de-humanizing mode that in itself is hate-behavior, instead of just admitting the fact: they have a set of forged Piagetquotes they base their entire philosophy of learning on. They are sore loosers of a debate, refuse to accept that they lost; prefer to get rid of the evidencebringer instead, and embark on a fascist-style discrimination in the middle of a lecture, in an auditorium with 250 or so students of pedagogy present, showing everyone what to do with a dissenter who brings evidence of systematic consistent pedagogic-practicecentral quote-fraud, thereby demonstrating that there is something seriously wrong with their own work ethics in the University of Oslo (UiO) and the likes (cf. the left margin sample above), in Ed-Sci of all places. So, we add the 'study-sphere' and see what we have: unquantifiable parameters + 'pass-or-fail'-mandated criteria + non-random selection of a few subjects for special assessment + mental-process-based selection + 'negative mental process' + study-sphere ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ = x The x here has the following qualities embedded: maximally unreliable assessment, corrupted processing and a motive-basis for it. Then, added to that, in the 'study-sphere', we have principles of sound pedagogy that are universally assumed to necessarily hold for the sphere of Ed-Sci and teacher-training as well as for the sphere of school-children call it: c)'the integrity-assumption', a version of 'the principle of charity' (the interpreter-benevolence needed for meaningful dialogue) that says OF COURSE the principles that hold for pedagogy HOLD for the teaching of pedagogy as well. The validity of universally assumed principles of sound pedagogy, in other words, are already universally attributed to the sphere of 'the teaching of pedagogy' (metapedagogy). One cannot teach those principles, and in accordance with them, unless one is made to live by them as a teacher-candidate. One has to LEARN the principles before one can TEACH the principles; and one must be taught to LIVE by those principles, and HOW to live by them, in order to LEARN them. That delicate integrity-relation between pedagogy and the teaching of pedagogy (metapedagogy) is universally assumed. But is it officially legislated ? I say yes, it is; but all teachers of pedagogy say NO or they are lying. They actually say, when provoked to express their view, that the principles of sound pedagogy legislated into §1-1 of our law for teaching is for the sphere of school-children, not for the teaching of pedagogy. They say "other laws apply for the teaching of pedagogy, and more is allowed here than is allowed in pedagogy" quote from the UiO lecture-hall in 2015. Still, what matters is not whether they say they believe §1-1 isn't for the institutes of pedagogy. More important is the fact that they all live by that belief, 100%, and all take advantage of that belief by methodologically contradicting §1-1, doing the opposite of what §1-1 orders for all pedagogy among school-children, thereby undermining §1-1 and the Parliament's authority. How is that? Why is that an undermining of §1-1? The answer gives itself: they subject teacher-candidates to the opposite treatment of what §1-1 orders us to give children, "build our teaching on" and "promote" among children, which means that the same teacher-candidates bring baggage into their work among children; practice what they have lived during their teacher-training: the opposite of key principles legislated into §1-1. The blindness to bullying (mobbing) we see in the school-world is just teacher-candidates continuing in the same direction doing what they have lived during their teacher-training. This is a mental version of Newton's law of inertia just as much as it is about whatever might be the logically necessitated results of the abuses against teacher-candidates I have sampled, some of which I display in the photo-strips that follow. We reap in pedagogy all the abuses Dr. Polits and quacks, with their inherited instrumental slogans that amount to quote-forgery, have designed for the teaching of pedagogy. We reap in pedagogy what is sown in the teaching of pedagogy. Naturally we do. Say the opposite and I might laugh to your face if you're near enough, but I'd try to behave more pedagogically sound. I'd probably look much like I do on the photos of myself coming up in the next pages. We have to consistently make all teacher-candidates continuously engage in "a scientific way of thinking", "critical thinking" and considerations of how to "act ethically" while modeling a "liberal state of mind" and so on, in adherence to §1-1 in the law for teaching, in order to produce: teachers able to 1) let their teaching "build on freedom of mind ... egalitarianism and solidarity" and other "values anchored in the human rights". 2) "promote democracy, equal rights and a scientific way of thinking"; 3) give children* 10 the opportunity to "learn critical thinking and how to act ethically"; and 4) "work against all forms of discrimination." (* 10 'pupils' in the law's text, but 'children' makes a clearer distinction from 'students of pedagogy') my translation of: la opplaeringen "bygge på åndsfrihet ... likeverd og solidaritet", "verdier forankret i menneskerettighetene" - "fremme demokrati, likestilling og vitenskapelig tenkemåte"; og gi barn muligheten til å "laere seg å tenke kritisk og handle etisk" -"(motarbeide) alle former for discriminering... skal motarbeides". (for the full text of §1-1, in English and Norwegian, see Appendix IV below) - §1-1 in the law for teaching: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-1761#KAPITTEL_1 ) The x in unquantifiable parameters + 'pass-or-fail'-mandated criteria + non-random selection + mental-process-based selection + 'negative mental process' + study-sphere ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ = x is a composite: x = maximally unreliable assessment + corrupted processing + motive-basis + ? The final element added is only the last straw; the last step in a walk through the open seward, where we hit the deep end. The '?' is a pit of violated principles. Have the politicians who wrote §1-1 in the law for teaching assumed that teachers of pedagogy and their so-called 'administrators' acknowledge the assumption of the 'pedagogy-and-metapedagogy' integrity; that is, have they assumed that teachers of pedagogy view all of the content in §1-1 in the law for teaching to be a valid order for them with respect to the content and form of the teaching of pedagogy? I think so; and if they have, then it is a sign of intel- ligence, but also a sign of naivety, under-estimating collective stupidity it is overwhelming to the senses. To the Parliament, firstly: The validity of §1-1 of the law for teaching in the teaching of pedagogy needs to be explicitly stated in the law for teaching (Opplaeringsloven); and possibly in the 'law for higher education' as well. It already is valid in the teaching of pedagogy, by logical necessity. Unfortunately, the logically given validity is not understood in the institutions of Ed-Sci. Hence it needs to be made explicit to prevent the current habits of taking advantage of a conveniently interpreted lack of validity, and use it as a convenient excuse for systematic abuses of teacher-candidates, abuses that affect the core qualities of the teachers produced in these institutions. Secondly: d)Teacher-candidates are not apprentices, and hence, for any set of parameters that are not directly quantifiable, are only to be assessed 'formatively', by 'formative assessment', until objectively or randomly assessed course exams are held universally or collectively, and all pre-exam eliminations must be eliminated and kept out by central government. e)When an extra inspection (listening-in/sitting-in) is desired by an inspector, it is a criterion for the assessment itself to be justified that it be performed by the inspector who found the need for the extra inspection, none other and none in addition; or, if that inspector loses credibility, the extra inspection is to be canceled. Only then can the inspection be meaningful as formative assessment. f)A closely associated quality of formative assessment is that the language of the assessor be in terms of concrete advice and guidance on what to do in order to get to an improved state, only that; not at all in terms of what not to do: not the result of faultfinding. This is a criterion that must be met in order for the assessment to be 'formative'. Without that quality of language, the assessment is not 'formative'. It is then destructive; not only serving no justified purpose at all, but serving the opposite type of purpose. A mishandled formative assessment isn't neutral, as in an absence of a resource, but rather is a presence of something else that you cannot make up for by another assessment or anything else. Furthermore, g)when an extra inspection is desired by an inspector, it is to be limited to one 45 minute lesson, and it can only be justified if no opinion or fact has been delivered by anyone within the practice-venue or the teacher-educating institute/ faculty or the equivalent, or anyone else, for that matter; h)and such an extra inspection must be justified by a cause limited to and phrased in terms of specific subject-related topic-matters dealt with in the previous teaching-practice that was assessed (defined content to focus on, or increase the focus on); or specific details pertaining to the capacity to speak legibly in the language of instruction'* 11 specifics that will be formatively assessed and guided by the inspector in this one last inspection limited to these specific details only; where i)details that were not commented on negatively in the first two inpections are not to be evaluated at all in the third and last inspection, by law; and j)where associated assessment parameters with a 'pass-or-fail' can only be one: clarity of speech. A teacher candidate must have a 'sufficiently clear spoken language in the specific content-matter all other comments being purely advisory for the trainee's continued self-improvement; k)with proper evaluation-results produced in writing and in real time by the inspector during the inspection, with a copy for the trainee to receive immediately following the inspection and one for the practice-venue. The inspector will lead each of his/her 5-10 randomly selected trainees in a clarifying discussion with respect to the written advisory-type comments made in the inspectionreport form. The trainee's signature will be required on the form, but its function explicitly stated on the form to be 'only for the acknowledgement of having received the inspection results and the guidance', thereby excluding the inference that the trainees, by their signature, necessarily accept or agree with the negative judgments written therein. * 11 while refraining from any judgment by criteria of eloquence, body-movement or mannerism, as long as behavior is within the psychologically normal and lawful, and also refraining from using criteria that exclude mild forms of disability. All of the above, in points 3-7, will secure the transparency and accountability demanded by science and democratic principles in a far better way than the present selective assessment triggered by reported 'doubt' and other unstable or counterfeitable internal process variables; objectively unreliable and unverifiable, unworthy of Ed-Sci in a democratic society, open to injustices and bias-influenced processes corrupted by unavoidable human weaknesses. It is one where individuals particularly if critical towards the 'Institute', become the target of special concerns, are singled out for special 'listeningin' or 'sitting-in' type acts of evaluating practical performance, assessment that the rest of the teacher-candidates remain untargeted by in their own 'practicing'/ teaching-rehersals; unburdened by in their own process of self-development. Summation 8. The above, in summations 3-7, described assessment regime is in fact the system used by institutions that rank among the top 100 best universities of the world (among them the Faculty of Education in the University of Hong Kong, HKU). With the explicitly stated official Norwegian intent to internationalize practices within Norway's universities, this particular issue should not even be controversial. It should be viewed as the self-explanatory accommodation of international standards that apply to academic assessment. Why these limitations to the mandate of practical-competence-assessment? 8. a)The application of practical competence assessment in teacher-training must be limited, and its mandate limited as indicated in point 3-5, due to the factual limitation in objective quantifiability along the parameters of practical performance assessment in teacher training an unquantifiability of qualities that necessitates a corresponding limitation to be applied to the mandate of the assessment. It is a matter for the Parliament to handle and force it through to its ratification and concrete immediate implementation universally in pedagogical studies, all over Norway, merely in adherence to the international criteria that in fact do apply to the mandate itself, the mandate of assessment, among others the criterion of adjusting all assessment for the possibility of human error a key criterion of all science. The potential for human error in assessment along unquantifiable parameters necessitates for all such assessment in the study-sphere be strictly formative, where the meaning of 'formative' is as indicated above. Only a 'God'-figure can accurately assess qualities that no humans can quantify and retrospectively verify. Such an imaginary God-figure is precisely what we must imagine impersonated in an assessor sent to inspect the teaching-excercise of a teacher-candidate someone has reported to have 'felt doubt' in along other parameters than knowledge in the subject taught. For humans to do so, and in a democratic state, is a hideous offense against reason, law, human rights and tenets of pedagogy. It is, in other words, a peek in foolishness, harmful to us all. The idea of such an assessor requires an absurd assumption; and the present practice, therefore, cannot be justified scientifically, hence cannot be allowed to continue. An enlightened Parliament cannot allow it in a democracy. Yet, as I have documented beyond doubt, this is a form of assessment practiced in Norwegian Ed-Sci, an Ed-Sci that officially claims to uphold all principles that apply to science. The notion is a self-contradiction. b)The objectively verifiable presence of limitation in objective quantifiability along the parameters of practical-competence-assessment, and a lack of retrospective transparency along the same parameters, affecting accountability and assessment integrity, dictate a corresponding limitation to the mandate of practical competence assessment in teacher training to be legislated, as follows: c)The assessment result 'failure' in a trainee situation must be limited to the elements that are in fact objectively quantifiable and verifiable, which are as follows: subject knowledge, and subject knowledge alone, by written exams. d)No practical elements: eloquence, eye-gaze, eyeor body-movement, ability to remember practical details, connecting with pupils, methods or the combining of methods, time management, organization skills, getting response from the pupils etc. are ever within the objectively quantifiable parameters for practical competence assessment with mandate to 'fail' a trainee teacher or student of pedagogy; nor are claims made by a senior teacher (practice-guidance-teacher) or staff at the practicevenue, or anyone at the Faculty or Institute, none at all, and least of all claims of the sort: "The guidanceteacher says it is hard to teach you (anything)" and its many partial synonyms all of which only serve to dilute the integrity of assessment itself, to the point of corrupting it, making it a 'like or dislike'-hurtle a trainee must pass before having a go at the real exam, the fair hurtle anyone can pass if they are competent. The 'like or dislike' hurtle is a sympathy-hurtle; it is what causes the pressure towards 'alikethinking' in Ed-Sci today, a corrupted discourse. So, it isn't alike-thinking directly that is so harmful that its cause must end, it is the scientifically unjustifiable pseudo-formalized pressure to engage in it, and the associated loss of good teachers and good ideas in that 'like-dislike'-hurtle that is the specific harm done to Ed-Sci and all of education. All parameters of pass-or-fail-judging type assessment of objectively non-quantifiable qualities hidden from retrospective verification need to be pushed forward into the negotiations between employer and employee after the education is complete: the sphere of job-interviews and payed labor. What remains is strictly a)formative assessment in all such objectively unquantifiable and retrospectively unverifiable parameters, and b)added focus on quantifiable criteria related to subjectand content matter. Summation 9. 9. Norwegian teacher-education has already raised the bar on subject knowledge for entry to teachertraining courses. A void remains to be filled in the area of assessment-quality. The above points 3-7 will need be handed to the Parliament as a petition for them to do just that. The above mandate-limitation due to the limitation in objective quantifiability of practical-performance-assessment and retrospective transparency must be legislated in Parliament before it can be implemented as needed. Otherwise the integrity of the assessment is falsified by its structure. The inspector teams in this model can be composed of all the PhDs in the Faculty of Education, each PhD serving one cycle (2-3 inspections of 45 minutes duration, of a total of 5-10 candidates per inspector) per semester. As mentioned, the main elements of the model I have described is how some universities ranked in the top 100 already perform their practical-performance-assessment today, and have for decades, in their teacher-training programs. Norway is too far from it to be in a position to compete with that at all. Things need to be done. Stop pretending, and stop making excuses for yourselves. Tougher methods are needed in the way politicians deal with the perpetrators of this pathology. Paid contracted apprenticeship and practicalperformance-assessment limited as in summation points 3-7 above, are the only two versions logic allows for 'pass-fail-mandated' practical training assessment in any profession. Since teacher-training is not paid apprenticeship-contracted work, 'passfail-mandated' assessment of it needs to be legislated in Parliament as being inexorably bound to the above specified limitations of application and mandate each inspector randomly combined with 5-10 trainees/candidates they receive no prior information or opinions of by anyone else, whether it be in the faculty or in the practice-venue-school; and formative only being the mandate; with a duty to inspect and guide without fault-finding. It is the way to adhere with tenets of constructivism, Piaget's constructivist model of human cognition, applied in a social discourse that without the adjusted perspective on Piaget's accommodation as mere 'compounding', building onto, with no need to tear down any previous structure at all, corrupts from within becomes the current 'self-reflection'-chanting cult sold by un-reflected ignorant fake-quote-pusher defended by quacks like Lisbeth M. Brevik (see below) and the many Dr. Polit.s (like Mr. Eyvind Elstad) who pretend to know enough about cognitive science to proclaim it is 'irrelevant', "not important" while the very quote they have cooked and attribute to Piaget replaced a cornerstone in cognitive science, the cornerstone that, if the BOGUS quote weren't there WOULD now be supporting a modern learning- -theory vastly different from what we now have, all of which therefore is BOGUS if it rests on a BOGUS QUOTE, which I have proved to be a fact (see below). The inspector-teams should be made up of PhDs from a broadened Faculty of Ed-Sci, with competencies involving Philosophy, Linguistics, Communication and Psychology and with the order to observe and assess ALL teacher-candidates in each practice-venue; the passing on of opinions or alleged "information" about a trainee, directly or indirectly, at any time, to an inspector being void by law and disqualifying the inspector, the trainee automatically being awarded all benefits thereof and ultimately being freed from the assessment burden itself), for the benefit of a maximally objective assessment, maximal accountability and a transparency that matches the formative-limited mandate of all the parameters of assessment that go beyond a)subject knowledge and b)clarity of speech in the language of instruction. The focus of assessment, then, becomes subject-knowledge (verified in written exams only) and healthy, efficient communication; while accommodating differences in the way already signaled by the needs of a modern multi-cultured democracy with a shared focus that involves 'scientific perspective, critical thinking, and more, where the multitude of viewpoints corresponds to the multitude of ways to add new insight about how to implement the already legislated principles that already hold in theory in practical Norwegian pedagogy. The reality of the teacher is one in which locally dictated method is an obstruction to the teacher who sees ways to field-locally teach by the centrally emitted principles; by way of concrete methods that are being obstructed and 'prohibited' by: scientifically deficient local peer-dictators - 'locally voted into effect method-dictatorship'. This is precisely where the concept "the teacher as a researcher" makes sense, as long as none of the teachers and none of the officesituated so-called 'administrators' (Latin: literally "servants") begin dictating concrete methods, whether they rationalize it as "uniformity is good", the "agree"-imperative or "the need for consistency of method" or the likes, all pseudo-rationales of local dictatorships. It frustrates teachers all over: having no freedom of concrete method. Teacher-situated freedom of method is essential. It has been taken away by personnel-office-situated freedom of method, stolen freedom; institute-local dictators running scientifically rogue in EdSci, blessed by the Ministry of Education, but fooling an entire parliament. It needs to end, by legislation. Summation 10 & 11. 10. There is freedom legislated into the principles outlined in §1-1 of our law for teaching. The freedom of choosing HOW to implement the order to "promote a scientific way of thinking" among all children in school isn't meant for the school's Rector, nor for the socially dominant peer-mob who dictates their work-colleagues; it is meant for EACH INDIVIDUAL TEACHER. It is the teacher's freedom of method; it is: centrally emitted freedom obstructed locally ! We need Parliament to re-insert that freedom, give it back to each single teacher, by extraordinary legislation, beginning as described in summations no. 3-7 above, and expanding the initiative into the places of pedagogic work. I suggest we relieve the Dr. Polit.s of their imaginary mandate in the teaching of pedagogy as well. Punish them if you have to, but make them pack their bags is what I recommend. 11. In the current assessment-practice of Norwegian Ed-Sci there is no retrospective accountability, and neither is there retrospective transparency, because such transparency isn't possible along the parameters that teacher-educators are being allowed to assess along ! And THAT is the stumbling-block we need to address and dissolve. The assessmentmandate has outrun the requirements of science. The limitation of the above described assessment mandate in teacher training eliminates the possibility of 'failing' a teacher-candidate without objectively verifiable and quantifiable proof of the claims used to justify the assessment. It is a bottle-neck in all work for a "liberal" and "scientific" (§1-1* 12 ) perspective in the education of an internally diverse modern society. (* 12 Opplaeringsloven Norw. the law for teaching) The version just described, a formative-limited mandate of practical competence assessment, is the only reasonable in-course version of performance-assessment in teacher-training; with inspectors dividing the teacher-candidates randomly between themselves no special selection of trainees to inspect allowed; all prearranged inspector-trainee matching void by law. In addition to this, the Ministry of Education needs to have its own inspectors that routinely but without prior warning inspect all parts of the faculty's inspection-regime. This is 'meta-inspection'. We need to legislate the above mode and limitations in Parliament. Otherwise, the teacher's sphere will always be ruled by schoolbullies in their adult forms. Only a teacher freed from all pressure towards 'alike-thinking' and who answers to law and Parliamentlegislated specific instructions directly, is: free to be an Educational Scientist, which is what we want, as long as that doesn't mean 'free to go scientifically rogue', which the 'consensus'-pushers are now doing, and have been moving towards since 1967 or a few years thereafter, when they took Piaget's newly quotes, BROKE them into pieces, glued the pieces together to the churchauthored cognitive model they already had in their CONSENSUSMACHINE, the way true communists, fascists, always do. Teachers' spokespersons express the desire for the teacher to be "stronger" than what has been the case in the recent past; but teachers have instead been made weaker by what the Ministry of Education has done. And what has it done? Allowed the faculties of Ed-Sci to install their own method-dictatorship in a "stronger" way. The ONLY agent who has become "stronger" by that is the "Institute" of teacher training and the 'modern' version of their consensus and they have even been given campus-universal methodand opinionpolicing authority. Naturally, it makes the teacher weaker than ever; so weak, in fact, that the teacher now buys into the perfected version of a modern 'crowd-control'-methodology: pin children against each other; that'll shut them up. And do the same with teacher-candidates; that'll shut them up too. (cf. more photos below) And THAT is how we falsify the stupidity of the rationale behind a modern notion called "peer-assessment" a monster when applied to children, a weapon of social mass-destruction when applied to teacher-candidates, which is precisely where we are in Norway's teacher training. Not only is it scientifically and ethically unjustifiable as method among or against children or adults; it is reprehensible, an offence to the intelligence (the part or function of the mind called 'reason') and to humanity. personality-selection reversed: The subjective opinion about performances, even the opinion held by the more experienced among teachers, many of whom do tend to wish to be appointed to the role of evaluating colleagues, thereby forming and defining an entire field into one uniform long sausage, or blend its science into an extrovertly spirited instrumental cocktail for all to get really drunk on, is scientifically irrelevant, irrelevant in real Ed-Sci. Such opinions filter out the best parts and leave many of the worst parts as 'leaders of practice', 'leader of instruction' or '1st Consultant', 'Senior-Adviser' aso. We need to stop allowing local 'opinion'-formers to perpetrate such exclusions of personalities as are currently ongoing, before they have a go at the exam. It undermines that thing they keep bragging about, what's it called? - Auditorium 1 of Helga Eng's building, UiO campus Blindern in Oslo, Norway, 11. Nov. 2015 * 13 §1-2: "The law is valid for primary-/secondary instruction and highschool instruction in public schools and apprenticeship-firms if otherwise has not been determined. The law is also valid for basic school instruction in private basic schools {...} and for private basic (primary-/secondary-) home-schooling instruction." the full clauses in orig. language: "Loven gjelder for grunnskoleopplaering og videregående opplaering i offentlige skoler og laerebedrifter dersom ikke annet er saerskilt fastsatt. Loven gjelder også for grunnskoleopplaering i private grunnskoler {som ikke får statstilskudd etter friskoleloven,} og for privat hjemmeopplaering i grunnskolen." right: diversity. Heard of it? Supposedly, diversity has arrived everywhere. Call me if you see one. I don't suppose a shy child is likely to identify quite as well with an overly extrovert teacher who fails to understand the shy child, as it probably could with a shy teacher who under-stands the shy child in ways critical to the shy child's learning. 12. We need teachers of all personalities within proper, nonaggressive, non-bigoted, insightful, legally unsanctionable categories; personalities that are nonaggressive, non-bigoted and insightful, without at the same time belonging in other categories we do not want to influence our children. Parliament has already legislated IN: 'non-aggressive' and 'insightful' in §1-1 of the law for teaching; but has specified in the law that it is valid for all "basic school level "instruction" (opplaering),* 13 but the law does not use the word "teachers" in the same sentence to unambiguously specify that it is valid for "EVERY TEACHER" in these schools, which leaves us with the lingering idea of the way teachers, every one of them, will mentally wiggle themselves out of a direct responsibility to form "their own instruction" according to §1-1 every minute of it; by words, topics, pedagogic strategy and -tactics, methods and their combination, imagining it to be up to their 'REKTOR' to make 'instruction' §1-1-compliant, while teachers simply do their own 'thing', as dictated by the dominant institute-level colleague group whose consensus-operators spread the current habit. But, NOBODY on institute-level view the mentioned §1-1 as valid for them 100% so, dictating content and form of teacher-training. And, so, the net tossed out by §-1-1 ends up catching nothing, only abstract fish. The real ones are eels that wiggle themselves through THE HOLE in §1-1. Summation 13 15. 13. Parliament CAN legislate specifically against such unwanted categories, and CAN appoint controllers to monitor the absence of such 'legislated as unwanted' qualities in the classroom. 14. BUT, if Parliament CANNOT legislate against them because it CANNOT define 'sufficiently qualified and talented/suited (Norw. skikket) for practical tasks in pedagogical work', then the same Parliament must remove it from the 'pass/fail'-evaluation-mandate of higher education and leave to future employers to draw a line between 'sufficiently and insufficiently suited (skikket) for practicalpedagogical tasks'. The difference between sufficientlyand insufficiently qualified and talented - 'suited' vs. 'unsuited' (skikket vs. uskikket) for practical-pedagogical tasks CANNOT then be left in the hands of local consensus-enforcing special interests' consensus-enforcing fingers in the public sifting-organ. My point is this: If the border between suited vs. unsuited (skikket vs. uskikket) cannot be verbalized accurately, and cannot be quantified, then it cannot be assessed accurately AT ALL, not as the absolute notion 'suited', not even formatively, not really. Then the border between them floats around somewhere up above and between all the opinions of it that float around in which case formatively is the only way we CAN assess assessing without the 'passfail' -mandate; assessing the needs for the remaining period of guidance, only. And the lecturers in pedagogy are excellent for the purpose of formative assessment; but ONLY for that purpose. Assign a group of academics to assess with a 'pass-fail'-mandate along unquantifiable parameters, and what we get is a reduction of multitude along all kinds of socially possible variables: opinion, strategy, method, topic. The result is mono-strategic and mono-tactical pedagogy; a mono-perspective essentially the monoperspective pressure towards alike-thinking that everyone except the socially domineering have already been pushed around by for a long time in Norway, and which all the comments and questions to the Minister of Education in the above mentioned March 17 2016 symposium on education in Oslo addressed. They were all about the same problem the pressure towards 'one-opinion-only' in the pedagogic work-environment. It isn't only a pedagogic issue, it is also a demo-stratal health-issue. 15. Defining the notion 'sufficiently qualified and talented in practical pedagogical tasks' is difficult. Let's say it's impossible for the Parliament or anyone else to do so in writing. It is then only impossible because it is impossible to draw a line between that and 'insufficiently qualified and talented (suited/equipped Norw. skikket) in practical pedagogical tasks. BUT: identifying qualities 'a good teacher' is easy. It consists in acts of conceptualizing the glimpses we get of small parts of a larger whole we do not see in full: elements of a conceptual prototype. The prototype is moulded by the knowledge we supply to it, but its plasticity allows both manipulation and openness-tofacts to determine its form. We identify traits already attributed to it previously and new traits we want to be included in it; hence we expand the prototype by identifying new traits that are consistent with the traits already attributed to it. The lower limit of 'suited' (skikket): 'Defining' the border between 'suited' and 'unsuited' (Norw. skikket og uskikket) for practical pedagogical tasks is an act of passing judgment. In this case the judgment is just too difficult for flawed creatures like us to see or form. So none of us should even try to pass or mediate such a judgment along unquantifiable parameters. But judging those who overestimate their capacity to judge in this matter; judging those who imagine they CAN judge who's 'suited' and who isn't, along unquantifiable parameters, among students of pedagogy during a period of 'teaching-practice', we CAN and you may take 'practice' in any sense you like here: the way I take it, as 'rehearsal', or the way some may take it, as 'work-capacity-demonstration'. BUT: if you do take the 'teaching-practice-period' to be 'work-capacity-demonstration', then you have to move it into the sphere of contracted apprenticeship if you wish for its structure to match the 'pass or fail' assessment mandate. An apprentice is paid to do things the way the employer's representatives do it already, whereas a student pays, or channels funding to his faculty, for the return privilege of being inquisitive and primarily knowledge-oriented. The educating institution is there to serve the student, and an individual student who discovers a discrepancy has the RIGHT to demand the institution rectify the error. The student is the educating institution's CUSTOMER, whereas the apprentice is not. A lecturer of medicine who recites a fake quote must accept being corrected by a student who knows the real quote, and the faculty's duty is to correct the quote, send out a memo to all of its lecturers within the field, and maybe notify collaborating institutions as well. Lecturers of pedagogy (Ed-Sci) who recite a fake quote, whether it supports a popular learning-theory or not, and does it every time, as member of a large colleague group who does the same, are defended by the institute's alleged 'administrators' (personneloffice-on-steroids, in this case mainly three females), none of whom have any research experience in cog- nitive science or have even read any of it, but engage a lecturing Dr. Polit. to dismiss my notification and demand for the quote-fraud to end in all UiO Ed-Sci lectures. The Dr. Polit., Mr. Eyvind Elstad, dismisses the matter in writing by claiming "it's not important", a conclusion the female 'administrators' then defend in writing, saying "Dr. Elstad says it isn't important. Therefore it is not important"* 14 a Dr. Polit., Doctor of Political Science says it about core quotes in a core area of Educational Science. The word for it is FRAUD fraud by Dr.Polit. Eyvind Elstad, for impersonating a PhD qualified in cognitive science, and fraud by the UiO Institute (ILS)'s leader-ofinstruction Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, for USING a Dr-Polit. to FENCE OFF THE EVIDENCE of: systematic and consistent quoteand citation-fraud in cognitive science at the UiO's Faculty of Ed-Sci (uv-fak) cf. Soerfjord 2015; a very serious offence, indeed organized fraud with personal political pay-off. * 14 The arrogance it takes to write something as uninformed as the email I quote here (sent to me by Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien) is only matched by the lack of intelligence it takes to utter such a thing. And these females CONTROL the Institute for teacher-education and School-research (Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning, ILS) at the University of Oslo, Norway, the UiO, on behalf of us, the tax-payers who pay for it. Who's going to clean up this communist-style corruption ? Who's going to remove these unqualified alleged 'administrators' who use the 'institute' as they personal milking-cow? Not only do they defend the quote-fraud, they (ILS, the university institute) proceed to "inform" the 'practice-coordinator', May Britt Esse Berge, at the practice-venue (Flaatestad 7th -10th grade school 24 km south of the UiO) about a "domineering" teacher-candidate about to arrive in their school for 'teaching-practice'. "ILS informed me that you can be domineering", May Britt Esse Berge then spits forth in my face – as I inform her of the ongoing abuses: one female team-member grabbing total domination by vetoing all contributions, talking non-stop, repeating "I think we should all agree"* 15 ("Jeg syns vi alle skulle bli enige"), but agreeing to nothing in anyone else's contribution to the team-dialogue, clearly not wishing to understand, and thinking her not understanding is grounds for veto; cutting everyone off with a "No, I think we should..."* 15 ("Nei, jeg syns vi skal..."), until they all stop trying to say anything; following up with "We now have majority"* 15 ("Nå har vi flertall") when enough members have grown mute (two muted females in the 4-member-team the first session, three female and three male muted members in the larger team the next day); saying "I think you are working against us now" ("Nå syns jeg du motarbeider oss" * 15 ) to the one remaining vocally active member (myself) who does not give up the attempt to penetrate, in the first session, after half the team (two females) have begun deferring to her * 15 (* 15 cf. Appendix 1; quotes spoken by Ann Helen) (* 16 photo of Mai Britt Esse Berge below, p. 490) on the 5th day of the practice-period (mid Sept.2015), whereafter the same Miss May Britt Esse Berge* 16 , during the remaining 3 weeks, in October (after 2 weeks on campus), does various speech acts and gestures to communicate to and about that teacher-candidate the low value imputed to him; whereafter the same May Britt Esse Berge sends a document back to the same institute (ILS) that tipped her off about the candidate, a report that says the candidate they tipped her off about quite rightly is now "officially doubted" by the practicevenue, through the filed "doubt-in-candidate-report", which allows the institute to send special assessors with the mandate to partake in a "total assessment of practical suitedness" with an un-investigable 'pass-fail'-mandate; one no one can question, for lack of 'evidence'. Did you laugh? Did anyone among you read that paragraph (the one you just read) without breaking out in laughter 3⁄4 of the way through? I'd be surprised if you did. Maybe you just skimread it; if so, read it again, from "where-after the same Miss May Britt Esse Berge..."* 16 . If you did laugh it's a healthy sign. That's your brain telling you there's something wrong with the brain that came up with that game-plan for Ed-Sci. And that is how the collective brain often is wrong ethically, wrong legally, wrong academically. A good idea is often spurred into fermentation and growth by collective endeavours, but the collective brain is not a real brain, and neither are 'collective thoughts' real thoughts. What's real is the collective discourse, the dialogue and social behaviors. But the collective discourse insists on a flat earth when not held back by rules. The brain has its rules, and dialogic discourse needs its own rules. Without them non-reason takes over, which is why we must enforce rules to control the collective's use of social force over any given person involved in it or near it. And we must TEACH such rules - 'rules for ethically and academically sound team-work' to teacher-candidates BEFORE we send them into the team-work-sphere, or our children will suffer the effect of that lack of insight left in the brains of new teachers. The above described 'institute practice-venue' liaison is what they mean by: CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AND WORKENVIRONMENT. This is HOW they cut off the head of those who question methods, rationale and quote-accuracy. Combine this, in your mind, with the way Ed-Sci-operators COULD teach healthy team-work rules and the team-spirit I tentatively call 'word-accommodator'-behavior, 'host'-behavior, by which anyone who takes the initiative insist on all having a say and everyone's contribution being included in the end product; and the way Ed-Scioperators COULD make that type of initiative ROTATE among teammembers. This is the 'Word-Accommodator-initiative'a democratic leaderrole, you might say; a leader-role that needs to be LEARNED and hence ought to ROTATE. It is the 'Host'-type leader. It encourages all to put their stamp on the end product, rather than: vote a dictator in and vote the dissident's idea out of the end product the, shall we call it, Viking-style Ed-Sci? Viking-style Ed-Sci has the socially domineering realize a pathological 'Team-Dominator'-role they imagine to be a 'leader-role' and actually LEARN is a leader-role but which actually is a 'bully-role', a 'mobber-role' it is: the 'team-leader-as-Dominator'delusion , a power-game* 17 pest. * 17 It is played by tax-funded actors in the Institute in the UiO, ILS case by: Mai Lill Suhr Lunde (coordinator/dept. head, Practical-Pedagogical Education), Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien (ae=ae)(leader of instruction) and Rita Hvistendahl the Institute-leader (mere spectator, letting Kristi and Mai Lill do the 'work'). Who's going to help UiO and the rest of our publically funded institutions of Ed-Sci get rid of these incompetent game-players, pushers of opinions, and put in place a set of competent 1) wide-field-oriented, 2) learning-theory-centred 3) and centrally-emitted-policy-loyal academics to lead the institutes of pedagogy (loyal to all principles emitted through §1-1 in the law for teaching), and put an end to this charade? Problem-shooting the social beast through Embedded Scientific Empiricism: No body of citizens is aware of this particular discourse-structure until it is found out empirically, by what we may call embedded empirical sampling; a researcher taking such a course with the aim of passing while addressing relevant errors and ethical flaws as they become manifest. Do the institutes self-adjust by the mere notification of a relevant error? Not in Norwegian Ed-Sci. Do these preachers of 'self-adjustment' themselves agree to selfadjust after the bringer of evidence insists on it? No, and least of all when a core matter like the 'accommodation-is-modification'-quote assigned to Piaget is revealed to be home-cooked. They use their public positions to get rid of that student by way of the pseudo-assessment-scheme just described. So, defining the lower limit of 'suited for practicalpedagogical tasks' is not possible in any objective manner, nor is it possible to quantify assessment along any of its parameters other than, to a degree, clarity of speech and general sanity. That insight relieves practical-performance-assessors of the duty and righ to include pass-fail criteria of subject knowledge in practical performance at all and that isn't all: it also eliminates all use of pass-fail criteria of practical performance outside the sphere of contractprotected labor or apprenticeship. The practical performance-area belongs in the sphere of contracted employment. The rest belongs in the sphere of assessment of mental faculties and legal records beyond reach of the 'institutes of ed-sci'. It therefore takes* 18 1:law-violation, 2:acute mental illness or 3:grave speech deficiency, to rightfully declare 'doubt-in-candidate' in Ed-Sci; which means a 'failed practice-period' can only be rightfully decided by 1)police-authority, 2)an independent psychologist/ psychiatrist (team of three) or 3)an independent speech therapist (team). Defining the lower limit of 'suited' (skikket) is truly impossible, which means 'pass-fail'-mandated assessment is highly unreliable, impossible to do with anywhere near acceptable accuracy and is therefore a series of injustices. But, recognizing/identifying qualities lodged in our plastic prototype is easy, which means formative assessment has a high degree of interpersonal accuracy and is highly useful. The ones who do engage in the judging of the whereabouts of the lower limit of 'suited (skikket) for pedagogical work' are in denial of their own limitation, our species-specific limitation; in denial of an objectively verifiable doubt that disqualifies any such judgment attempted, and THIS is the only sure judgment we can pass about this: the judgment that none of us CAN judge reliably on who is 'suited' (Norw. skikket) and who isn't among individuals who pass the three criteria above mentioned * 18 not until after their education. An employer's representative CAN judge whether a newly employed teacher teaches in accordance with the WISH of the employer embodied by a Dean, a Rector etc. but that is an entirely different matter. The law limits the consequences of an employer's rejection and his ability to reject a newly employed teacher; not enough limits, but some. A whole other set of rationality-criteria apply to the act of assessing a STUDENT. The employer's wish to reach into a university or academy and reject a STUDENT of pedagogy is: a wish to reach across an essential border. It is a 'conflict-of-interest'. Summation 16. Doing so is a horrendous ethical taboo that sells education short, cheapens it. And that is what happens every time a 'formal doubt' is transmitted from the 'practice-venue' to an institution of pedagogical studies. It cannot be treated similar to the sphere of medical studies, nor lawstudies. In medical studies there are objective standards standards of diagnostic reasoning that requires logic, and standards of objectively verified types of treatment: drugs and procedures to prescribe. The standards in law-studies are equally objective. 'Practice-period' in medical studies is or ought to be 'rehearsal' of skills that require logical reasoning, fact-based such, and the same is true about the practice-period we have in law-studies. In pedagogical studies the notion 'practice-period' does not involve relating to objectively proven methods at all. But that isn't a problem, provided: the assessment-mandate is adjusted for lack of objectivity. But it is only recently that ANYONE in Scandinavia has started to even speak about 'conflict-of-interest'. Scandinavians still do not fully grasp what that is. The lower limit of valid assessment: 16. Assessing formatively is ALL we CAN do when the parameters we assess along are unquantifiable. It just isn't cognitively possible for us to validly judge, with any objective accuracy at all, where the lower limit of 'suited' (skikket) along unquantifiable performance-parameters might is. The lower limit is therefore to be determined in the sphere of paid contracted labor only; not in the 'study-andpractice'-sphere. It is a WISH of the employer-issue if parliament cannot quantify the limit accurately. What we CAN do is identify legislated as wanted qualities in a suited teachercandidate, make written statements with respect to observed instances of them, guide for their continued growth in each candidate's performance in the classroom, and: refrain from overstepping the above defined border of valid assessment of practical performance in pedagogy. This is a reversal of the habit of monitoring the adherence to a specific 'opined into consensus' type set of dictated detailed methods in the classroom, a reversal of the domain-internal specific together-opining being acted out in the work-environment by method-dictating, censorship-operating, grabbers of monopoly and censorship with respect to opinions, interpretation, understanding and methods preferred. The 'agree with consensus'-order is a gossip-operated tyranny in the work-place when allowed to rule, dangerous when allowed to exclude individuals in the work-sphere; doubly so when allowed to do it in the study-practice sphere, even before the exam ! as if these pseudo-administrators are afraid dissenters might pass and demonstrate in an objectively verifiable manner how capable Summation 17. * 19 cf. note p. 46 they are, these dissenters against unfounded opinions. No, STOP them before the exams; that'll make their peers shut up when they see something wrong whether it's fake quotes or the operation of wrong principles, opposite of the ones ordered by §1-1 in the law for teaching. Boy, do I wish the Parliament had appreciated the fact that this fight is to defend their influence and power. Other countries have the equivalent of §1-1, stipulating principles to operate by in all teaching of children, and the same argument holds for their teachertraining relative to their own version of our §1-1. The bullies in their adult skin, the power-abusers in offices meant for 'servants' of educational science, and the aggressive (cf. the left margin specimen above, here and below), naturally, are all unsuited for both Pedagogy and Ed-Sci. The administratively enforced revolution of 17. moving away from the {monitor the presence of 'the opined to be wanted' specific methods}-delusion where the 'wanted' usually is overspecified and develops into acts of persecuting concrete methods that cross the lines of locally overspecified rules, formalizing the witch hunt - and reversing it to {formatively monitor the absence of 'legislated as unwanted' qualities} policy* 19 would open up for a whole range of possible and encouragible corrections of errors, possibilities for misquoted passages, mistranslated concepts and misapplied methods to be corrected, varied from and added to without being attacked by colleagues and 'administrators' they form exclusion-operatoralliances with, hungry for revenge or promotion as colleagues are. It is a centrally strengthened teacher we have as a result of it, if we do it. One can then encourage acts of correcting errors, because they become correctable when teaching-content and -method-details cannot be locally dictated in or out, only centrally legislated in or out . But are we doing it, or will we let Parliament continue their role as bystanders to the local work environment fascism I have uncovered in the pedagogic workplace and Ed-Sci? Will we let Parliament continue treating the teaching of pedagogy as just another local 'regulator of selves' in the work-environment rather than the biggest money-drain of a national-policy-thwarting distributed field-local political agent ever? -. When Parliament begins to understand the way Ed-Sci is now an office-mob that actually undermines Parliament while being a fascist branch of the Ministry (kunnskapsdep.), it will still take an eternity for Parliament to get-the-finger out of their own rump, get over their stagnant naive role as principle-label-emitter-limited agent and actually say and do what needs to be said and done. They may never. No matter how many cowards we put in Parliament, it's the same old limited capacity to think, the way they see their role to be emitters of principle-label-limited-laws while local dictators dictate methods that oppose the legislated principles; a modus of operation that keeps Parliament thoroughly played by campus-situated forgers of quotes and fixers of documents by which dissidents are removed; played by office-occupiers who cook quotes to match a theory cooked much longer ago, in the Middle Ages, by brewers of a flat earth theory, not exactly seekers of 'knowledge' either of the two office-holding mobs. The discrimination against people who bring the real quotes that correct the fake ones is a crime. The people who do it you see them in the left margin throughout are the same low mob that tyrannized anyone in science until not so long ago in Europe, murdered for the sake of a cooked script about a verifiable falsehood. The mob-type environment enables abuse, but the mob do not see themselves as being responsible for any of the harm they inflict on society, in this case on teacher-education. They see themselves as just following orders, but it's not that simple. We can hold them directly responsible, each one of them. There is no need to restrict our debate to formal visits in restricted-access-offices in the institute-building; we can march straight into the lecture-halls of pedagogy and call them out, say: "THAT is NOT the correct quote, but the counterfeit"; "Why have you not removed that fake quote after it was proved to you what the real quote is ?" This gang will not self-modify in adherence with the proven fact. So, it will seem we need to raise the stakes. Maybe the only peaceful way is to terminate the present university-funding and set up a radically capitalistic scientific-competition-driven university-structure, and let new funding-restrictions force universities to shed their dead-load of alleged administrators turned ipso facto 'personell-office-on-steroids' infiltrated and shaped by the 'executive branch'; a new monster-version of the former 'servant' (if administrator means servant Scribner-Bantam Dictionary implicitly says it does). 'Servant of the knowledge-hungry', who would that be if not the lecturer, the teacher? in that sense the REAL 'administrators' of education, when not obstructed by the peer-mob Exclusion-Services Unit alliance, the mentioned omni-police. Norwegian universities have a stealthy 'top-down' authoritarian structure as opposed to an openly authoritarian. It is made up of the mentioned alliance between dominant peer-groups and shall we call it 'management', where the top's exclusion-act is accommodated by the floor-level peer-mob, who delivers the rumors needed to formalize the exclusion or discrimination 'administered', so to speak, by the alleged 'administration'-office. The top returns the favor when the floor-level mob has someone among them as the target of unlawful special Exclusion Services, envy-driven, naturally which is why one cannot debate scientific errors away in such an EdSci; one is likely to loose one's job for having stepped Summation 18 19. on the loser's toes. Stomping on the winner's head, on the other hand, is ok as long as the whole mob are in on it, or seem to be. And herein lies the motor of the 'agree'-imperative, which schools now even poison children's minds with, a fact I verified myself, empirically, at the practice-venue I was sent to in the UiO course I attended: Flaatestad school, 24 km south of UiO; where an explicit "reach-agreement-withyour-learning-partner" was explicitly ordered, written on the white-board (Norw.: "komme til enighet med laeringspartner") and explained by Miss Maria Sofie Olsson, their teacher, who also says "they must tell themselves", with reference to teacher candidates you observe being abused by peers, as she explains to me what she means by what she wrote in my practicelog: "Speak for yourself" ("Snakk for deg selv"), meaning "...only for yourself". Among adults it is the modern neutralizer of labor rights; even human rights, in Ed-Sci. Among children, Maria Sofie Olsson's method is grave abuse. And I wrote to the UiO institute (ILS) and told so, in Sep. 2015,all after that being their reaction, office-emitted revenge. 18. Teacher-candidates who care enough to speak up for the abused (by domination-grabbing* 20 individuals in the alleged 'team-work', cf. Appendix I) are expelled from pedagogy-courses on whims voted on locally in Norway's Ed-Sci if they do not shut up about it when told to, specifically in the UiO, but they are all alike; all six of Norway's universities and all of the so-called 'higher-education-schools' (høyskoler). THAT is how bad it has become, or maybe it was always like this. * 20 the misunderstood 'team-leader'-role being taught in Viking-land (cf. Appendix 1 below, p. 630-639). 19. We'd better force the universities to shed the mentioned personnel-office-on-steroids dead-load, who form dissident-excluding alliances with selected colleague-mobs and threaten all non-allied individual employees into 'agreement' with consensus in every academic work-place in Norway. The dead-load isn't going to shed most of itself voluntarily. New legislated economic restraints that only give them the alternative option of bankruptcy will force them to. Have no fear it really isn't God's honest truth and insightfulness that comes from the glossed-up lips of the tax-funded Dr. Polit.-manipulated massive number of brains reduced to the nearest Dominator's single brain and her particular iq, insight and ethics within the alleged Ed-Sci. A tiny group of administrators as 'servants of the producers of instruction and research' is all we need, a powerless minority that serves a producer-force consisting of equally ranked PhDs, none of whom are kept on a job-title below the others all being called what they in fact are: 'professors', and even non-classroom-teaching researchers are 'professors' through what they in fact do, teach by guiding researchstudents or by what they write an army of ideaproducers who compete for the best ideas on equal terms, none of them allowed to dominate another, other than through logically valid scientific debate with all true premises, which we will have to teach them how to do. They do not even know what a logically valid argument is, but argue with such volatile tempers over core scientific matters that people run for cover, and 250 teacher trainees grow mute in fear of being the next target for special Exclusion Services. Some trainees turn into aggressive guards of consensus the first time they read the face of an angry lecturer of pedagogy caught with her pants down or, more appropriately her hand, not in Piaget's pants, exactly, but in his 'cookie-jar', as it were, stealing his goods but breaking them in the heat of the pilfer and biting off the pieces they don't see any use for, void of scientific integrity as they are; leaving Piaget scientifically castrated by the roadside. The poor leadership that goes into allowing the socially aggressive to do as they wish and locally enforce details without scientific or legislated grounds, that is what makes the teacher really weak, and science non-existent. * 19 This is a radically new framework of monitoring that itself can be monitored. It allows metamonitoring, the monitoring of the acts of monitoring; and with infinitely more ease than the 'consensuspreserving' mode of the present monitoring-regime, which I say we need to legislate into oblivion, away from our planet; with the same conviction of mind that allows us to condemn 'intolerance towards equal rights', or {tolerance of intolerance}, for that matter. Try to apply the latter notion {..} to the photos, below, of the teacher-candidates in Auditorium 1 of Helga Eng's building, UiO campus Blindern in Oslo, as they learn the modelled values imputed by the monopolygrabbers they must please to be allowed to reach the exam-stage, and see what you get. As mentioned, I'd say it is an obvious case of taught contempt, taught by modeling the contemp. It is 'forced tolerance of the intolerance towards the discoverer of a scientific fact'. The teacher-candidates remaining in the recess are being forced to be 'tolerant towards the modeled discrimination'. Some among them make the intolerance their own and participate actively in it, and have done so throughout the semester. Some of the females on the photos below, actively participating in the photographed gang-bullying event, are among them. Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad, appointed 'spokesperson' for the UiO-institute (ILS), and given the job to answer my report regarding the UiOinstitutes' consistently teaching by way of fake Piaget 1967 quotes, a forgery that defends the model of learning they use in theory and practice – defends the ancient church-authored model of learning; essentially the 'fault-finding and modification'-gospel, in teacher-training practiced as the self-reflexive 'admit-andrepent'-tyranny by which they maintain their power, exterminating candidates they 'dislike' aka 'have felt doubt in'. snippet from: http://utdanningsforskning.no/kilderpersoner/person erforfattere/eyvind-elstad/ (a photo I estimate to be from around 2006) a Dr. Goebbels of Political Science pretending to be one of core Ed-Sci topics in cognitive science; a Dr. Polit. and economy-Ba who, in combination with a predominantly female 'expulsion-team', performs idea-wise ethnic cleansing in UiO's alleged Ed-Sci, blessed by the Ministry, evaded by Parliament. The above (p. 9) mentioned removal of the x-hurtle (the opinionand felt-doubt-based sifting between course initiation and final exam, at least, when achieved, will be something, a definite improvement; a common ground for human rights and as many employer's desires met as deserve to be met. In sum: 20. The above amounts to installing a radically new form of scientific competition among all institutions of teacher-training, university-located or not, one that temporarily allows one to neutralize or block the social pressure of the wish for alike-thinking. It isn't a competition to produce the winning cocktail for the next forced consensus, but a long-term competition among different cocktails, any learning-scientific cocktail that Parliament's own inspectors find to be within the limits of the legislated, the law. This means it will be up to the Parliament to decide WHETHER we shall prohibit full-class readingexercise OR NOT, NOT up to pseudo-titled alleged "didactitions" like UiO's Lisbeth M. Brevik and other quack-doctors of pedagogy. 21. This can then become an educational-scientific (Ed-Sci-) environment where REAL quotes cannot be slandered as "irrelevant" at the same times as forged quotes are being substituted for them and falsely accredited to the author of the real ones (systematically and consistently, in every course-program), which in fact is what Dr. Eyvind Elstad and UiO did (in writing) when the Ministry clerks ordered them to REPLY to my letter concerning the false 1967 Piaget-quotes, in spite of Elstad being a Dr. Polit., apparently NOT a PhD in Pedagogy (or Ed-Sci) at all; Dr. Eyvind Elstad thereby making himself: official defender of quote-fraud (and citation-fraud), while HIMSELF a fraud for POSING AS someone qualified to judge in the core pedagogical matter of cognitive science. It is FRAUD IN OFFICE, in the UiO. Dr. Eyvind Elstad, incidentally, is among the visually anonymous on the UiO staff-list. Naturally, this will be left unpunished; and it will continue, until Parliament STOPS IT. We may wonder what we have to do to make the Parliament REACT against it. UiO should assign a PhD in pedagogy to try to reply to the written evidence I sent them, or assign one of the PhDs who themselves claim to HAVE some knowledge in original cognitive science; or assign one who himor herself REFERS TO the forged quotes (Kirsti Klette or Britt Oda Fosse in the ILS-case). Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien is the local chief fraud who defends, all of it, Snippet from: https://www.universitetsforlaget.no/Bliforfatter/Vaare-forfattere/Eyvind_Elstad a happy bookseller. How can somebody with such a nice smile be a fraud, you may wonder. * 21 a Dr. of Political Science pretending to be one of core Ed-Sci areas like cognitive science; a fake Dr. of Ed-Sci using the jobtitle 'Professor of Ed-Sci' to dismiss consensus-falsifying evidence in cognitive science where he isn't qualified by stating "Piaget is not important" in a letter the Ministry ordered the institute to write; a Ministry whose agents (Dep. Director Anne Grøholt and 1st. Consult. Kasper Aunan) refuse to follow up to see whether the institute obeyed and replied properly to my report and submitted evidence: the REAL 1967 Piaget-quotes. It is therefore an order that was never complied with, inasmuch as Dr. Polit. Elstad is unqualified in that field, a fact he hides by claiming Piaget isn't 'important', which clearly is a lie since he speaks on behalf of the institute, and all who refer to learning-theory at that institute, all lecturer-colleagues of his, use the fake Piagetquotes to justify their model of learning' in all UiO course programs and beyond; have done so every single time since 1967. These fake Doctors of Ed-Sci, impostors in the offices of the offices and lecture halls of Educational Science, ARE NOT QUALIFIED ! Is anyone in the Parliament listening? through Mai Lill Suhr Lunde (the writer of threatening emails to anyone who talks about it); and all of it on behalf of Rita Hvistendahl, the Institute leader in the bottom end of the fictitious academic command line from Rector. Dr. Elstad's malpractice* 21 , by dismissal of relevant evidence in a field where he lacks the necessary qualifications, is organized by the UiO 'Institute' through their use of field-specific JOB-title as substitute for field-specific ACADEMIC title. It constitutes organized academic deception, modern organized crime that needs to be legislated against officially labeled the crime it is. Elstad is PhD in Political Science and needs my help in cognitive science and other core Ed-Sci subfields. The Ministry needs to re-structure the institute-run hiring-practices, better yet: take over, and end the current organized malpractice. Parliament needs to force Rector to force the Faculty to force the Institute (the UiO's 'ILS', along with their 'IPED' and 'IPS') to ADMIT THE TRUTH of the evidence. Why the Parliament? Because the Ministry isn't doing it, and refuses to do it, and because it is proven academic fraud. That is all the reason we need, and then there is this: The nature of that fraud is a matter sensitive to the use of force in institutesituated teaching-method-wise monopolization-acts that lack scientific grounding. It is unwarranted enforcement of alike-thinking with respect to teaching-methods, and that makes it a matter of corruption in office. 22. The universal office-run method-dictation aimed at teachers in the classroom, where detailed nongovernment method-regulation is emitted from the Faculty-level on behalf of the Ministry of Education, a field-local dictation of details in the classroomsituation, is un-founded. The unlegislated methodlaws that force all teachers to act alike are emitted from a domain-local monopoly-grabbing office-group proven to be scientifically FRAUDULENT (cf. Seeking Campus-universal Didactic Dominance, and getting it,..: Soerfjord 2016). I wonder if the reader now begins to see this as important enough to turn over stones and poke a few spiders. that constitutes the opposite of the "scientific The scientifically defunct notions of 'alikethinking' and 'voting reality into existence' are now even harming our children, in the form of the "seeking agreement"-imperative, or worse: the "reach agreement"-imperative, one or the other explicitly taught as a main rule for 'learning-partners' and micro-teams in Norwegian schools (I verified its use at Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school 20 km south of down-town Oslo Sep.-Oct.2015), by teachers who benefit from its crowd-control-effect.*22 It is an efficient mind-drug-tool for totalitarian control, a way of thinking" that §1-1 of our Law for teaching orders all schools to "promote" among children. Snippet from http://utdanningsforskning.no/kilderpersoner/personer forfattere/eyvind-elstad/ The website says this on their homepage, about the focus of this particular Dr. Polit. in Educational Science – an academic field in which he HOLDS NO academic degree: in my own translation: "Eyvind Elstad is professor at Institute for Teacher-education and School-research, University of Oslo. He leads a research-group by the name TEPEC and is involved in research on teachers' professional development and {Norw. idiosyncrasy: "forms of steering"} 'control-forms' in the Education sector. More information can be found here: http://www.uv.uio.no.ils/personer/vit/eyvindel /index.html " a Dr. Polit. posing as qualified in the core EdSci-area of cognitive science, which makes him a fake PhD in Ed-Sci. His focus is as we may expect of a true Dr. of Political Science, a modern Dr. Goebbels - "forms of steering": control forms; and we might as well specify the meaning of 'control' to include manipulation, of evidence and administration-procedures which, as we now see, are being used to control all teachers, make them into robotic slaves of Dr. Polit.-cooked methods in the false name of "professional development". It is a 'control'-focus we now see applied against children, through the "order-in-class"criterion for the label 'a good teacher'. I'm afraid it has been proved to us that our Ministers of Education aren't intelligent enough to understand the harm in this. 23. It is the 'combine and add to' and the 'inclusion- rule' that correspond to theories of learning that claim to build on Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky or on Jean Piaget (which all of them do), hence on Immanuel Kant (whom all of them build on but don't mention in this regard). It is therefore the 'combine, add and include'-rule that we ought to teach all children as a rule among 'learning-partners' and 'teams' of all sizes. THAT is also what corresponds to §1-1's order to "promote a scientific way of thinking". This is a better rule, but one that requires Parliament-action imposed on and inside the institutes of teacher-education, who actively keep blocking well-intended Parliament action in just about everything they do. The 'seek-agreement'-rule causes the opposite: social selection and exclusion, hence reduction of variety of ideas and reduction of quality of ideas; and the 'selection and exclusion' in itself constitutes mobbing whenever children do it by social criteria. Norway's schools are actually teaching behaviors that constitute bullying when not restrained. The entire structure of that is the opposite of the principles that §1-1 of our Law for teaching commands us to teach – teaches every single teacher. It isn't merely a law for 'Rector' to follow by ordering detailed methods to 'his' teachers, methods by which 'Rector' tries to obey §1-1. It's every single teacher in every single subject that is ordered by that §1-1 to construct his and her act of teaching so that it adheres to the lawmandated principles for all teaching. §1-1 doesn't order 'rektor ' it orders every single teacher to obey it. §1-1 isn't obeyed by having a local 'leader' make plans and give orders to 'his or her' staff, it is obeyed by acts of 'standing before the pupils and talk about concepts in the textbooks', like the chapter about the Amish people in the textbook I used in Flaatestad school; and have a teacher-guided full-class dialogue, not only on special occasions and not funneled into certain school-subjects or some of the teachers, but whenever possible, by all teachers who teach subjects with such texts available. So the English-teacher who has the text-book in her bookshelf with the chapter on the Amish people of USA, a chapter that speaks of discrimination, persecution and tolerance, is required by §1-1 to use that chapter and actually teach these concepts which I, naturally, did when I had that class in my practical teaching-exercise at Flaatestad, just south of Oslo, in October 2015. But the staff teacher of that class, Miss Maria Sofie Olsson, who hates my guts, tells me in her 'debriefing' after that lesson: "Do not stand there and talk about concepts !" Her way of doing it is to send the kids to the computer and have them google the concepts and paste into Words what wikipedia says about them. My full class dialogue seems to engagage Summation 24 26. many in the class, and they respond with many signs of healthy curiosity. It makes Maria Sofie, educated in journalism only, with a recent add-on course in English teaching, despise me even more than she did when she learned I have a Master in English linguistics and a PhD with focus on team-work and cognitive science; and she openly denounces all my methods as wrong all of my full-class dialogue work on concepts used in the Amish-text, and all my full-class voluntary readingexcercise work. So where is the House of Cowards in all this Parliament? Absent, thinking their 'role' is to centrally emit principles but let local forces dictate and forbid methods, by local law. In the mean time, Maria Sofie is not obeying §1-1, not at all. Who's going to force her to? Not Miss May Britt Esse Berge. * 22 (cf. p. 48) the crowd-control dimension of teachereducation is directly observable as 'order-in-class' which has been reported in Norwegian news media as something positive for our schools, something they call "good class-leadership". But I say the 'order-inclass' is a sign of academic passivity, which in itself is as much a result of the social selection, censorship of contributions and anxiety associated with the 'agreement-imperative's constantly pending implicit 'exclusion-threat', as of anything else. 24. Most low-cost 'crowd-control' techniques place a group of pupils against each potentially 'disagreeing' individual in the group. It constitutes mobbing and causes mobbing, but such 'crowd-control' tricks may be noticed primarily as a 'pressure towards alikethinking' the very pressure every question from the audience was about in the Q&A-session of a newspaper-hosted (Dagbladet) symposium on pedagogy I attended here in Oslo on March 17, 2016, with the Norwegian Minister of Education present in the panel on stage. The better pedagogic tool is 'creative chaos'-techniques, full class such. 25. Combine it with rule-restricted full-class-debate, instructor-guided (instruction-supported) dialogue bury the 'chat-couples'/micro-team type sifting away of good ideas. Bring the good ideas directly into the open plenum, whatever disorder results. Add everpresent explicitly stated rules-of-ethics to it. It is infinitely healthier and infinitely more profitable, academically, socially and psychologically. It is the way to adhere to §1-1 of our Law for teaching. It is what to do to adhere to §1-1. 26. If we really want the kind of learning we get from a teaching that "promotes a scientific way of thinking", then teaching cannot burden learning with the need to 'agree' or 'reach agreement'. It constitutes abuse and has abuse as consequence, the mobbing of 'dissent', hence of the 'dissenter'. It is scientifically and ethically a faulty burden that causes more 'peerfear ' than full class rule-restricted debate ever can. Such rule-restriction is a design-element §1-1 orders us to choose for all dialogue. Have no illusions about it: 'peer-fear' is a design-element. It is caused, made worse or counter-acted by the structure we give to or legislate into and out of instruction and the rest of the learning-environment, pedagogy-courses too. Some design-elements need to be legislated into our learning-environment designs. Others need to be legislated out. If we go by the standard set by the elaborate principle-label-limited law-paragraphs in the 'law for teaching' (§1-1): to be legislated in is a 'fullclass-debate' form where pupils are encouraged to debate against the teacher yes, you heard me especially against the teacher, a teacher who models various points of view, a teacher trained for it, trained in basic deductive logic and trained to be a consistently risk-free opponent. All debates with one's peers are then influenced by this, shaped by it. This is the opposite of the modeling of social-consequences-associated debate; the opposite of what we see modeled in the left margin the opposite of taught contempt, discrimination and mobbing of dissent, modeled by people I say are simply unqualified for the jobs we currently pay them to do. It is the exact opposite of the 'debate-with-yourpartner' AND 'seek agreement' framework; the opposite of the horrible counter-parliament principlecocktail that users of young minds have designed for themselves for use AGAINST children. And THAT cocktail is the precise stupidity I saw being practiced the 4 weeks I spent partially undercover at the 'practice-school' in Sep. and Oct. 2015 (Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school, 20 km south of down-town Oslo). The poisonous cocktail is being put in practice in combination with what I call: 'simultaneous-chatter-style'-pedagogy the '2-minute-long-debate-with-a-partner (10-15 simultaneously ongoing dialogues in the room), at semi-regular intervals' -pattern of teaching. What we have here is a veritable circuspony drill act, pony-training. It is stupefyingly identical to the 'Stand' - 'Sit' - 'Stand' act of most church services, only here it is: 'Talk for 2 minutes !' - 'Quiiieeeeet !' Need I say more? But I will: It is the pedagogical farce of the millennium. And it will last until all begin to ridicule it in unison in the media or in chambers. But it takes much too long to get rid of consensused-upon errors. Summation 27. The few of us who do understand this need to stick our neck out, I'm afraid, to help that methodimperative along to its much needed death. The worst part of it may be this, though: The Ministry of Education has engaged or allowed the faculties of EdSci (uv-fak, in the UiO-case) to 1:)disseminate their faith-based methods to ALL of campus, all other domains; and 2:) 'call in' all experienced teachers for 'RE-programming' of their minds, the in-loading of the modernly inbred fraud-based ideas I lay forth in this photo-documentary (cf. Seeking Campus-universal Didactic Dominance, and getting it,..: Soerfjord 2016). My verdict is this: just stop that nonsense. The 'simultaneous-chatter-style' pedagogy is an exercise that teaches 'how to talk while others talk' and is indistinguishable from the 'talk-while-the-teachertalks' syndrome that some call attention deficit; this, then, being the collective learning of a problem, one that numbs the senses and prevents anything of substance from being debated anywhere in education. The 'everyone talk' - 'everyone be quiet' schema is pedagogically destructive. It is the opposite one debate at a time in plenum that brings good ideas into plenum and teaches the use of reason, promotes "a scientific way of thinking". The 'everyone-debate-with-a-partner', all pairs debating at the same time, filters out good ideas randomly, as do debates in teams with a summing up, one team at a time. Both forms are a tournament, a cup, at best; it brings the socially aggressive to the final round, removing the good ideas not appreciated on the way. It is the disciplined, teacher-guided, plenumdebate that is pedagogically fruitful. But that is not a medium for ignorant haters of logic, which Ed-Sci is full of at the moment. Help is needed from across the faculty-borders into Ed-Sci, not out of it. I'd say 'help' has been moving in the wrong direction lately on university campuses. Ed-Sci isn't a fountain for other faculties to look to for a drink of pure water, it's an abduction-case to interfere with, one who invades and expands; and a forger of quotes, cooker of theory and fixer of pseudo-documents, as I have documented. 27. All 'exclusion-principle'-enabling learning environment design elements need to be legislated out, kept away by detailed imposed-from-the-top regulation added in the present Law for teaching; sanctions need to be stipulated for the violation of it; and contracts need to be formed for the rapid termination of all personnel, academic and administrative, who delay or obstruct the implementation of the modified inclusion based learning together (IBLT) teachingparadigm, a paradigm that guarantees the scientific perspective of the science-oriented individual, while Summation 28. also allowing all to learn together, rather than detaching the 'lower' from the 'higher performers'. We need to arrange all elements of our learningenvironment according to the IBLT teaching-paradigm, by legislating necessary elements as well as limitations to local method-dictation on institutelevel and in the learning-environments of children. Being detached from the rest of the class, who get to stay with the best in the class, in order to sit where the better pupils cannot hear us while we read, can be expected to have a profound effect on our present and future capacity for learning, and logically we must expect that effect to possibly be very negative. One cannot produce documents that justify the mental act of logically excluding a very negative outcome of such separation of the 'lower'-performing readers. So we simply need to avoid it. Yet, that method is among the ones I sampled empirically in the practice-venue school Flaatestad, 24 km south of the university that sent us there (UiO), and I sampled it as a consistently used method, in English reading, taught by Miss Maria Sofie Olsson, who enforced her own narrow menu of specific methods; assigning low value to specific methods beyond those, without even understanding them well enough to evaluate them. Only Parliament-legislation can protect us from such un-informed local dictatorship of methods. Flaatestad school is one in a multitude of schools dominated by insightless grabbing of academic power by social abuse in the practical discourses within the pedagogic work-place. It isn't the 'lower' performer's reading that causes mobbing; it is mainly teachers' ignorance about mobbing that causes mobbing. The solution to differences in reading-performance isn't less togetherness as a full class, but better togetherness as a full class. That 'better togetherness' must begin in teachereducation; firstly, by: inviting dissent; demanding it; modeling it yes, in teacher training, all parts of teacher training, from 'cognitive science' to 'practice'. The discrimination of dissenters in Norwegian EdSci is a cleansing away of the multitude of ideas that Parliament wants and has legislated into our schools (§1-1 in the law for teaching Opplaeringsloven). It does harm beyond teacher-education. We do harm to ourselves as society by allowing it; and we allow it by leaving it not interfered with, which is what we therefore must stop doing. 28. Being detached from the rest of the class doesn't make us feel better as 'lower'-performing learners of anything, but: Summation 29. BLOCKING the TESTING-TIKK would. The need for a grade to be set on a pupil needs to be kept from influencing the content of instruction. And if modern evaluation-criteria dictate the form of exams, then that dictated exam-form must also be kept from influencing content-form in instruction. We cannot blame the method or content of instruction on limitations that apply to the test-methods. Nor can we blame any of it on the 'need' we say we have to test by certain test-methods; nor on imposed evaluation criteria (legislation of a test) or anything else, other than the need to learn within the framework of the legislated: the need to learn an updated but established content and learn it according to the principles dictated for that learning. If the test-manufacturing agents of education cannot keep up with criteria imposed by content and principles we validly expect to hold for the learning-environment (inclusion, learning together, the right to contribute), then that is just tough luck for WHOM? THE SCHOOL . The child has no stake in it and has no obligation to put any of the consequences of that wheelbarrow-full load of worries on his or her tiny shoulders. All we have to do is make sure school is as painless as a newly opened pack of Polly peanuts on a sunny day. NO TALK of TESTS should be allowed from the teacher's mouth on a regular schoolday. And NO SCORE-CARDS should be allowed to be HANDED OUT in class, ever. The humiliation caused by receiving low scores or low grades mediated alongside the mediation of much higher to others is torture. It has grave consequences. 29. The NEW insight that arrives before our awareness in the light of this is a previously not formulated, newly conceptualized HUMAN right of the CHILD: Only a school that is VOLUNTARY can in adherence to the human rights of the CHILD impose any form of mandatory test; and: only a school in which test-participation is VOLUNTARY can in adherence to the human rights of the CHILD be a school with mandatory participation. So, if school-participation is mandatory, tests cannot be; and if tests are mandatory, participation in school cannot be. One of them has to yield, in the NEW light of the human rights of the CHILD. This is something the schools of the future will have to deal with. This is a CHILD's right that the school simply must yield to eventually. ADULTS have not developed sufficiently, yet, to have a mature awareness of this; have not yet Summation 30. reached that developmental stage. But the CHILD'S NEEDS have. Adult awareness of reality lags behind the already FULLY developed NEEDS of the child. This is what I tentatively must call, as banal as that might appear: the Piagetian correspondent need awareness schema. Only by upholding the present abuses against children and teacher-candidates, can the materialization of that right be delayed. In the meantime, another summation: 30. A learning-environment can be structured so that it is rigged against rational 'peer-fear', which in a wrong environment is the right response, a rational anxiety. Healthy learning is not about 'order-in-class', but indirectly the opposite; the chaos deriving from the 'drawing out' of capacities within. A little 'disorder' in class is not the problem here. Learning is in itself internal creative structuring, but it often needs to be actively drawn out from seeds within, by employing structural elements that tend to enable a measure of 'creative chaos'. A little chaos, frustration and the overcoming of such are biproducts of efficient learning processes and should be allowed to express themselves. In the human child there are mainly good seeds, anyway - "only good seeds", says Immanuel Kant, in the little book he wrote the year before he died, On Pedagogy (1803:§16). Here he also tells us: "Educate children not for the present world but for a better world, so as to bring the better world into existence by bringing the children up into it." (1803:§15) a better advice, I should say, than the postmodern way of imitating the present world and 'voting' on who to exclude. The latter is precisely what is being taught by all Norwegian teacher-educating 'academies', 'institutes', 'departments' and 'faculties' (different words for identical entities and sub-entities), within universities (UiO, UiA, UiS, UiT, NORD, NTNU) and so-called 'schools of higher education' (høgskoler: literally "highschools", but 'higher schools' is a well put English phrase for it; referring to colleges: Høgskolen i Oslo og Akershus, HiOA, being one). I think we can safely assume the same goes for all of Scandinavia and beyond, in most consensus-adhering institutions wherever the political conditions allow it and key cultural factors are present, factors that now seem to have been globalized into a 'field'-situated global pathos, but is on the way to become a campus-universal (allfields) didactic pathos; a suffering imposed on all instruction, in all the scientific fields. That infection appears to have started in a faked authorship: assigning church-authored pedagogic faith from the Dark-Ages to Jean Piaget, believe it or not. But have faith in this: The end of the pathos must include forcing the world to look at the forgery, unwrapped in its naked ugliness, arousing reactions unspeakable in males and females alike, arranged as they are in deliberately compro- Summation 31. mizing positions within higher education; their social organs, when aroused, looking more grotesque the closer you get to them. 31. The 'order in class'-focus is a big mistake, a skindeep patching that in itself does harm and does nothing about the deeper problem: abuses in teacher-education, hence the structural setting up for acceptance of abuse in all education, while setting our philosophy of learning back to a prerenaissance state. The problem to address is the set of methods used in teacher-training. They not only constitute mobbing, mob-type abusive behavior; they cause it. Academics involved in this pedagogic framework teach it by modeling it. The visually explicit example I put on display involves an entire consensus-population. Their 'peer-vs.-peer' type methods impose the constant threat of social, peer-imposed, sanctions against the individual; essentially team-terror which is mobbing, per definition. It isn't the full-class-reading-exercise method that causes gang-bullying (mobbing), it's the 'peer-vs.peer' design of their entire classroom-work a pedagogic quackery with long-term damage on young minds. The idea that full-class reading exercise 'causes mob-abuse' is uneducated guesswork that simplistic methods allow bigoted minds to jump to. Reading-exercises in full-class is essential, and it can be voluntary should be voluntary, by letting the pupils who raise a hand read a paragraph each, the teacher reading one as well, and methodically MAKING it not dangerous. HOW? By NOT TESTING, not talking about testing; and NOT grading, until much later, but merely experiencing. Practice pronunciation details in English and NEVER TEST them in it. Let the child listen and try to imitate the peers the child thinks do it well. And do NOT tell who the better readers are, let the children imitate the teacher or an audio-recorded sample without being told anything that signal a ranking of the students relative to each other. Let them simply admire and emulate the peers they think sound better if they choose to, while using a common sample source that all can relate to in imitation-exercises, short-duration slow excercises of details, breaking off into something else, like singing, in the language studied. Getting over the testing-tick: It is by forgetting all about tests that we can enjoy learning. And only by enjoying the learning can we maximize it. It isn't maximized by testing and threatening to (talking about) test. Each task allows the child to test itself. And 'self-testing' suffices. Assigning grades to the class is a down-grading of some individuals. It is wrong to do it against children who MUST attend school. The 'grade'-issue is ruled on by the same above formulated human right of the child that rules on the 'test'-issue. A pedagogue ought to not care what the world of business says about needing to see 'grades' from before the college diploma. It suffices that the child sees that some of the answers he or she put on the paper have correct elements in them, enjoys that feel- Summation 32 & 33. ing, and moves on to more of the same, and always has the teacher available-but-never-as-a-test-GIVER never as a TESTER, and hardly ever as a fault-FINDER. Let the child keep the paper with his and her answers and add to them during plenum dialogue, which is being done, but do it without the paper being graded. Treat the paper as the child's secret property and let the child remain together with the rest of the pupils, including the best, in what amounts to 'learning together'. 32. The condemnation of full-class reading exercises by new thinkers of half chains of thought is manipulation of Ed-Sci, now on record, on audio-tape coming from the lips of Lisbeth M. Brevik, one of the tax-financed "Didactitian"-pseudotitle-imputed alleged 'didactitians' at the UiO as if a 'PhD in pedagogy' is not a 'didactitian'; but pseudospecialists at the UiA are no different; nor any of the others within the fellowship of the "do-not-snitch-on-theteam's censorship-operator" frame-work. They are all forced to be alike, and forced to think that they're not forced. They are drinkers of the same mandated among themselves mind-limiting ideacocktail that makes them the incessant "self-reflection"-talkers they are, while imagining the paradigm need not 'it'-self selfreflect and be ready to modify itself by way of its proponents modifying IT whenever FACTS surface or, as with the real Piaget-quotes, resurface after being murdered and sunk on the deep end. All these non-selfreflexive talkers of "selfreflection" will stay that way until the conditions for a scientific competition and the competition itself are legislated in and the opposite legislated out. 33. The aggression in the left margin above here is only the visible corner that fit inside the frame of the lens that morning. The team of mobbers pulling the strings from behind ID-card-swipe-and-pin-code operated locked-vault-secured floors at the UiO Faculty of Ed-Sci's Institute (for Teacher-training and School-research; the ILS) and the likes, THAT is the real problem. It requires Parliament-action and a new, radically different business model to be applied to these institutions; a business model that proudly enables heads to roll behind vaulted walls of shame. As mentioned, the enforcement of 'the agreement-imperative' among school-children was empirically verified at Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school 20 km south of down-town Oslo in the autumn semester of 2015 by myself, as a fully registered teacher-candidate who happens to be a PhD in pedagogy; who sent in a report to the UiO on the set of methods used at that practice venue, and who also (I did) reported the 'practice guide teacher', Miss Maria Sofie Olsson, as unqualified for insisting I shouldn't tell on individuals who abuse peers in the http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/english/people/aca/ eyvindel/ Eyvind Elstad does not want to have his photo on the UiO staff-list, but here he is in a snippet from the internet, a photo I estimate to be from around 2006: Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad, snippet from: http://utdanningsforskning.no/kilderpersoner/person erforfattere/eyvind-elstad/ Mr. Eyvind Elstad is Dr. Polit. (Political Science) (1996), NOT Pedagogy; bachelor in humanities (1981) and economy (1988), from Univ. Of Oslo, UiO, with work experience in tax-administration, market-ing and leadership-studies. And HE is the one the three females running the UiO Institute appoint to answer my letter about the Piagetquotes. His answer is: "It is not important." The females attach Elstad's letter to the email they send me saying: "Dr. Elstad says it isn't important. Therefore, it is not important" and proceed to upgrade all my excercise to extraexams, to evict the snitch before the real exams. Office-sitated Norwegian fascism, systemic corruption and incompetency in Educational Science. Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad is not qualified to answer that letter (cf. excerpt from his posted cv, next page) cf. my proof of quote-fraud in cognitive science at UiO (2015). Rektor allows it because the academic command line down to the faculty-level and further down is fictitious. team-work (peers in this case being other teacher-candidates placed at that teaching-exercise) because, as she repeatedly uttered: "they must tell them-selves" ("De må si ifra selv"); a Miss Olsson who did not see the physical mob-abuse that constantly lingered and occurred at opportune times in her own class. I happened to see it and did stop an acutely ongoing event in a long chain of such against one individual who obviously "did not tell himself" and in the boy's own mind had BETTER NOT "tell himself". Telling that journalismeducated ignorant female certainly wouldn't have done much good. There was no one on staff intelligent enough for the boy TO TELL. And if there had been, they would have seen it long ago. Some of these children live as hostages to the environment they are left within, under the nose of incapable pedagogues who are themselves mobbers and victims of mobbers in their work-environment. Miss Maria Sofie Olsson's supervisor, Miss May Britt Esse Berge doesn't see the mobbing going on under her nose either. Is anyone going to dismiss these two women from the tax-financed jobs they so patently are uneducated for and unqualified for, and in ways I have documented grossly mishandle ? ever ? Hardly. I find it likely that Miss Berge might one day propose she too, for her own safety, be protected by the same measures as her liaisonpartner Miss Engelien at the UiO Institute in fact is and be put behind lock and vaulted walls, a cardswipe-pincode-operated wall of shame. Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, incidentally, never address the facts I had pointed to in writing, beyond stating, in writing, that "Dr. Eyvind Elstad says it is not important. Therefore, it is not important." Instead, Miss Engelien has her department-head Mai Lill Suhr Lunde send me the implicit threat "summoning-for-togethertalking about your attendance in the course" headed emails; while Miss Engelien herself prefers to do her thing orally, telling me in her protocol-writer-logged "together-talking"-session that "whereas you like writing, I like together-talking" ("-jeg liker samtale"), but evidently not without her "protocol"-writer's presence evidently so, because I dropped by Miss Engelien's office one day to "chat", "together-talk", about this, but once she heard the topic she suddenly grew restless and decided she had to 'be somewhere else'. "But we can have a real good together-talk (samtale) about this, can we not?", she asks, nodding her head with her fake smile. I say "Sure", fully aware what she's up to. A dangerous game, and they know it: Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien shares her love for "together-talking" after she and I have walked from her office, down the hall and into her 'interrogation-room', where she is going to practice what she calls "together-talking" ("samtale", synonym of "dialogue"), and for that purpose has Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde functioning as what their emails ominously call "protocol-writer" ("protokollfører"). It is a security-necessitating game they play, these females. One will need to think hard to identify whether method necessitated protection or protection invited method; whether it was their abusive method that one day necessitated the security-vaulted walls of their office-floors, http://folk.uio.no/eyvindel/ Eyvind Elstad, a Dr. Polit. PRETENDING to be a PhD in pedagogy, by allowing himself to act as cognitive-science-specialist and speak on behalf of Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien in the UiO-institute (ILS), after I inform them of their systematic quote-fraud (Piaget 1967), Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad denouncing it as "not important". They cannot admit they're wrong, and that their Piaget-quotes, para-phrases and citations are wrong. Who will force them to admit that fact? not the Ministry, nor the Parliament; or might they? It is academic fraud. Something needs to be done about it, as soon as possible ! or whether it was the space for abuse afforded by the vaulted walls that in the end were too tempting to leave unexplored. What we do know is that these females shun, evade and warp all scientific debate, and commit unlawful acts of intimidation to have things their way pretending to have authority they do not have (verified by Anne Grøholt and Kasper Aunan in the Ministry of Education, in writing), which is 'public-authority-custodian-fraud'; Norw. 'offentlig forvaltningssvindel'); doing it again by pretending to have responded in writing through a Dr. Polit. (Eyvind Elstad) when addressed about a scientifically relevant matter in cognitive science, made relevant by their own systematic references to it but using forged quotes instead of the real ones; calling the disturbingly difficult fact that their staple quote (the one they attribute to Piaget) is fraud by the label "gravely disturbing the lecture", under the heading "warning"; discriminating the messenger in the alleged open dialogues explicitly invited by the lecturer, and so on. I am waiting for someone in Parliament to respond. IS NOBODY GOING TO? Naturally, these females are aware it is a dangerous game they play. The fear they signal speaks volumes of that fear jogging out of the lecture hall when I begin to mention the REAL Piaget-quotes at the end of a lecture (Miss Kirsti Klette, having Dr. Oeystein perform primal rush-on-intimidation assault that he modifies to mock-attack in the last split second, intimidation we usually only see on National Geographic and Discovery Channel to defend themselves against WHAT? the threat of the REAL Piaget-quotes. Among Rector's duties is this: making sure the Faculty ensures that the Institutes under its name adheres to principles of science. I wrote to that Rector in August, September and October, asking him to do just that. But the academic command line down to the facultylevel and further down is fictitious, so he has not done that, never will. He refuses to answer and allows the Institute (ILS), the females who run it as their own metaphoric brothel, do as they please, and pleasing themselves they have done throughout, the bully in the left margin being a foot-soldier they let loose when there is a scientific voice to silence. He, Dr. Øystein, sent messages to Mai Britt Esse Berge at the practice-venue school in early September 2015, before my first week of practical teaching-exercise, "informing" her according to her own statement to my face as I inform her of ongoing abuses, on the UiO campus and in the practice-venue, in a misconceived 'fight-forleadership' type teamwork dialogue* 23 in the candidate-group, a dialogue that needs guidance but isn't getting any that I "can be domineering". It's like being in an office building on fire, and no one yelling "Fire" because they all know they'll be accused of lighting the fire if they talk about fire. (* 23 cf. Appendix I) Only a pedagogic madhouse will behave that way, a monsterlaboratory* 24 gone collectively mad. We should have the faculty of philosophy file for custody of all the children kept hostage by this sect, a veritable pedagogic faith gone scientifically rogue, to the extent of systematic violation of §1-1 in the law for teaching. There is a folder-thick list of offenses ongoing daily in teacher-training, but any one of these two claims they make and stand for, in writing and on my audio-recorder, will suffice: the claim that individual teachercandidates bullied in team-work " 1a must tell themselves", so " 1b Speak Snippet of the article by Chris Gøran Holstad, featuring a photo of the Minister of Education; caption: "New chapter: Knowledge-Minister Torbjørn Røe Isaksen (of the right-wing party named 'Right') has become a modern Dr. Frankenstein, thinks the article-author. Photo: Terje Pedersen/NTB Scanpix." The heading says "Doctor Røe Isaksen creates teacher-monsters". https://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/doktor-roeisaksen-skaper-laerermonstre/60143244 for yourself (only) !" (" 1a De må si fra selv", så " 1b Snakk for deg selv!"), where 1a is spoken to explain what she means by the written 1b she put in my official practice-log, a document; 'she' being guidanceteacher Miss Maria Sofie Olsson at the practice-venue-school Flaatestad, 24 km south of the university of Oslo; and " 2 It (telling someone in charge) isn't your task to do" (" 2 Det er ikke din oppgave (å si fra)" where 2 is orally by Leader of Instruction Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien into the microphone of my audio-recording device in the interrogation-meeting that her dept. head Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde "called in for", interchangeably phrased "invited for", in spite of having no authority to give the impression that a teachercandidate needs to show up for such a "chat", as these females call it no such authority at all, according to clerks Anne Grøholt and Kasper Aunan in the Ministry of Education personally, in writing to myself. * 24 cf. Secretary of the Norwegian 'National Association of Schools' (Skolenes Landsforbund, SL), Chris Gøran Holstad, who warned us on 31. May 2016, in the newspaper Dagbladet (Daily Paper), of the obvious potential for pending disaster associated with the ongoing laboratory-style rampant (unbridled) experiment-driven enforced fad type uniforming of Norwegian education, an article he placed under the heading: "Doctor Røe Isaksen creates teacher-monsters" (where 'ø' is 'oe' and Mr. Isaksen is Norway's Minister of Education). A note to the note is this: 'Doctor' Isaksen apparently isn't a doctor of anything, but has a Master's degree; and not in Pedagogy but in what field ? Exactly, Political Science. He is a Ma. Polit. taking advice from a flock of Dr. Polit.-degree-equipped self-appointed specialists in Pedagogy who lie openly and collaborate with teachers of pedagogy who lie openly about core scientific quotes that have direct bearing on the core of current learning-theoretical slogans enforced in these higher education courses. In the left margin here, we have a Minister of Education who refuses to interfere with it. Laughable. They lie for the benefits of the lie, 1:power over teachercandidates, whom they use against debaters who oppose them, and 2:the stability of the money-flow to their own pockets that comes with the idea-monopoly they have stolen for themselves. The article-author Chris Gøran Holstad has another perspective than mine, his being that teachers become over-theoretical by what is portrayed by the Ministry as a research-focus. What I am adding to that rational point is the fact that their alleged 'research-focus' is bogus as I have proved. They are liars about the core cognitive science that could make their effort scientific. Having now been proved to be home-cooked Piaget-quotes, fraud, they end up with a learning-theory they cannot defend because they SAY the bottom of their totem pole is planted on Jean Piaget. They say it EVERY initial stage of EVERY course-program in Pedagogy. And THAT, my friends, readers, some of whom find me utterly annoying, is not a small matter. It is something to talk about and act upon. It isn't nothing and it isn't something to know about and do nothing, like all the 'do-nothings' in the University of Agder (UiA) and University of Oslo (UiO) who do nothing. They could've dropped me a 'thank you' right from the start and be on their way to a better pedagogy already. But just like their flat-earth-preaching forefathers, they squeeze the last drop of blood from the crucifix they inherited and * 25 remember the line of command?; it is fictitious, only for show, because it isn't being used to force the 'institute' to adhere to the basic principles of science, the chief principle being: Surrender to evidence! * 26 it is valid in the sense that it dictates form and content of teacher-education. glued to their over-head-machine's transparent leaflets in a century past, by power-point-slides in the present. As anyone can imagine, these individuals are forming an entire work-environment in rather unhealthy ways, running their pedagogic freak-show built on fraud in a public university. And NO ONE in government sees it their duty to step in and remove them if they continue to refuse to remove the forgeries. Their learning-theory is a made up alibi for their ancient church-authored 'repent-andselfmodify'-model of learning, originating in the Dark Ages. THAT is one very good reason for them to be afraid of the truth, afraid of looking as if they do not know their own science, which, of course, they do not, as I have proved. It is a harmful feminine-majority-empowered anti-science-game they are playing, whether it is essentially feministic or mostly postmodernistic, because that activity has arrested Ed-Sci in its track along its most essential parameters: 1)cognitive science and 2)socialinteraction-dynamics (discourse). In the meantime society has moved along to an updated present in which youth are being harmed by this particular largely political scienceand accountant (Dr. Polit. and MBA)-driven pre-renaissance pedagogic faith and the Institutesituated self-enriching tax-funded Comrade-Party that protects it. The Scandinavian division of this 'field-situated' mob has more power than anywhere else in the world, to a large extent on account of the 'permanent employment' status of its main players and the non-interference-policy lived by in Parliament, in the Ministry of Education, in the Rector's lounge and in the faculty-puppet's row of offices. It is a large team of Non-Interferers we have in this structure, where the bottom league is really playing games with science itself here, essentially for money, for the benefit of non-competition, didactic monopoly for their opinion, and the upgrading or their opinion to universal pedagogic law unwritten by Parliament and Ministry the alleged real writers of the laws of the land, every sphere of it, except for the sphere of the production-institutes for the keepers of all of our children. It is public fraud and grand theft of public funds we are talking about; as well as unwarranted self-appropriation of monopoly while in public office, firstly and foremost the offices of UiO's Faculty of EdSci really its 'institutes': the ILS, the IPED and the ISP. The rest of the nation seems to do exactly as the UiO does. I know the UiA does. And I get aggressive emails from the NTNU every now and then that speak of sore toes in the Troendelag region. The 'faculty' heads and Rector are puppets* 25 who shield the institute-level mob who commit the mentioned offenses to reason offenses to law, specifically §1-1 of the 'law for teaching', a law they, in their delusion, say isn't even valid for them* 26 , and the 'law for higher education') and to the human rights these laws rest upon and implicitly refer to. Is the Parliament going to force the Ministry to force the Rector to force the Dean to force the Leader of Instruction and her institutesituated mob-team to force (in this case) Miss Kirsti Klette and Miss Britt Oda Fosse to speak the truth when they refer to Jean Piaget's cognitive model of the human mind (1967) and put his 'accommoda- tion' into their publically funded (by our taxes) lectures ? Hardly, so the freak-show continues: quote-fraud in defence of a churchauthored model of learning that stems from the Dark Ages, the Biblecompatible but science-obstructing admit-and-repent gospel dressed up as the Piaget's cognitive accommodation defined as modification story systematically taught in Pedagogy. It is a killing of science by faith and document-forgery. The female-majority-administration and Dr. Eyvind Elstad is one such team, spanning from campus to pedagogic work environments among children, a liaison in which Dr. Oeystein does what he can to fit in, even by theorising 'fitting-in' as the core of his social-learningparadigm, with very little knowledge of original cognitive theory. He has to please these females to get his promotion. It is a very harmful organized monopoly they operate, one that Parliament needs to neutralize. How? By a total restructuring of the universities' funding, promotionand hiring-pattern. The emails to myself are from department-head Miss Suhr-Lunde but originate in the mind of a female 'leader-of-instruction' who purports to enjoy and prefer "together-talking" ("samtale"), a half truth only, because what she prefers is the kind where she can threaten science out of the mind of teacher-candidates and then have her protocol-writer putting her interrogation dialogue in the "log". It is a log their own instructions say they MUST refer to when they eject teacher-candidates from a course before the exam, and they do so based on 'not liking' the candidate before the exam! The 'log' or 'protocol' must have a certain content. And it is that content these "together-talking"-interrogations in fact are meant to build, hence the "protocol-writer". The two reluctant Ministry-clerks, who ignored me until I bothered them repeatedly, escape the challenge to answer in the accurate terms of my letter, and phrase their confirmation with a different adverbial of circumstances, as if to reserve for themselves deniability in court, but are unable to escape from the essence of the 'predicate' when they, in their reply, say a teacher-candidate is not at all obliged to show up in the "chats", "together-talks" ("samtaler"), I refer to in my letters to them and which their reply letter therefore specifically refers to. The two clerks, therefore, confirm that there is no duty for teacher-candidates to show up when "invited to" or "called in for" any meetings at all of any sort – with the function of 'discussing their attendance', participation, or any other emerging or pop-up non-curriculum-topic during courses in pedagogy. The particular habit, for example, of "inviting"/"calling in" an individual dissenter for an official "chat" ("samtale") with "protocol-writer" particularly after having been presented evidence of quote-fraud, or after abuse in the obligatory team-work has been reported by a candidate dissenting to it can be IGNORED by the dissenter who reported the issue. The desire to meet for "chats" can be ignored because the very mention of it constitutes PERSECUTION, office-perpetrated such. They are VERY serious offences for a nation who complains about CHINA persecuting dissenters. The hypocrisy of it reaches horrid proportions when we consider the holy faces of the Nobel Committee whenever foreigners arrive at the holy land to be BLESSED BY NOBEL's ghost here in Oslo, have the holy spirit of the Vikings breathed unto them. The invitations/calling in for such "chats", constitute a crime: the crime of impersonating a higher authority than they actually have. THAT is fairly serious. It is in itself corruption of state-affairs, comparable to knocking on doors or stopping vehicles while impersonating a police-officer. They are the same category of offence. It is fraud on the level of faking a signature or wrongfully impersonating the police. The content of their 'log' consists of reports and "chats"transcripts, in which you actually find precisely such phrases as 'not liked' naturally patently unlawful as basis for eviction between courseinitiation and final exam; and it remains to be investigated how Norway's Ministry of Judicial matters has in fact, necessarily so, on or off record, struck a deal with the institutes of pedagogy; has agreed to leave them alone. And it also remains to be investigated why Norway's attorneys do not understand that the above described exclusion-machine is an unlawful sifting-practice in higher education. I must simply suspect the Norwegian domain of law to be ruled by a colleague-association that threatens the livelihood of lawyers who speak up against a consensus that requires passivity towards this particular type of corruption of local custodianship of state power in Norway's universities (expressed in Norw.: korrupsjon av norske universiteters lokale forvaltning av statsmakt) corruption both in the chain of command and in the procedures of the Institutesituated offices (Institute-leader, leader-of-instruction aso) who in fact bypass Dean and Rector and act as a ruling opinion-party on behalf of a Ministry that stays out of it and refuses to have anything to do with it, until you annoy them by repeatedly writing to them, after which they attempt to evade the issue. Hence, the 'institutes' of Pedagogy in fact act on behalf of a Parliament kept in the dark when these office-holding clerks, before the final exam, evict or give the grade 'failed' in 'exercise-teaching' to non-apprenticeshipcontracted individual teacher-candidates based on he or she not 'being liked' not 'liked' by a mob, for example, nor the teacher who uses the 'mob' to sift, thereby selling her affection to mobs. Teachercandidates are not 'apprentices' but are being selectively when a whore for the mob despises someone enough to 'doubt' that this someone will be a teacher who agrees with the 'institute' picked out for special exams aka 'listening-in' or 'sitting-in' by special envoys sent to asses whether they 'pass' or 'fail' and are to be 'fired' from the study. The whore for the mob then 'creates' the report. There comes a time when Parliament has to realize the fact of these assessments: they have limitations that apply to the parameters of application (what to assess) and the assessment mandate (only formative mandate can be rational when assessing beyond writtentest -mediated subject-knowledge and clarity of speech, as specified in summation 3-5 above). This is an Education-Scientific atrocity, an unlawful mandate, and it is irreleveant whether claims of assessment-mediated abuse are true. Somebody in government or in Parliament need to bring this up in open plenum. But it is evidently such a hot potato that no one in power can even discuss it officially or in the open without making 'friends' in offices angry. It's an 'all-mouths-shut' issue. Legally it is a given. It is unlawful, and these Institute-situated, mostly female, administrators are law- violators; yet apparently allowed to, through oral agreement. And THAT corruption sits high enough to make the coordinated mouthsshut-policy workable. Government will obviosly not react against it not the Parliament, nor the Ministry evidently not until something really tragic occurs. Somebody just need to make this an issue in Parliament before that happens. The stupidity of waiting until something happens is just not acceptable. The two reluctant clerks of the Ministry self-attribute their pdfformat letter (attached to an email) with their names in typed letters followed by the text "The document is electronically signed and therefore does not have handwritten signatures." in small font ("Dokumentet er elektronisk signert og har derfor ikke håndskrevne signaturer."): The clerks are Anne Grøholt and Kasper Aunan in the Ministry of Education. They end their letter by saying "The Ministry considers this matter closed and will not answer any more inquiries from you about the same matter" which is distinctly condescending and a distinct expression of contempt, inasmuch as I address them more than once only because they ignore my query, and evade it when ignoring it doesn't work. The facts I throw at them have obviously struck a nerve: This is a letter they wrote reluctantly, after a first letter that evaded the whole matter and was a tell tale proof of the corrupt liaison they maintain with the university 'institutes'. And behind this quackery of a Ministry of Education hides the Minister, he too behind vaulted walls, but with a better reason for it than the corrupt females I put on display in this photo-documentary. These institute-situated parliament-substitute-self-empowered females know the seriousness of the abuses they perpetrate, and are genuinely afraid for it. Who's going to modify these administrators' behaviour and under-the-table mandate to persecute and abuse teacher-candidates, if we do not make the Parliament understand it is their duty to interfere and modify Ed-Sci's stubborn behavior, on our behalf, and restrict the freedom to restrict a basic human right: equal access to final exams for ALL who qualify for entry to these non-apprenticeship-contracted course programs. Corruption assisted* 27 by female protector in the Ministry: The largely female institute leadership who engages a Dr.Polit. to answer for their quote-forgery have little to worry about when they have a female friend in the Ministry of Education (Kunnskapsdep.) they can rely on to protect them. This partner in their corrupt local proceedings is Miss Anne Grøholt: from http://universitas.no/nyheter/60423/akademitilbod-falsk-master with a smirk that tells me the UiO institute's users of forged Piaget-quotes (Kirsti Klette and Britt Oda Fosse in the ILS-case) and the three institute-level 'leaders' (Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien and Rita Hvistendahl) have little to worry about as long as Anne Grøholt is there to block every move towards re-establishing the real quotes. This is the UiO-Ministry connection, the corrupt liaison between a body of females in the UiO ed-sci-institutes (ILS, IPED and SPED) and the Ministry of Education.Together they currently block Ed-Sci from a very realistic progress away from its current manipulated state. Norwegian 'institutes' of ed-sci are all bred by cultivating agreers to consensus and forcing all to adhere to the latest method-fad. Our Ministers of Education put on a sincere face and let the corrupt liaison continue. No one in that Ministry will order UiO to stop using the proven forgeries. Anne Grøholt stands in the way if anyone tries. Unaware I had my device recording all of it, Miss Engelien, after pressing me to elaborate on (I quote:) "what your pedagogical view is", repeatedly, and getting no answer from me, naturally, proceeds to orally assure me that "Miss Maria Sofie Olsson is well qualified as practice-guide-teacher"; and explicitly emphasizes with reference to snitching about in-team abuse in the team-against-the-individual plot they wrap all Ed-Sci courses in and use in the sifting away of dissidents, a patently unlawful practice - "it is not your task to do" ("det er ikke din oppgave"), audio-recorded by myself. This is Norwegian, locally distributed and largely female, fascism, and its operators (left margin here, above and below) are essentially thieves of public funds and facilitators of corruption. Their "Telling on those who abuse others...is not for you to do" (Kirsti L. Engelien, recorded) about abuses in teamwork is civil disobedience, a violation of Parliament-emitted key principles for teaching (§1-1), all of which constitute Parliament's instructions for teacher-education. Get it? Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, a UiO 'leader of instruction', actually emphasizes, repeatedly, that reporting abuses against other teachercandidates in mandatory teamwork "is not your task to do" (I audiorecorded it), which is the same legally, sociologically, psychologically and policy-wise false 'do-not-snitch' claim I had already reported the practice-guide-teacher Maria Sofie Olsson as unqualified for having made just a week before that, at Flaatestad school, and my report is the start-button of the a corrupt liaison I call exclusion services unit. It was a report I made in writing, to UiO's Institute for Teachertraining and School-research, ILS, where Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien is 'Leader of Instruction'. So here we have the 'leader of instruction' WHITE-washing the claim I had reported a practice-guide teacher as incompetent for having made. Verdict: all five females, two practicevenue-school situated (May Britt Esse Berge and Maria Sofie Olsson) as well as the UiO institute-situated (Rita Hvistendahl, Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien and Mai Lill Suhr lunde), prove themselves incompetent by that claim alone, uttering or defending it; and confirms the corrupt liaison with the Ministry of Education* 27 , where their facilitator and remote blocking-device has been Anne Grøholt. The 'do not snitch'-principle is a deal-breaker for pedagogues, and doubly so for teachers of pedagogy. The leaders, three at the UiO Institute: 'institute-leader', 'leader of instruction', and a cancereducated 'department head', makes the whole incompetence official; a matter for King and Parliament. One of them had better see their role as more than merely symbolic in this matter, because it is a matter that is likely to hit us straight in the face if we leave this fascist university-cult alone, allow it to continue torturing Ed-Sci. We run the risk of somebody one day reacting in radically uncomfortable and radically expressive manners as a result of similar discrimination against evidence-based dissent, essentially fascism in offices reserved for educational science. It needs to be formally interfered with and ended before a tragedy occurs during such discrimination, lecturer-modeled contempt of a student before the class; taught aggression on account of scientific dissent. It may well have a tragically foreseen disastrous outcome if the 'wrong' person is targeted in this manner. It is a natural ugliness that has no place in science, an ugliness glossed lips can't fix; a series of recurring violations of law, public process and human rights that formalized threats from the predominantly feminine security-fenceshielded, facts-repressing fascist mob cannot hide in the long run, not now that make-up is off and natural corruption is exposed. The 'do-not-tell' claim is one Miss Maria Sofie Olsson made in writing, on the so-called teaching-practice-report-card, which therefore is WRITTEN evidence. Miss Kirsti L. Engelien defending it by repeating it, three times, is surprisingly incompetent. The practicereport form reads like a museum-piece from a future record of failed systems of government and the cracks that disabled them. The set of scientifically, legally and policy-wise rogue females have obviously agreed on that claim as a rule - "it is not your task to do"; "they [abused peers] must tell themselves", which in itself makes them all, the whole set of 5 domineering females (Maria Sofie Olsson, May Britt Esse Berge, Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien and Rita Hvistendahl), positively unqualified for the offices they occupy. Lisbeth M. Brevik is one among a core set of trained soldiers of consensus, doubly incompetent for using institutional force to have a shared opinion enforce censorship against other opinions, even against vastly more fact-based opinions; while drawing their salaries from the taxes we all pay. The video sample secured by my Sony-cam and the photo-strip drawn from it (left margin) is essential evidence in the struggle to rid society of the game they play in the offices they occupy (cf. Quoteand citation-fraud at the UiO, Soerfjord 2015). The above listed are female untouchables blocking the Parliament-authored principles for teaching - §1-1 in the Law for Teaching by making sure teacher-candidates learn THE OPPOSITE. It is not at all a small matter this one. It is a deal-breaker-level mishandling of public funds. Somebody need to stop this. That can probably be done best economically, as a funding-policy-issue. So, the female practice-guide-teacher, and her so-called leader or practice-coordinator (Miss May Britt Ese Berge) and the three institute-situated female leaders of the UiO Institute ('pushers', not 'leaders') all explicitly tell me victims of abuse in the team-work "must tell themselves" (quote: "må si fra selv") and "you should speak for yourself only" (in writing); and "it isn't your task to do" (on audio tape) quite contrary to officially validated ethics, which says 'stand up for' the abused and 'speak up'; 'do not accept it against anyone!'. So: educators of educators do not know 'what' mob-abuse (in Norway called "mobbing") is, and do not adhere to OFFICIAL POLICY against it. I now have audio-recorded evidence of that verbal violation of universally acknowledged principles of ethics. I have it on file, repeatedly stated by Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien in the interrogation she had her lieutenant Mai Lill Suhr Lunde "call in" for in spite of (according to two clerks of the central Ministry of Education, to me in writing) having no such authority to 'call in' or otherwise intimidate with communicated expectations that one should 'meet for official chats', in the presence of the institute's own internally appointed " protocol-writer " (Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde pretending to be 'protocol-writer') partially logged, official aka "chats" ("samtale") where University-officials attack a teacher-candidate who quoted the evidence that proves consensus wrong; more than wrong: fraudulently and so ridiculously wrong that the whole University leadership should pack their bags and get out of these offices. We need administrators who are either 'centrally situated', detached from the 'scene', or 'scientists' in the field they administrate. 'Administrators' are 'ministers', 'servers' set to 'serve' the scientific domain they administrate; are not supposed to be 'servers of the opinion of the most senior alliance' or anyone else among the staff; are supposed to be scientifically neutral when they 'administer' a field of science, even Ed-Sci. The current so-called 'administrators of Ed-Sci are not at all administrators of the science they are set to 'administrate' as in 'serve', and herein lies the corrupt perspective that allows the present state to even be a possibility on university campuses. According to the letter I received from the national Department of Education: the UiO, faculty, institute or any other sub-universitylevel entity has NO SUCH AUTHORITY. The letter says so plainly, and the same letter continues saying the clerks "will not reply to any more" of my communications about this, obviously annoyed all the way up to the lower-level government clerk level, clerks who know little or nothing about Ed-Sci or Jean Piaget's quotes other than what I have shoved down their unwilling throats. They much prefer to let the on-campus 'Institute' have their way so that nobody can hold them, the government clerks, responsible for anything. Regretfully, that is an attitude perfected by the Minister of Education, whom I, as I mentioned, confronted in the March 17, 2016 symposium on education here in Oslo (internet-tv-recorded by the newspaper Dagbladet, cf. Seeking Campus-Universal Didactic Dominance, and getting it,.. Soerfjord 2016); and it was also the attitude of his colleagues before him; all of whom I must assume were more annoyed than thrilled by my investigative attitude (the "scientific way of thinking" that the Parliament-authored LAW for teaching dictates teacher-candidates to teach when they 'become' teachers, §1-1 of it). It's like I'm opening cabinets in their own kitchen when I poke this can of Norwegian worms in Ed-Sci all of them trained into collective ignorance and a DO NOT SNITCH-culture that makes them all turn either aggressive or silent including the national politicians who protect them by letting them continue undisturbed. Either way: all of them publically funded personnel and in hiding, addressing nothing and behaving as if they are only responsible to each other, covering each others' backs. The UiO, for example, is responsible to the Ministry in government, who defers and delegates all back to the UiO. WHAT ? Did I get that right ? Yes, that is exactly right, a systemic escape from accountability; alibies for one another, almost as in a Hollywood detective-story; hard to believe until you believe the reality, in the left margin here, of Dr. Øystein's visibly harmful to the environment emotions on account of the purely scientific matters I have confronted 'his' institute with (genuine cause) and my refusal to be discriminated for it at the practice-venue and in the open dialogues explicitly invited by the lecturers (substitute cause), the very dialogues that give scientific legitimacy to academic courses and discourses. So when you as lecturer is wrong about a quote and one in the audience corrects your quote, and you then proceed to refer to a learning-theoretical model associated with your false quote and tell the student who keeps reminding you about the falsehood of the quote to be quiet then THAT is the end of science, the end of education, and the end of the basis for publically funded university fees for these courses, not to mention the salaries paid to this aggression-driven consensus-mob. aggression: modeled, learned, internalized, socially aggregated in a Norwegian teacher-training that defends itself against evidence. UiO as a National rolemodel: Dr. Øystein ..... when unaware of the Sony-cam's lens pointing his way as he turns his head to look at me after walking up to me (time 3:22 into the video). Dr. Øystein ..... when aware of the lens pointing at him (7 seconds later). institutional force over scientific facts But I have seen it, in the motion-film-documented behavior of domineering and ignorantly biased academics within the UiO, against scientific dissenters (Thor Heyerdahl, f.ex.), in tv-broadcast recordings of decades past, the distinctly foul qualities of the socially warped minds; the emotional, logically flawed, nay-sayer-mind-manipulated social mob-gangs that poison that particular work-environment, the UiO unrestricted by an academically impotent central university- 'ledership' that does not 'lead', only smile on cameras, but mediates social-gang-leadership by terminating the employment of whoever the internal, social nay-sayer-gangs point at: the best among them, dissidents soon-to-be-excluded by envy-driven mobbers that the Ministry and Parliament leave in charge by non-interference with the university-rector's non-enforcement of the basic principle-criteria of science; a non-leadership that leaves the non-allied academics, the ones being mobbed into solitude by the ignorant, UNPROTECTED. We shall therefore not be surprised, but steadfastly let the facts ridicule the stupidity in such lowly places, so highly funded by our taxes, which it is time we stop doing. The funding is what ensures the continuation of the abuses now caught by my Sony-cam, audio-recorder and written documentation. The flow of public funds combined with principle-label-limited central rule-making (non-imposing from the top of detailed scientific criteria-oriented instructions) allows local economic beneficiaries to do as they want with the label-only-mediated legislated principles and make them into what we see on these photos: the OPPOSITE of the legislated. The quick solution, maybe the only practically possible, is to end that funding. It would force a domino-series of changes into being. The changes would need to be guided into the precise form we want, the form that differs sufficiently along the dimensions we want. Scientific competitions between scientific ideas requires all social gang-rules in the academic environment to be neutralized by central interference: mainly the legislation of: 1-no sifting between courseinitiation and final exam; 2-all teaching-practice assessed as outlined in summations 3-5 above; unless practice is moved to the post-finalexam sphere and combined with a government sponsored initial segment of the employment of teachers without practical experience (familiarization-period). Teacher-candidates/trainees, or, if applicable, unexperienced teachers, are not to be under any work-spheresituated examination-regime if they have no paid and contracted apprenticeship, but under the broad-field type faculty-examiner teams described in summations 3 to 5 above, teams that inspect all trainees on equal basis. As mentioned above, the Ministry of Education ought to have separate inspectors, each equipped with a PhD in the field to be inspected, pedagogy, to undertake inspections of the faculty-emitted inspector-teams as well as guidance-teachers and teachers no longer under the inspection-regime of the faculties, including all superordinates of these teachers, their administrators; and observing the teaching-practices of every teacher at least once a year, with an assessment limitation specified as the degree of specificity laid down in the law, with a focus on the principles commanded through §1-1 of the law for teaching. These need to be: 3-central-government-emitted inspectors, and only such; unaffiliated in the work-environment (pedagogy or the teaching of pedagogy), neutral to consensus, agents who constitute Ministry competence; verify the absence of legislated-as-unwanted qualities, but remain neutral to opined-into-effect consensus, which always infringes on the freedom to engage in scientifically grounded adjustment of method or learning-theoretical rationale. Central strengthening of the locally weak: The false Piaget-quotes I have proved to be a systematically operated paradigm will have no role in such a pedagogical environment, inasmuch as consensus-gangs among colleagues will have no power over the individual teacher, who therefore will be strong a

centrally strengthened teacher; vastly better than the locally weakened teacher under the present regime, dominated by a newly expanded teacher-training domain that poses as a campus-situated central authority. It is a pseudo- authority with a pseudo-scientific intent. Its intent, as I have demonstrated, is to: protect consensus and itself. The price for a centrally strengthened teacher seems to be a radically different, distinctly capitalistic university, or a combined form publically funded in part, but with a central-government-operated control-function that controls the newly educated or unexperienced teachers by the same criteria and with the same methods and in every way on the same level as it controls the experienced ones; and who also obstructs the more experienced in their tendency to control the environment of the unexperienced and the non-allied, demanding obedience to consensus, the ever-contrary agent opposed to science and whatever new will is signaled by Parliament. This is: central obstruction of the consensus-tyranny. Central control can verify the presence of the legislated-intoeffect and the absence of the legislated-as-unwanted, by direct routine or random inspections. Academia is either 'governed' or it is or becomes an 'internal dictatorship', consensus-dictated, which is the present state. In a 'governed' academia, there can be no 'inspection-by-collecting-reports' type indirect an oxymoron: delegated governing of education, delegated to itself. Why not? Because that 'self' is a dominant 'group' whose dominant individuals dictate every other individual in it, dictate away the annoying "scientific way of thinking". The autonomously self-regulating type sub-nation entities locally 'regulate' away the 'self-regulation' that state-legislation awards the 'self'. They are pseudo-governing modes, and the very word 'government' shows it before we even form an argument about it: to govern is 'to steer' which is to 'steer something that doesn't steer itself'. If the 'it' steers itself, then the 'it' in the clause is 'not steered', because the 'it' includes the 'steeringmechanism'. A government is by definition a body that interferes. It must interfere in order to allow the individual to remain strong, because a local group always tends to make 'the group', itself, strong by controlling its members, making them weak and 'itself' strong. A nondirectly-interfering government not only leads to locally domineering 'individuals' out of control, it leads to entire 'groups' out of control, a cluster of subgroups that 'agree-on' enforcing details no one can be sure of, even enforcing details 'believed' contrary to new evidence; enforce such a consensus in manners beyond sub-state control; become a local governor out-of-control', dominated by the domineering, at the cost of individuals within its sphere all made weaker. And that is where we have now arrived in Norwegian academia. Cooking One cannot 'steer' by inputs that merely amount to 'emitted principles' evidently not in Ed-Sci, anyway, as I have proved, because it leads to quote-cooking (I proved it), learning-theorymodel-cooking, and report-cooking, all of which I have proof of. Summation 34. The writer of reports from locally affiliated agents not only leads to it announces the existence of a commodity-value of the report itself: 'favorable reports are a commodity', to be bought and sold. THAT is the trouble with it, and THAT is what falsifies 'the local institutional self-inspection and reporting to the state' type entity and the 'local controller/-inspector' or any version of it we can think of. A centrally strengthened (by legislation) teacher can be removed, but only if central controllers directly and self-empirically establish the presence of one or more legislated-as-unwanted qualities. Such a teacher has infinitely better protection than teachers have today. the 'selves-regulator' a consensus-preserving weapon 34. 'Self-regulation in education pertains to the individual, NOT to the 'group'. Teacher-educating institutions in Norway (I suspect in Scandinavia) have perverted the legislated-into-effect principle of the 'selfregulating individual' in the learningenvironment by switching it with the 'selvesregulating group', team (Norw. "gruppen"), the 'selvesregulator', the 'regulator-of-the-selves'; are in fact using the 'team' to threaten the individual into obedience in teacher-education obedience to the teacher-educators and their consensus. The 'group', 'team' is being used to 'regulate each self' and prevent the 'self' from 'regulating 'itself' and 'its own' learning. This is against the law, both in pedagogy and teacher-training (meta-pedagogy). It constitutes Institute-situated civil disobedience. In the 'selves-regulating team' there can be no snitching (Norw. "sladring") hence the currently enforced RULE in teacher-education: 1 "Do not tell on anyone who abuse others in the team"

"The abused must tell themselves" (quote: Miss Maria Sofie Olsson, Flaatestad 7th tp 10th grade school; and Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, UiO's Institute for Teacher-education and School-research

in writing and 2 audio-recorded). And anyone who himself or herself is abused or discriminated against in a team and then reports it, is being told there is something wrong with them. Miss May-Britt Esse Berge: "Does this happen often with you?" ("Skjer dette ofte med deg?"); Miss Maria Sofie Olsson: "I see that it is you who have probems with teamwork!" ("Jeg ser at det er du som har problemer med gruppearbeid") two of the female mobbers who run local Norwegian pockets of taught mobbing, this particular pocket being Flaatestad, 20 km south of downtown Oslo. The 'do not snitch'-rule, explicit or implicit, constitutes taught mob-bully-behavior, taught 'mobbing'. The method needs to be specifically legislated against as unwanted, both in pedagogy and in the teaching of pedagogy. It is a violaton of §1-1 of Summation 35. the law for teaching (Norw. Opplaeringsloven), as well as laws for the learning-environment in higher education. 35. The law for teaching opplaeringsloven is valid for all teacher-educating institutions because it dictates the content-form and the learningenvironment's form in teacher-education. But that law needs to be made even more specific, including the fact that it is valid in teacher-education, and state that fact explicitly. We need to fill in the blanks in §11 with respect to what "critical thinking" is and what to do in order to teach children "critical thinking". It also needs to say what to do in teacher-education in order to teach teacher-candidates what it means to teach "critical thinking" to children, "promote a scientific way of thinking among children", create a "liberal mindset" and so on. Why? Because of the teacher-educating Institutes' entire series of reactions to the real Piaget-quotes and to the idea of teacher-education teaching healthy and efficient team-work-dialogue and not allow the teams to discriminate, exclude or intimidate individuals, nor allow anyone to fight for leadership in the team (cf. Appendix 1). If anything, team-leadership needs to rotate between all members in the team. And why not add the word "tolerance" in §1-1 of that law, and specify how that pertains to "critical thinking", "scientific way of thinking" and "liberal mindset" in the Law for teaching (Opplaeringsloven)? Why has the Parliament written that law in words that allow local fascists to disintegrate every purpose written therein ? It CAN be fixed. Call me and I'll show you how. But it cannot be fixed by negotiating with the fascist Institute-level perpetrators. They just need to be told to obey the new, centrally emitted and more specific orders, and to self-modify according to the new limitation to their authority. So, I have Miss Maria Sofie Olsson at Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school on record claiming the rogue principle of 'do not tell on anyone who abuses peers', verified and qualified by the UiO Institute's 'Leader of Instruction' Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien saying about it, on audio-tape: "it isn't your task to do" ("Det er ikke din oppgave"), a principle we may assume Miss Maria Sofie Olsson, who said it and wrote it first, acts out among 'her' pupils, children among whom I myself intervened in an on-going long-term mobbing-pathology. It is a matter I never discussed with Maria Sofie Olsson, nor with her supervisor Miss May Britt Esse Berge (photo further down) because of 1:their demonstrated insightlessness about mob-bullying among children, and 2:the pattern of bullying and mobbing these two females displayed themselves during my four week stay in the worksphere they dominate as the two most aggressive rumour-operators and censorship-operators; a work-environment they are supposed to 'serve' within (I took notes as I listened to Miss Maria Sofie Olsson cutting off, denouncing it as irrelevant and invalidly dismissing it, but understanding Summation 36. nothing of it, as a 10 years older female teacher colleague pointed to a realistically possible problem with one of the methods they used in their workplace. It was a scheduled meeting that we, the teacher-candidates, were told to participate in). The content of the "report form on praxis not approved", as I discuss above (p.11, the gossip-files), are the types of things generally viewed as evil nonsense and hate-speech they literally reek of contempt these reports, all of which nonetheless are made official cause of the eviction of anyone they do not 'like', and (take note of this) explicitly anchoring the eviction also in this: the claim that the evictee is a person who, according to the 'institute' or 'practice-school', 'isn't liked by their group' - 'team' in the obligatory team-work-dialogue (so-called 'group-work'), team-dialog-operated such, all of which I say is: unlawful as evaluation method, and contrary to human rights, in itself 'mobbing', which proves that these 'pedagogues' and their administrators do not even know WHAT mob-type abusive behavior - 'mobbing' - IS ! understand nothing of its essence! And why is it unlawful? Here's the answer: 36. With ALL duty to work 'in team' comes the right to enter and remain in the team with the status 'unevictable by gossip or any other equally primitive homo-sapien atrocities', behaviors some of which socially are more on the level of chimpanzee behavior. It is the duty of any such 'institute' to rise above that level, but that is where we are in Norway's teachertraining. The 'Institute' / 'Faculty' / 'University' is day by day being allowed allowed by the Parliament's acquiescing to it to write, file, refer to and use as ground for eviction certain qualification-wise over-reaching documents invalid documents, invalid for containing judgments on qualities that the authors of these documents are not qualified to write: reports defining dissenting individuals in such slurs, explicitly derogatory, that their sum of unproven claims amounts to denouncing them as deprived socially, professionally, morally and ethically; adding slurs of the base level of childishness when they really just despise you as dissenter with evidence and are themselves rather deprived ethically and academically. And they are allowed to despise you openly in all local institutions of education, allowed by no one above their level wanting to interfere, step on domain-local toes. These are the very nesting-grounds of unobstructed idea-corruption, where children ought to benefit from the better ideas that these ignorant people shit upon and they just happen to be a large female majority with a core of male brutes who protect them; a consensus-army shielded by 'its own'. The specimens in the left margin above and here manipulate up to 500 teacher-candidates Summations 37 & 38. PER YEAR, in their 'Institute' alone (ILS). Add the other two IPED and ISP and you get the total cultural damage done by the UiO's faculty of Ed-Sci alone. This is an octopus out of control, a species of it unknown to the Parliament. Call them in for questioning, any one of its parts, and you have before you an undetachable entity that cannot be reprogrammed, only restrained, by directly applied force. 37. It's going to take Parliament action to get rid of this corruption; the kind of action that opens up a radically new and different funding-, hiringand promotionscheme for universities, a scheme that generates a scientific criteria-based competition between ideas, in a censorship-free zone, and a public 'voting out of existence' of the lies produced by authoritarian consensusenforcers. The way this consensus-syndicate operates makes it a serious mal-function within a democratic nation's higher education, in the bloody LearningSciences of all places. The personal contempt reeks and bubbles like yellow smoke off from these official reports, and they produce them to justify getting RID OF whomever they do not 'like', especially people with better insights than themselves, in education of all places. 38. If a student of pedagogy is 'disliked' by the institute or by the teaching-exercise-venue or by the 'peers in one's team' during 'team-work' usually by a domineering female who emotionally demands to be the 'leader-whoalways-talks-and-decides', 'vetos contributions coming from her opponent', 'threatens, excludes, and summons her majority alliance to get her censorship-operated will' then that is positively irrelevant to the STUDY and PASSING of any course in pedagogy. But these institutions are allowed to behave as if they have the right to remove people they do not 'like' or can say somebody 'don't like' even adding 'is disliked by his or her peers'* 28 to the rest of their 'irrelevant gossip' file, in the report form they use to justify any unlawful eviction from these courses. And they do it with a straight face, as if they genuinely do not understand better. * 28 statements that positively prove them incompetent in all of pedagogy, inasmuch as that very concept - 'coordinated disliking of selected individuals' is : the very definition of 'mobbing' (mob-bullying) or as close as we can get to a definition; and I happen to have one such cooked report in my hands, a report they cooked about my own teaching-exercise, now evidence of report-cooking; and the same goes on in all local domains ruled by the same type of people, haters of Ed- Sci, practitioners of Parliament-hostile Educational Politics, in buildings PAYED to be about Ed-Sci ! THAT is one giant screw-up of a governmental problem in the land of the Nobel PEACE PRIZE, of all places. It is something for Norway to be ashamed of and hope China or Russia will not begin mocking Norway for, which they damn well ought to, because that is one damn big shiny facade covering a foulsmelling campus-local part of our objectively and verifiably proven, otherwise relatively benign, reality. The photo-strip in the left margin here shows a small part of the way they teach the peers of these dissidents that shunning them is justified; and I can also prove the 'cooking', or 'doctoring', of these report forms by making them into formalized-rumour-forms. As I happen to have in my hands one such report, a sampled case among many, as many as circumstances result in; none of them a so-called isolated case but all of them instantiating the exact same thing: the censorship of mind and speech in Norway's 'LearningSciences ' and teacher-training. I doubt that this is only a Norwegian flaw, but it might be particularly bad in Scandinavia on account of the combination of political factors that involve a long tradition of monopoly associated with the state-financed university tuition-fee system, which has its benefits but which just might have to be ended in order to put an end to this particular form of idea-corruption in the 'learning-sciences' and teacher-training. The problem could hypothetically be solved by other means than the radically capitalistic, but most likely cannot on account of the invalid arguments and excuses aggressively mounted in any debate one ventures into about any of this with the current office-holding pedagogic sect, almost wholly female and with an army of male brutes to defend their 'program' (cf. the exhibit in the left margin), all of whom are stand-ins for the scientists who should have been in their shoes, behind their desk, teaching teacher-candidates what 'learning' really is, for example according to Jean Piaget's model of 'the mind's grasping', in the sense of a structured active awareness (1967), which essentially was Immanuel Kant's model of the mind's pre-structured constructive active awareness in the sense of pre-structured knowledge-construction (1781); or teaching them how Lev Vygotsky's "zone of proximal development" (ZPD) (1920s-30s) translates to the Norwegian "sonen for naermeste utvikling" or even "sonen for proksimal utvikling", which the UiO domain-comrades have made into "proximal zone of development"(PZD)* 29 in Norwegian, believe it or not; and teaching them what the Parliament really decided learning is supposed to be like in our democracy (§1-1 of our 'law for teaching'). * 29 The UiO-scholars took Vygotsky's "zone of proximal development" (Vygotsky's Russian student and U.S. PhDs translated the Russian text together), and translated it to the Norwegian phrase "den naermeste utviklingssonen"* 30 , where proximate (nearest: naermeste) has been moved to a syntactic place where it modifies "zone" (sonen) rather than "development", which makes it the Norwegian equivalent of "proximal zone of development" which means they made ZPD into PZD, believe it or not. * 30 The error has a substantial impact on the communication of the original scientific concept and what it might refer to, hence to all translation of learning-theory into practical pedagogy; and the error Dr. Øystein modeling how to get rid of dissenters. In his domain "agreement" is the first commandment agreement with the 'leader'. With such a rage pending and the willingness to let it be expressed in such a physically violent way, I think one may at the very least reasonably question his competence in the teaching of pedagogy; and with his that of his female superiors, and with theirs the competence of the Dr. Polit. who pretends to be a specialist in cognitive science (Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad), by putting in writing that Piaget's cognitive model is "not important" the model all UiO lecturers refer to every time they mention learning-theory. has an immense impact on all studies in the Learning-Sciences that use Norwegian course-literature where that error is put in print. The error is in fact in course-literature currently in use, one being a chapter written by UiO lecturer a of pedagogy Ivar Braaten (Bråten) and co-author Anne Cathrine Thurmann-Moe, titled "Den naermeste utviklingssonen som utgangspunkt for pedagogisk praksis" its syntax meaning: "The nearest zone of development as the point of origin for pedagogical practice" in the textbook Vygotsky i pedagogikken Vygotsky in Education Cappelen 1998:123-143. Ivar Bråten and Cathrine Thurmann-Moe have thus mistranslated "ZPD" into "PZD" (Bråten is one among the few lecturers who is actually called what he is, 'one who professes', but we see by the evidence that it is not a quality-conditioned promotion that leads to the benefit of having a title that describes what you were all along). When this is brought up in class, by me, in a scheduled presentation where I am assigned to present that very chapter written by Ivar Braaten and his co-author, Dr. Øystein's face grows dark, as dark and as furious as in the left margin here, and his demanor so aggressive that it is evident to the entire class of about 25 teachercandidates that something is wrong. Something is indeed very very wrong on campus, but it isn't located in the bringing up of this and other matters of learning-theory in classes within the 'LearningSciences and teacher training'. The problem lies in the Institute's freedom to react against anyone who discovers a consensus-killing fact. The paradigm I have proved to be built on lies is this: the allegation that 'perception', 'cognition' or 'learning' was theorized by Jean Piaget (1896-1980) to be or involve a balance between two incident-types (phenomena) 1:'modifying-the-objects-we-perceive' and 2:'modifying-oneself', which they market as Piaget's assimilation and accommodation. The correct paradigm is simply the banal continuous mutual neutralization of the two opposite simultaneously operating subfunctions 1:'modifying-the-objects-we-perceive' AND simply 2:'not modifying them', merely 'allowing-to-enter' (allowing the impressions to enter as they are, and Piaget adds: "...whatever construction may result" from it (1967:70). For the benefit of the reader I include that particular full sentence by Piaget from his French original presentation of the model it is my own attempt to translate it into English, with my red font comments in braces, {...}, and where Piaget placed the last subclause inside parentheses, (...), but which I have placed after a hyphen -, still at the end: "We shall therefore say that the primary function of the awareness is that it is assimilation, in the specific sense of interaction between the subject and its object, so that one at the same time has {1} as much accommodation as possible of the object's characteristics {merely allowing characteristics to enter as they are} and {2} full incorporation into the essential earlier structures {the already mentioned assimilation, "making similar", perception-wise forming the object's characteristics (essentially modifying them) so they fit into earlier knowledge-structures} whatever construction may result within these." (1967:70) Nous dirons donc que la première fonction de la connaissance est d'être une assimilation, au sense précisément d'une interaction entre le sujet et l'objet, telle qu'il y a tout à la fois accommodation aussi possée que possible aux caractères de l'objet, mais incorporation tout aussi essentielle à des structures antérieures (quel que soit le mode de construction de celles-ci). {1967:70} The issue in Piaget's cognitive science, in other words, is not a matter of 'self-modifying' or 'not self-modifying' as the two opposing cognitive tendencies that balance (in the latter case the individual being considered incompetent in team-work); but rather a matter of 'modifying the object' and at the same time to some extent 'merely allowing its character to enter' (enter one's awareness) in other words a continuously negotiated neutralization-point between maximally modifying what we see/hear and at the same time maximally not modifying it not at all the balance they preach from the pulpits of teacher-education; Piaget adding: "whatever construction may result" from that. Piaget's (and Kant's) 'continuously negotiated neutral' is within an INTERNAL balance-system that ENABLES the EXTERNAL balance against destructive elements in the environment. Ed-Sci has the internal balance somehow confused with the external balance here. The internal balance is not a 'self-modify' or 'not self-modify' issue (the wrongly alleged plasticity vs. stubbornness) but the issue of partly 'reshaping impressions' while partly 'letting the same impressions be as they are'. So it isn't even an 'either or issue', but always a 'both at the same time'-issue, just as Piaget stressed. That is the depth of the forgery in a nutshell: a complete breakdown, Ed-Sci getting the entire model completely wrong, in their modern, statistics-oriented, opinion-measuring-meter mindset. It is: the deep root of their aggression. Jean Piaget's model is the theory of continuously 1:modifying the object's qualities (assimilation) and at the same time continuously 2:allowing them to impose (merely letting the object's forms enter as they are; accommodation) – 1:pushing them into the molds we have and at the same time 2:allowing them to impose maximally. And he warns anyone who might expect something more complicated, on page 37 (1967), by saying: "The hypothesis we direct to you is at the same time very simple and completely banal" ("a complete banality"). L'hypothése qui nous dirigera est à la fois trés simple et d'une banalité compléte. {1967:37} Piaget begins that chapter (§12) by saying all 'organization of knowledge' constitutes 'adaptation to the environment' (p.200); he says assimilation and accommodation are both "constant" and "necessary and inseparable", "not two separate functions"; that it is "only by abstraction" we can speak of one without the other (p.202); and ends the chapter by calling them "subfunctions" (p.215). It is the sum function of the two adaptation that constitutes the constant capacity for modification within a potentially variable environment, a capacity supplied by the individual's continuously ongoing exchanges with its environment, producing "the adapted char- acter of the system" (p.200), that is, the given adapted equilibrium at any given moment in time. Whenever a specific modification has occurred within the subject, then that is in itself evidence of 'external forms' having entered the subject (accommodation), but accommodation is nonetheless constant, never-ending, in every moment of awareness, as is assimilation. The two, assimilation and accommodation, are the two subfunctions that make up the awareness of external forms in the environment, says Piaget. Kant called them the two "ground-fountains" "from which awareness springs forth" (1781:50). Kant's way of expressing 'awareness' is 'knowledge of appearances': "Erkenntnis" (knowledge) with respect to "Erscheinungen" (what shines off) we do not have much knowledge with respect to the true nature of 'the things themselves', because we cannot put the thing itself into our mind, we only have knowledge of 'what shines off from the things themselves', but that knowledge is objective and trustworthy, says Kant in a chapter he calls 'the aesthetic' (1781), meaning 'the formwise', referring to 'the perception of form' - 'structured influences on the mind'. The structure of 'what shines off' from 'the thing itself' corresponds objectively with the structure of the impression on the senses connected to the mind, and is therefore trustworthy. Piaget uses the words "connaissance" and "cognitif": "knowledge" and the more metaphoric "cognitive": "graspingwise", and says the same as Kant: the mind actively 'forms' the object (1967). He read it in Kant's book (1781:). Their German and French expressions refer to practically perfectly overlapping ranges of referents, as far as I have noticed. Take them politically by the armpit and lead them out The error in references to Piaget's model is religious in its origin, and is not validated by learning-theory. The way that error is systematically implanted in young teacher-candidates is doing harm to education, hence to society. It is a lie, and its claim, in the context of 'self-reflection' locking the individual up inside obligatory teams left alone to their own emerging design by the socially domineering is extremely harmful, long term, on society as a whole. It is in that context that the lie is deemed to be such a valuable lie to the Institute, the faculty and the University, that they aggressively rid themselves of anyone who discovers the facts that prove it a lie. That is, first they ignore all duties to communicate within frames of science with that individual but "inform" the 'practice-coordinator' at the practice-venue school about a 'problematic candidate'; then the practice-coordinator at that practice-venue does her mobbing and bullying to see if that individual quits voluntarily; then they fix their report forms by filling it with non-substantiable and unverifiable, irrelevant rumours ("he moved slowly", "we could not find him and it turned out he was in the bathroom brushing his teeth", "he could not navigate inside the building")* 31 , add some absurd lies ("He needed 3 days to plan the assigning of home-work which other candidates do in 10 minutes" a.s.o.)* 32 ; and up-grade all 'teaching-exercise' to ad-hoc extra-exams, only for that particular candidate, ipso facto extraexams they proceed to evaluate by standards applied to no one else but the one about to be mobbed away. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/lisbbr/in dex.html the pseudo-titled "didactitian", a title that imitates academic titles but is no more than a reference to an area of interest that is of special interest to every Dr. of pedagogy: didactics which means 'instruction'. The institute pretends it is a position-label just so they can give Lisbeth Brevik MONOPOLY on opinions about it. It is of course academic and admnistrational fraud, which makes their entire UiO faculty of ed-sci a fraud. The entire institute makes themselves a quack operator in academia, pretending, as they do, that any PhD in pedagogy is not just as much of a 'didactitian' as this particular female allegedly is. And with her fake job-title she performs unlawful eviction-services for the Exclusion Services Unit, in grave violation of ethics and core principles of Educational Science itself; a quack who does damage to teacher education. I have her on audio-recording as she enforces her own principle of having no full-class reading-practice in English* 33 , demanding the 'lower' performers be dragged away to their place in seclusion, where no one can hear them read and they cannot hear their classmates, 'higher' performers they could benefit from hearing read without themselves being forced to read until they choose to which is the method I prefer myself, for its tendency to make reading less dangerous and even fun; a method Elisabeth Brevik denounces with a confidence that could only be warranted if Parliament had made full class reading-excercise illegal. Hence one may wonder where Elisabeth Brevik learned that crap. I suggest her fake job-title be made officially illegal along with the power to make her own opinions about specific teachingmethods into street-law, which the institute (ILS of the UiO) has equipped her with, without equipping her with the logic and rationale needed to use the axe they put in her hand and which government needs to take away from her. * 33 it is an elaborate method, one I practiced in the practice-venue-school (Flaatestad, 20 km south of down-town Oslo, in Oct.2015), with Miss Brevik sitting there as a special envoy looking for items to blame their unlawful eviction of myself from the course on. 'My' method is simply voluntary full-class reading-excercise in a risk-free zone of participation. It is office-executed mobbing of the most unlawful kind. In Flaatestad school it is performed by Miss May Britt Esse Berge and a 'practice-guidance-teacher' in cooperation. The instances I have sampled empirically all involve Miss Maria Sofie Olsson as partner in that mobbing. In general, it will always tend to be a person who applies social abusive power to reach academically valuable positions meant to be attained by academic performance and insightfulness. A black-listing from participation in the plenum-dialogue segments follows on 11. Nov.2015 (video no.1, audio only; and video no. 3, which verifies the discrimination visually and audibly) and, when that discrimination is addressed openly by the candidate in real time and the candidate verbally refuses to be discriminated, backed up with what is displayed in the left margin above, a physically enacted threat of violence (cf. the left margin photo-strip). * 31 direct quotes from the written evidence I secured, an original sample written by the UiO Institute (ILS) in Nov.2015, signed by the three females who operate the unlawful ideology-based screening activity I am reporting on. Outwardly, the male UiO-rector smiles on TV and says whatever benefits the institution, while refusing to comment or intervene in the fraud I have given him ample evidence of. * 32 the "three days" referring to 'over the week-end', Friday to Monday; hence unverifiable by the one who wrote it and made it into this rumor Miss Maria Sofie Olsson. So the absurdity of the lie is evidence both of report-cooking by the Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school UiO institute liaison, forgery of an official document in the custodian-ship of state power, and, naturally, of the contempt this particular practice-guidance-teacher (at Flaatestad, 20 km south of downtown Oslo) harbors and allows to be expressed as mobbing in the work environment; here also the study-environment of teachercandidates. Evidence of document forgery at the UiO-institute (ILS) Miss Maria Sofie Olsson has turned my answer to her question "So what have you been doing during the weekend?" into fodder for her smear-campaign against a teacher-candidate who apparently has insight into theory, healthy and efficient learning-environment design, team-work and how to translate theory into practical pedagogy (pdf-evidence available in Simultaneous Chatter Style pedagogy, Soerfjord 2016, to be uploaded). She, Miss Olsson, incidentally, is the guidance-teacher I reported to the UiO Institute as being "not qualified for her job as guidanceteacher" two months earlier, in September 2015, after I had spent five days in her environment, a report in which I requested change of practice-guidance-teacher or-venue. Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde at the University of Oslo (UiO)'s "Institute for Teacher-education and Schoolresearch" (Institutt for Laererutdannelse og Skoleforskning, ILS) declines that request (a demand) mechanically and categorically in 8 words after delaying her answer a whole month, until it is too late, and in the end without offering any reason. It is clear what the five females Olsson, Berge, Suhr Lunde, Engelien and Brevik want from the first letter they receive from me, in Aug. 2015, about the false quotes attributed to Piaget and wrong- http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/kirstik/ http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/brittfo/ Kirsti Klette and Britt Fosse, the two lecturers who posted forged Piaget-quotes on the Powerpoint screen in the Auditorium as they lectured on basic cognitive theory in the autumn semester of the PPU (practical-pedagogical education) course-program in the name of UiO's Institute for Teacher-education and School-research (ILS). Neither of the two lecturers ever acknowledged the fact I informed them of; never defended the scientific fact, the truth, as educational scientists still free to continue to teach that lie. wrongfully used in the UiO courses I attended (2015) to support a baseless model of human learning that fits an ancient, politically beneficial method of teaching. That method is resource-saving but abusive, church-authored in the Middle Ages, and contrary to Piaget's real cognitive model (1967:200-215), which is the same one we find in Kant (1781: 50-51). Scientifically, the church-authored model is absurd, and the forged Piaget-quotes doubly absurd which is why no one can understand any of it, but have to memorize the slogans it is made of. If it hadn't been so tragic it would've been amusing. Scientific con-artists who refuse to stop: The two female disseminators of false Piaget-quotes in the autumnsemester of 2015 at the UiO Institute for Teacher-education and Schoolresearch (ILS) teachers of basic cognitive theory: Kirsti Klette and Britt Oda Fosse hide behind the female institute-administrators, who hide behind the one they appointed to reply to my letter: Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad, one who knows a thing or two in economy and political science, evidently, but knows little about original cognitive theory, evidently, and isn't about to let me tell him anything. And he actually answers by telling me "It is not important" and that is all he has to say. NO ONE forces anyone to either acknowledge the facts I point at or prove otherwise. And the UiO's alleged top of the academic command structure, the 'rector', is silent. As I said, there is no Ed-Sci at the UiO, UiA or anywhere else in Norway. I suggest we make one. But the only way to do that is by first forcing a new funding-system into effect, by terminating the old. Instead of the teachers with old power-point slides inherited in Norway's pseudo-apprenticeships for the PhD – cf. the two female samples to the left here we need: NEW BLOOD, from elsewhere and from outside consensus ! That team must include lots of people who have actually done some research on or personal investigative study of cognitive theory; and they need to replace the mentioned inherited-powerpoint-mediated-sloganoperators. Kirsti Klette and Britt Oda Fosse (left margin) are only two in a whole army of such slogan-operators void of scientific insight, all equally useless whether they come from Norway or elsewhere in the world, when it comes to building the theory-to-practical pedagogy connection that I have proved to actually NOT EXIST in the teaching done by the consensussyndicate who presently occupy the offices of Ed-Sci. The University of Agder (UiA), in Kristiansand, Norway, used the same fraudulently forged Piaget-quotes and paraphrases in 2008 and 2009, and attributed the homecooked brew to Jean Piaget in the same shameful way during the two semesters I sampled some of their courses in pedagogy. They can be assumed to be doing it still, and with straight faces, as the con-artists they are. The lecturer then, a school-teacher pretending to be a PhD in cognitive theory, Mr. Thor Tanggaard (photo p. 82) in January 2009, used the fraudulent quotes as theoretical basis for telling the lecturehall audience full of teacher-candidates that "We are now going to begin group-work. You will divide yourselves into groups. ... Everyone in 'the group' must contribute. What goes for the ones who do not contribute, is they are to be weeded out" spoken while pacing, bending down as he utters "who do not contribute", reaching to the floor with his right hand and moving its fingers as in a grippinghttp://www.uia.no/kk/profil/tora http://www.uia.no/en/kk/profile/bjornjm published April22.2015 https://www.nrk.no/sorlandet/rekordmange-sokeretil-uia-1.12323010 motion and, on "weeded out", ripping out (of the earth) the weed representing the individual non-contributor among them' and throwing it forcefully up and away to his right, in the most ignorantly foolish and harmful manner I have ever witnessed in higher education. One student, at the back row, raised a hand. The hand spotted by Tor Tanggaard and given the signal to speak by an index finger and a nod, the student (myself) says: "But who gets to be God?" Thor Tanggaard still did not understand what planet such a concern came from. His subtle stutter allows the student to disambiguate as follows: "Who gets to decide who it is that isn't contributing?" Thor Tanggaard, in his infinite trust in his own knowledge and insight, with confident certainty and no hesitation says: "The group !" the group is to decide who among them to label a 'noncontributor', report as such a specimen, and let Thor Tangaard, formally by coordinating an 'administrator' (the fascism-operator), "weed out" pluck away from the (mandatory to pass the course) 'team-work' and pluck away before THE EXAM. It is, of course, illegal fascist-activity. Using the entity 'team' to do it is very harmful. Is the reader really not understanding the madness and unlawfulness of this? The university-internal trade of Exclusion Services: The NRK, division south, last year published an article on the progress of the university of Agder (UiA), in Kristiansand. Bjoern Jan Monstad, an elegantly dressed man close to my own age, spoke on behalf of the university. Funny how he sees the need to hide his face on the UiA staff list. The cut-out from that publication in the left margin shows him in his role as Attractor. We may safely assume the reason why he hides his appearance on the staff-list has to do with his real role as Exclusion-Operator in the university-sphere; officiator of unwarranted mob-demanded exclusion-services in the studyand work-environment, an agent of the veritable ESU Exclusion Services Unit. The 'ESU' isn't officially labeled, nor the function 'ESU' made official. They will decline to comment if asked, and try to ridicule the very mention of the notion ESU. But the function is there, objectively verifiably so, empirically sampled by myself; and the structure that makes unwarranted exclusions official is there, officially so, but with deceptive job-titles and -descriptions. The damage it does to science is that it protects consensus. It is a most unethical liaison, and in itself a road-block to scientific advances in Ed-Sci. For concrete information on how Monstad and Aagedal operate as officiators of the mob's will in the academic environment, see the article "Unlawful Norwegian Methods in Teacher-Training"; in Infonomics Society, IJSDSE Vol. 6, Issue 3, Sep. 2015, by Kai Soerfjord. http://infonomics-society.ie/wp-content/uploads/ijcdse/published-papers/ volume-6-2015/Unlawful-Norwegian-Methods-in-Teacher-Training.pdf As operators of Exclusion-Services in the workplace, Monstad and Aagedal trade favors with socially dominant players in the workenvironment who gang up against individual employees; assist the mob in the mobbing away of individual employees the mob selects and points out to Monstad and Aagedal. The colleague-mob returns the favor when the ESU-operator wants to exclude someone, anyone except the dominant core of the colleague mob, who thereby is Tor Tanggaard, outside UiA's main building, in Kristiansand, Norway (cf. Appendix III below, p 651) https://www.facebook.com/tor.tanggaard awarded unwarranted private ownership of the sphere and the funds channelled into the department they dominate, at which time the socially dominant among the mob assist in the collection of irrelevant rumors for the same type of threatening letters that Monstad and Aagedal wrote to me after I had revealed Tor Tanggaard's abuses against teacher-candidates in 2008 and 2009, when I was an under-cover student of pedagogy in the University of Agder (UiA), secretly preparing my PhD-project. This is how the exclusion-operating mutual arrangement works, its basic principle being a tit-for-tat liaison against non-allied individuals. The University of Oslo (UiO) does the exact same thing. It has become the way to evade labor rights laws in Norway, some of which are basic human rights that the 'individual' has but the 'group' does not have because the individuals in the group have it on behalf of the group. Tor A. Aagedal and Bjoern Jan Monstad, hence, are players in what effectively is: organized administrational crime crime that protects lecturer-groups even when they commit the above described 'quote fraud with benefits', and even when that colleague group unlawfully mobs an individual away from his work. Ed-Sci has been using powers it does not have (power over facts) for a long, long time, and university top 'administrators' have apparently always operated like that. Any one individual who opposes the colleague mob, even with empirically scientific evidence as grounds, is removed, by being: a-pointed out before the Exclusion-Services-operators within the university-administration (Aagedal, Monstad and the likes, in the UiA cases; Suhr Lunde, Engelien and the likes, in UiO's ILS); and b-accused of unprovable 'internal-feeling-causation-related' pseudo-offences of the 'causing unrest' type ('unrest' in the minds of mobbers who can't stand losing a scientific debate), accusations that neither can be disproved, on account of being base rumor-generation irrelevant to professional performance; mob-cooked rumors that mainly accuse an individual with the mob's own behavior; by vote accused of 'mobbing' the mob (not even possible) merely by proving them wrong; then c-threatened by exclusion and discriminated against, being administrationally robbed of work-tasks (unlawful professional exclusion), and finally d-terminated by a resignation letter from whomever Aagedal, Monstad, Suhr Lunde or the likes delegate that task to - turning mob-originated irrelevant rumors into official pseudo-knowledge. Only occasionally do these mob-exclusion-operated cases end up in court, one main reason being the lack of lawyer-presence in that FIRST official "chat" the individual employee is INVITED to by Tor A. Aagedal, Bjoern Jan Monstad, in the University of Agder (UiA); Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien and (occasionally 'Institute Leader' Rita Hvistendahl), in the UiO-institute ILS and the likes; each 'Institute' having one such 'set' of Exclusion-Services-Unit operative personnel. It is a real mafia an administrational mafia, and it is real administrational crime that draws enormous economic funds from the taxpayers by the mere existence of such employees as "University Director" (doubling the "Rektor", and with the function of performing unwarranted exclusion-services) and "Director of Instruction/"Teaching-Director", affiliated into "Leader of Instruction" on Institute-level (doubling the "Dean"). These DOUBLES ARE the core Exclusion-Services-Unit, with "department heads" (like Mai Lill Suhr Lunde) as their letter-writers and who also coordinate the unlawful acts they commit in hands-on pedagogic spheres, as we see in the female lecturer's discrimination of a teacher-candidate in the lecture hall on 11.Nov.2015 video no.1 (audio) and video no.3 (visual and audio), available on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYqoY8QpRM0&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNp5LhHOzt0 Academics organized in "Norwegian Servicemen Association" ("Norsk Tjenestemannslag", NTL) are able to defend themselves against the Exclusion-Services-Unit's operators on equal economic grounds, once in court; but only if they bring a capable lawyer on that very first official so-called "chat" invited to, the NTL lawyer if you are already an NTL-member. Any other lawyer will do but only if that lawyer takes control and explicitly keeps you from speaking a single word. Otherwise, delay all such meetings and 'chats' while you enrol in the NTL, not in the smaller organizations. The universities do not view them as strong enough to fear them. The other rule is NEVER speaking to an administrator from this point on when not accompanied by that same lawyer or the NTLlawyer after you sign up and become NTL-organized, which you MUST do as soon as possible. If you do not, you do not stand a chance. And you must insist that all communications to you from any administrator be in writing, and never communicate orally with any one of them; never on the telephone either. And if they call you, ignore the call; but if you took the call by reflex, say 'just a moment', find the 'record'-button, then record as you tell the administrator to write you an email, then say politely goodbye and hang up immediately. Do not anser any questions on the telephone. ONLY then can an individual employee defend himand herself successfully against the Exclusion-Services-Unit's operators. Wouldn't it be a far better alternative for everyone taxpayers and the general public if we just get rid of that mafia ? They are administrational 'doubles' who take care of dirty business that should be left undone. They are the Exclusion-Services-Unit that performs the mob's will and collects the favor of being assisted by that mob when the ESUoperators have someone in their own scope they want to target for unwarranted exclusion. "University Director", "Teaching-Director", affiliated into "Leader of Instruction" are doubles for the "Rektor" and the Deans, doing the stunts that brake a Rector's and a Dean's back. But this isn't the film-industry, and there is no such stunt allowed by law. The mere existence of these 'doubles' constitutes corruption. So much for the academic employee vs. the Exclusion-ServicesUnit. The student vs. the same unit is a similar matter, only much worse, because there is no 'Servicemen-Association (NTL or other union) to point its spearhead back at them. In Ed-Sci it is as hopeless as in any field on campus, but the repercussions of it is a long-term wave of blindness to 'mob-bullying' in all of our schools, hence in all the places of work where school-bullies invade after their schoolyears and grab duties that give them a measure of administrational control over other people's access to ethically sound treatment at work. The worst part of it is that some of them find their way into teacher-education, Ed-Sci, and pervert the very core of it, as servants of 'something larger than themselves', servants of an 'it' that benefits from the bully's qualities, and rewards it. When opposed by students who know the real Piaget-quotes and who raised a hand when invited to ask questions during the lectures, administrators like Aagedal and Monstad threaten and accuse the student who presented the scientific evidence, accuse him or her of having "caused unrest" in the study environment; an unrest that on the contrary is elicited by the lecturer eliciting support among the classmates of the student veritably inviting the evidence-bringer's classmates to mob that classmate socially bully the messenger. It is what Kirsti Klette did. It is what Britt Oda Fosse did; and what Dr. Øystein did; and it is what the female lecturer does on 11. Nov.2015, when she in video-recorded segment no.3, tells the student whom she just refused to ask any question after she asked the attending audience for questions and no one else have any, that he "must be quiet", and that he is "disturbing the other students" by the mere communication of the intent to ask a question. It is of course her discrimination that disturbs the lecture, has everyone become mutely aware of the acute distress teacher-candidates in fear, forced to learn that such discrimination is justified. It is of course grave abuse of approximately 250 candidates we are seeing, all on account of the facts of the real Piaget-quotes having been revealed to them all. Tor A. Aagedal is the former University Director (of the UiA) who now performs the Exclusion-Services-Unit defined role under the title "Director of Senior Counselling Services" (Direktør, Seniorrådgiver), still in the UiA. He acts on cases involving academics past 58 years or so, reported by the colleague mobs; cases of individual academics whose employment the head of these mobs seek to terminate. The ESUoperator calls in such individuals for a "Senior-Chat" during which the targeted academic, not at all the academic underdog but just as likely to be a target of base envy, is challenged to DEFEND his or her job, and presented with threatening scenarios. The Exclusion-Services-Unit's operator presents a 'pseudo-favor': an alternative consisting in some economic compensation for doing the university the favor of resigning or retiring early. I am talking about unlawful bullying of academics in their late 50s or in their 60s empirically verified by myself. My advice in each of these cases is always: do get organized and do NOT show up for any such meetings without being accompanied by an attorney. There is nothing a targeted individual can do to 'please' the mob's exclusion-operator or the 'panel' one is invited to present one's case before. Many lawyers will say there is, but they are incompetent lawyers. This is fascism in the work-environment, a fascism that has not yet been addressed by academic analysts like Frank Furedi, but needs to be. The head of the mob is either identical to a 'department head' or a senior academic with a socially secured foothold that is being used against better-performing academics that represent a threat to the respect of the scientifically more mediocre. Each department or institute forms one such mob-group. It is how the colleague group protects itself. They either 1:compete to clump around charismatic social figures among them or they 2:become the target of the aggressively dominant within these colleague-groups, the target of rumours, and eventually the target of professional exclusion in the work-environment, unlawful such, at which point 3:the officiating ESU-operator Aagedal and Monstad being two among several takes over, and actually turns the unlawful mobbing in the workenvironment into an official exclusion, in writing. The written log of the ESU reads like the rumour-book of a 12year-old female going to war against her social competitor. I have read two whole sets of such, and I have commented through academia.edu on the striking lack of intelligence signaled by the authors of such pseudo-documents for the Exclusion-Services-Unit's processing of what they call 'cases'. Remember here, that the bill for the processing of these 'cases' is being sent to the taxpayers. We are the ones paying for the abuses committed by these individuals. Aagedal and Monstad are only two of many; the ones I have had a chance to sample empirically in the University of Agder (UiA). They all need to be presented before the public and judged the way I now present and judge these two particular cases and the ones in the UiO-institute (ILS) publically funded organized fascists in the administrations of our institutions of higher education, where they have corrupted 'administration' itself, by trading exclusion-services with colleague mobs in the academic workplace. These are organized repeated offenses in grave violation of the labor laws that apply and the law for the study-environment. And no one in Parliament think they should interfere with it. Not only should they interfere; they should investigate, prosecute and restructure: turn that whole circus-wagon upside-down, get rid of the rubble and build something new, with a functioning academic command-line all the way from the top extended right into the bench-rows in Parliament. Our Universities are a national resource, and such resources can only be managed by actually governing them democratically where 'govern' means to 'steer'; steer from the wheelhouse, the top of the whole ship, a fully transparent structure where the University interprets nothing – but rather obeys precise instructions in real time. These local fascists need to be made into servants that obey specific orders laid down in specific laws and instructions written in Parliament, a Parliament who sends inspectors virtually daily, inspectors who only work for the Parliament and who dive into the pedagogic thick of it; and academics need to be given the task of doing all the interpretation of the law that there is to be done. So the law must be suited for that, improved on, made just a little bit more specific (cf. summation 11, page 35). I suggest it is obviously time we stop all public funding in its present form for these anti-scientifically oriented institutions that our universities have become. A capitalistic funding and the opening up for independent teacher-academies is one way to liberate Ed-Sci from this mafia. What goes on in the UiA is precisely what UiO is doing too. They ALL do it. What is the PARLIAMENT thinking? Do they think they are innocent in it? This has to be stopped politically. As it stands, Ed-Sci is not Ed-Sci. What stops it from being Ed-Sci is a mob tyranny enabled by: Summation 39. organized unwarranted mob-demanded exclusion-services. Tor Tanggaard, then lecturer at the UiA, and the entire pack of colleagues of his still in their offices, functioning as parts of the same consensus-tyranny responded with a hostility equal to the UiO's in 2008 and 2009; equally irrationally and emotionally, unscientifically; as did the UiA-administration's Tor A. Aagedal and Bjoern J. Monstad. The UiA still has not responded to any of the information I have sent to its top academic leadership, its rector; which most likely means UiA's Ed-Sci continues the fraud as if nothing has happened. (cf. Unlawful Norwegian Methods in Teacher-Training; Infonomics Society, IJSDSE Vol. 6, Issue 3, Sep. 2015Soerfjord) http://infonomics-society.ie/wp-content/uploads/ijcdse/published-papers/ volume-6-2015/Unlawful-Norwegian-Methods-in-Teacher-Training.pdf 39. It goes to show two things: 1:that there is no functioning vertical academic chain of command in Norwegian universities (or in colleges, so-called "høgskoler" - 'higher schools', maybe in Scandinavia as a whole), which allows social alliances to bully away dissenters everywhere within the spheres of higher education, allows an Institute-situated mob-rule to protect a scientifically defenceless consensus, a mobtyranny we need to break up politically; and 2:that what we have in fact constitutes nationwide systemic fraud and misuse of local office- (Institute-) situated state-power, the only remedy of which seems to be the termination of such office's status as a local branch of state-power which points us in the direction of a partially (or fully) tuition-fee funded higher education, as in most other parts of the western world. The benefit of state-funded tuitions have been appropriated by a consensus-driven syndicate that has secured for itself an ideamonopoly that obstructs Ed-Sci, a syndicate that will not update itself as dictated by evidence presented; a syndicate that terminates the careers of dissidents just to protect itself; refuses to be dictated by evidence and the criteria of science when their consensus is at stake, going to great lengths just to protect a faith. Hence, we have no choice if we want a functioning Ed-Sci. The syndicate will SAY it 'functions' and PRETEND it does; but I have proved the error it refuses to correct, and my proof will not go away. It is an error that leaves their model without any basis in theory. My proof of that error is the real quotes in themselves, and that proof falsifies their church-authored political instrument the model they use the forged quotes for and leaves it stranded with NO BASIS in original theory. That is why they defend their model and their forged Piaget-quotes with such aggression. They cannot disprove the proof that disproves it, though. So that proof (the real quotes) remains. I have presented it, and it dictates rational faith unless opposed successfully on science's own terms. It cannot be rendered invalid any other way, only covered up by more fraud fraud upon fraud; fraud 2 , as it were. Darkly amusing, but barely. In this type of environment, any 'administrator' who 'hears what the mob says', and weighs their social weight which all of them do and does anything at all other than tell the consensus-mob to 'go back to work and behave !', is an official fascism-operator, a switch for the mob to operate. In exchange, the alleged 'administrator-pack' gets the privilege of terminating any individual who is not among the core leadership of the consensus-mob. It is, of course, a liaison that constitutes grave corruption. A corrupt deal it is. Let us get rid of it. There is a handful of things one must do in order to stop it, and they must be done in a coordinated manner. A half-hearted attempt counts for nothing. And if you do nothing, my plan is to let the younger generations continually be reminded in writing that I told you my contemporaries all about it. And you did nothing. The UiO-branch of the Exclusion Services Unit (ESU), cont.: The measures that follow when 'felt contempt' in a teachercandidate doing practical teaching-exercise is expressed as 'reported doubt' are many. Their main vehicles are 'felt-doubt-in-candidate'official-document-triggered extra ad-hoc-exams-series aka 'listeningin' and the switching from goodwill to the opposite (non-lexical messages): monotone speech and skin-assistance, voids, signals that impute a lower value to the dissident; vague messages, absence of promised, now relied upon, equipment (tape-player left in the 'office' but calling it 'work-room' all of a sudden; and, when the candidate refuses to leave, for example this: the practice-guidance-teacher (Maria Sofie Olsson) not responding, but staring apathetically out the window from the back of the classroom, sitting along the window-wall with her heels elevated and her chin resting on her folded arms resting on her knees nonresponsive as I ask "but where is the tape-player?" (that Miss Olsson said she had made ready for me her offer on audio record), and with the Institute's ad-hoc examiner (Miss Lisbeth M. Brevik) evaluating me in what is an ipso facto ad-hoc extra-exam, one in a never-ending series, while the rest of the teacher-candidates were free to commit all the commit all the blunders that belong in the sphere of 'teaching-practice' exercise, and did. I observed them, aided them and was aided by them. None of their blunders led to an 'F ' in 'exercise' the notion being viewed as absurd by all, because it is only 'practice', as in 'rehearsing' and to THEM the 'exercise' had not been upgraded to EXAM. They only do that with teacher-candidates they really despise, for some reason or another. They call their 'contempt' "doubt in candidate", do so in writing, and from there the result is a given. This is local-office-situated Norwegian fascism. This is the structure of it in 'higher' education. And these are its visible faces in the 1/3 of UiO's Ed-Sci called the 'ILS', in 2015-2016. This particular branch of it resides 2.5km north of the King's castle, and he could not care less. Dr. Øystein was sent the week before, but failed to find any-thing wrong worthwhile telling me in the 1⁄2 minute dialogue we had right after, a dialogue audio-recorded by me, naturally, since I obviously could not trust this particular team of academics. Dr. Øystein's only direct comment was "Vel blåst" an idiosyncratic synonym to "Well done", though the particles of the compound are "well + blown". In Norwegian it is an unambiguously "well done". And based on THAT, they decide to do it again NEXT WEEK, another ipso-facto EXAM – an ad-hoc to the ad-hoc, ad-hoc 2 and they decide to send in the next 'inspector' in a whole TEAM of consensus-soldiers, murderers of dissenter-careers they have up their sleeves all taxpayer-financed to see if that helps them get rid of me. I'd say this is pretty much what the Parliament CREATES with their stupidly narrow-minded 'non-governing' of local office-situated, tax-payer-financed, sciencehostile fascists. We simply cannot build much of a tolerant multiminded future founded on that. The ad-hoc extra exam-series was called into effect by Miss Maria Sofie Olsson's allegedly felt 'doubt' after I informed her of the ongoing abuses by a female member of the team, and Miss Olsson decided to ignore it. The seed of 'doubt' grew into a festering contempt as strong as Dr. Øystein's but without the facial expression to go with it; plenty of intonation and methodically broadcast ill will and sabotage, though. She eventually puts her emotionally bubbling contempt into the Institute-afforded language of "doubt", a written "doubt" that substitutes the 'contempt' and fear of looking ignorant she really felt when I informed her of the abuses in the team-dialogue (a 5 teachercandidate-team first, then with 7 additional members the next day). Miss Maria Sofie Olsson's alleged 'doubt' is written in the "doubt-incandidate" official document sent to the Institute; then the "report on practice-period not passed", her revenge and the Institute administration's (the other two offended female's) revenge, and Dr. Øystein's revenge, which he kick-started in early September; all in all a coordinated sequence of events that makes it interesting trying to answer the question 'who manipulates who?' among them. My answer is all five of them manipulate the other four, all of them more than willing. It is a consensus-predestined arrival at a view they arrive at each time consensus is at stake. But it is distinctly evil. There is no hair-coloring-scheme, balsamic shampoo, eye-lashextender or make-up-kit (in Brevik's case), Botox or even facelift (in Suhr Lunde's case) that can put a gloss on this level of collectively aggregated ugly in-sides, souls corrupted by the lust for promotion as they continuously try to secure a future jump to one of the carrotson-a-stick regular titles hung high, promised to the few who most strongly demonstrate high-jumping loyalty to that consensus. Nor is there any skin-lotion that can cover what they do when they fight to keep their positions and make it look as if they know their science, or how to administrate it. All in all an enlightening empirical sample from an allegedly 'higher' education, one I present in part through this photo-strip documentary. The video-photographic material I have is rare, the audiorecorded segments of standard but corrupt procedures quite unique. The fronting of female glossed-up pseudo-scientists and equally emotional, aggressive male brutes in Ed-Sci the very same schoolbullies and mob-operators I saw in 4th to 9th grade has damaged its Dr. Øystein modeling how to get rid of dissenters who think they can use evidence against consensus in my case use the real Piaget 1967 quotes against established folklore about the same quotes. In his mind "agreement" is the first commandment agreement with the 'leader'. Summation 40. very core. And the Parliament has allowed it to happen, right under their noses, without inserting the proper structure the proper legislation for that environment. Now we just may have to do the drastically radical thing: 40. We may have to remove the safety-net of the consensus-adhering appropriators of state-funds that go into this machinery: cuts in permanent employment, applied broadly; exclusive cost-cutting measures applied to all non-teaching personnel, mainly the alleged 'administrators' which means getting rid of the crowd of pseudo-'Advisors', pseudo-'Consultants', pseudo-'Coordinators' and the entire Exclusion Services Unit (ESU) and, even more importantly, ending the present job-title-schema. The deceptive ladder encourages teacher-personnel to clump together around 'shared opinion', raising one's chances for promotion to the proper title, the 'non-assistant-title', by ganging up on dissenters, rat them out as 'not liked' to pseudo-administrators who without just grounds formalize a mob-induced exclusion. All of this is precisely what we are supposed to teach youth and children not to do. Socially charismatic individuals grab control of these consensus-mob-gangs, secure their own future careers but corrupting Ed-Sci. The scientifically rogue 'field', whom I have now proved to be scientifically dishonest and accomplices in organized scientific fraud, (Soerfjord 2015), is now even being allowed to expand into all the other fields of science on campus, to teach them 'how to teach' (cf. Seeking CampusUniversal Didactic Dominance, and getting it, ... Soerfjord 2016) and in so doing, disseminating: a set of teaching-methods that, after my discovery, are now left with NO CONNECTION TO THEORY ! but many BREACHES violations of the theory they have on their curricula, which also amounts to violation of §1-1 in our Law for teaching. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61 THAT is the nature of their headache. It is the fall of an empire. There is a good reason why they impute such a high value to the particular lie that Piaget's "accommodation" is "defined as modification". The lie is the hairpin that holds the dam they have built for themselves and their kingdom. Pull that hairpin out and the dam breaks, flushing all beavers downstream (no pun intended). EdSci must proceed without them when that rubble of sticks and mud finally goes, and will be better off for it. The facts dictate what they may, and faith must obey the facts. That is a rule of science. The other way is the opposite of science. The unwanted fact needs to be brought up wherever the lie is told or benefited from. The lie needs to be exposed and specifically 'voted out' of practice; but such a vote-taking needs to take place in Parliament, or else these institutes will just continue operating their opinion-based speechand methodpolicing on campus, a tyranny and a police role they have now expanded to all domains on campus, where they dominate the teaching of all academic topics. And it is all built on the same rubble of citation-fraud (Piaget 1967) and homecooked theory that itself is built on religiously adhered to campus-situated faith, a faith that is now counter-acting official parliament-authored Norwegian policy. It is a very serious form of disobedience. It is: public-office-situated organized civil disobedience. It is campus-situated micro-management gone rogue (cf. Seeking Campus-Universal Didactic Dominance, and getting it, ... Soerfjord 2016), its dominant individuals screaming "tyranny" when central authority tries to manage them; but they are themselves micro-managers on campus. They micro-manage anyone within their 'domain', a domain in which they have tamed science as if it were a wild beast. The domain ironically keeps hammering on the message of 'reflection' and 'self-reflection'; and their curricula are full of literature on the importance of promoting "a scientific perspective" among children, while mobbing the same perspective into silence in all Scandinavian teacher-education whenever consensus is at stake, effectively teaching peers of scientifically sound dissenters to mob dissenters away when they bring new evidence, and refuse to shut up about it when told the evidence is 'irrelevant' even though it contradicts present belief. It is a recipe for how to acquire the blindness to 'mob bully'behavior (Norw: mobbing) we in fact have among teachers, all of whom were once teacher-candidates taught to conspire and 'encourage' dissenters to be silent, mob them away if they 'had to', the way we see in my video-based photographic evidence in a context of redundantly plentiful circumstantial documentation, all of which converge into an integral testimony of corruption in public office, in a country who did not even learn until the past decade or so that any 'conflict of interest' is corruption. The way to counteract it is to set up a radically opposite alternative institution and enable it to compete on equal economic terms. This entire reality is a set of relations that Minister Torbjørn Røe Isaksen the current Minister of Knowledge (Kunnskapsminister) for some reason seems to not yet fully grasp, as did the ones before him, since 2009, when I first addressed them in writing. Either the notion gets too complicated when its size entertains the allusion to the popular fiction genre called conspiration-theory, or there is another, more sinister and distinctly political and material obstruction that clouds the intellect and makes it tempting to tell oneself the problem belongs to somebody else. I addressed the Minister of Education, Mr. Torbjørn Røe Isaksen, personally at the 17.March.2016 symposium on education in Oslo (with media-man Haavard Tjora and the Minister, as well as five more on the podium), and I exposed his passivity; but the Minister made it even worse for himself by having nothing to say to me other than "I don't remember you", as I addressed the problem "what do we do about the pressure towards alike-thinking in our education?" and said I had written to him and received a nice letter from him, but nothing is being done about it yet. It was the beginning of a 20minute Q&A-session at the end of the symposium; and it didn't get any better for him when all the other contributions from the audience were examples of that very same problem, from kindergarten to high-school. He proved to be a Minister with a sincere look on his face and NO action beyond deferring-delegating to the same guardians of status quo as the previous Ministers deferred to and delegated to, with only one result: more domain-local tyranny ("unbridled abuse of power or authority"Scribner-Bantam Dict.) by the same fraudulent opiniongroup, more use of the same made-up Piaget-quotes and the Biblecompatible Dark-Ages-originating model of human cognition that fits with it: the Admit-and-Repent-model (cf. New Edition: The Kant-Piagetconnection nobody wants to talk about, Soerfjord 2016). I have proved it to be fraud, and its defender a verifiably opinionand faith-based pseudopedagogic sect I am now undressing in my articles; thieves of public funds and creators of thought-monopolies wherever they go, which lately has been in all lecture halls of all the academic fields, on all campuses (cf. Seeking Campus-Universal Didactic Dominance, and getting it, ... Soerfjord 2016) a hellish reality that capable academics are incapable of puncturing themselves because their salaries are being threatened by these aggressive fools. They all need help, from Parliament. And Parliament itself needs help in order to be capable of helping them against their will. There needs to be much more open confrontations about this. Capable people who have the intellect to grasp it are much too silent for our common good. I happen to be immune to the mobbers who threaten dissenters' careers and livelihood, but the general academic population isn't powerless. They are partakers by their mere presence, part of the audience, the main body of the mob, agreeing to it by not wanting to understand, or by not risking anything if they do understand. The widespread cowardice needs to end. It presently enables the ruling mob of consenters to: rule by aggression in Ed-Sci. That tyranny will always look for ways to preserve itself, will never vote itself out that will be the Parliament's duty and it will never: take itself by the armpit and lead itself out the door. The Parliament could consider whether to simply stop the flow of money to this non-fact-based thought-monopoly squatting on campus, where it occupies public offices meant for educational science. If it had only been as simple as sending someone to physically lead them out the door. The solution must be in the form of a concerted effort, a concert of elements applied together. The emission of principles just isn't enough, nor my unanimous and unambiguous evidence of their errors. The monopoly they have created for a mere opinion in teacher-education their own opinion will rule as long as government passivity towards it keeps allowing it. May Britt Esse Berge (the practice-venue) Dr. Øystein (the UiO Institute) -Mai Lill Suhr Lunde's 20-30 year old youth-photo, unrecognizable she hides behind it on the UiO staff list (2015/2016, unknown since when), while performing exclusion-services for the UiO's Ed-Sci Institute "ILS". (http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/adm/mailills/ index.html) They find that opinion worth all sacrifices. It's an opinion they preserve by perfecting the CONTROL-ORGAN that preserves it; a control organ they breed by cloning a flow of PhD's who think-likethem, bred into near perfectly limited minds by being locked in a promotion-practice shaped as a Dark-Ages-type apprenticeship the very apprenticeship that preceded the university itself, before the Age of Enlightenment acquired better insight into the structures that enable science itself, or obstruct it. A Norwegian PhD is hired merely as an "Amanuensis" which means "Assistant" and that is their jobtitle. No 'professor'-ish word is included in it; not in their employerdefined job-title. The title may be an abbreviation, an ellipsis, but if so, the full phrase isn't "assistant professor", it is "professorassistant". Employers only give PhDs a job-title that includes the word 'Professor' when they are promoted before which they MUST prove solid adherence to CONSENSUS - 'shared opinion'. What? Are you kidding me?, is what I said when I found that out, after 12 years of university studies, believe it or not. I never found myself in a situation where the thought of that matter was even relevant. And had I known, it may have caused me to never pursue a research degree, not even the Master I have in English, inasmuch as I did the Master's degree research with a PhD-degree in mind. Having found out about that title-corruption, I decided not to take a job that does not have the word "Professor in the title" and even "Assistant Professor" is a perfectly good title for a PhD, because that is a phrase that linguistically narrows down the larger category 'Professor', whereas "Amanuensis" does not, even though I see some Norwegian PhD's at the University of Tromsø and elsewhere translating their job-title "Amanuensis" and "1.-degree-Amanuensis" ("Førsteamanuensis") into the English "Associate Professor". It is a lie, but a white lie, because 'Professor-Servant' is NOT what he is, unless you tie him to a Consensus and threaten him into adhering to that 'shared opinion'. But that goes for everyone else in the same consensus-operators' net, slaves of the local alliances that exclude the 'not liked' and never 'like' anyone who proves them wrong. An "Amanuensis"-titled PhD may be said to actually BE in the same job as a PhD with the "Associate Professor"-title in another country, but the actual word that makes up the title the WHOLE title is merely the core "Servant" or "Assistant" of the ellipsis we may infer to be "Servant-of-professor", or "Professor-Assistant". Viewed as an abbreviated phrase, "Amanuensis" is not "Assisting Professor", nor "Assistant-Professor", it is "Professor-Assistant" a bloody apprentice-title. What does it matter?, you may ask. And if you do you're not alone. You're one in the pack in the middle of the mob. And that is how the mob verbally push the matter aside, pretending "we're all the same" or "we just all cooperate"; and the pretend-act continues until somebody finds out something that pulls the twig away from the dam of falsehood. You see the desperation as aggression, on the faces of people like Dr. Øystein, who displayed before my Sony-cam the identical facial contempt he'd been mobbing me with throughout the semester, in class, in front of everyone for doing what? For talking about three matters of scientific importance in Ed-Sci never without raising a hand in segments meant for it, naturally, explicitly initiated by the lecturer (Aug.2015), 1:)the real Piaget quotes (in classes taught by Kirsti Klette and Britt Oda Fosse); then, 2:), with Dr. Øystein in private, the matter of team-work being about inclusion, and http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/kirstien/index. html Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, 'Leader of Instruction' at the Institute (ILS), in the Faculty of Ed-Sci the actual circumstances necessitating rules against censorship against peers in obligatory team-dialogues among teachercandidates, as well as instruction in healthy, ethical and efficient teamwork-dialogue (Sep.2015), with dr. Øystein's face turning dark, as in the left margin here, so furious he couldn't speak; then, being scheduled to do a presentation before some peers (Oct.2015), 3:)I inform them on Vygotsky's "zone of proximal development" being translated wrong by UiO-professor Ivar Bråten, who made it into the Norwegian equivalent of "proximal zone of development", beleive it or not (explained further down); an event in which Dr. Øystein's face suddenly turns dark with rage before a 25-teacher-candidate large class, with an ominous voice to go along with his gaze, and Øystein visibly and verbally discriminating me as he elicits hands to be raised for comments; all my classmates visibly bewildered, passive in fear. Between the occurrence of event 2 and 3 there is the matter of the one week of teaching-practice, at the practice-venue school (Flaatestad 20 km south of down-town Oslo), before which Dr. Øystein, according to the practice-venue's practice-coordinator herself, Miss May Britt Esse Berge (photo left margin previous page), "informed" her in advance that I "can be domineering". Miss May Britt Esse Berge's "ILS informed me that you can be domineering"/Norw.: "ILS informerte meg om at du kan vaere dominerende" (quote 18.Sep. 2015) is a countering of what I was in the middle of telling her about the abuses I had just observed in my 'team' under her 'care'. She says it after I approach her one on one on the last day of the week's 'practice', a week of abusing attempts, by one particular teacher-candidate a particular female team-member to become 'team-leader' (see Appendix I). It is also a week during which explicit discrimination takes place in everyone's presence, by Miss May Britt Esse Berge's selectively aiming comments at me. Her comments against me only are consistently the snapping "but make it short" each time it was my turn to share what I only needed 4 minutes to say, while others could go on for 16-22 minutes or more with some self-bragging 'confessionwith-the-overcoming-of-an-obstacle' type story, and get genuine approval-gestures; be encouraged to share more the next time she 'invites', around her long table of 'cosiness' in a publically financed official empire that SHE, May Britt Esse Berge, dominates with the use of selective friendliness based on insideropinion-type "information" fed to her directly from the 'Institute', from a verifiably enraged Dr. Øystein on the UiO campus Blindern. It is of course nothing but corruption. All three players Miss May Britt Esse Berge, Mr. Øystein and Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde (see her disguise, a 'current' staff-photo from the 80s, on the previous page) are corrupt occupiers of taxfinanced offices; appropriators of state funds by way of censorship and unwarranted exclusion of dissidents before the official exam, in pseudo-apprenticeship-type settings without contract, and with upgrading of 'exercise' to extra-'exams' for selected teacher-candidates, and a 'being liked'-criterion the the 'extra-examinated' cannot pass. This is the unlawful sifting away of the ones the consensusdefenders select for exclusion-services on account of not 'liking' them. But do not think it is the Oslo-method in particular: this is how ALL Norwegian teacher-education is done, all over Norway, and I suspect in all of Scandinavia, all of it unlawful: the criteria, the conditional application of the criteria, all fundamentally unlawful, and have been unlawful for very long. Norwegian lawyers learn passivity towards it, but they are wrongfully ignoring its unlawfulness, just like they used to ignore abuse of married women, until something made their brains function better on that topic. You can listen to Miss May Britt Esse Berge's ignorant abuse combined with her "That power we do have" ("Den makta har vi")-rhetoric when she has no valid reason for 'not liking' me AUDIO-TAPED by myself on youtube, in Norwegian, recorded on 23.Oct.2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m6vsrCNvE4&feature=youtu.be Becoming a socalled 'useful idiot/brute' is the way to secure one's share of the publically funded salary-pot. That is therefore the first thing to attack politically: the funding, payed by us, the tax-payers. There is a tipping-point when the corruption of the usurpers of a publically funded 'service' necessitate its END, its CHANGE away from the security of the present, in this case a change towards: partially-tuition-fee-funded universities with an Ed-Sci robbed of their Exclusion-Services Unit and its corrupt liaison to the 'teaching-practice-schools', Mai Lill Suhr Lunde being its Lieutenant on behalf of the Colonel Miss Engelien. (photo previous page). The General is Miss Rita Hvistendahl (photo next page), never to be seen directly involved. The job-titles of the ipso facto 'Exclusion Services Unit' let's call them the "ESU", for the hell of it reads like the STASI-files of the former East-Germany. It's dark humor fades in English renditions (so I offer both, Norwegian and English); its list of work-titles on the university campus, in each 'institute' (and each Faculty has a number of institutes). The UiO's Institute for Teach-education and Schoolresearch ("ILS") has the following: Konsulenter, Førstekonsulenter, Seniorkonsulenter, Rådgivere, Seniorrådgivere, Prosjektledere, Praksiskoordinator, Avdelingsledere, Undervisningsleder, and Instituttleder; PLUS, at each practice-venue school: Praksisveiledere* 34 (regular teachers in the work-spheres of the school), and one or more Praksisleder / Avdelingsleder. Translated to English: Consultants, First-Consultants, Senior-Consultants, Advisers, SeniorAdvisers, Project-Leaders, Practical-Exercise-Coordinator, Department-Leader, Leader-of-Instruction, and Institute-Leader; PLUS, at each practice-venue school: Guidance-Teachers* 34a for the practical-exercise (regular teachers) and Coordinator/Department Head for the teaching-exercise (Mai Lill Suhr lunde, in the ILS-case) * 34a guidance-teachers who relate to teacher-candidates as if they were apprentices with apprenticeship-contracts, only to suddenly, if they do not 'like' one among them, making it into an 'exam-sphere' for the ones they do not like ONLY the selected candidates. The 'test-and-throw-away' is the method http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/ritah/in dex.html Rita Hvistendahl, Institute-Leader. One may reasonably wonder how much she understands of any of the things she indirectly puts her name to, through the hands of 'leader of instruction' Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien and 'department head' Mai Lill Suhr Lunde; because this is one genuinelooking face, a person I would like to meet. Maybe she even enjoys "chatting" or "together-talking" without the "protocol-writer". to rid themselves of such, before the exam. In other words, a job-interview and apprenticeship-function in which they add a 'declared doubt-triggered upgrading of excercise to exam-series. officiators of unwarranted mob-demanded exclusion-services The minds of these people are all laden with an arsenal of acronyms, anywhere between 3-12 or so in number, which they much the same way many of my fellow PhDs in the Learning-Sciences do it bring up to show their vast knowledges in the 'field', and intimidate the non-acronymically rout-memorising, when they can; but their in-sights are frighteningly limited, as frightening as their faked smiles and the onset of their ill temper when opposed by apparently greater insight. A huge potential for saving is what I see in this list; saved economic resources and much alleviated pain from the repression by fools in office. "Assistant"-titled professing academics A few words about that title "Amanuensis", which, if an abbreviation, is an abbreviation of "Professor-Assistant", not the opposite. It is NOT "Assistant Professor". The title "Amanuensis" MUST, by logical necessity, derive from a long forgotten Dark Age past when it was given to have you guessed it? right, the Apprentice who studied for his PhD as the apprentice of a PhD. I am guessing he received the title "Professor" the moment he started teaching; hell, even simultaneously with his PhD-degree. Traditionally, in the pre-steady-money-flow era, titles are not merely 'job-titles' but SOCIAL titles of greater importance than they are today. The King who hired the first PhD and called him "Professor" did not call him anything he was not already, but he gave his royal signature to his "Professorhood", as in "Royally employed Professor". The state of actually 'being professor actually begins when the qualification is earned. A PhD 'is' a Professor whether somebody has hired him or not. Bush jr. imagined he could take possession of the word 'marriage' on behalf of the federal government, and thereby keep it away from gay people. Norway's office-holding campuspopulations let the ones who CAN petition for an update of the repressive title "Amanuensis" continue to brainwash thousands of Norwegian "Amanuensis"-titled, "Professor-Servant"-titled, to think they are not 'Professors' and never will be. Other cultures around the planet have a better grasp of this, almost ALL OF THEM. Here's Wikipedia on the "most common hierarchy" in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_ranks_in_the_United_States the best system I'll ever see. They are spot on. They understand. Dr. Øystein at the UiO Institute, a PhD and "amanuensis"-titled who, like all "amanuensis"-titled, competes for the "professor" title but does the work of a 'professor', hence is 'professor' while carrying the title of 'servant of professor', professor-servant' or 'professor-assistant' (not serving professor' or 'assistant professor' or the likes), a job-title most of them (80-90%) carry until retirement. Here's the United Kingdom version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_ranks_in_the_United_Kingdom calling them "Lecturer" from the very beginning of their career, vastly better than "Servant" and the implicit "Professor-Servant", which is what Norwegian employers actually call Norwegian PhDs on staff when they call them "Amanuensis", until what, 10% of them? are uprooted into the state of actually 'being called' what they have been all along. The WORD "lecturer" is as accurate as description as the WORD "professor", which is why 'being called lecturer' until retirement is cause of all the good feelings one can have, even when watching a colleague win the title "professor"; but 'being called amanuensis' until retirement while a colleague wins the title "professor" is a very rational cause of a whole other set of feelings: bitterness at old age and aggression at young and middle age even, perhaps, when good judgment is otherwise weak, the type of aggression we see demonstrated by Dr. Øystein on 11.Nov.2015. It is the "I'm willing to do anything for the Institute" thought we see behind the eyes in such an aggressive face, and in the energetic mismanagement by Jon Arild Lund and his Miss visually-incognito-onstaff-lists standing next to him, couching him. And visually incognito they are, these Ed-Sci-located female administrators twice as high a percentage of them as in all other faculties on the University of Oslo (UiO) campus evidence that points to the fact that these females KNOW what they are involved in, but they see their duty as 'special', one on the sideline of normal ethics. A very dangerous thought. That very thought is one that has served as the seed of some of the greatest rapes of humanity through our entire history. It is a tiny seed that leads to disaster, time and time again. It is a poisonous seed that deserves to be poked, laughed at, teased, audio-recorded and pointed a Sony-cam at until it leaves. Because we all just need to get rid of it, ASAP. The present consensus-mafia is of course pure corruption. I meant ill-intended, dirty, foul-smelling corruption. The Parliament allows it, but who 'allows' the Parliament to 'allow' it? Nobody, all assume they don't allow any such ting, and expect them not to. But the Parliament nonetheless makes the filth 'pure' by the stroke of their pen; and so does one after another in a series of equally ridiculous "Ministers of Knowledge" also a silly title, but one that overreaches; the same way they do in a banana-republic, pompously sticking exaggerated titles on themselves. The same pompously entitled politicians leave the ancient law concerning job-titles alone; allow the law to allow each educational institution to continue pushing Philosophical Doctors down, keeping them as "Servant"-titled academics ("Amanuensis") until they prove loyalty, preventing them from thinking they can stick their neck out without having it chopped off while science, on the other hand, requires equal-worth-imputed minds engaging in a brain-contest within a threat-free environment. Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, 'Leader of Instruction' at the Institute (ILS), Faculty of EdSci The 'equal-worth-imputed' quality requires the WORD 'professor' be put in the job-titles of every PhD so that even the lowest ranked among PhDs at least is among the "Professors". Has anyone ever heard anyone speak of "an unemployed Professor"? Hardly. Why not? We do hear notions like "an unemployed airline captain" and many other equivalent expressions. They are meaningful because there is truth in them, including the notion "an unemployed Professor". Yet, the universities claim only they get to decide which among PhDs are to be given the "title" Professor, where "title" is an ellipsis. The full expression is not even "job-title", it is "employment-title" or "employer-imputed-title", which is all they can own; the limitation of the 'protection' of the word "Professor". Any PhD CAN in fact CALL himself "Professor", and USE that word as a title, social-/or job-title. It describes a PhD doing what he does: RESEARCH and the sharing of it. We are all "Professors", not all "Universityappointed" but "Professor" still, through the power of the academic degree: PhD. The word-ownership-claim is here silly, nothing to fear. It is a pretty ugly way of treating academics we see. One result of it is the facial expression of Dr. Øystein in the left margin photo strip not a pretty sight, and I do refer to the emotion and intention printed in his expression only; and not a pretty thought, to think that this is what shapes the teachers who fill all of our schools and shape all of our children ! Whoever does NOT think that is a scary thought is just not paying attention. You should. Do not EVER complain about bullying or mobbing (gang-bullying) against your own children if you do not join me in the struggle to make these matters I bring up reach the improved state they can be brought to, once we get rid of the obstructions. If you do not somehow JOIN me you have NO right to complain about "mobbing" EVER ! But you will, that is the sad fact of your sluggishness. I have proved that these 'institutes' will not correct themselves and will not be corrected by evidence nor by argumentation. They clam up or explode in aggression each time their paradigm is under attack, and their counter-measures are always personal attacks, argumentum-ad-hominem; and when the dissident who brings the evidence refuses to shut up after months of bullying and administrational threats, even physical attacks ad-hominem. That is what is actually taking place in the left margin photo-strip – the main event being timed at less than 3 seconds in duration in the video format, of which the last split second constitutes a mock-assault, which is a bodily enacted threat of physical violence clearly against the law. Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien is 'Leader of Instruction' at the UiO's Institute for Teacher-education and School-research (Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning, ILS). She is the one department head Mai Lill Suhr Lunde reports to and acts on behalf of. Look closely on the photo in the left margin here. There is an artificial look on her smile, a forced 'radiance'. The corners of her mouth are pulled aside without the emotion that belongs with it; her eyes wider open than the normal, detached, not participating in the smile. She is forcing that smile's exaggerated 'radiance'. Not only is it a fake smile, it's a faking of the radiance that she and her consensus-partners preach as a guiding rule for teachers the 'give of yourself'and 'be extrovert'mandate, in the middle of the threats to have the same opinion as they have or else, even when the opinion goes against the scientific- the back of the cover of their book Didactic Work, published in Norwegian: Didaktisk Arbeid ally proven and redundantly evident facts, as in the case of the real Piaget-quotes. The invented Piaget was all they had. And now I have taken that away from them. The Bible, of course, supports the "accommodation is defined as modification, according to Piaget"-mantra, because the "Confess and Repent" goes well with the "Admit and Self-modify" of the invented Piaget the fake quotes and paraphrases. The ruling pedagogical sect isn't limited to the UiO campus; but has socially dominant disseminators of campus-operated, academic domainpolitical , institutionally defended principles in every place, for example these two females, in central and mid-northern Norway, with a national hold on ALL young adult students of pedagogy (pedagogikk), Educational Science: Miss Kitt Margaret Lyngsnes, employed by Northern Troendelag College (Norw.: hoeyskole, written høyskole), and Miss Marit Rismark, employed by "Norwegian University of Technicaland Natural Sciences" (NTNU) – photo left margin next page. They both say they were educated in: political science, NOT Ed-Sci, not the Learning-Sciences, not Pedagogy ! but must have found it profitable to move into Ed-Sci; and they did so by joining 'the league of ruling consensus'. They have put on print an old inherited folklore about Piaget they were told by the hosts of the new domain they walked into: and the folklore is none other than the church-authored gospel-compatible 'admitand-repent'-style cognitive model. So they enter a new domain, learn a convenient theory of learning conveniently imputed to Piaget. The theory is TOLD them by domain-local players. Based on that, the two females proceed to put it in their book, unscrupulously attaching a model to Piaget's name without verifying the authenticity of the model they hear about; and proceed to teach that model by making or re-telling an absurdly quaint little story of a three-year-old boy who made a 'mistake', misconceived something on account of allegedly 'not yet having learned to accomodate', or 'not yet having reached a sufficiently mature age to realize he had to accomodate' where they have removed an 'm' in Piaget's French word for 'accommodation', which has 'mm', just like the English, simply because 'accommodate' derives etymologically from the Latin accommodare: 'to allow entry'; not the Italian accomodare: 'repair'. They have the 'opinion' the faith that Piaget "defined cognitive accommodation as modification", but never read it in anything written by Piaget, who says something so vastly different when he does define accommodation (1967), that the methods they teach at the UiO and elsewhere end up with NO REFERENCE TO THEORY. That is no slight headache for them; it's a matter of keeping the head on. I'd say it is one big thorn in scrotum, so to speak (or the equivalent). By making it into their own pseudo-etymologically derived Norwegian 'akkomodere' and 'akkomodasjon' they allow the reader to infer the possibility that it derives from something else, maybe acc + moderare, or modare for all their readers may know whatever leads to "modify". The reader would not know, in many or even most cases, but would always imagine. This is truly a 'no-brainer', such an idiotically unintelligent mistake; so much so that it isn't even a 'mistake' but rather what we may expect from the bad attitude and respectless mind that regularly and predictably produces such. Another mistake or, rather, another trace of their bad attitude is the damage they have done to Lev Vygotsky's learning-theoretical work. Like the UiO-based lecturer of pedagogy (in the Faculty of EdSci) Mr. Ivar Braaten (Bråten) and his female co-author bachelor of pedagogy Anne Cathrine Thurmann-Moe, the two female Doctors of Political-, not Educational, science, broke apart Vygotsky's concept "Zone of Proximal Development" (ZPD), and then did what looks like an attempt to put it back together in another language, Norwegian, but ended up with leftover parts strewn on the kitchen floor where they cook their fake quotes and fake theory. They ended up with "the Nearest Zone of Development", corresponding to "Proximal Zone of Development" (PZD) as their homecooked product-label, "Den naermeste utviklingssonen" in Norwegian; where 'proximate' (now expressed as 'nearest') is placed syntactically so that it modifies "zone" instead of "development", thereby, in a misguided pen-stroke, annulling a point Lev Vygotsky was making with the label of that concept. Like the rest of the 'consensus-mob', they view their own authority as including the right to judge whether such details are "important" or not. I see no point in trying to find out whose idea it was to change "ZPD" into "PZD": Bråten–Thurmann-Moe or Lyngsnes–Rismark, or someone else before them. The work done by Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky are now public property, kept in the vault of a universally distributed public bank of knowledge. It is not to be changed, forged, destroyed or damaged. What the two pairs of Norwegian authors have done is reckless trespassing; foolhardy appropriation (in the Norwegian sense ta seg til rette), heedless of consequences. It is: politically motivated damage to public property. This is the bottom of p.61 in their book, whose Norwegian title means Didactic Work ("Didaktisk Arbeid"), where diluting ZPD to PZD ("Den naermeste utviklingssonen") is in fact beneficial for their capacity to stick to the 'opinion' they have and disseminate: The other part of their home-cooked Vygotsky-soup, delusion by dilution (Norw.: lureri gjennom utvanning), is this: the emphasis on how "learning takes place in co-action with others" ( "med andre" ) - where the real Vygotsky emphasized and specified how learning takes place together "with more competent others", in other words in vertically rotating mixed-competence-level environments. What that implies is we ought absolutely not let 'lower-performing pupils' do reading-exercise separate from the rest of the class especially if the teacher herself is fairly sloppy with her own oral English, in which case the 'lower-performers' in the corner or in the walk-in closet they bring them to only have other 'lower-performing' pupils to emulate – the 'lower' emulating the 'lower'. As ridiculous as that sounds, I do believe it is even more harmful than it is silly. The better way is to take away the danger from all reading-exercises. How? END the TEST-obsession, by ending all acts of testing readingskills. How? as a beginning, by following these rules for the social learning of the young: 1-Take away all elements that constitute testing. 2-Do not TALK about 'tests'. 3-Do not use 'the language of assessment'. It constitutes the threat that causes the fear that paralyzes many. 4-And lastly have you guessed it? right, DO NOT TEST until you must, say, the last week of the semester, without making it into something one may have reasons to fear. That'll do the trick. Instead: 5-Do all reading-out-loud as voluntary exercise only, unassessed, untested, outside all work towards tests and assessment. It allows focus on 'reading in itself', and pronunciation in itself. Combine it with tasks and researchprojects type learning in other subjects, with no test beyond self-tests. The whole point with 'team-work', 'group-work', is to 'learn together', as 'social learning'. In social learning among children the purpose is to experience inclusion and have no emphasis on distinction in value imputed to individual members within the learning-environment. There can be no individual 'test' or 'assessment', and no 'talk of individual test' or '-assessment' in the social learning of children and youths. Social learning must remain unpolluted by such elements, and kept separate from evaluated performances separated from them either in time, place, or topic; never combined. Nor can there be, in social learning, any contribution-criteria applied to the individual. I can hear the nay-sayers now go What? Can that be right? Yes, it can, because: In social learning the act of 'listening while a team-member speaks' is a 'contribution'; 'agreeing with it' is a contribution; * 34b margin note one page down. Nancy: 'bringing forth and insisting on the relevance of facts that imply otherwise or another part to add or that another teammember will add to that, even contrary to a censorshipoperator's demand or arranged vote', is right: a 'contribution', and a highly valuable such. Rational debate and fact-based argumentation aka 'disagreeing' is prime 'contribution'. Merely 'listening and nodding in silence' is 'contribution' too but 'listening and nodding under threat of pending exclusion' is NOT. One team-member making herself the spokesperson for the will of the majority-alliance and saying things like: "I feel that you are now working against us" or "we now have majority" (quotes Ann-Helen, sample 1, Flaatestad school, Sep.2015, cf. Appendix I) is a widespread pathology of Norwegian alleged 'teamwork', a sign of its mis-use and distortion in teacher-education. The use of mandatory 'team-work' with 'battle-forleadership' is grave abuse. Nonetheless, it is the standard version taught in Norway's teacher-educating institutions, and its standard operating-procedure (I suspect throughout Scandinavia). It is an old habit that no one has yet addressed formally in parliament and no one in leadership has vowed to root out. It is a form of abuse that depends on a level of insightlessness I suspect we only find in collectively stupefied sealed sub-society pockets, where consensus-threatening thinking carry consequences that obstruct reason. I was appalled at the error of doing the exact opposite of my 'rules for the social learning of the young', consistently and almost continuously, at the practice-venue-school in which I sampled an empirically reluctant sphere within Norwegian teacher-education during 4 weeks in the autumn of 2015: Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school 20km south of downtown Oslo. That particular English-teacher (journalist by education, not teacher) consistently, parroting before her pupils* 34b , used every threatening and intimidating word in the vocabulary of the official regulations that apply to assessment, explicitly using the Ministry of Education as source for her own language of intimidation and scaretactics, increasing anxiety levels rather than counteracting anxiety. Back on campus after a week at the practice-venue: Nancy is from U.S.A., and having studied in Norway studied 'English', I suppose she was now in the 'English Didactics Course', where she is well qualified without even taking the course. But let's suppose the course has something useful to add to Nancy's qualities as English teacher. What might that be? an insight into Lev Vygotsky's "zone of proximal development" could be useful. Vygotsky's "zone of proximal development" (ZPD) lexically and syntactically speaks what it refers to: 'the zone of knowledge that a person can advance into immediately, with support', says Vygotsky, or, wrote Vygotsky, in the 1930s. * 34b I reported that English-teacher for incompetence after only a week under her supervision, but for another reason: her refusal to interfere with and prevent abuses in the obligatory team-work among teacher-candidates, even when I reported it to her while it was ongoing (which means she is blind to mobbing among children too); and, more seriously still: I reported her superior's – May Britt Esse Berge's – strategy (consistently used method) of attacking the messenger of abuses among teacher-candidates; and, pre-"informed", according to herself, by the UiO "institute", in sharing-sessions telling the messenger to "make it short" when no one ever spoke shorter than him and telling no one else to 'make it short', marking him as a target of her contempt, early on sticking a derogatory label on him. It's part of the strategy of leaving the team to itself, let the team 'work out its own differences', a stone age principle that only corrupt administrators and micro-team bullies benefit from, bullies who form alliances they use to threaten individuals (cf. Appendix I below, also rendered in "Pathological Dialogues") – all in Ed-'Pol', not Ed-Sci. It is a strategy the journalist by training pseudoEnglish-teacher and her superior agree on; even worse: a strategy the UiO Institute of Teachereducation and School-research (Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning, ILS) agree on. They too – here Dr. Øystein, Mai Lill Suhr Lunde (cancer-educated leader of practical-pedagogical training) and Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien (leader of instruction), aided by Lisbeth M. Brevik and Dr.Polit. Eyvind Elstad, none of whom ever read a chapter of original learning-theory in their life – attack the messenger; as do the other institutes of the UiO (IPED and SPED) and the rest of this domain within Norway and the local region: all of Scandinavia; maybe even the whole Nordic region. A "proximal zone of development" is not what he called it, because he called it a "zone of proximal development", in the sense of 'immediate development' possible right now, but only with support, resources: intelligent learning environment design. The best way to translate it is to keep calling it what Vygotsky called it translate it without changing it. So Nancy, as I exchanged some emails with her the days leading up to our presentation of Ivar Bråten's 1998 book-chapter, is aware of precisely what I am about to share, days ahead of it. The heading of Bråten&T.-Moe's book-chapter is "The nearest zone of development as point of origin for pedagogic practice", but in Norwegian: "Den naermeste utviklingssonen som utgangspunkt for pedagogisk praksis", instead of the obviously correct "Sonen for proximal utvikling ..." or "Sonen for naermeste utvikling ..." or even "Sonen for umiddelbar utvikling ..."; the latter being "zone of immediate development ..." and maybe not fully synonymous with 'proximal'. However, it is exactly what Ivar Bråten uses several pages to say ZPD actually is, and correctly so. 'Proximate' refers to the immediately adjacent field of potential and conditional development. It is the zone a person can advance into immediately, with the right support. Language is a resource for such support. It mediates knowledge. Knowledge is "mediated", brought forth by way of 'media', and language is one such 'medium'. The efficiency of its mediation can be influenced by focusing on language itself, as a tool for that mediation. Another tool is the design of co-action with more competent others. This would be the opposite of Flaatestad school bringinging the 'lower performers' together to emulate one another, as it were; a preposterous notion. So Nancy reads my emails on the mistranslated ZPD, and is aware I'm going to say something about that. Little did she suspect the level of aggression that would immediately bubble up and sputter forth indelibly intrusive to reason, from the mind and lips of a Norwegian female her age (twenties) with the OPPOSITE cultural background: In Nancy I saw what difference 'debate' as a highschool subject has on the young adults. The difference expressed itself as opposite as a bite and a kiss, as opposite as acid and butter. I chose to ignore the Norwegian acid and prepared myself to share my thought on what ZPD might sound like in Norwegian and what it does NOT sound like. I even decided to ignore Nancy as she came running after me as I walked towards the whiteboard. Nancy is socially intelligent, and her ears having now stopped ringing after the shell-shock, she quickly learns the reality of a universal Norwegian aggression-driven 'team-spirit' she has not encountered growing up in U.S.A.. She quickly picks up on how critical thinking is interpreted as 'negativity' by sensitive Norwegian females or male brutes, not this morning, though aspiring to fill the role of: 'opinion-driven incessantly speaking team-dominator', which is the 'team-leader-role' actually taught in Norway's teacher-educating institutions, which of course is a horrible mistake no one will address for fear of sounding 'anti-social' or something like it. The mentioned 'critical thinking is negativity'-delusion, incidentally, goes together with the 'debate as battle for leadership'delusion. The dual delusion is a taught anti-scientific perspective. THAT is 'the zone' that unravels before the very eyes of Sandy this morning the ill-tempered onset of two Norwegian females with the above dual delusion clouding their minds, making them ominously beligerant, instilling the mute team quality that allows only one to speak and have heads nod in - 'agreement' ? I saw the shock it was to Nancy a bright young U.S.-bred female one could actually communicate with about a topic without the dual delusion warping her mood and triggering hatefulness. Debate as school-subject in highschool will do that to a young person. It seemed obvious that Nancy had had that. Lucky her. So I read Nancy's dispair, and it was a modest attempt she made to stop me from mentioning the translation error, as she rushed forward to beseech me, implore without making a fuss about it, but there was censorship expressed in her face. I had to ignore it. It was not a healthy experience for her, learning the kind of team-work that the UiO's teacher-educators actually teach. But it was the truth. She learned an ugly truth about UiO and what such organizations form in young adult Norwegian minds. It was a different Norway she saw being disrobed before her innocent eyes. I spoke about the academic matter, a matter for EdSci and I was standing in the middle of the Faculty of Educational Science as I spoke, in Ed-Sci ("undervisningsvitenskapelig fakultet", uv-fak.), in a small seminar-classroom that took about 25 of us, while a particular social reality disrobed itself slowly before her. It was a horror show. The aggression was palpable. You could see it, touch it, use learned species-specific homo-sapien patterns of social behavior to decode it. It was ugly. On the back cover of their book the publisher of the two Doctors of Political Science, Dr. Polit., says this: "The authors direct {our} attention towards instruction in today's society. They show what the distinguishing qualities of our time, and of our pedagogical thinking of our time, are; and they give the reader solid insight about {the political resolve labeled} Knowledge-elevation. The book is research-based, and the authors' effort is aimed at showing how it is possible to put insight into learning and didactics {the science of instruction} into practical use in schools. They show how teachers can form a practice in line with the priorities of {national} teaching-plans and the newest of knowledge on pedagogical activity. This way the book becomes a tool for developing oneself as teacher in today's school." The part about 'research-based' must refer to the collectively chattered into socially existing products that overtake where they push away science. The 'practical use' a teacher can get from it is a political use probably what we may expect when Doctors of POLITICAL science are allowed to form our PEDAGOGY. The book is the political fruit of their labor: political fact-fixing. These and other fools' footprints in Norwegian textbooks are details no author or 'peer-censorshipreview-panel' want to see corrected, much less admitted to. If ever http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/adm/jonalu/ I think I have identified the male as 1stConsultant Jon Arild Lund: a semi-reluctant school-bully who found his purpose, as enforcer of order, still not understanding why he is a mobber. Unlike Dr. Øystein, he controls his rage, but like Dr. Øystein lacks understanding. He wants to do good, but needs a Parliament to tell him exactly how. the errors are corrected, the office-holders will just pretend they came up with the improved ideas themselves. They will probably never admit they listened to me and allowed me to correct them. That is what we may expect. They simply lack the scientific will to do science instead of the career-politically profitable moves. The two Doctors Polit., Miss Lyngsnes and Miss Rismark, say "We can deduce the main traits of Piaget's theory of learning from the following description of a situation", and proceed to tell a story that demonstrates the essence they attach to Piaget's name in advance, rather than investigating Piaget's own description of his theoretical model and then analyse the story by the use of Piaget's concepts. THAT would have been the scientific method. But these two females are obviously not scientists, so they use anything BUT the scientific method to go about it. They carry forward a folklore which they USE Piaget to help them with. It is no less than a scientific travesty, a ridiculous mocking of Ed-Sci itself, from within the clique that grabs the salaries sent from government to the offices meant for Ed-Sci, our tax-money. It is a laundering (Norw.: hvitvasking) of politically motivated folklore we are looking at in this section of the Norwegian text-book Didactic Work (Didaktisk Arbeid) Norway: Gyldendal 1999/ 2007:55-61. Grand theft of public funds is another way to put it. And these players know how weak they stand scientifically, hence their reaction-schema of 'clamming up (silent as oysters) or aggression' one can only hope it will be looked back on as the spasms of a dying swan, so that the humanities can one day forget about them. To get to such a blessed point in time: drastic political measures are needed, and fast. In the story they tell in their textbook, a three-year-old boy made an alleged 'mistake' they attribute to the boy 'not yet having learned to accommodate', on account of 'not yet having reached a sufficiently mature age to realize he had to accommodate'. They write about the boy calling his uncle's work-place on the ship "office" (even though he is an engine-operator) and analyse that as evidence of the boy, Oeystein(Øystein), assimilating BUT NOT accommodating what he perceives; that is, what he hears as he overhears the adult conversation. But that is not even close to an accurate rendition of Piaget's cognitive model; not even half or somehow correct, because Piaget's model is positively in fact the exact OPPOSITE. What these two female Dr. Polit.s have authored in their textbook, sold nationwide, used in virtually all pedagogical course-programs, is quackery. Their claim that this is Piaget's model or Piaget's version is objectively untrue, an objectively verifiable lie, in addition to being so amateurishly nonsensical scientifically that Piaget would never have come up with anything similar to it, and did not. Piaget was aware of the way teacher-educators took pieces of his model, which he published in 1967, and used them for their own instrumental purpose, but he does not appear to have been suspicious enough of their ugly nature to believe it could ever become even as bad as it had already become while he was still alive. Piaget acknowledged the phenomenon as a flock of academics who did not grasp his model of human grasping, but he seems to have been unaware of the sinister intentional dimension of that intentional misperception; the way that flock weren't interested in his cognitive model, only in what they could use it for, what they could achieve with that model: a pseudo-scientific rationale that supports the manipulation-scheme they've always been up to: forcing the individual to 'selfmodify when told to by the domineering members of the group', the 'censorship-operator' type leader we should call 'pusher' and the alliance-partners she interrupted and talked to death until they joined her, became her mute majority 'vote' for censorship. It is a pseudoleader-role taught by 'Assistant'-titled pseudo-apprentices for 'like'factor-conditioned promotion to the 'professor'-title. Who are the people who can thrive in such a fascistic promotion-structure? No informed mind would prefer to teach within that structure if they had a choice. We need to make it for them, then insert it from the top. Whether or not Piaget's 'accommodation' is defined as 'modification' is not even a question of 'interpretation'. It is a question of having actually read Piaget's own 1967-description or NOT having read it, but merely pretending to have; or skim-reading it for the sake of saying one has read it without technically lying. A lie it is nonetheless, the alleged model, and a comfortable one; so comfortable that the users of that lie do not want to discuss the matter. The two women are charlatans (impostors) in every sense of the word, Doctors of political science (Dr. Polit.) but quackdoctors on Piaget and his cognitive science. They are not alone, but that is irrelevant to the fact of what Piaget's cognitive model actually says. In short: if the boy Oeystein 'assimilated' what he heard about his uncle working on a ship, then he 'accommodated' that at the same time, even if he misunderstood what he heard, which he did not; even if he didn't have any details specified until later because calling that workplace an "office" is merely the natural use of the words one has available. It is the child transferring words to allegorically similar situations. It is quite similar to what I did when I at the age of 8 called the sap of the birch the tree's "blood" as I explained to a 7-year-old the function of the 'sap' that ran down a branch next to me. My own father had used the allegory when explaining it to me, and I understood; the limitation of the allegory too. I wasn't confused and I knew what I was saying. The ship-engine-operator's "office" isn't evidence of the three-year-old speaker's confusion, but the way the two women pseudotheorize about it is a clear example of their own confusion, one that has harmed Norwegian Ed-Sci. The uncle's "office on the ship" and "the tree's blood" easier to understand for 3and 8-year-olds, respectively, than Piaget's cognitive theory is for three Dr. Polit.s and a PhD in pedagogy crowded by Dr-Polit.s and a female majority paid to perform special and regular unlawful acts of Exclusion-Services-Unit (ESU) operations they call each of them "a case" ("en sak"); an obvious case of University-fascism, an unlawful 'state-within-the-state', an appropriator of a power that is not for them to have, and which no law gives them. Even the Ministry (of Education)'s clerks (Anne Grøholt, Kasper Aunan and more) are afraid to be associated with the mentioned socalled "cases" at the alleged 'Ed-Sci'. They remain at a distance, bene- fiting from it. They do not reply when addressed on this issue, then pretend to reply; ultimately replying in ambiguous ways that can only serve one purpose: allow them some degree of deniability if dragged into court to testify. All while the Minister stays away. This needs to be investigated by a special, publically appointed, prosecutor team equipped with as many international lawyers from abroad as domestic ones. I would recommend Eva Joly as either prosecutor or head of that lawyer-team. She knows a thing or two about official corruption, state and sub-state level. The 'uncle on a ship'-story is a story of an intelligent boy, the two stupid adult authors who tell it, and a pack of fools who willingly use that story to make it known that students should: 'admit their error and self-modify'. God help the children taught by the army of fools who use the 'insight' they draw from that explanation to form 'self-modifying' children in their pedagogical work. It is a recipe for how to arrive at the problematic reality we indeed are now in the middle of here in Scandinavia: a group-bullying-infested society, 'mobbing' being the Scandinavian metaphor. According to Piaget's model the boy cannot and none of us can possibly assimilate anything except by accommodating it at the same time, because the two subfunctions are BOTH CONSTANT in that model and in that author's description of the model (1967:200-215), just like Kant put it too (1781:50-52). The model therefore says the boy simply temporarily sticks the available verbal label on the understanding he has so far, and then builds further specifications into that sketchy skeleton of a schema as time progresses, without having to tear down any of the previous ideas, nor replace the labels. The 'previous' idea is not a specific idea but a fuzzy one, blurred: a foggy picture that emerges into clarity as the construction of specificity progresses. That is Jean Piaget's model, and it is also Immanuel Kant's model. 'Learning', in that model', is not 'cognitive-crisis'-driven. Rather, it is inhibited by 'cognitive crisis' crisis here referring to the appearance of self-contradiction or absurdity, of any kind, in the mind of the learner; an impossible combination of thoughts; one of them a once relied on thought, now in peril, derailing and crashing in the ditch. That is not to say preexisting misconceptions should not be dealt with. They should. The pedagogue should just not be stealthily looking for them in the words uttered by his students while they are being uttered by the students. These misconceptions should be addressed openly and explicitly, so that no one gets the feeling of having been set up: to model a case of a preexisting misconception. Such misconceptions are in themselves an obstacle to learning, but the use of such in order to make learning memorable, to make it stick, is not necessarily and not always a good thing, because a teacher who interprets student contributions while inferring the misconception he is looking for, quite easily ends up a non-benevolent interpreter, one who fails to communicate in accordance with the principle of charity (benevolence), the principle of applied goodwill, crucial to communication itself. That principle essentially says: 'interpret by assuming integrity, meaningfulness and brevity'. In other words, assume the unspoken as a part of the implied 'whole' thought, and look for ways to view the spoken as consistent (not selfcontradicting) and complete with its benevolently inferred unspoken parts. That is where teachers daily commit the mistake of doing the opposite. They do so because they imagine to be doing a Socratic dialogue, which they imagine to be about: finding a contradiction in what the student says. But that is not at all what 'Socratic' in 'Socratic dialogue' is about. The notion of 'Socratic', rather, is about: looking for the essence. Sokrates' student, Platon, learned that lesson well. He formed a theory on how to look at the things in the world as mere reflections or shadows of the 'real existence' of things. Immanuel Kant took this theory even further, and did a logical analysis of the phenomenon of cognition itself – human awareness as an active process (1781). That is the theory Jean Piaget molded into his 1967 thesis Biology and Knowledge (Biologie et Connaissance) which none of the idea-soldiers who dominate Norwegian teacher-training want to read. And if they do look at his 1967 book, they do it so rapidly and superficially, and only in English, that they just don't get it. They do not get it because they only read in order to say they've read it; and their application of aggression remains. They simply cannot be convinced by the facts. The way to remove their domination is to either remove these individuals or: politically allow and create a radically different institution of Ed-Sci that can compete with them. I challenge the Parliament to do so in this century! When one interprets without as much good-will as the transmitter, a student in the case of the 'Socratic dialogue', assumes when transmitting, then communication breaks down, becomes superficial bickering or so-called 'semantic debates', or one party turns silent, in this case the student. It is a given outcome in most student-teacher dialogues with insufficient benevolence in the teacher's acts of interpreting the student, a violation of universally accepted principles for meaningful dialogue. Hence, an act of interpreting through eyes shaded by a prior assumed self-contradiction or the intent to find one, is an offense against students. Even the intention to 'detect' what confusion might be there or 'make sure' there is no confusion there, is an offense. It is abuse of asymmetric dialogic power, unless the search for such confusion is made completely and patently explicit. it is a form of dialogic abuse I have seen too many cases of to see it as a trivial matter. It is important because it is a part of the 'admit-and-repent'pathology expressed as 'self-reflect and modify thyself'-imperative, the church-authored theory of learning centuries old. It could be 2000 years old, or even older. Bringing a preexisting misconception to its inevitable dialogic selfcontradicting context is useful as long as no one is set up to be the model of it, for two reasons: 1:because it is potentially very destructive to the learning of the one pupil who was made into that model, and 2:because learning IS not 'modification of anything previous'. That is not what 'learning' IS, not according to Piaget. Piaget named the two parts of 'awareness', the same two parts that Kant wrote about (1781:50-52), and Piaget elaborated by using his knowledge of biology. It is Piaget's 'adaptation' that constitutes 'modification', but only in the sense of a 'modified future trajectory', analogous to the adaptation of each species, race and line of interbreeding families. The two functional parts of biological adaptation, in this model, are assimilation and accommodation, simply in the sense of a continuously stabilized neutralization of two opposite functional tendencies, both constantly present in each phenomenon. The two opposite parts are 1:'constantly perceiving the outer forms within the environment in familiar form-wise terms' and 2:'constantly allowing the perceived forms to enter the mind the way they are', "whatever construction may result" (1967:70), a previous schema either {a:continuing as it was} as the super-ordinate set of schemas it is a part of adapts to the environment (by filling in, specifying further and seeing new relations allegories, consequences and so on) or {b:the previously existing schema modifies itself by updating an element in its structure} (1967:200). However, both {a} and {b} involve the simultaneous engagement of both of the two continuous subfunctions: always assimilating what is being accommodated while simultaneously accommodating what is being assimilated, by logical necessity. One cannot do only one of them! That was Piaget's whole point in that cognitive theory. They cannot be separated into separate phenomena, is what he says; "it is only by abstraction we can talk about them separately" (1967:201-202). The real problem here, then, is this: they don't really care what Piaget says that his cognitive model is. Look at the facial expression of Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) in the left margin here and it is immediately abundantly obvious that he does not care about the truthcontent of the lecture-hall-power-point-slide mediated references they systematically make to Jean Piaget's accommodation, all ridiculously false, positively a lie, with an extremely negative social outcome: firstly, the very unhealthy learning-environment the false quotes contribute to in teacher-education, effectively systematically learned mobbing by alliances that by unscientific means control each what a school-bully looks like when serving the largely 'female' issue of 'censorship-operation'. Summation 41 43. potential dissenter in such a micro-group left to its own dialogic design, uncontrolled self-design; and secondly the unhealthy ramifications it brings to the learning-environments of our children an insight that leads to the awareness of a general principle: 41. The micro-groups-left-to-themselves type pedagogic structure in teacher education (in meta-pedagogy) is in itself the teaching of 'mobbing', mob-type abuses, which necessarily affects the children who in the next phase are being taught by the same teachercandidates. 42. The "seek/reach agreement with your learningpartner(s)" imperative among school-children is in itself grave abuse, as well as a violation of §1-1 in Norway's 'Law for teaching'. It is the opposite of "promote a scientific way of thinking" specifically required under that law-paragraph, because "scientific" implicates logical arguments from true premises, hence debate where somebody is able to insist on the deductively implied conclusion that follows from the true premises offered, even when the majority says otherwise and insists on its right to dominate by number. And 'dominate by number' is ALL we get under the "seek/reach agreement" imperative and the 'groupsleft-to-their-own-regulation of "their" members'-type pseudo-'teamwork', with groups allowed to threaten individuals with exclusion if they oppose the censorship-operator and the alliance-partners she forced to surrender by incessantly interrupting them until they surrendered and became the acquiescing mutes that allow her to talk incessantly and have her will (pfew, that's one long bad phrase). This is the rogue pseudo- 'leader' I have sampled in Norwegian courses in Pedagogy, and ALL of them have been females. We're talking about the censorship-operator-syndrome a female 'issue': 43. Fact: all empirically verified samples of the censorship-operator type pseudo-leader in the Ed-Sci courses I have attended (2008/09 at UiA and 20015/16 at UiO) are females (cf. Appendix I) which may come as a shock to some, and may stir the anger of many, but nonetheless is a fact. So be angry with that fact rather than the one who points at it ! And behind the 'censorship-operator' there is, among the meta-pedagogues (teachers of pedagogy), always a masculine figure lusting for a chance to fulfil his role as 'accommodator' of his female administrators' resolves, the resolves of a female majority of colleagues and Ed-Sci administrators positively uneducated in cognitive science and learning-theory in general objectively oblivious to the very theoretical core of the real Ed-Sci. Hvistendahl, Engelien and Suhr-Lunde are the female Bård Kjos, The Faculty Director, Faculty of Ed-Sci, UiO, Oslo, Norway http://www.uv.uio.no/personer/adm/f ak/ledelsen/baardkjo/index.html troika in the UiO-case called "ILS" Institute for TeacherEducation and School-research (Norw.: "Institutt for laererutdanning og Skoleforskning"). The situation in the other two' Institutes' of the UiO's Faculty of Ed-Sci (IPED and ISP) is identical. It is a situation that has permeated the Faculty of Ed-Sci and every office of Ed-Sci in every place of higher education in Norway: a leadership positively uneducated in the core of what, objectively speaking, is the real Ed-Sci; the core theory that every one of their theoretical references refers to, in ALL their lectures and seminar classes within ALL their study-programs in pedagogy. Even Dr. of Political Science, Dr. Polit., and former teacher of tax-management and business leadership – pretending to be a Dr. of pedagogy: Eyvind Elstad, naturally with no photo of himself on the UiO staff-list by pretending he is qualified when appointed to respond to my information about the Piaget-quote fraud in the UiO – and doing so by saying: " 1 I do not refer to Piaget in my teaching. Besides, 2 Piaget's learning-theory is not important. It is in the field of science history, and I am not a science historian. This debate does not belong on campus ... Dr. Eyvind Elstad " 1 The Dr.Polit. says HE doesn't refer to Piaget, but all his colleagues who mention early cognitive science, do refer to Piaget, by using the forged quotes. 2 ALL who refer to early learning-theory refer to Piaget's theory, so this is, objectively speaking, important, relevant; so Dr. Elstad is here LYING. And by pretending he can speak on behalf of a public institution in the topic of early cognitive theory, he makes himself an IMPOSTOR, a quack, one who pretends to have a competence he does not have. I, Dr. Kai Sørfjord, COULD speak on behalf of the UiO Faculty of Ed-Sci on this topic, but Dr. Eyvind Elstad CANNOT. And that makes it FRAUD. This is not a small thing. It is a major offense, one that may even be deserving of having the consequence of his Dr. Polit. degree being retracted, annulled. It is THAT important. It is the equivalent of government level document fraud, in the same neighborhood as signature-falsification, or doing electric work when you're a carpenter. The consequence of some errors is irreparable harm. Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad, as far as I can see, DOES NOT have the scientific competence, be it formal or research-acquired such, that he pretends to have when he makes the statement he in fact did make, in writing, upon request by the three females who dominate the UiO Institute (ILS). They even dominate the male Faculty Director. Rita Hvistendahl emailed him and accidentally cc'ed it to me telling him, in the rather dominating manner: "You don't have to get involved in this, Bård." This is how SHE, twice his age, teaches HIM whose role it is to OBEY. He doesn't seem to mind it much, and SHE knows how to Dominate him in just the right way. This is the corruption of so-called 'academic command lines' and science itself in a modernly corrupted university (UiO) and its Faculty of Ed-Sci. The females who appoint Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad as spokesperson in this particular scientific topic, cognitive science the uneducated in the core of Ed-Sci troika (Rita Hvistendahl, Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien and Mai Lill Suhr Lunde) commit institutional FRAUD when they attach the above quoted letter (in Norwegian) from Elstad to an email containing their verdict, saying: "Dr. Elstad says Piaget's learning-theory is not important. Therefore it is not important." This all goes down in an institution where the 'agreement'-imperative dictates for all to think the SAME. That is why educator Frank Furedi and others talk about "fads" in education, 'fads' in the sense of 'pandemic fads', fads in which all of Ed-Sci's so-called educational scientists go chanting the same article of faith, hence all teacher-candidates who study in this environment are forced to do the same. Dissent isn't to be tolerated on key articles of pedagogic faith. Here dissent is treason, spelled: "cause of unrest", "grave disruption" etc. And politicians parliament and ministry in harmonious bystander passivity actually ALLOW such excrements by not brooming the crap into the pale and scrubbing the place it landed on, so to speak. Frank Furedi specifically unpacks fads like "mindfulness" and "resilience" - "Education has always been blighted by fads and interventions devised in the field of business administration, scientific management, psychology and social policy." (blighted: corrupted, caused to be deformed) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/frank-furedi/resiliencenew-education-fad_b_5767936.html and, "self-reflection" is the fad I myself enjoy pinning to the wall, as the manipulative tool it is in the hands of the pathologically non-selfreflexive pushers of alikethinking into fads' of singular banal particles detached and re-attached into political slogans used in crusades against dissenters, all for the bottom line: the money they get for it. Each 'fad' is a 'fad' because 'trainers of educatorcandidates' are running a fascist state-within-the-state dictatorship. Each 'fad' is a fascism-produced 'fad'. It wouldn't be a 'fad' without the pressure to 'agree' with the 'censorship-operator' in every place. This is: the 'fad-talk' fad unpacked. It is one big bad attitude-problem cemented into a teacher-training-related fascist mandate, in a campussituated state-institution that no one in the official Summation 44. 'state' the Ministry and Parliament wants to get involved in, as the cowards and liars they are, bragging about making 'educators' better but leaving the fascists that pony-train them into mechanical ignorance, by unlawful methods, in peace. Is it laughable or sad? I'd say both. What are the Parliament and the Ministry of Education waiting for a kick in the ass from the King? 44. We have the 'education' we have because of the 'trainers of educators' we have the mob of 'untouchables' who call themselves "Ed-Sci" but is no such thing as 'Ed-Sci', as I have proven (Soerfjord 20152016). With Miss Kirsti Klette and Miss Britt Oda Fosse as servers of the same old forged Piaget-quotes and Dr. Eyvind Elstad writing "I do not teach Piaget, so this is not important" when forced to reply to the letter where I inform the UiO about the forgery, and Elstad therefore being as oblivious to cognitive science as the administrators of the entire UiO's Faculty of Ed-Sci, one may expect the partly incompetency-driven forgery to be self-preserving into a very long future. Who's going to stop these people if the parliament doesn't STEP IN? NO one. It's a farce. People like Fred Furedi ought to take a look at this. But Furedi talks about teachers. He and others need to look BEHIND THE SCENE, BACKSTAGE, where the not so bright light of selfserving simplistically diluted learning theory for instrumental gains bubbles in the casseroles of the quote-cookers for "useful in practice" consensus, homecooked theory translatable to convenient practical pedagogy theory now proven forgery. That is what has them so angry they cannot control themselves, but show their true 'self' even with my Sony-cam pointing straight at them. Dr. Øystein and his female co-teachers of pedagogy defend themselves by using the censorship-operator to force dissidents into muteness. Piaget explicitly brings the notion of 'continuous accommodation but sporadic modification of previous structures' from its origin in the topic of biological adaptation into the allegorically similar sphere of cognitive adaptation. Piaget's main concept remains continuous building on the useful that already exists, caused by continuous accommodation that requires no previous to be torn down. The structures assimilate all that is accommodated, and vice versa. The 'leading-the-learner-into-self-contradiction' fad is distinctly anti-Piagetian thinking, and anti-Kantian as well. It is an anti-structuralist abusive fad that needs to be ridiculed by, precisely: bringing it to its inevitable self-contradiction by the use of the real Piaget-quotes until the fad dissipates from the stubborn minds of the selfmodification-evangelist sect and the politicians that protect them by The Minister of Education ought to look at the way they have allowed teacher-training to become what it has now turned into. A domain like this ought to never be left alone with its teacher candidates. It is time to revoke their permit to rule over facts and careers. The two males in this photo-strip are definitely not a healthy contribution to teacher-education, but neither are the females that pull the strings from behind the curtain (Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, on behalf of Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, on behalf of Miss Rita Hvistendahl, on behalf of the cowards in the Department of Education, all violators of essential laws. consistently delegating government authority to this massive party of idiotically non-adaptive aggressive fools reduced to one shallow mind: the group's main censorship-operator's mind. The constant balancing act is between two constantly active opposing 'subfunctions', not separate phenomena, not even separate functions. All phenomena have both subfunctions present and active in this model. And why is that? It is because they are the two necessary and constant subfunctions of consciousness itself, of awareness and self-awareness; and when one of the two subfunctions of conscious awareness is absent or passive, unconsciousness or death occurs, according to Piaget and Kant. There is no consciousness the moment the mind fails to accommodate, not within this particular model. This is only relevant because the sect that rules in teachertraining is using Piaget's name in the building of the ideology they are brainwashing entire generations with. The institutes have their appointed spokespersons who, when forced to defend their faith, do so by claiming that all talk of Piaget's theory is irrelevant (Dr. Eyvind Elstad, in an absurd letter he wrote after the government forced the two institute administrators Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien and Rita Hvistendahl to arrange for some form of reply to the scientific evidence I submitted an order that therefore never was complied with), while they continue to effectively and positively evident make it relevant by continuing to systematically impute their made-up model to Piaget, saying it is HIS model when it in fact is not, as I have proven. It is inherited power-point slides that are being used all courseprograms have lecturers pre-programmed to 'share' power-pointslides with ready-made inherited fraudulent references to Piaget, inherited in the apprenticeship that made them PhD. Norwegian universities do not hire new PhDs as 'professors' but TRAIN PhDs locally INTO 'professor-titled teachers' (the corruption begins right there). Miss Britt Oda Fosse and Miss Kirsti Klette are the two dedicated 'tradition-carriers' with respect to Piaget in the practicalpedagogical course I attended at the UiO in the autumn of 2015. All course-programs have their own Piaget-alibi-promoters. All lecturers who touch on early cognitive science and how those theories form the foundation of all modern pedagogical theories, the back-bone of Ed-Sci (pedagogy), do the same. They must, in order to hope to one day be among the few who receive the title of 'professor'. Until then; they must obey that consensus, or kiss the future 'professor'-title goodbye for ever, and merely 'be' professors without being 'called' professor. This is an old apprenticeship-towards-professorhood structure that belongs in a long lost century where the apprentice for professorhood became 'Doctor' when he became 'Professor'. Modern administrators have twisted it into a perverted carrot-on-astick-game for adults with no respect for themselves, crawling on their knees before the 'group-dominator', always an alliance in a workplace left to its own emerging social structuring-process riddled with unlawful abuses. Ed-Sci was never intended to become the monster it has become. It needs to be helped out of its misery. And its brutes for hire definitely need help. This is how it is impossible to share a simple consensus-falsifying fact with lecturers like Miss Britt Oda Fosse and Miss Kirsti Klette, and the hundreds of others assigned to lecture on that topic. I remember Kirsti Klette running up the stairs towards the exit when I began talking to her about the REAL Piaget-quotes right after the lecture she had just given. Britt Oda Fosse said nothing during her lecture as I shared the fact with everyone present, but her bodylanguage spoke of an extreme annoyance, one that aggressive fellow-candidates of mine quickly picked up on, and began to shout aggressively that I should "let the lecturer continue" – but she was the one who invited, invited anyone in the audience to participate. She pointed at me as I raised my hand, and nobody else raised their hand at that moment. And when I had repeated my point long enough for the invalid defences of the false quotes to fade and cease, the film-projector the lecturer had planned to start was out of order, ending the lecture. I, in other words, had contributed to a meaningful dialogue for a handful of minutes (5 or 6) in that 45-minute lecture, and wasted nobody's time; had not spoken out of turn, and never did. But the UiO and the rest of Norwegian universities will NEVER correct these quotes because I proved it to them. They might do it when they can do so while pretending it is THEIR idea. The other way to end that freak-show is to simply: from above: install into the culture a radically different university, with a radically different funding and a radically different hiringand promotion practice; and allow for it to allow Ed-Sci to be formed by philosophy. Individuals have tried to use philosophy to prove their own ideas (e.g. Lars Løvlie, UiO). It leads nowhere cf. Appendix III below. The romantic notion of a 'free' higher education leads to a mob taking control of the public funding for it. That is what we are looking at a university campus mafia. Let's remove it. Lecturers like Miss Elisabeth M. Brevik put the fake theoretical building-block into practice by enforcing the one-sided self-modification-imperative that in every semester makes this a highly relevant issue: the student must self-modify while the school refuses to selfmodify even objectively proven errors if the errors are loved and believed in. This particular error is likely to be a part of what in the past caused some to investigate alternative pedagogies in Norway and elsewhere, particularly in Europe the last century. Proving that this particular error is an error is a simple matter. The real quotes prove themselves. And they point to a radically different educational ideology than the one practiced in Norwegian (most likely Scandinavian) teacher-training. That is why the love for that error manifests itself as the extreme aggression and ugliness we see in the photo-strip. Hell, it might be a world-wide pathos I have caught on my Sony-cam. I witnessed it from August to November 2015, the entire semester. It is pervasive, prevalent, clones itself, and murders careers to protect itself, keep itself alive and that is how it survives through centuries of Ministerial lip-service and cowardice in front of the threatening priest-hood I faced all alone that semester. Don't let them tell us what a 'team' is. The ideal of team-work, if one were to formulate it according to universally agreed upon humanist rules of thinking, isn't TEAM-WORK as in SMALL-TEAM-work; the ideal is rather cooperation togetherworking, regardless of team-size. We can choose, then, to say: the whole CLASS is a TEAM; or the SCHOOL is a TEAM; and so on. When forced by circumstances to put a size-limit to the operable size of the TEAM, {the CLASS as a TEAM} is the entity that maximally challenges the individual's capacity to COOPERATE, hence with maximal efficiency builds that capacity if the teacher is present, which he and she must, continuously guiding and instructing in the principles that hold for scientifically and ethically valid team-work, in other words explicit rules. But what team-bullies want to do instead is have people like themselves dominate each individual in each micro-team, without limitations on the enforcing of the majority WILL, which is formed by the lecturers themselves, taught by the modeling of imputed contempt and mobbing. That is what they are doing. What we have hidden as the carnivorous worm beneath the surface of that 'teamwork'-notion, then, is this: a managerial weapon. THAT is what Dr. Oeystein here, on behalf of the female trio hiding back-stage, behind locked doors, in an id-card-swipe and pin-codeoperated security-vault fully aware of their own law-violating activities (on the third and fourth floor of the Niels Henrik Abel's building on the UiO campus Blindern in Oslo), are all worked up about their managerial weapon. That tension turns into visible annoyance or rage on the faces of the lecturers who operate their inherited power-point-slides in the lecture-halls and seminar chambers among Norwegian teacher-candidates, every time the facts make them loose a debate they can never win. The (mostly female, that's a fact) administrators then say to the winner of the debate, not 'thank you' but 'you must shut up' Ask them 'why' and they say 'because you are alone'. This isn't Educational Science at all. It ceased being Ed-Sci long ago. We need to bring back 'Ed-Sci' and re-install it: re-install the 'Sci' in Ed-Sci. It will require a new funding-scheme and a new hiring practice radially different – and a removal of the present; giving way to: new titles for the less senior but ipso-facto 'professors called amanuensis' Call them what they are: 'Professors' Money-saving-note: Any 'institute' and the 'faculty' that a group of institutes form can always continue its functions in the absence of all so-called 'administrators', without pending chaos, disaster, stall or clog-up; but the opposite simply isn't workable on any timescale. The army of 'professional' administrators in today's universityinstitutes represent an enormous potential for cost-reduction. Just about any competent academic is capable of administrating himself and herself. The hub that an army of academics relate efficiently with in the future can be an automated hub. Imagine that ! and imagine if there is no official body to threaten a dissenter, and the unofficial ones being out-lawed in practice. Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) here, the aggressor, isn't doing this on his own; he lets himself be used by what in folklore is romantically referred to as 'something larger than himself'. He does it for the Institute, for the faculty, run by a set of non-Ed-Sci-educated (save for a few internally trained) and non-Ed-Sci-oriented individuals that think as one, a preponderously female organisation, faith-based; an organisation he wants to be a part of and have success within. This is our present reality: It is forbidden to discover certain facts in Norwegian higher education the non-leadership by top administrators allow Institute-level and Faculty-level totalitarianism. Institutes and faculties get rid of teacher-candidates who oppose consensus on scientific grounds, and they get rid of lecturers who do the same; black-list them from promotion to 'title-bearing' professorhood. The PhD's among these lecturers are all 'BEING' professors, DOING a professor's job, but not having the title and the salary. The title is of course the most important of the two. All of this, of course, constitutes: persecution the ethnic cleansing away of the ever non-consenting science-minded. In the same metaphoric way that 'ethnic'* 35 applies to a 'culturally' defined group as well as a 'religiously' or 'dna'-defined and 'ethnic cleansing' is the "forced removal from an area", whether one kills or exports the 'unclean' this is ethnic cleansing of the cultural minority we may call 'the science-minded', by definition, like it or not. * 35 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing and The ScribnerBantam English Dictionary, new York I say this, of course, not because 'removing from campus' and 'removing from earth' are equally bad, but because 'persecution or discrimination of non-consensus-minded' in itself is about as bad as, or almost as bad as, 'persecution or discrimination of a race'; or about as bad as 'judicial prosecution or sanctioning of a relatively ethically benign religious group', for that matter. Do not do it against anyone, group or individual, is the only viable principle in either of the case types. Doing it against a race or a culture are equally bad; and to the degree that 'non-consensus-minded scientifically oriented group' is a relevant characteristic, it is equally bad to do it against any members of that category. Anyone who takes this argument through another turnpike, branching off into a semantic debate to prove otherwise, just need to be told to shut up for a minute and listen then talk. While the reader ponders over this, I offer a close view of the ridiculous assault on reasonability in the left margin a mock physical assault in broad lamplight, in the lecture hall (Auditorium 1 of Helga Eng's building on UiO campus Blindern in Oslo, Norway); a behaviour that constitutes the threat of violence, preceded by a concerted effort acted out as demonstrative discrimination by the female lecturer – who is part of the administrative team around Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, who had charged me by email 77 minutes before the lecture, of disturbing the piece in the lectures, and threatened me with reprisals, to which I replied the evident: that I only spoke after raising a hand in response to the invitation to do so in the lecture. All that pre-planned discrimination goes down in front of a 250 candidate large crowd scared stiff the most malleable (plastically formable) among them (an alliance of five females, three of them socially dominant haters of objective fact-oriented debate) rapidly internalizing the taught contempt and then, in the 15-minute recess, expressing it as were they cheerleaders on a NAZI-camp, cheering Dr. Oeystein on as he blacks out and goes into the recorded rage against a dissenter on campus who merely did this: bring up the issues of 'cooperation' and 'the real Piaget-quotes', letting the facts correct the lecturers the very essence of the mentioned §1-1's notion "a scientific way of thinking", authored by Parliament. After the physical assault was initiated and taken into its very final stage, the moment of immediately pending physical impact, Dr. Øystein applies the left-thigh-muscle-induced sideways force that deflects most of his momentum off to my left side. This is a physical assault. After the mock assault, I ignore this fact, however, while filming, as I address the original problem the discrimination in the dialogue segment. Dr. Øystein pauses for five seconds before he realizes I'm referring to what occurred before his mock assault the lecturer inviting everyone to participate with comments or questions, in a regular dialogue segment, but refusing me to ask or comment on anything, even though no one else has a hand up after she rejects my hand and takes a question from two more in the entire audience of 250 teacher-candidates and sending everyone to an early recess when I refuse to be discriminated. It is a valid refusal to be discriminated since there is no valid (no legal) reason for it, no other than the invalid reason, the illegal one: myself, in invited dialogue-segments and raising of hands, when 'given the word' (Norwegian expression: 'to have received the word' - "bli gitt ordet"), that is, when given the opportunity to speak, ask or comment, having simply read out the real Piaget-quotes in correction to the fake ones they use in the lectures, plastered in their powerpoint-slides, the ones they inherited from the 'overhead-slides' of the former century after 1967. So, as recess begins and the majority of the 250 teachercandidates get up from their seats, I engage my Sony-cam, firstly to record the sphere: and read my own comments into the recorder, aiming the lens at myself as in a selfie: "This is Helga Eng's building on UiO campus Blindern, auditorium 1, 11. November (2015), and I am now being discriminated by the lecturer." It is recess, but these teacher-candidates, about 50 of the 250 or so teacher-candidates attending the 90-minute-lecture, remain at their desks; and only a few of them by habit. A core of them remain for one particular reason, and remain only for the duration of that reason: a particular event they anticipate and assist, as participants in socially aggregated contempt towards evidence that threatens consensus and the expulsion of messengers of such. It isn't just any dissent we're talking about here, but one particular kind, the kind that disproves consensus. It is a form of loyalty, but one that young adults are unable to distinguish from justified loyalty. The loyalty is here to the Institute they depend on for their diploma. The crime committed is by the hands and mind of the Institute's employees, largely unchecked and unrestrained by Parliament and the Ministry of Education, who allow the 'Institute' to 'follow its own rules', 'approve of itself' and write 'rules for methods of teaching' that the Ministry of Education never intended to be 'law' and actually legislated against, but did so in a mistaken 'principle-label'-limited legislation (§1-1 in the law for teaching) that the Parliament has not been clever enough to see for what it is: an invitation for 'consensus' to be enforced as if it were 'the law in more detail'. The problem of the real Piaget 1967 quotes (which in fact contradict the learningtheory they teach when they refer to Piaget 1967, and dictate methods opposite of what they practice and teach) being banned from campus, while the fake quotes (the pseudo-paraphrases they invented) are recited consistently, any messenger of these quotes likewise, is a matter the Ministry refuses to interfere with; likewise the way key methods of teaching violate key principles ordered by the mentioned §1-1; even methods in teacher-training, methods that condition teacher-candidates to accept bullying among children, condition them to fail to recognize certain abusive behaviors as bullying/mobbing. The female lecturer who, without ever having met me or lectured with in the audience before today, says "I do not give you the word" {idiosyncrasy for "I do not give you the chance to speak"} and "anyone else have a question ?" in the full class dialogue she invites to: As teacher-candidates exit for recess, Dr. Øystein (ø=oe; not his surname), the black silhouette, is ready for trouble: He is looking my way, and he is not liking what he sees. He already decided three months earlier, in Sep.2015, that he does not like what he hears when I tell him about, firstly: the need for explicit instruction in healthy and efficient team-dialogue and cooperation-behavior prior to any mandatory 'team-work'-dialogue among teacher-candidates; dialogues that, as I inform him of, are riddled with abuse of social power (censorship and exclusion-behaviors acted out by socially dominant individuals competing for, or, when no competition for that role exists, grabbing, the opportunity to control everyone else in the 'team' define them, allocate 'roles' to them, assign tasks to them and threaten to exclude or actually exclude anyone who rejects the tyranny, anyone who sees it as the opposite of the core set of principles ordered by the law for teaching §1-1 and which teacher-candidates must practice in order to learn, and must learn before they can teach the same principles; secondly: the need to use the real Piaget 1967-quotes instead of the fake, the pseudoparaphrases consistently read out loud to teacher-candidates in support of a model of learning that the real quotes contradict; thirdly: the need to translate Vygotsky's key phrase "zone of proximal development" (ZPD) to its phrase-syntactic equivalent "sonen for umiddelbar utvikling" or "sonen for proksimal utvikling" or "sonen for naermeste utvikling", rather than "den naermeste utviklingssonen" ("the nearest zone of development") the equivalent of the "proximal zone of development" (PZD), which is precisely what Dr. Øystein's colleague Dr. Ped. Ivar Bråten (lecturing at the UiO institute "IPED") and his co-author Ba. Ped. Anne Cathrine Thurmann-Moe (not in UiO) actually did, believe it or not, which I shared in a scheduled presentation before 25 co-students of pedagogy in Oct. 2015 – to the accompaniment of the same visible rage from Dr. Øystein (ø=oe) as we see in this photo-strip, which frightened everyone, turned them into 25 mutes. It was a fear instilled by a fury that has no place in Ed-Sci; and neither has the arrogance that makes this particular female lecturer (photo above) say "I'm not letting you speak, but is there anyone else who has something?" ("Jeg gir ikke deg ordet, men er det noen andre som har noe?", having been informed by dept. head Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde in the UiO 'institute' (ILS) one hour before the lecture of my reply to her accusation that my evidence and questions constitute "grave disturbance of the lectures". My emailed reply to the absurd accusation: the lecturer invites the whole audience to participate and hands go up; I speak or ask a question when the lecturer asks for hands up and points at me. Notice the way I use the phrase "Dr. Ped." about Ivar Bråten, analogous to the title phrase "Dr. Polit.". The 'University' prefers to confuse the distinction between the two radically different competencies and qualifications, so that they can fill their "Professor"-offices with just about any Dr. Goebbels-ish agent they wish. The distinction between the two fields of doctorate isn't absolute, but rather the partial restraint of a partial fluidity. For example, a Dr. Ped., or 'Doctor of Pedagogy', MAY be able to pass judgment on whether the use of the fake Piaget 1967-quotes in EdSci is "important" or not, but that ability to judge is only possible if the Dr. of Pedagogy does the necessary research before blabbering his or her verdict. The Dr. Polit. is vastly more removed from the sphere of even wanting to look into what it is that needs to be researched about models of human awareness or perceptive capacity, so far removed that I have yet to hear of one, read of one or even imagine what one such specimen would be like other than unemployed. What is required here is a radically different and scientifically dictated form of behavior than the way Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad blabbered "it isn't important" and did so in writing after the Ministry of Education ordered the UiO Institute (ILS) to respond properly to my letter about it dated August 2015, a letter I wrote after witnessing the nonsense that was being taught as ellegedly supported by Piaget 1967. What these lecturers, all of them (in all the study-programs of Norwegian Ed-Sci) build up is an alleged connection between the model of learning they are implying (the 'self-reflect-and-identify your errors' model of learning which translates to 'be-told-whatyour-errors-are whenever you don't see your own errors'; and, which is even more harmful, becomes the "self-reflection"-imperative in teacher-training that has entire generations of newly educated teachers having been trained to 'confess-to-errors' or be 'judged-asnonreflexive'; teach-by-methods-you-are-told-to-teach, and only that way; use the specific methods you are told to use, and none other; specific methods dictated by Dr. Polits (Dr. Goebbels-clones who focus on "methods of control"; Eyvind Elstad and the likes), joined by anyone among a pack of internally trained willing to 'serve the higher cause', like quack-title carrying ("didactitian") Dr.Ped. Lisbet M. Brevik institute-located guard-dogs who bark things like "whole-class-reading-excercises, we don't do that anymore" as she 'corrects' me meaning 'don't do it!' a direct quote I have audiorecorded directly from the waxed lips of the mentioned guard-dog, Miss Brevik, where "we" means 'the guard dogs of consensus and everyone they control'. These guard-dogs have bee selected as servants of consensus by not having been discarded when all who had other ideas than consensus were discarded by various unlawful means in Norwegian Ed-Sci-studies. These consensus-adhering puppet-soldiers and guarddog type PhDs of Pedagogy in the faculties of Ed-Sci are hugely incompetent in the proud scientific field called Ed-Sci, Educational Science. They have to compete in the game of jumping the highest for consensus, to reach for the bone they call "Professorship", a jobtitle all PhDs who teach should have from day one meaning they should all have some degree of an explicit 'Professor'-title, but do not. Only the ones who jump the highest in the game of teaching consensus the strongest, get their "Professor"-title. Norwegian Ed-Sci-occupying Dr. Polit.s and other quack-doctors of consensus say 'you must modify your pre-existing ideas in order to learn, according to Piaget' as they 'quote' Piaget's "cognitive accommodation" as being 'defined by Piaget as modification', when all Piaget says is that accommodation is the mere unconditional 'letting in' of impressions, while the necessary opposite and neutralizing functional tendency is actually 'modify-what-we-hearand-see to make it maximally similar to pre-existing ideas': assimilation. So what we MUST do in order to learn is actually 'modify-what-we-perceive', the opposite of what Universities TELL us we must modify in order to learn. Interesting ? If you think so, then offer me a well paid professorjob (I do not want the consensus-preacher-pack-defined jobs they create and have taxpayers finance). If you have any political pull whatsoever, then work to change the deceased consensus-internal breeding of PhDs in Norwegian higher education; and work to end the public funding of the clan that trains packs of guard-dogs that focus on their "methods of control in education" quote from a description meant as an acknowledgment of Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad on the Internet. http://utdanningsforskning.no/kilderpersoner/personerforfattere/eyvind -elstad/ For a complete video-derived photo-strip record of the minutes before and after the assault-segment, "the Blindern photo-file" will be uploaded later – in the mean-time see "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary" for full length of key segments. What follows is an abbreviated representative selection: Marte finds herself a 'team' female from Kristiansand, the team's exclusion-operator, keeps shouting, and Dr. Øystein (ø=oe) moves in, one seat-row above mine, in the right edge of the photo-frame; Enters Dr. Øystein: He has a plan. Red arrow: Female teacher-candidate (student of pedagogy) from Kristiansand keeps shouting from her forwardbent position, using her hand as a megaphone and a sharp penetrating voice that fills the auditorium. "Kai, you are filming now. You are filming, Kai. You are filming. Kai, you are filming. You are ..." (In Norwegian, the non-standard spelling indicates her dialect:) "Kai, nå filmår du. Du filmår, Kai. Du filmår. Kai, du filmår. Du filmår ..." (it is recess) To view the following photo-strips as motion-picture without flicker: 1.Download the pdf; 2.Select "Fit one full page to window" in the 'tools pane' (top-bar of the Adobe Reader's frame), or click the 'minus' to reduce the pdf-page to your screen's vertical limits; "Fit one full page to window" and 3.use the mouse to press and hold the on-screen scroll- button to view the photo-strips as a manual motion-picture. But do take a moment to study the facial expressions* 36 too, in the enlarged page mode, and the visual relations between the participants, as well as the embedded text. * 36 body movements and facial expressions, particularly on the sharp photos, speak a thousand words This, as far as I am aware of, is a new text format. Content-wise, I categorize this particular text as a documentary, but its format requires some reader-software interaction: a cycling between enlarged and screen-sized pdf-page presentation. The 511.99 MB size-limit of Word limits the photo-frequency of the strips. SCROLL the live photo-strip: Is it aggression or is it hate? And does it matter which? It is definitely aggression in defence of a consensus that claims to be built on Piaget 1967, in every lecture on learning-theory lectures that refer to Piaget 1967 but use fake quote-paraphrases, every time, and do so as they teach a model of learning that is actually opposite of the one formed by the real Piaget 1967-quotes, which I quoted in the lectures, each time after raising a hand, naturally, in response to the lecturer's request for the audience to participate. It is the content of these quotes that causes "grave disturbance", and rightfully so, not the behavior of bringing the evidence. We need to remove the 'cleaning-out'-agency currently hiding under the labels of 'administrators' ('dept.-heads', 'consultant', 'inspectors', 'advisors' etc.) at institute-level, an army of dead-weight that draws funds and takes stabs at science wherever science is opposed by the jealous and incompetent on campuses, some of which I expose in the left margin of this documentary. We need no institute-level 'administrators' in the first place, certainly not anyone with authority to threaten individual academics or teacher-candidates or any other students; the type that forms alliances with the incompetent among colleagues, people like the hate-operator on this photo: Dr. Øystein. An 'Institute' should have a 'telephone-operator' and a 'room-allocator'. That's all. An academic organizes himand herself, except when forming alliances against individual colleagues or 'evidence-bringers' among students, classify such individuals as 'opponents' and go to administrational war against the individual who knows more, is cleverer or better in some way. And that is how education is now what the church used to be in pre-renaissance days, dominated by 'men of the dark' (Norw. mørkemenn) essentially preachers, like the one walking into the picture-frame here: The distressing element of it is this: it is teacher-education we are talking about, a sphere where certain types of agents simply ought not be. aggressive, under-educated quality-wise, and Dr. Polits pretending to know about Ed-Sci when they are really Doctors of Political Science, like Dr. Eyvind Elstad at the UiO (Univ. of Oslo) and the two female pedagogytextbook-authors I revealed above, at the NTNU and the Northern University (Troendelag region), impostors in EdSci., with a straw through which they suck mouthfuls from public funds. doing harm to our culture; remaining harmful to our culture even when they smile at you. You know them by their suppression of evidence. This documentary shows you how they do it. the team's exclusion-operator (female teacher-candidate from Kristiansand) pauses her shouting and looks up to check its effect on Dr. Øystein (whose visible aggression (hate) elicits precisely such support as she is now providing; while Dr. Øystein, the hate-operator against consensus-threatening evidence, attempts to make his 'social reality' such that he and the female mob are victims of the discriminated and hated evidence-provider and, as of the last few minutes, Sony-cam-operator with his recordingactivity that now puts them visually on record. the shouter pauses, raises her head to check for the effect; I turn around and walk back toward my seat at the other end of the row; Dr. Øystein turns around and enters the seat-row I am in: the female lecturer (red arrow), with the selective loveliness she sells for the price of acceptance of quote-fraud and deceit, is present during recess. It is recess. The female team choose to remain at their desk space of their own free will. It is an opportunity to express support for the lecturers' silencing of the dissident and his evidence. The female shouter from Kristiansand attempts to avoid being put on record as a main participant in and instigator of abuses that lasted throughout the semester. team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work Witnesses of unlawful discrimination of scientific facts in Norwegian teacher-education; young adults largely unable to perform the truthchecks and the monitoring of national-policy-adherence of their own training vis-a-vis the principles for teaching they are required by law to adhere to after course-exam, truth-checks and policy-adherencemonitoring that the vagueness-level of §1-1 and its implied institutional 'self'-regulation ASSUMES that SOMEBODY does. The truth is: NO ONE DOES IT, AND NO ONE CAN DO IT, except the Ministry and the Parliament, through a more detailed legislation. Anyone who tries to form his or her "instruction" so that it adheres more closely to §1-1 is plucked away by the 'practice-venue & institute' liaison before the exams, or reported by colleagues and then persecuted by pseudoadministrators allowed by the Ministry to carry on like nazis on campus people like Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde ('dept. head' with cancer-research as her own field, being used as consensus-police in Ed-Sci but being totally incompetent in core Ed-Sci issues like cognitive science and the corresponding learning models); Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, a 'leader of instruction' who stands by while 'Institute-Leader' Rita Hvistendahl delegates the matter of the fake Piaget 1967-quotes I reported to her, a matter of classical learning-theory, to Dr.Polit. Eyvind Elstad, a fake Dr.Ped. in UiO's faculty of Ed-Sci; all of which, naturally, constitutes fraudulent custodianship of state power, since the Dr.Polit. is obviously not qualified for that task. Rita Hvistendahl is also an 'Institute Leader' (of ILS) who tells the "Faculty Director": "You don't have to get involved in this" when he makes an inquiery about what this is all about. You see his photo in the left margin on page 110 above, hers on page 95. The good Rita cc'ed her email for him to me as well, by mistake, revealing the corrupt tradition she has made her own. Walking in the same corrupt footsteps is what they all do. They have made the Institute for Teacher-education and School-research (the ILS: "Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning") their own club; have stolen it from the sphere of science educational science. And the whole country follows their example, seeing the obvious benefits to private economy and the maximization of career security for a minimum of knowledge input, maximizing instead the skill of un- scripted speech, by-heart chunks of speech, simple packs of rhetoric simplistic enough to easily remember; and they post them on power point slides in case they forget; among them inherited slogans about Piaget and Vygotsky most of it absurd but who cares? They combine it with methods of setting the team up against any individual who would otherwise venture into – precisely: the kind of thinking that §1-1 of the Law for teaching dictates for all of teacher education to enable teacher candidates to "promote among children": namely "a scientific way of thinking". Only the Ministry and Parliament can shake them out of it, and only by COMPLETE RESTRUCTURING. As new teachers, hence, the newly educated teachers depend on 'more experienced colleagues', in other words current tradition, the same 'current tradition' we see violating all good principles laid down for "all teaching", 1 st class to highschool ("all opplaering" i grunnog videregående skole), for all the work that each individual among these future teachers ever do among our children. Witnesses to a nationally corrupted teacher-training, they are, all the participants in the research-material displayed in this documentary; and mighty pissed off they are for having been put on record as witnesses to it. Parents: these mob-bullies you see in the photo-strip above and below, are the ones who become the teachers of your own 7-16year-olds, in a mob-bullying-infested public school near you. a)Lecturers being visibly annoyed, irritated, even furious, as Dr. Øystein Gisle, in class, over mere facts they want to suppress – scientifically relevant facts (1:the real Piaget 1967-quotes and the way the principles of scientific and critical thinking, diversity, inclusion, counter-discrimination etc. in §1-1 in the law for teaching dictate both form/method and content of teacher-training); and the b)lecturers' 'administrators threatening the messenger with reprisals if not shutting up (the institute's dept. head Mai Lill Suhr lunde calling the mere content of a message given after raising of hands in respons to lecturer's explicit elicitation for audience participation by the phrase "you have gravely disturbed the lecture"; and the c)Nov.11.2015 lecturer explicitly asking for audience par- ticipation, and getting only two hands up besides mine among the 250 teacher-candidates, but still refusing me to ask my question, and explicitly refusing only me, while allowing all others, explicitly asking "Is there anyone else who has anything ?" meaning 'anyone other than me' ; the female lecturer threatening me, saying "You must be quiet or you must leave the lecture hall" when I repeat the obvious fact everyone is aware of: I too raised my hand, and we were only two who did, then a third when all others froze in awe over the open discrimination of myself. It all adds up to d)taught contempt towards another teacher-candidate, a contempt we see the teacher-candidates have now learned, after three months of it, and internalized, including taught contempt toward the scientific perspective ordered by §1-1 in the law for teaching, in the production of teachers; the perspective that brings the real quotes forth; which adds up to e)taught mobbing and taught undermining of §1-1 in the law for teaching. It is followed up by f)unlawfully expelling the teacher-candidate who refuses to be discriminated on account of the lecturers not liking the scientific facts laid on the table in an orderly manner. It is COVERED UP and SWEPT UNDER THE RUG as the "Do not videorecord inside the lecture-hall"-drama by the drama-queen mob-team as I put them on record as having witnessed the lecturer's discrimination. It is an outpouring of hate-emotions the female mob visually coordinates with the gestures of Dr. Øystein, whose display of aggression in itself constitutes the teaching of such aggression, a teaching that is a grave violation and undermining of the Parliament-issued law for teaching, §1-1 of it, thereby producing teachers largely UNABLE TO OBEY §1-1. Together with the side to side upper-body sway, strategic step-sequence, backwards leaning and launching forward, it is a martial arts and boxing style attack mode we are seeing in this video segment. It is intimidation perpetrated by a man of violence, hardly the face of a healthy Ed-Sci. HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the expression of aggression increases in strength: HATE HATE HATE SOMETHING IS OUT OF CONTROL IN TEACHER-EDUCATION; something in the mind of the many 'agreeing' faithoperators in offices meant for Educational Science, and where pedagogic faith is at work, a road-block that needs to be lifted away by concrete central political force. HATE MORE THAN JUST A HOT TEMPER. eyes glazed with rage, his aggression intensifies to a peak: HATE THIS IS HATE. HATE AND THE BEHAVIOR IS WHAT I'D CALL A HATE-CRIME. HATE THE FEMALE TEAM OF SOCALLED 'ADMINISTRATORS' ARE IN ON IT. HATE His eyes glazed with rage rage over mere scientific facts, facts he enforces censorship against. The signaled aggression increases. Deliberate as it is, it is the expression of hate, before an audience of teacher-candidates; all on account of Øystein not being able to win by debate. HATE A THREAT A THREAT A THREAT I MOVE TO THE SIDE I MOVE TO THE SIDE EYE-CONTACT WITH TARGET (MYSELF) I MOVE TO THE SIDE EYE-CONTACT WITH TARGET (MYSELF) eye-contact with me, holding my Sony-cam shoulder high in my right hand EYE-CONTACT WITH TARGET (MYSELF) EYE-CONTACT WITH TARGET (MYSELF) foot planting foot planting and launches forward, as if to topple me with the momentum of his torso when it arrives vertically over his right foot, where my torso is. the ram; eyes glazed with rage the ram; a dynamic claiming of space and demonstration of the emotion by which the 'establishment' assigns low value to the individual target. MOCK HEAD-BUTT I am moving my upper body slightly more towards my left MOCK HEAD-BUTT MOCK HEAD-BUTT He coordinates the blinking with the gaze-shift. He has practiced this: re-aiming his gaze in the middle of the blinking of his eyelashes. Dr. Øystein ..... is in the ATTACK-MODE. This is bullying with an audience, pure 'mobbing', of the physical kind, involving gesticulated threats of an already started violent assault; a continuation of the already launched assault moving in my direction; the Sony-cam is by my side, off my right shoulder direct EYE-CONTACT WITH TARGET (MYSELF) combined with the emotional expression signaling that I am the target. Only in the last two moments does he make them a dual physical mock assault, first a mock rush-on with a mock head-but that claims space in order to avoid contact; and then a mock rush-on launched from the other foot, only changing direction in the last split of a second. It is an act of communicated hate, and the medium is a mock-assault; amounting to a 'minor' hate-crime on some people's scale, but a hate-crime nonetheless. Jon Arne Lund in the background is definitely worried, which means he perceives the enacted threat of physical violence as real, and his female counselling-partner turns her head a second time. Imagine what Dr. Øystein ..... is willing to do if no camera is there; or with no witnesses ? 2 seconds later (the two photos spaced 1/10 sec. apart) The laughing female teacher-candidate is damaged goods already before the assault she is witnessing. She takes part in the cheering on of Dr. Øystein ....., having already seen he is blacking out with rage the two minutes leading up to it. These teacher-candidates, except for the shouter from Kristiansand, are all what I would deem 'redeemable', but it would take some serious counseling and extraordinary teaching-resources for that to happen. So it will not happen, though it would naturally happen if I were involved in the education of these teacher-candidates. But for me to be willing to work in that environment, changes to the administrative staff would be a key demand, most of the staff being dismissed but not replaced, as part of a fundamental change of structure. 1st Consultant – amusing, the titles they decorate themselves with these pseudo-administrators Jon Arild Lund then embarks on a holy mission to secure the Sony-cam's memory-card. He pulls my arm impolitely, but below the level of violent, to get it; and would take it if I had given in to his threats and intimidation; he calls the UiO security-guard (who's really there to protect 1:public property and 2:the general campus-population against harmful individuals (Dr. Øystein ..... for one); and the guard follows me on foot while calling the police on his mobile, to get them to help UiO cover up their unlawful discrimination against a teacher-candidate with consensus-damning evidence (verified audibly on video 1; visually and audibly on video 3); cover up the physical assault that turned mock assault only at the moments of signaled impact, by Dr. Øystein .....; the same way they are covering up their scientific scam ignoring , diverting, then delegating to a non-Ed-Sci-educated (Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad) the task to answer for their forgery of essential quotes (in cognitive science, a core Ed-Sci-matter); altogether refusing to answer the letters I handed them about the real Piaget1967-quotes, consensus-damning evidence of 1 st class. About 1/5 of the 250 or so teacher-candidates in the autumn 2015 PPU (Practical-Pedagogical Education) course in the UiO are still present in the lecture-hall in the beginning of the recess when Dr. Øystein ..... does this. Compare it with the act of visually simulating pulling up weeds with a jerk and throwing it over the shoulder and away to the side while saying "You will now begin the team-work (group-). Everyone will contribute. For the ones who do not contribute, this is what holds for them: they are to be weeded out" direct quote: "Dere skal nå begynne gruppearbeidet. Alle må bidra. Dem som ikke bidrar, dem gjelder det å luke ut" and on "weeded out" the imagined teachercandidate, the 'weed' (Norw.: ugresset) is thrown up in the air, over the shoulder and away to the right, by the teacher of pedagogy at the University of Agder (UiA) in Kristiansand, near the southern end of Norway, in the lecturing hall before the audience of about 150 teacher candidates in January 2009. The teacher was Tor Tanggaard, a non-PhD lecturer of pedagogy, who teaches faith in folklore and contempt for theory, which he obviously does not understand. Here he is outside the UiA building where he does his damage: (https://www.facebook.com/tor.tanggaard) and the level of the foolishness marked by the standard procedure of Tor Tanggaard and company is really hard to imagine for the average educated academic anywhere else in the humanities. Imagine Tor threatening teacher-candidates explicitly with the warning that employers regularly ask for an extra-official letter of recommendation when the newly educated teachers apply for work; and he, Tor Tanggaard, is the one to either write or not write such a letter. But the peak of the stupidity and harmfulness is his 'weeding out of the non-contributor'-simulation in the lecture hall, pretending to root out the "non-contributor". This idea is a serious germ of incompetency that has infected Norwegian teacher-education, and Tor Tanggaard is the role-model, so to speak, for that level of thinking, or not really thinking at all, in his region, the southern, called Agder (though he is a man from the east by dialect). And there is no essential misunderstanding here, not in this particular example, because one teacher-candidate present in the lecture hall explicitly questioned his method in real time, in plenum, so all could hear; with his recording-device on, explicitly asking Tor Tanggaard to verify. He (it was myself) raises a hand and, as Tanggaard points at him, the teacher-candidat says: "But who gets to be God?" ("Hvem skal vaere Gud?") Tanggaard goes "eh?" and I go: "Who gets to determine who it is that isn't contributing?" ("Hvem skal bestemme hvem det er som ikke bidrar?"). Tor Tanggaard does not hesitate; in his brain the answer is selfexplanatory: "The team !", he blurts out. To those among the readers of this documentary of mine who do not see how this is a level of stupidity that transcends the limits of the healthy and the lawful, I recommend you think long and hard for once in your life and then send me an email and tell me how I can help you. Tor Tanggaard has to lie about this and has to switch the fact-debate with a motivedebate to talk himself away from proper punishment for it. Any kind of punishment would do. But most abusers and pretenders do go unpunished into their graves, and so will Tor Tanggaard. And do not kid yourself: there is no god to punish the evil, stupid and harmful in the 'after-life', so we have to ridicule them while they are still with us; ridicule the error while he can still hear and see. He will not understand, I suppose. But some will. We shall not critique the fools to save the fools from their stupidity, we shall critique them to enable future fools to not feel quite as safe inside the crowd. A favorite quote of Tor Tanggaard's, according to his Facebookaccount is: "Think positive thoughts, use positive words, do positive actions, and the positive will grow." (https://www.facebook.com/tor.tanggaard) Compare that 'positive thoughts, words and action'-slogan he claims allegiance to with his "You will now begin the team-work (group-work). Everyone will contribute. For the ones who do not contribute, this is what holds for them: they are to be weeded out" a positive threat, so I suppose in that sense it is within the 'positive', though 'positively negativistic' or 'positively abusive' is the real nature of it. And that is precisely the problem with these in-bread 'agreers' with the consensus that gets them promoted: They are that is, in this case, Tor Tanggaard is genuinely not intelligent enough to understand the harm they are doing. They are genuinely unqualified for the job. Tor Tanggaard is matched, however hard that would necessarily seem to a rational mind, by the dark-mooded preachers of Dark-Ages pedagogic faith perpetrated by the consensus mob put on display in this documentary, at the UiO fronted by the tax-payer-financed school-bully in the above photo-strip: Dr. Øystein ....., aided by his femme fatale back-stage team of positively unqualified in core matters of educational science: Mai Lill Suhr Lunde (cancerresearcher) Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien and Rita Hvistendahl plus their Dr. Polit. pretending to be qualified in Ed-Sci, Eyvind Elstad (cf. p. 4749, 57-58), who, after the Ministry of Education instructs the Institute to answer properly to the evidence of quote-fraud I handed them in August 2015, pretends to know what he is talking about when he dismisses the whole matter as "not important". It boils down to an Ed-Sci-wise whorehouse, a meat-market for the purchase and sale of job-titles they insert where the academic titles belong, in the official discourse as well as in the PR that promotes it; an incompetent clan we just cannot get ride of except by a total and fundamental restructuring of Ed-Sci, basically ending its access to the use of subjective judgment wherever retrospective transparency is incomplete, meaning anywhere beyond the written exams. The retrospectively non-transparent subjective judgment in Norwegian Ed-Sci is a judgment that has turned harmful on a grand scale. These particular individuals, the present protectors of consensus, are not the brighest available in a multitude of idea-holders they are simply the 'loudest agreers' in the pack. They are what we end up being stuck with in a Scandinavian culture where public offices sell monopoly for the payback by solidarity, the solidarity that expresses itself partly as the allegiance to the 'expel-the-dissident' type consensus-mob; the Exclusion Services Unit alliance I describe above (p.81-95). These gang-connected individuals aren't able to tear loose from the consensus-enforcing mob in their own work-environment their jobs being on the line if they do, and their mortgages, their marriages, their unbroken parenthood in the average male case. They are raised and are continually supplied by new individuals raised into 'PhD-hood by agreeing', where the alternative, 'nonPhD-hood by disagreeing', isn't even on the menu; cannot be. Think again, anyone who imagines a little 'internal work' can improve any of it. If that is what you think, then you are part of the problem. Get out of the way, would be my best advice to you. Needless to say, Ed-Sci is only Ed-Sci if it encourages, enables, explicitly promotes and materially rewards disagreement. And don't start lying now, Tor Tanggaard and the likes, by saying 'yes' to what I just said; bacuse you actually say the opposite, do the opposite, and teach the opposite; have done so since 1967 or longer. You are liars, violators of the human rights that our law for higher education rests on, hence violators of the intention of the laws that rest on them. And you are thieves of the salaries we pay you; we, the tax-payers. You are the staff of the whorehouse, pardon my French. All that hate and aggression for being unable to defend consensus and old habits when I, in Sept. 2015* 37 , say 1)that principles for healthy and efficient team-work need to be taught to the teacher-candidates before placing them in the obligatory teamwork sphere, and team-work-rules need to be enforced to protect individuals from abuse; and when I say, in Oct. 2015, 2)that the UiOtranslation of Vygotsky's expression 'zone of proximal development' is wrong (they made it into 'proximal zone of development', believe it or not); and when I repeatedly throughout the semester say 3)that the principles ordered by the law for teaching §1-1 dictate content and methods in teacher-training, and in that sense have validity for the teaching of teaching-candidates: the order to teach and practice a scientific way of thinking (explicitly verified in the curriculum literature, and ordered for all instruction in basic schooling grunnskolen & videregående), and the order to let children "learn critical thinking" (which necessitates disagreement, and lots of it, because 'critical thinking' means analytical thinking); and, in the two lectures where the fake quotes were displayed and read out loud, say 4)that the real 1967 Piaget-quotes are opposite of what they say in all UiO-lectures that touch on learning-theory; quotes that therefore are fake, forged, as is the model of learning that needs fake quotes for support. * 37 When I bring up issue 1), I do so in a private face to face conversation with Dr. Øystein ....., outside on the campus grounds. His face turns dark with rage as I speak, like you see it in the photostrip, making me acutely aware that something is very wrong. Issue 2) is what I share in a 25-teacher-candidate large 'seminarclass', a partial presentation I'm scheduled to give; one during which did you guess it? right: Øystein .....'s face turns darkly aggressive, again, in front of everyone; with the tone of voice to go with it, and the staccato talk, the body-language; a boiling rage on his face, similar to what you see in the photo-strip. I bring up issues 3) and 4) on a handful of occasions in the plenum dialogues that the lecturers almost always invite to at least two or three times each 45-minute period of lecturing. So, only after I raise a hand when lecturers invite the audience to participate, do I talk. And it is a natural thing to do in this lecture too, if I have a related issue in mind when the female lecturer invites the plenum to participate with questions. And comments are accepted too, since they are usually implicit questions; matters to discuss. All this is, is the expected adhering to the criteria of scientific activity that hold anywhere in academia in all 'fields' of it, except here, apparently or allegedly, in the alleged 'Ed-Sci'. That is, Ed-Sci usually appears to be about science and evidencedictated behaviors, methods and conclusions. But the test is the appearance of consensus-damning evidence. When it surfaces, so does the true nature of the people who cling to publically financed academic offices. They are paid to do science; in this case literally paid to teach teacher-candidates how to behave in order to "promote a scientific way of thinking" and "critical thinking", and so on, in children's minds (§1-1 in the law for teaching). So, if they prove to really be doing politics and consensus-protection, then that would be the equivalent of embezzlement of public funds, theft of the salaries they collect. If fraudulently keeping the evidence-supported competing scientific view away from students' ears and eyes, then it is a double crime we have on our hands, one that affects all of us a flat-earthconcept that keeps us dumber than we need to be, for generations. How long are we going to allow our Parliament to allow this to go on? We have charlatans in the offices of teacher-education, quacks preventing the Ed-Sci we are paying for but withdrawing the funds for it. The lecturer on this particular day decides to deny one particular teacher-candidate's access to the full class dialogue she herself explicitly invites to; silence him before he has even uttered a word. Only 3 of the total 250 teacher-candidates have a hand up in the last of the invited plenum-dialogues during the first 45-minute segment, and I am one the rest are speechless, passive spectators to the unlawful discrimination and hate-expressions by which they are all taught the low value of the discriminated teacher-candidate. An hour before this particular lecture on 11. Nov. 2015, depthead Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde accuses me by email of having "gravely disturbed the lectures", to which I reply "I have only spoken after being given the access to speak by the lecturer" (Norw. idiosyncrasy: "... after being given the word...: "Jeg har bare snakket etter å ha blitt gitt ordet* 38 av foreleser"), the lecturer inviting the audience, and the raising of hands. Miss Mai Lill then evidently forms a strategy together with today's female lecturer: keep me silent in the 'open dialogue'-segments and threaten to have me removed if I refuse to be discriminated. And that is what they do and the three videosegments prove (on you-tube). So the female lecturer is actually quoting me* 38 quoting my email to dept. head Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde 60 minutes before the lecture, the recess of which is displayed in the photo-strips above and below when she says "You have not been given access to speak" and "I am not giving you access to speak" (uttered in Norwegian idiosyncrasy: "Du har ikke fått ordet"; "Jeg gir deg ikke ordet"* 38 ). How childishly evil isn't that, darkly laughable, evidence of a contempt that has no place in the context of bringing forth evidence that have direct bearing on the matter taught. The problem, naturally, is that the evidence brought proves the matter taught a hoax. The learning-model defended by the fake quotes is a hoax for being defended by a hoax. It is a model that isn't defended by anything scientific; not by any relevant quote other than the fake Piaget-quotes and the Bible. That learning-model is the 'self-reflect, admit errors and modify' type model consistently and systematically instilled in the minds of teacher-candidates and all students of Ed-Sci in Norway (I suspect in all of Scandinavia, perhaps even the whole Nordic group of nations, the Viking-lands). It is essentially the Medieval (pre-renaissance) 'admit-and-repent' type taught by THE MONKS in the old church-run higher-education; back in the times when all there was was the church-run. THAT is pretty freaking old. I'd say we ought to put it in the ground and leave it there, or burn it; and fire the ones whose brain cannot wrap itself around the simple facts of the matter. The 'open-dialogue'-segments are routine elements, offering the aura of debate, hence are what might give them scientific legitimacy; that is, the scientific legitimacy these dialogue segments offer when consensus-damaging evidence is not kept out of the open dialogue and no messenger of such evidence is being kept out, the way I am in this lecture on 11. Nov.2015. It is of course the consensus-damaging evidence that "gravely disturb" disturb consensus, not the lectures. Enhance the dialogue and the lectures is what that evidence does. The Faculty of Ed-Sci, naturally, should be grateful instead of lusting for revenge, which goes to show that the UiO is NOT participating in Ed-Sci. Rather, they are political activists, actively sabotaging Parliament-issued principles for all teaching: by undermining the ability of teacher-candidates to learn how to "promote a scientific way of thinking" and how to let all pupils "learn critical thinking" (I am quoting §1-1 of that law). On the fundamental level of the teaching of pedagogy, there is a gaping hole in the hull, and a main spar missing, the one meant to hold it all together: the insight into the validity of the 'law for teaching' in the sphere of teacher-education; pretending as they do that the principles ordered for the teaching of children need not be actively taught to all teacher-candidates - "a scientific way of thinking", "critical thinking", "equal rights", "democracy" etc. all of which must of course be PRACTICED by all teacher-candidates. Anyone who doesn't, will remain unable to TEACH and PROMOTE these principles to and among children. No one is going to pay me for teaching the institutes of Ed-Sci and their aggressive guard-dogs any of these things; and the ones who need to learn this, what do they think of me for saying these things (issues 1-4)? You see it in the contempt signaled by the eyes and facial muscles of the specimens whose abuse I put on display in these photo-strips. Not only is it an unhealthy contempt, it is directly harmful to every aspect of our civilization except perhaps the climate it is only indirectly harmful to the climate. That contempt is a numbing agent that dulls the minds and causes opposition to science to magnify and last to a degree that is radically unproportional to its merit, maybe even inversely proportional to it in many dulled minds. The more the consensus-defending population needs adjustment, the more contempt for it they mobilize. Again, in a wider format: Dr. Øystein ..... aggressively signaling an attack, moving forward while signaling that aggression, moving in a martialarts-specific attack-pattern, the way boxers do too, and myself having to move twice to avoid contact as he launches forward and, in the last split of a second, applying the sideways force from his legs that makes it a mock-assault; maintaining eye-contact with the target (myself, holding the Sony-cam shoulder-high in my right hand) in the signaled moment of impact, which causes my reflex to pan the Sonycam left, before I return it to the right, where its lens catches the delight visible on one of the females who cheered Dr. Øystein ..... in the build-up phase of the mock-assault, by shouting or, rather, joining in on the shouting performed by the female 'shouter', a teacher-candidate from Kristiansand ('live' photo-strip p.122-204) who spurs the adult schoolbully (Dr. Øystein .....) into action. We see that female shouter, aware as she is of her manipulation of the group-hate, sneaking away giggling as Dr. Øystein .....'s mock assault is under way, her and the other two females' giggling confirming she was consciously manipulating Dr. Øystein .....'s aggression and perceived what they witnessed as a physical assault, the intent of which became evident as late as the moment of signaled impact. Watch 1 st Consultant Jon Arild Lund nervously stick all his fingers between his teeth as they watch Dr. Øystein ..... attacking a teachercandidate, unable to tell whether the signaled impact will be aborted or not. No one can tell, which is the whole point of a mock-attack meant to intimidate and threaten. a visibly worried '1st Inspector' in the background the female pseudo-administrator-colleague of Jon Arild Lund turns her head, alerted by Jon Arild's tension. This is the assault 1 st Consultant Jon Arild Lund wants to erase from the memory-card he chases from this point on. The female Shouter from Kristiansand, in her dark grey wool sweater – top left corner – attempts to avoid being viewed as a mobber and crowd manipulator, and sneaks away towards the right in the picture without even looking at what appears to be the moment of impact. The female she recruited into her mobbing-scheme (next to the blue plastic water-bottle) senses the sudden absence of the female team behind her and turns her head to her right to see where they went. She gets a glimpse of the female Shouter's back and then turns her head to the left again towards the action in front of her, spotting what to her appears to be a fellow teachercandidate being thoroughly intimidated, getting what he deserves. She is about to burst out in a happy smile and a giggle:

with such an uncontrollable rage I'd say it isn't even a question whether anyone ought to let such a mind influence their own children; much less shape the future teachers of everyone else's children. In the last moment Dr. Øystein .....'s legs apply the side-ways push that makes his assault a mock assault and my reflex sends the Sony-cam in a sideways trajectory, before I bring it back towards Dr. Øystein .....: The main cheerleader of the bully's assault (turning mockassault at the moment of signaled impact), the female shouter from Kristiansand, is now on her way up the stairs along the wall, towards the exit of the lecture hall (red arrow; photostrip pp.125-209). We can safely assume she is now either teaching or applying for a teaching-job, maybe in a school near you, where we may assume she will teach children to teambully, 'to mob' (Norw. mobbe). What else can we assume? View the photo-strip and ask yourself if the shouting female in dark grey sweater will recognize her own behavior as teambullying or mobbing when she sees it among children? Naturally, she will not. I'd say the shouter demonstrated thoroughly a cemented incapacity to teach according to §1-1 in our law for teaching. And I'd say the rest of that 5 or 6-member female team are right behind her, as are many of the males we see (the three with folded arms in the top left corner of the lecture-hall in particular, but the green-jacketed male too). I'd say the 250 teachercandidates are more or less all damaged by the learned contempt towards dissent that they were programmed with in that institute, throughout the semester. Add the other two institutes in the Faculty of alleged Ed-Sci in the UiO and that is the number of damaged candidates they produce every semester newly educated teachers largely incapable of teaching according to the beautiful principles of §1-1, until this is stopped politically. Not recognizing team-bullying abusive gang-behavior and not stopping it when it appears before one's face, are acts of allowing the perpetrators to harvest the benefits they gain by it, hence constitutes accommodation of the rewards they secure by it, the enforcing of it by passivity towards reward-theft; hence constitutes the teaching of it. LEARNED CONTEMPT for "the scientific way of thinking" that Norway's Law for Teaching §1-1 ORDERS primary-, secondaryand highschool-teaching or instruction to "promote" – the taught contempt becoming learned contempt does damage to all these teacher-candidates for life. Then think about the damage it does to the children taught by teacher-candidates who learn this type of contempt, hate and aggression; here expressed against a dissenter who reads the REAL QUOTES that falsify the fake ones, and does it only after raising a hand in response to lecturer's invitation to the entire audience to participate, in the very segments of modern lectures that give scientific validity to them: the plenum dialogue. Only by manipulating that dialogue can consensus based on FAKE QUOTES, quote forgery, survive. Having internalized the fear, the most rapid learners of the taught contempt are eager to assist the abusers in the abuse of a dissenter. TAX-FINANCED abusers of Ed-Sci, alleged 'teachers of pedagogy', training NEW ABUSERS of Ed-Sci that by necessity learn to be blind to bullying, hence are unable to fight bullying among children. I engage with Dr. Øystein ..... in a dialogue live on camera referring to the discrimination by the female lecturer, ignoring his physical assault to intimidate me, which is why Dr. Øystein ..... takes a few seconds to realize I am referring to what he saw, not what he just did. For all Dr. Øystein ..... knows at this point, his facially expressed hate might not have registered on my High Definition Sony-cam, so he plays along in the topic I picked, until I state his name, live to the camera: 1 1 2 myself: "You saw what happened?" {in the lecture, the discrimi- nation} Norw.: "Du så hva som skjedde?" 3 4 myself: "And you are Øystein .....? - " "Og du er Øystein .....? - " 1 2 (I see a micro-twitch on his face as I utter "Øystein", and he turns away) 3 4 myself: "-at the ILS !" {Institute for Teacher-education and Schoolmyself: "It is discrimination." {what took place in the lecture, cf. the research} "på ILS !" {Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning} photo-strip and transcript} Norw.: "Det er diskriminering." female with scarf behind book, stealthily observing. What she is forced to learn from Dr. Øystein ..... here is in itself grave abuse. Note the synchronized set of arms at the back row. They are either thinking hard or not capable of thinking at all, for all the emotions. They are learning that something very dangerous is going on, and that is all they are capable of understanding at the moment. It is basically a centuries old type of church-meeting we are in, in the chambers of a bible-study type pseudo-academic cult, one that is squatting in the houses of Ed-Sci. What we see on this photo is a learning-environment that constitutes grave abuse of young adults. Our semi-dialogue continues: myself: "It is mobbing institutional mobbing." "Det er mobbing. Institusjonell mobbing." myself: "And you are a part of it." "Og du er en del av det." The entire Auditorium is full of fear throughout the lecture and the recess on account of 1:the openly demonstrated discrimination and the fact that I addressed it openly in real-time plenum; and 2:the aggression mounted against a messenger of a mere fact, a factually proven set of scientific quotes they have used falsified versions of since 1967, and built a house of cards on top of; Dr. Øystein ..... here making himself a proven defender of faith when he should defend science. He has made science his enemy and himself a tool for the faith he serves. He serves masters and mistresses and is willing to do the unspeakable, if needed. What restrains him in his mock assault is his awareness of the Sony-cam and the witnesses to what he might wish to do with that sony and the neck of the man who points it at him. He is capable of blocking out his mind. That is what he does in his mock-assault. I have seen brutes and bullies like this all through my childhood. And I now see them in teacher-education, of all places, where they should be rooted out by central authority – or, when central authority fails its responsibility, open competition between a new radically different institution and the old faith-based. The old will just have to go. It needs to be manouvered out the door, by a political means that works fast: competition, cutting the chord that ties the old to the belly-button of our tax-payers. That funding is now the root of the perpetualtion of the evil we see in the discrimination and the mock assault demonstrated by this photo-strip documentary. Standing higher up to the left in the photo: teacher-candidate Marte on her way up the stairs to the exit. It is recess. Marte is angry with me for having told on the female classmate she attached herself to and allowed to dominate by endless vetoobjections of everyone else in the 12-member large team and when in the smallest team by alliance-operated censorship and threats in response to fact-based and fact-oriented opposition: teacher-candidate Ann-Helen. Standing to the right, Institute administrative clerk Mr. Jon Arild Lund, next to a female colleague who gives them advice on how to proceed. Jon Arild Lund is about to get very energetic in his attempt to have a security guard confiscate the videorecord I am securing of the witnesses still present in the recess. At this moment, the two only know what they have been told by their colleagues, who have been trying since August to get rid of me. in the lower right cornertwo 'overseers' of a congregation of young adults that must be guided into the right pedagogic faith, by any means possible, like for example the fake Piaget-quotes I have documented, obviously a great embarrassment for them. These 'overseers' call themselves 'researchers' when THEY video-record children in the classroom; but look how they react when THEY find themselves in the captured cone of a video-cam, in this case my Sony-cam. Suddenly they act as if it is an evil thing to do; almost like the animals in Alf Prøysen's story the baby-goat who could count to ten – in which the calf, a spokes-animal among the animals already chasing the goat, says "Oh, but now he counted you too" each time the goat, while being chased, meets a new animal it counts out loud as it passes by, each time summing up: "One for the calf, two for the sheep..." and so on, until a typical domestic variety of the sub-arctic animal kingdom is lined up in the chase to get the goat – allegorically depicting the least sinister version of a scapegoat targeted by vulgar, manipulated ignorance. The more sinister version would be the one with 'an overseer' over 'a congregation' it manipulates into chasing the goat who could count to ten. This particular morning in the Auditorium 1 of the UiO campus Helga Eng's building, we have both scenarios in full operation: the 'overseer' and the 'calf' type spokes-animal version of the baby-goat who could count to ten (Norw.: Geitekillingen som kunne telle til ti); I, obviously, trying to be the 'babygoat' of the allegory (cf. the advertisement below). I wouldn't want to be among the rest of the pack, who see knowledge as an evil. http://www.bokklubben.no/SamboWeb/produkt.do?produktId=117694 The story ends where the road ends and the ferry-boat is ready for boarding; but it can only take ten passengers, and the value of the goat's annoying insightfulness is suddenly made apparent to all – within their lifetime, not like with the averagely miserable homo-sapien vulgarized stupidity, which is doomed to last until the extinction of a whole generation, and then some. In the meantime, a generation uses its stupid for all they are worth, selling them a most profitable career, in this case as hired murderers of dissidents' careers. It is, of course, taught hate and nothing more, in the middle of Norwegian higher education, and NOBODY SCREAMS STOP into their ears. I am merely pointing at the obvious. What they are doing to teacher-candidates is gravely harmful to our new generations. Dr. Øystein ..... here isn't acting on his own, he is a tool for a lobby-society that sucks taxfunds into their own pockets, and commits scientific FRAUD as a tool to keep their undeserved power over facts, holding an entire Ed-Sci hostage. The whole gang of pseudo-holy figures need to be poked with a pointed stick and removed from office. And there are political tools to do just that. We must not hate them, we must simply go around them, by putting our tax-money elsewhere. Because they are truly as stupid as they look on these photos. They have made themselves what they are. It's going to take economic hardship to force them out of that state of mind. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/ ... http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/adm/jonalu/index.html right side: Jon Arlid Lund and a female colleague: overseers of a congregation; 'elders' in a faith-based tax-payers-financed cult that occupies offices that belong to Ed-Sci. The cult has no place in Ed-Sci. It must be ended politically in order to make room for Ed-Sci. 'Ed-Sci' is not an organisation or institution; it is 'something we do': essentially what I do when I quote THE REAL 1967 Piaget-quotes and demand we discuss the difference with the incorrect ones and the consequences it has a)for all models of learning we SAY are Piaget's model or build on his model, essentially consequences for ALL MODERN PEDAGOGY, and b)FOR ITS RATIONALE – both of which fall apart. Modern Pedagogy depends on its rationale, told to all naive bystanders and to the politicians who send them our tax-money; a collectively memorized lie. Naturally, the entire house of cards glides apart in chaos, void by evidence. THAT is where the rage of Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) ..... originates. As their defence the Institute then says "Piaget's quotes are not relevant, not important" (in a letter) a quite ridiculous claim, because the Institute are indeed the people who systematically and consistently USE Piaget and include his name and fake quotes in ALL introductory segments on learning-theory. They have done so for decades, and now the UiO-institute (ILS ) and its 'faculty' of alleged Ed-Sci are trying to hide from the fact, having stabbed aggressively at the obvious winner of the scientific debate. The UiO's Faculty of Ed-Sci has moved from argumentum ad hominem to aggressus ad cuerpo. Now all they can do is hide from the debate and hope everyone forgets, and hoping to forever continue reaping our tax-money and calling themselves Ed-Sci, which they are not. Marte (in her grey skihat) goes to recess. Below: taught contempt internalized, visibly delighted after the assault. Her being annoyed by my Sony-cam is for being put on record as witness to the discrimination that took place. The ones who learn the contempt taught are the ones who are opposed to the use of a Sony-cam in the recess. But there is no opposition against other students' filming with their webcams and smart-phones. I nonetheless intend to put them on record as witnesses to the discrimination that took place before recess and which is about to accelerate in the next 45minute-segment (cf. to be uploaded: the Blindern photo-strips). Rune: left photo, in foreground: Rune. Rune, John and I had to escape from the abusive dialogue in the 12member team on the 2nd day of the 1st week at the practice-venue-school. After I brought it up with the responsible teachers and the Institute, Rune has seen the aggression mounted in defence of the status quo message: improve nothing in the course and have no instruction in scientifically and ethically sound team-work-dialogue – which is what allows the socially aggressive to form an alliance with the passive and use the alliance to abuse anyone with better ideas. Having scared the passive into acquiescing to her will, the aggressive moves on to threaten anyone with different or better ideas into silence, anyone with insights not understood by the aggressive. Everyone must quickly stop contributing and let the aggressive suggest, debate and conclude; or else the aggressive and her alliance voices a rapid veto. Rune's 'scared stiff' turned to the angry mode he is in here. He has decided to not discuss any of the abuses he was a victim of himself (dialogue transcript, Appendix I), and he absolutely hates being put on record, by myself, as one with first hand knowledge of the truth of what I report. It appears the female finds this whole situation somewhat darkly laughable, Rune here mostly seeing the dark. This is later in the recess, and I comment audibly to Rune, with reference to the span of the entire semester up to and including today's discrimination: Myself, medium loud, towards Rune: "And Rune has witnessed the whole thing from the very beginning." He signals that he didn't hear what I said, so I say it again, after which, Rune: "Witness to what exactly?" Norw. – jeg, hørbart til Rune: "Og Rune har vaert vitne til det helt i fra begynnelsen." (gjentas) Rune: "Vitne til hva da?" The teacher candidate holding the Sony-cam addresses Rune, a peer: "And Rune has witnessed the whole thing from the very beginning." (Norw.: "Og Rune har vaert vitne til det helt ifra begynnelsen.") Rune: "Hm?" Candidate behind the camera: "You have been witness to the whole thing from the very beginning." Norw.: "Du har vaert vitne til det helt ifra begynnelsen." The peer (Rune): " Witness - " Norw.: " Vitne - " SPOKEN WORD CAPTION SYNCRONIZED WITH VISUAL SNIPPETS: " to - " Norw.: " til - " The first of four rapidly succeeding shoulder-jerks, raises shoulders spastically. Many have expressed the insight that these shoulder-spasms are nerve-expressions that speak of deceit. Rune is being deceptive, and he knows it so well that his nervous-system reacts against it, producing strong and rapid micro shoulder-jerks that are clearly visible on the video as he denies knowing what I am referring to: the team-work in which he was bullied into silence by two females who sabotaged the entire team-work, both demanding to be the sole speaker, the 'Dominator', their idea of 'team-leader', both incessantly interrupting everyone except each other, uttering "No, I think ..." as the speaker inhales to continue the point they were trying to make, and doing it every time Rune opened his mouth (cf. Appendix I), 15-20 times being a modest estimate, until he gave up, as did the rest of the 12-member large team on the second day of the 'team-work'. On the first day John, Erik and I had to escape from these two females and work in our own subteam. The two females (Ann-Helen and Oda) aspiring for the role as censorship-operator produced 4 female mutes and 3 male mutes, and attempted to count them as 'votes' each for the veto she had uttered against a suggestion contributed by a team-member; veto after veto, against anyone who said something myself included. I had resorted to note-taking on the second day, for the purpose of sharing the pathology with the world. " what? " Norw.: " hva? " The peer's "Witness to what?" (Norw.: "Vitne til hva?") is an implicit lie cf. Appendix I, Dialogue 2. Myself to Rune: "And Rune has been witness to it from the very beginning." ("Og Rune har vaert vitne til det helt fra begynnelsen.") Rune knows all about the in-team abuses cf. Appendix I, Dialogue 2. Download pdf and set to screen-size for smooth viewing, then SCROLL the 'Live photo-strip' - Truthtelling shoulder-heaves of deception This is what it looks like when Rune, a teacher-candidate, is afraid to talk about what he knows: (a "cf. LIE TO ME, the series"-reference here wouldn't serve to justify my own deduction of deceitfulness, inasmuch as I know Rune is deceitful and Rune knows that I know but tries to keep up a face for the camera; so reminding the reader of the "Lie to me"-series only serves the purpose of amusingly clarifying to the reader what I say we are about to see:) DISGUST AND CONTEMPT 1 st HEAVE shoulders and arms rise 1 st HEAVE shoulders and arms rise 1 st HEAVE shoulders and arms rise 1 st HEAVE shoulders and arms rise 1 st HEAVE SPEECH PREPARATION, SILENT SPEECH PREPARATION, SILENT " V " " VAERT " Been " VAERT " Been " VAERT " Been " V " " VITNE " WITNESS 2nd. HEAVE, SHOULDER SHRUG " VITNE " WITNESS 2nd. HEAVE, SHOULDER SHRUG " VITNE " WITNESS 2nd. HEAVE, SUPER-TENSION THAT ENDS IN A SUPERSHRUG DROP " VITNE " WITNESS 2nd. HEAVE, SUPER-TENSION THAT ENDS IN A SUPERSHRUG DROP " VITNE " WITNESS 2nd. HEAVE, SUPER-TENSION THAT ENDS IN A SUPERSHRUG DROP - - SUPER-TENSION " T " SUPER-TENSION " TIL " TO SUPER-TENSION " TIL " TO SUPER-TENSION " TIL " TO SUPER-TENSION " HV " SUPER-TENSION SUPERSHRUG DROP: " HVA " WHAT SUPERSHRUG DROP " DA ? " ? SUPERSHRUG DROP " DA ? " ? " DA ? " ? " DA ? " ? 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 1st HEAVE SHOULDERS AND ARMS UP 1st HEAVE SHOULDERS AND ARMS UP 1st HEAVE SHOULDERS AND ARMS UP 1st HEAVE SHOULDERS AND ARMS UP 1st HEAVE SHOULDERS AND ARMS UP 1st HEAVE SHOULDERS AND ARMS UP CONSCIOUS DISGUST CONSCIOUS DISGUST CONSCIOUS DISGUST CONSCIOUS DISGUST CONSCIOUS DISGUST CONSCIOUS DISGUST THROUGHOUT THE SPEECH ACT FACE: CONTEMPT SHOULDER HEAVES AND SUPERSHRUGS: DECEPTION SPEECH PREPARATION, SILENT SPEECH PREPARATION, SILENT " V " " VAERT " Been " VAERT " Been " VAERT " Been " V " " VITNE " witness 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " VITNE " witness 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " VITNE " witness 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " VITNE " witness 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " VITNE " witness " VITNE " witness 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG - - 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " T " 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " TIL " to 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " TIL " to 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " TIL " to 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " HV " " HVA " what " HVA " what " DA ? " ? " DA ? " ? " DA ? " ? 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is deceptive about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) " DA ? " ? 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is deceptive about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is deceptive about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) - - 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is deceptive about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) - - 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is deceptive about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) - - 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION DECEPTION The two teacher-candidates to the left do not know that Rune is hiding something. They spent their practical exercise period in another practice-venue. Now they are just observing the aggression and contempt and learning that without agreeing with it they too can become targets of it. It frightens them. It is a rational fear, as is Rune's. CONTEMPT AND FURY throughout the continuation: CONTEMPT AND FURY throughout the continuation: CONTEMPT AND FURY throughout the continuation: CONTEMPT AND FURY throughout the continuation: CONTEMPT AND FURY throughout the continuation: Rune in his own opinion deceptive by necessity EYE-CONTACT THAT BURNS Rune in his own opinion deceptive by necessity. Contempt is aggression, and this is the fear-aggression connection. It is recess the female lecturer was informed within 30 minutes of the lecture's beginning that I replied "I have only spoken when given my turn to speak by the lecturer, after raising my hand when the lecturer invited the audience to participate" when Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde accused me by email 77 minutes before this very lecture that I would be sanctioned if I disturbed the lectures again, after starting her email by saying my participation has been "gravely disturbing to the lectures". Both Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde and this particular lecturer on the photo are visually anonymous on the UiO staff-list, interestingly, Mai Lill Suhr Lunde by way of a 20-30 year-old photo from the 80s by the looks of it. She looks vastly different today, and the photo only serves as a disguise. I verified Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde's present appearance when she played the role she called "protocol-writer" in the interrogation-meeting she herself "called in" for, in spite of (according to a letter from two clerks in the Ministry of Education) having no such authority to demand candidates let her and her commander Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien have their way when they 'call in for questioning' a teacher-candidate who discovers scientific facts and shares them in plenum – even, as here, to the detriment of consensus. She looked nothing like this young and 'hopefully looking for a leadership-career but maybe not in cancerresearch where I am now' type of female that she was in the 1980s: http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/adm/mailills/index.html (quoted 23.Sep.2016) It is, in OFFICIAL governmental terms, UNHEARD of, what they are doing administration-wise in the UiO's Faculty of Ed-Sci (undervisningsvitenskapelig fakultet (uv-fak) and all of its 'Institutes', the "ILS" being the one I have investigated (ILS being "Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning", which means "Institute for Teacher-education and School-research"); and they DO IT TO ALL who dare prove today's consensus the big pile of baloney it objectively by all evidence there is – in fact is. The alleged quotes and paraphrases they use consistently and systematically are HOME MADE, a FORGERY (the slogan that Piaget's 'accommodation is defined as modification' is central cf. Quoteand citation-fraud at the UiO, Soerfjord 2015); which makes the cognitive model they base on the alleged quotes and paraphrases and impute to Piaget, a lie; which makes the theory of learning and teaching they talk about when they let the lie back them up, a scientific hoax I'm referring to what we might derogatorily represent by the image I call the 'you must admit your faults and self-modify in order to learn' type explicit set of mantras and methods, very harmful when combined with the 'let the team of young adults in obligatory team-work loose against the individual human beings in the team and see what happens' Lord-of-the-Flies* 39 type abuse (* 39 the book, William Golding 1954 read it if you do not understand). It is actually faith, this whole thing they are doing to teacher-candidates in Scandinavia and most of the modern world, so some might say we should respect their pedagogic faith. I would disagree and say they should open up a church and stop messing with the minds of teacher-candidates. Besides, we have better things to spend our (in Scandinavia) tax-money on than pedagogic faith-based quotefraud-operated manipulation. I proved the fraud to the Institute, who engage Dr. Eyvind Elstad to write a child-like little letter that says "Piaget's theory isn't relevant unless one is a sciencehistorian", quite a laughable way of shouting nonsense across the street to the neighbor and slam the window shut when done (cf Soerfjord 2015). The administrators of the Institute all females enclose a copy of Dr. Elstad's letter when they write the official letter to me that says "it isn't relevant because Dr.Elstad says it isn't", and "Elstad doesn't refer to Piaget" while ALL of his colleagues in the UiO who touch on learning-theory, IN ALL faculties and institutes and academies, do refer to Piaget; do it consistently and systematically; do repeat the inherited lie, every time they can; do benefit by having that lie 'back them up' in their contorted theory of learning, church-authored such, hundreds of years old made by men of the dark-ages. It is the 'admit and modify thyself' rule of a church-run higher education of the middle ages revitalized by adding Piaget's name to it, against his will. Jean Piaget understood that the Ed-Sci-people didn't understand his cognitive model and only tried to use it as reference for their own benefit. But Piaget doesn't seem to have discovered what the details of their motive was. I have. – Dr. Eyvind Elstad, by the way, is a lecturing PhD with the benefit of 'being called professor', not merely 'BEING professor with a servant's job-title (amanuensis)' like most of the professors without the professor-title who are being inbread for selective promotion to 'being called professor' as well as 'being it'. It is the 'team-as-one-mind-only' mode, a ridiculous way Scandinavia has of pushing down the individual in order to 1:make him and her a 'team-player' server of consensus and 2:save wage-expenses. The first of them, the 'one-mind-only type team' motive, kept the earth officially flat for over a thousand years while Latin men of books understood better but were killed for it (that's right, the telescope-dude wasn't the first). the holder of the camera, as most of the crowd exits auditorium No.1 of the Helga Eng's building on UiO campus Blindern. It is 15 minutes recess between two 45-minute-periods of a lecture, 11.Nov.2015; and that is Dr. Øystein ..... standing guard along the wall, watching me, getting ready but looking for the excuse he needs to make it look ok. many remain, aware of something they do not understand: here "first-inspector" (they actually call it that) Jon Arild Lund is discussing with Dr. Øystein ..... how to proceed to get rid of me a scientific threat to their consensus. The holder of the Sony-cam, myself, narrating the discrimination by the female lecturer the preceding 45-minute-period, consistently throughout the dialogsegments (in which the lecturer asks the whole audience to participate). Two, only, other than myself, raised a hand, and the lecturer cut the dialog short because no one else had anything to ask or share, bewildered or in awe as they were from the onset of this lecturer's demonstrative exclusion of myself from the 'open dialogue' segment (an essential set of brief dialogues that on account of being 'open' are viewed as "scientifically" oriented and thereby legitimize the activity as 'science', the very aim of 'Ed-Sci', allegedly. She did not want to 'give me my turn to speak' at all and demonstrated that intent openly before the 250 teacher candidates when I openly addressed verbally what everyone were seeing each time she looked straight at my raised hand and my face only to move her eyes away and across the audience to look for others willing to participate cf. the above reference to the email I sent Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde before the lecture began, in reply of her accusation and threat of being excluded if I "interrupt", hence the intention to make me have to "interrupt" in order to participate in the learning-experience, which always includes the raising of hands and openly participating in the supposedly pedagogic dialogue. It is my reply email to Miss Mai Lill the 20-30 years older, more sinister and less scientifically oriented version of her saying "I have only spoken when being given my turn to speak" we are seeing the result of here – in the female lecturer/administrator's refusal to point at me when I raise my hand, after SHE EXPLICITLY INVITES AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION and only I and two more among 250 raise a hand, and then verbally refuses when I address that discrimination verbally, in real time, with 249 witnesses, roughly. This continues in the second 45 minute period. What is being taught, in other words, is 'how to handle a scientifically dissenting and verbally annoying person who refuses to shut up about it when told in writing that his discovery is irrelevant'. What Dr. Øystein ..... does next is teach the 249 or so how to handle the dissident when he refuses to be discriminated in the dialogue segments of the learning experience in the course he is officially enrolled in. Naturally, it is basically unlawful, both parts of it. The female lecturer basically quotes me repeatedly, throughout, each time saying "No, I have not given you your turn to speak" (Norw. idiom: "Nei, Jeg har ikke gitt deg ordet"). This is FEAR in a publically financed room where SCIENCE should reign and educational SCIENTISTS should lecture administrate too, if you ask me. There is an essential wrong in the core of each of the administrators that fill these buildings of so-called 'Ed-Sci', and it spreads to the lecturers that hope for promotion or merely hope to keep their jobs. Which political party is going to pick up this gauntlet and terminate the monster ? Opening up a radically different institution able to compete economically, and cutting off all competition-disturbing funding for the present, would be the way to do it. The scientifically best institution wins in an open society. 28 Seconds to the assault: (1:27 into video 2, p. 56: 12 seconds to the mock-assault) the red arrow, in right side of the photo, points at a female teachercandidate from Kristiansand who, from her forward-bent position, keeps shouting (emotional more than evil) slurs at me; the same female that operated her topic-censorship all semester, both in seminar-room-plenum (20-25 candidate-large) and team-work dialogs at the teaching-practicevenue (Flaatestad 7 to 10 grade school 20 km south of down-town Oslo); operating it with slurs and the expression of extreme mood-swings triggered by details of various kinds and working herself up into a frightening hatefulness that one had to somehow escape from by being silent or leaving the room. It may have natural causes that we may have to understand her recently having become parent, for example; and I think we all assumed that to be the case. Her behaviour was nonetheless gravely abusive and a typical example of serious mobbing in the work environment, consistently so but targeted against certain types of topic-analysis, which means she targeted individuals who tend to bring up problematic detail individuals like myself, all semester. That is why I am putting her and her mob on video-record as having witnessed the Institute-operated discrimination aimed to get rid of me 1:on behalf of themselves as recipients of my annoying theoretical proof of Piaget's real quotes, hence the real cognitive model of his and, even more importantly, its relevance to a modern theory of learning and teaching; and 2:on behalf of fellow candidates who report me to the Institute (To Dr. Øystein ..... here and his colleagues) for bringing up these and other interesting and annoying facts when lecturers invite the whole class or lecture-room-audience to participate. 2 or 3 of the 250 teacher-candidates this semester have, at various times, acting alone, engaged in medium to loud shouting of slurs at me aggressive such from their seats in the audience while I have been in dialog with a lecturer who invited the audience to participate. Lecturers always invite the audience at regular intervals; and the ones who have something to ask or share, which usually is an implicit question or some dilemma to consider simply raise a hand, and the lecturer then points at the person whose turn it is now to speak. Posing the question takes anywhere from 5 seconds to about a minute; and often the response isn't a single speechevent but a brief dialog back and forth, maybe to raise the specificity of the question or bring an inevitable follow-up question and pursue a consequence that necessarily is so from the given answer. This is what "a scientific perspective" amounts to – like it or not. Some do not like it, but that is just tough luck. It is a perspective that Parliament has ORDERED – in §1-1 of Norway's Law for teaching, which necessarily dictates principles that hold for teacher-education as well. How can teacher-candidates teach those principles if they don't learn them in their teacher-training? They must of course be made to LIVE those very principles on campus, and in the lecture hall, and in the seminar room, and in the so-called 'team-work', and in the practice-venues during their teaching-exercise, the entire semester, each semester. a female teacher-candidate from Kristiansand, at the end of the red arrow, keeps shouting from her forward-bent position, while disguising her mouth. Three of her allies sit next to her, and others join in as the spectacle develops, a stage show taking place in a learning-environment designed for abuse. Andy: Andy in the top left corner always (throughout the semester) willingly entertaining the female topic-censorship, here smiling while the female from Kristiansand, at the tip of the red arrow, is shouting her discontentment with my video-recording, well aware of the good reason I have for doing it. It is recess, but these females want to watch the conclusion and help bring about the desired outcome of taught contempt: aggression. Andy learned the phrases used by this particular southern female in whole class dialogue to counter my "facts must dictate faith" and "the best argument must win" (in Ed-Sci as elsewhere) claims. The answer Andy learned from this particular female is: "But then you and I cannot communicate" or "cannot debate". He used it when I, a month later, met him in the UiO coffee shop on campus he was sitting together with a friend. He smiled as he inserted it into my sentence where my "facts dictate faith" was an introductory adverbial subclause closing the door on that rational dialogue with the judgmental slogan and a rapid-speech-mode that seems to make him feel socially victorious, capable of inserting objecting clauses in the middle of people's sentences, like "but then you and I cannot communicate" before he even hears what it is that is in the process of being spoken. Lacking a science-compatible guidance in Ed-Sci, these young adults have to make their own principles, tentatively so; and they are decidedly more aggressive, these principles, than the ones they will negotiate for themselves later in life. It is a decidedly aggressive learning-environment they find themselves in, and they end up making a decidedly aggressive social construction among themselves. This is mobbing in Ed-Sci. It is the core of the pressure towards alikethinking that the Minister of Education was confronted with in the 17. March 2016 symposium on education in Oslo, first by myself and then by all the succeeding four or five contributors in the audience-questions-round at the end of it. The Minister of Education seemed undeterred, naturally so, because he seemed to also positively not understand it. He seems to genuinely think he is 'doing something about it' by 'telling others to think about it and do something'. That seems to be either 1:his intellectual limitation or 2:his mysteriously applied genius and with everything relevant falling in an unspoken 'collateral damage'-category. In other words, he either doesn't get any of this or he wants it all to be just like this in which case we are all really screwed. And I really think we are truly screwed, but mostly because he does not want to be 'the doer', but rather wants to be the 'sayer', the one who says 'do'. He wants to 'say' the 'do' without the 'how' and then move on to another 'say'-sphere of what he imagines to be his job. It leaves higher education in general, Educational Science in particular, in the hands of the church-authored teaching-paradigm that falsified Piaget's 1967definition of 'learning' to serve their organized perpetuation of the same old set of practical methods taught to junior academics who must obey or loose all hope to ever be promoted. I have proved the forgery of Piaget's cognitive model. I have also proved the 'peer-exclusion-threat' pedagogy to be a systematic and consistent tool in teacher-education. Finally, I have proved analytically that it is contrary to human rights, hence contrary to the law anywhere in western Europe and the British Commonwealth (Soerfjord 2015); in all human-rights-founded democratic nations on our planet. The 'warped-theory-for-continuity of praxis' pathology appears to be more of a problem in countries with fully state-sponsored higher education, hence virtually free university-courses. If that is true, then it is so in part because where government funds roll in, a mob forms, and it fights for itself; works to secure its economic position and the rank-system that allows them to dominate and secures their profit. No consensus-opposing new thinking is allowed in the mind of people they employ. Hence they employ them from within, thereby giving continuously birth to itself, an aggressive eternal pedagogic faith. the female from Kristiansand keeps shouting, while using her hand to disguise her mouth. Eliciting support of her aggression is what she is doing. She has done it the entire semester, each time I have brought up some theoretical or practical pedagogical detail in class. the female from Kristiansand (red arrow) keeps shouting while hiding her mouth behind her hand. I know her dialect well and recognize her voice, as do all the others present in the auditorium. She has continuously opposed me with slurs in all open dialogues from August up to this morning, on 11.Nov.2015. The rest of the seated group attached themselves one by one to her, forming a gradually growing mob against rational debate about anything relevant to current consensus in Ed-Sci. It is a lecturer-initiated (Dr. Oeystein ..... through the entire semester) male-student-assisted, pre-ponderously female driven, aggressive demand for 'pleasant harmony'; one they will obtain by social cruelty, if needed. ! The parallel with more primitive animal predator flock-culture is striking. This is hate-behaviour that Parliament has attempted to regulate against in other domains of hate-expressions, regulation that may even have transferable validity and be used or expanded to curb this particular kind. Taught escape from dissidence young adults seeking safety from what Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) ..... has taught them is a danger to them all: dissidence; Dr. Øystein ..... here trying to be the model of properly aggressive behaviour towards such dissenters as I am. This is so-called 'learning through modelling'. The aggression being modelled is quickly internalized by the domineering among the teacher-candidates, who express it and then have their followers join them. It is taught group-behavior on the most primitive level – a pre-ice-age type unaffected by annoying principles of ethics, and it is taking place in rooms financed by tax-payers, where educational science, Ed-Sci, is what should be going on. The forward-bent female teacher-candidate from Kristiansand keeps shouting, partly hidden, but she misjudges the rate of change of the camera's angle, so her manipulation, gang-bullying (mobbing) and her lack of the integrity and sense of ethics that in my view is required for all teachers is thereby on the record. the female from Kristiansand keeps shouting her discontentment at me (below): all seeking safety from dissidence; as taught by Dr. Øystein ..... here, who elicits the will of the female student-mob, whose will in this case is dominated by the forward-bent female from Kristiansand, who continuously shouts while disgusing her mouth with her hand; a behavior she has expressed repeatedly in similar manners, all through the semester, with lecturers enforcing her behavior by allowing her censorship to rule. It is a chief female mobber in action. As Dr. Øystein ..... crosses her direct line of sight to my Sony-cam, the female candidate from Kristiansand looks up to see what effect her shouting might be having: Ole: Ole, the bearded in black coat, behind in the middle, is in the social sciences instruction- ("didactics-") course (Norw.: samfunnsfag didaktikkurs; didaktikk=instruksjon). Ole used to study psychology, and started off showing respect for my insights in the theory-practice-connections of learning and teaching; but quickly learned how the Institute and its lecturers all, with one coordinated voice, teach contempt towards insights of that calibre and express that contempt as hate and institutional threats - 'calling-in' such individuals to reprimand them if they do not shut up about it; then thwart their teaching-exercise at the practice-venue by feeding negative information to the practice-venue about the candidate in advance,* 40 which functions as a request for the practice-venue to look for reasons to send the Institute a 'doubt-incandidate' report, which allows the Institute to make the teachingexercise of that particular candidate into a never-ending series of ipso facto extra -exams aka 'listening-in' by aka 'specialists' sent by the Institute; then in each case discriminate the singled-out candidate openly in open class dialogue all of it documented empirically by myself, and all of it happening in a coordinated fashion patently unlawfully so, in broad 'daylight', with everyone in government shutting their eyes to it. So Ole early learned to stay away from me, keep his distance, scared stiff. * 40 the negative information sent causes the receiver of such "information" to react and evaluate emotionally and with a bias, expressed as discrimination of various sorts. In this case the 'information' is a message given by Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) ..... before the practiceperiod even began, naming one particular teacher-candidate that "can be domineering" (me), given to the receiver at Flaatestad school 20 km south of down-town Oslo: Miss May Britt Esse Berge, who then consistently uttered her "but make it short"-order – in a sharp tone that seemed to come out of the blue, but did no such thing, inasmuch as it came from the darkened mood we see in the photo-strip, directly or indirectly from that very person, Dr. Øystein ..... – Miss May Britt Esse Berge using it to operate her bias in front of everybody each time it was my turn in plenum (and only when it was my turn) to share a reflection in the 20-candidate meetings she hosted for us candidates, most of whom spoke for 10-20 minutes as they shared a 'personal-victory' or 'admit-and-repent' type story, compared to the 3 to 4 1⁄2 minutes I needed to share one of my own somewhat more unusual insights or reflections. The explicitly uttered bias by Miss May Britt Esse Berge is of course in itself social bully-behavior, so-called mobbing, in a work environment she controls by social means. That specific mobbing is at the same time the teaching of how to mob; teaching teacher-candidates how to be mobbers, candidates that are supposed to be working against mobbing but for decades have been distinctly blind towards it. This is HOW to produce teachers with that very blindness. What we have here, in Miss May Britt Esse Berge, is a person who functions as a key instrument in the sifting out of personalities 'not liked' by those who dominate the work-environment in public schools, a person who herself proves to be a mobber; one who as I demonstrate by quoting a report originating in Miss May Britt Esse Berge's hands (cf. Simultaneous Chatter Style Pedagogy, Soerfjord 2016) doctors the report (fixes it) and adds hate-language to it, as if to make her rumor-based unlawful exclusion look evidence-based. Too far-fetched to seem credible? That is what they are counting on, the alike-thinker-'teams' that operate this particular corner of the personality-sifting-process; and Miss May Britt Esse Berge is a corner stone in her particular local region of that nationally operated unlawful sifting-process, counting on credibility by her chuckles, jokes, alliance-forming and unlawful mobbing; including unlawful exclusion of dissenters. Miss May Britt Esse Berge and the school she serves are themselves consistently in violation of §1-1 of Norway's Law for teaching, which orders them to teach and practice principles of behavior that are the exact opposite of the bias-and-rumour-based personality-sifting that Miss May Britt Esse Berge plays a leading part within, a pseudospokesperson-type role, within the local environment she dominates, taming Ed-Sci into complying with her will laughing, joking, chuckling, threatening and getting ready to scream if opposed. May Britt Esse Berge visual quote from: https://www.facebook.com/maybritt.eb on 18.Sep.2016. Listen to a sample of the light-headed nature of her judgmental sifting of personalities (unlawfully so) in her work environment on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m6vsrCNvE4&feature=youtu.be (part 1) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAl5UcOtCOE&feature=youtu.be (part 2) (visual quote from 18.Sep.2016) Miss May Britt Esse Berge explicitly quoted "the ILS" (the Institute for Teacher-education and School-research) – saying "ILS informed me that you can be domineering" – and did so in the very instant I was telling her 1:of the abuses that went on in the around-the-table-dialogue of the socalled team-work we were told to do at that practice-venue-school, and 2:the refusal of her colleague ,'guidance-teacher' Miss Maria Sofie Olsson, to come and assist us when I walked the 20 meters to where she was sitting – three times in that 'around-the-table-dialog' as the abuse was ongoing – and Miss Maria Sofie Olsson was too busy chewing her mouthfuls of food, refusing to be 'disturbed'. I guess I really taught her how annoying I am and how important it was for her to get rid of me. partially Undercover application of the "scientific" perspective ordered by law: Within the scope of my research on not in, beware of the difference – teacher education, is the goal of 1)actually passing the courseprogram, but doing so with one's investigative and scientifically critical perspective in full operation, as well as 2)actually applying for a job as an English-teacher after the course, and extend the empirical sample as far as possible, being 'a researcher of pedagogy who teaches', in the ideal case of Ed-Sci and the work-environment functioning as it should, the way it was intended to function. That last segment of the scope, applying for a job, is crucial, as it will give information on whether the inquisitive candidate who waits until after passing his teaching-exercise (his 'practice-period') before he expresses his scientifically critical potential then still becomes the victim of being black-listed from job-interviews in public schools, or from the proper treatment in those job-interviews. One must keep in mind here that the interviewers in this case are identical to the 'practice-guidanceteachers' and their 'leaders' (people like May Britt Esse Berge). Darkened mood-operated biases in personality sifting by law-violating 'Sifters' The effect of the message from Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) ..... to May Britt Esse Berge is the mentioned "but make it short" bias she uttered consistently and exclusively at me, usually the 10th or 11th speaker among 20 or so candidates gathered in scheduled 'reflection-in-plenum'meetings; candidates who all elaborated extensively, up to 20 minutes, compared with my always measly 4 minute long sharing of the insight I had in mind. It was my insights that annoyed Dr. Oeystein .....; and the insights I developed at Flaatestad school, through my own thinking, were positively annoying to Miss May Britt Esse Berge. Her special mistreatment of the 'to her, annoying evictee' seemed to come out of the blue, but had its origin in the darkened mood visible on Dr. Øystein .....'s face, just like in the video-based photo-strip, specifically in his act of taking revenge for my critique, by "informing" the practice-venue about his internally felt 'knowledge' of myself being "domineering" in spite of the very essence of my critique being the way their 'team-work' ("groupwork") enables precisely the domineering to dominate socially. It is one such socially domineering and light-headed judgmental people-sifting Social Selector of WHO to grant access to an essential part of higher education we have in Miss May Britt Esse Berge – and it is an unlawful activity that does great harm to Norway's teacher-education. It is: the answer to the "how is it possible?"-question on everybody's mind or lips as they react to the latest tragic news on mobbing and teacherblindness to it. 12 Seconds to the assault – some of the witnesses to what took place in the first 45-minute-period, young adult victims of taught contempt against dissenters learning-experiences, taught mobbing, the learning of the very gang-bullying that our present schools are fighting an increasingly steep uphill battle against: above the young male seated in the middle, three rows up, appears to understand the harm in what is going on. below left side four rows up: Rune, bearded, in a hoodie, seated; and John next to him, also bearded, getting up from his seat (cf. references made to them in the article); at the back in the middle, Cyril with his little pony-tale, a native French teachercandidate who remembers me from the video-recorded micro-teaching exercise we all did. He remembers I was the only candidate who left the 'negative comments' box blank in the evaluation form I had to fill out as I evaluated his performance, and he remembers the reason I gave. top photo: In the lower right corner: Dr. Oeystein ..... exiting the row in order to enter the row that I'm in. John's comment to Rune (in the hoodie) amuses Rune slightly. in the centre of the photos: John (installing his shoulder bag over his head) and Rune have agreed not to talk about what they know about this. John goes to recess and Rune stays to watch the show. the male sitting in the bottom left of the photo has a continuous benevolent smile, which tells me he seems to understand much of the essence of what I am doing. Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) is now walking in from the right side of the camera; and the female teacher-candidate from Kristiansand, almost at the far right side on this photo, near the end of the third row up from me, who's been shouting at me while hiding forward-bent behind her desk, now looks up and shouts visibly my way as Dr. Oeystein ..... indicates he is willing to enforce her will. She then stands up while shouting her way of requesting somebody (Dr. Øystein .....) to stop me with force. She has been trying the whole semester, by hate-speech and derogatory comments, to stop me from talking about the real Piaget-quotes and their significance in the context of the consistently used (in these courses) forged Piaget-quotes and their role as alibi for the teaching-paradigm I say is church-authored, centuries old, and a political tool blocking the will of the Parliament as expressed in §1-1 of our 'Law for teaching'. the three females stand up one after the other, the shouter keeping her face disguised for as long as possible, shouting; and her emotional shouting is all the encouragement her two followers to her right need. The peripheral two females, Marte from Rogaland near the left edge of the photo and the female in the right lower corner (from the larger Oslo region somewhere) quickly join them, and soon also a third female off the left margin of the photo. The shouter is identical with the female who has enforced a veritable topic-censorship all semester, in all allegedly open dialog, whether invited in lectures, imposed on the lecturer in the so-called 'seminar' classrooms or explicitly mandated in so-called 'team-work' by around-table-dialog, continuously and emotionally making sure the multi-mind thinking-unit reduces its thoughts to those of one; the thoughts coming from or screaned and approved by the socially domineering backed by alliance partners. The alliance-dominator's will and iq, One person's experience and competency limits the output of the 'unregulated team as one', making it a team with the power output of ONE BRAIN ! the brainpower of one instead of three or five The 'team as one' is 'the team limited to one brain', or at least a team that shuts up as if it is only one brain -whose brain? The alliance-dominator's. Its product is mainly ONE BRAIN's product. A team-member who's idea isn't understood by the alliance-dominator must be TAUGHT TO the alliance-dominator; and there is never enough time for one person's insight to be taught to – veritably braintransplanted into the mind of – the alliance-elicitor who raises a veto or a 'pending veto'; and all of the team-members' contributions thereby run through a lesser mind's filter before some of it ma Y trickle into [the cell-culture-dish] (petri dish) of this monster-lab. What results is NOT THE TEAM-PRODUCT, but ONE MEMBER's product, whereas the compilation-product is the TEAM's product, the compiling of all the team's overlapping and contrasting perspective. It is infinitely better to regulate the 'obligatory team'-sphere; make it: a mandatory quest for the group-integral, the total capacity within the team, rather than the socially screened sap from it where the 'it' is a fictitious, collectively thought-into-existence '5-person-team-as-1-person'. In its properly surreal light it almost sounds as ludicrous as it is. The reality of the 'obligatory quest for the group-integral' is infinitely better, in part because the 'team-as-one'-based 'majority-vote collective brain' is an infinitely stupid imagined brain that reduces the multitude and the varied to the intellectual povertY

[of the domineering] reduces it by censorship, which must be regulated against, rather than 'believed' into non-existence. We see what we see, and it's been like this for too long. There is an infinitely better way. Some (a few) other cultures use 'the principle of compounding' as the norm for team-work. Scandinavia is evidently different. Perhaps more than anywhere in the world, regulation against the pseudoteamleader's censorship is required right here, in the multination-land of the Vikings. The Viking-culture needs to be TAMED into the 'shackles' of SCIENCE; the science of academic team-work apparently requiring a different principle, not included in the warfare team-work-scheme of the 'rules-of-the-viking' handbook; the how to CUT off, CUT down, CUT away the opponent, or repent and silently join; be a trunk or the roots that feed, by observing, nodding, applauding the one brain on top who won't stop babbling until you surrender to all her ideas. Letting her interrupt, and letting her refuse to be interrupted or contradicted by facts, that is the only way to ease her aggression in a rule-free obligatory presence. The unregulated and socially free 'quest-for-leadership' of an obligatory team REMOVES GOOD ideas 'un-liked' by the domineering on the way to the tin Y opening where sap squirts, dribbles, drivels and babbles forth from team-pseudo leaders who can't stop talking, can't refrain from censorship, can't modify themselves from exclusion-minded to inclusion-minded not by their own internal drive. We must regulate the obligatory team-work-sphere; and if they refuse changes, remove the small-group structure and say 'the class is the team' ! the whole class, and always the whole class. That is the REAL 'team-spirit'. The full-class-debate sphere must still have healthy rules for everyone to be guided by. Pedagogy has none. We see the evidence of that in the UiO's refusal to answer when I submit my evidence the real Piaget-quotes; in the female UiO-lecturer's discrimination coordinated with Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde in the institute-administration; in Dr. Øystein .....'s aggression before 250 teacher-candidates as they exit the auditorium, and the 50 or so candidates who remained for the main event of the recess Dr. Øystein .....'s mock physical assault. This photo-documentary merely submits the obvious. In addition to this there is the written claim from the Institute's academic spokesperson Dr. Eyvind Elstad, saying the real Piaget-quotes are 'irrelevant', 'verified' in writing on Sep.15.2015 by Institute Leader Rita Hvistendahl and co-signer for the scientifically bancrupt loan guarantor Mai Lill Suhr Lunde the 25-year-older-than-her-staff-photo-for-securitypurposes version of her all ample evidence that these people are aware of the security risks involved by their behavior but know not what they are talking about academically, inasmuch as ALL modern theories of learning rest on the shoulders of Jean Piaget (1896-1980) explicitly so, explicit even on their own power-point slide series on learning-theory used in the initial lectures of all courses in pedagogy, in all course-programs, by ALL involved lecturers (in the Practical pedagogical course of 2015-2016, the two involved lecturers were Miss Brit Oda Fosse and Kirsti Klette, both of whom escaped every debate I initiated about this). And it is the tax-payers who pay the salaries of these people, pay them to 'be science-minded', pay them to engage in a debate whenever new evidence is put on the table, pay them to let the best argument win, pay them to let their faith be dictated by facts and changed by new facts, all of them state-financed academics who turn out to not even be education scientists. It is simply too ridiculous to fathom for the average citizen. Hence the information campaign. Politicians are fairly average citizens. They need to be informed and taught the nature of this particular case of distributed government corruption, 'campus-institute' situated. It needs to end, but it must be ended by blunt top-down government-legislated force; will not be ended by the emission of more 'principles'. §1-1 of our 'Law for teaching' is full of them, none obeyed. UiO's institutes within their Faculty of Ed-sci do not even see that paragraph as having any validity for the activity they are in charge of. I say that very paragraph explicitly and directly dictates the very principles to be taught by every lecturer in every lecture and every class in every course they teach in teacher-education, in every institute of it anywhere in Norway. And Denmark and Sweden have their paragraph equivalent to it. Teacher candidates MUST be drilled continuously in all the principles listed in §1-1 in that 'law for teaching', written for all primary and secondary schools in order to be able to teach them to children in these school. These specifically stated principles are 'tolerance, democracy, liberal view, variety of thought and culture, a scientific way of thinking, even critical thinking; and more unmentioned none of which contradict or place any limitation on the validity of the ones I have mentioned. The left margin photo-strip, hence, is a veritable hall of shame strip. Yet, that photo-strip is but a tiny fraction of what I could show had I filmed it all. Just imagine all the images that precede the decision to finally bring my friend, the Sony-cam, into it. The simple relation is this: §1-1 of that Law written for primary and secondary schools is automatically also valid for all activities engaged in during the education of the candidates who will become the teachers expected to teach according to that §1-1; and for all the institutions involved in these activities; hence for all administrators employed to function within these institutions all the people assisting the lecturer (on camera and behind the vaulted wall of the offices of the Institute and the Faculty, the female administrators who coordinated the discrimination with the female lecturer) in her openly demonstrated discrimination of myself, before 250 teachercandidates, in the supposedly open class-debate segment of that supposed to be 'Educational Science' lecture on 11.Nov. 2015. It is precisely through the supposedly open nature of these segments and other parts of their structure they collect their approval as a "scientific" activity rather than a "faith"-thing that puts up camp on campus and usurps the public funding that comes their way, the reverse of cases we could mention of money-aggregation-endeavours masking themselves as "religion" and collecting the public funding arising from that particular lie. So this is one specific failure of all of Norwegian teacher-educating institutions, across the board, all of them a judicial interpretation-failure, and one so basic that it is wilful negligence of public duty, public-office-situated civil disobedience, just like I told the Minister of Education in person, but in public, in the 17.March 2016 symposium on education here in Oslo. The interpretation-error involves a longlasting consistent failure of our judicial system to catch the ongoing error in institute-situated law-interpretation by people who are uneducated in law, and who do not understand that §1-1 applies to them, directly to them, by the lawinternal logic of that law itself. That is one big serious screw-up. Respected Law firms, even, based in Oslo, do not understand that §1-1 of that law applies to teacher education, and that 'obligatory team-work under threat of exclusion by peers' is unlawful by the same law-internal logic. Why Norwegian lawyers are so weak in 'law-internal logic' and so enslaved by 'precedence' remains to be investigated. Of the two ruling factors in law internal logic and precedence internal logic wins. 'Internal logic' has precedence over 'precedence', so to speak, and literally so. It is 'law-internal logic' that, as it engages premises of social nature, trumps 'past precedence' and sets 'new precedence'. The sad state of logic in the minds of young lawyers in Norway is one troubling sign of the need for structural changes to be made in higher education. In order for 'change' to last the change must be of a 'structural' nature. Otherwise they are superficial 'wounds that heal' and the status qua once defeated bounces back. §1-1 of that law applies, and the mentioned 'obligatory' nature under the mentioned threat unlawful. The key cause of the latter is 'the notion obligatory'. Each teacher candidate MUST be in such a 'team', at least as long as they are 'obligatory teams'. That is WHY we must protect each candidate in the team; in the situation we force them into. The 'leave the team to itself' and 'let it structure itself and its own dialogue without regulating the process'METHOD will not do when their presence 'in the team' is mandatory. Yet, 'leaving the team alone' and 'letting it structure its own dialogue without regulating it' is precisely what the people represented in the left margin photo-strip above ALWAYS do, their MAIN method; what they INSIST on doing regardless of what other changes you may manage to talk them into by negotiating; but that is the ONLY detail we CANNOT allow to continue. Why? Because it is the method that secures their domination by exclusion-threatoperated censorship of dissidents. My advice: GET RID OF that method by whatever force is needed to get it done, and do it fast, like yesterday; as it is by far the most stupid thing ongoing in higher education, literally anywhere in the otherwise deemed to be democratically oriented world I promise. Participation in 'obligatory team-work', the way the 'right' to be in it follows the 'duty' to be in it, and its dialogic method, all need to be properly explicitly and in detail regulated, from Parliament, that's all. But Parliament MUST END its 'principles-limited paragraph-law-making habit writing laws about principles and letting local kingpins MAKE UP THE DETAILS OF THE LAW 'in office' (the MEANING of "proper", "good", "qualified control", "liberal", "scientific way of thinking"* 41 , "critical thinking"* 41 etc.) as they go about 'their' business. No. Make a properly detailed law, in Parliament. That'll take care of it, but only if the Parliament itself makes the rules, without interference from the 'self-appointed victims' of the regulation, the ones in the above photo-strip and the likes. They will come crying to the Parliament when they see what's happening, but their tears will be faked, as faked as the Piaget-quotes they market per power-point-slides to prop up the Bible-compatible Dark-Ages-originating 'admit-and-repent' model phrased as "accommodation is defined as modification, according to Piaget", whose model is really nothing even close to that (cf. The Kant-Piaget-connection nobody wants to talk about, Soerfjord 2016, new edition). * 41 Spelling out these things what the law means by "promote a scientific way of thinking" to our school-children and let them "learn critical thinking"; HOW we are to do that, and WHAT we must do in teacher-education IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO do that, legislating a mandatory assistance from the field of Philosophy to Pedagogy! these are details we need to open the Parliament's eyes to. We need to force them to acknowledge the need for them to deal with it. They obviously do not deal with it voluntarily, and they need to be ridiculed for that, mercilessly. The ignorance makes it clear how badly teacher-education needs Philosophy: Logic and Ethics in particular logic for the birth of the topic 'class-debate'. There should absolutely be NO 'obligatory group-work' (team-work) without prior study and practice of 'class-debate' the drilling of the habit-schema of 'surrendering to facts' forcing the facts of the premises to their logically necessitated (deductively valid) conclusion and being forced to accept that conclusion, being forbidden to interrupt these arguments, forbidden to VETO them. That will spell the end of the tyranny of the incompetent tyrants I now put on display in the left margin above. 'Pedagogy' will not do this by their own internal drive, and Parliament is responsible for what is being done to each individual; hence regulation must be Parliament-authored. Parliament must author explicit REGULATION, NOT let it be substituted by Parliament-authored PRINCIPLES handed down to the 'Institute', because the 'Institute' always finds a way to continue as before with that crucial habitual METHOD intact, to them a holy method of weakening the individual, the dissenter. That method keeps them strong, and Pedagogy's main 'drive' is to continue the METHOD that keeps the consensus strong. The 'drive' they have is the one we see demonstrated in the left margin photo-strip above; not a pretty sight, and its result isn't pretty either. We should stop lying about it. It is the Parliament's drive that is needed here. And guess what? Like it or not: all my empirically verified cases of the pseudo-leader censorship-operator type (2008-2015) have been a young adult female, an alliance-seeker securing the alliance that gives her: majority vote in the 3-5-member class minority micro-sphere designed for her abuse which allows her to utter her veto each time she thinks she must understand every-thing any of the team-members talk about right away in order to allow the team-member to express it in the group-product, as if it is up to her or up to a majority will to allow or disallow anything (cf. the dialogic samples transcript in Appendix I). It is a logically failing idea, the notion that the 'team as one' a team in agreement about the 'message' suggested, decided upon and spoken by its 'spokesperson' brings forth 'the best'. The product of a team that eventually gathers around a consensus, as if 'consensus' were not in it-self suspicious - 'consensus' as a cosy camp-fire in the wild, wild world, of science is: the scrap from a vetoed away team-diversity, a NET LOSS of material diversity, by immaterial criteria SOCIAL criteria. The old Viking-way must be regulated away from 'obligatory team-work'. The entire set of methods of that office-occupying campus-mob in Pedagogy systematically BREEDS the LOSS of a team-integral. The 'majority' of a micro-group is one person's will. That person can only have her will if she is 'free to do as she wishes', and 'free to talk as she wishes', unburdened by: dialogic regulation in obligatory 'team-work'. Today's 'majority-enforced team-work-product method' in teacher-training imputes meaningfulness to the notion 'team-majority'. But the notion 'majority' can only MEAN something in a sufficiently large population. In micro-team type contexts the notion is a perversion means nothing other than dictatorship, unless consciously made into the opposite by everyone at the same time, to the same degree. Without a conscious shared effort to include ALL individual contributions, dictatorship forms. The problem with that is that all who silently acquiesce or internalize it and explicitly acquiesce, are victims of it too; and all the victims of it PAY THE PRICE. The lecturers of pedagogy are themselves the only ones who benefit from it. And they always benefit from it. They are the only ones who benefit from the method of 'unregulated majority-defined and 'majority-voted into reduction' micro-team-product-aimed cooperation', no matter what the conditions within the team are. That is in itself a violation of Educational science so large that it is a scandal, one the world has grown numb to. Doing something about it seems impossible only because it seems to be similar to a simultaneous rule-change world-wide, which it really isn't. It is the aggression from the domain-hostage-takers of teacher-education that takes away the courage of many who understand some of this. That is why I have tried to understand it well enough to form a theoretical, practical and empirical basis of reference for anyone in the near or distant future who can take this farther, make it serve a political drive towards some-thing infinitely better. That drive must in any case happen in spite of what official Ed-Sci says. Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) ..... is now walking in from the right side of the camera; and the female from Kristiansand, almost at the far right side on this photo, near the end of the third row up from me, who's been shouting at me while hiding forward-bent behind her desk, now looks up and shouts visibly my way as Dr. Oeystein ..... indicates he is willing to enforce her will. She then stands up while shouting her way of requesting somebody (Øystein) to stop me with force. She has been trying the whole semester, by hate-speech and derogatory comments, to stop me from talking about the real Piaget-quotes and their significance in the context of the consistently used (in these courses) forged Piaget-quotes and their role as alibi for the teaching-paradigm I say is church-authored, centuries old, and a political tool blocking the will of the Parliament as expressed in §1-1 of our 'Law for teaching'. Marte in her grey wool skihat here (extreme left) is trying to hide; and I intentionally put her on video record as one of the witnesses of the discrimination that took place in the 45-minuteperiod before recess. What justifies the video-recording in recess is the fact that Marte was present throughout the many instances of abuses in the team during the teamwork, which I brought up with Dr. Oeystein ..... first and then with Miss May Britt Esse Berge, which triggered Dr. Øystein .....'s first case of visibly darkened mood (in early September) and made him "warn" Miss May Britt Esse Berge of a candidate that "can be domineering" (Miss Berge's words exactly as she quoted Dr. Øystein ..... to my face mid.Sep.2015) – all team-internal abuse that Marte here is preten-ding not to know anything about, as are Rune and John. Miss Berge is Dr. Øystein .....'s and the Institute's extension in the 7th to 10th grade practice-venue-school named Flaatestad, 20 km south of downtown Oslo. She will sing her lament until the bully she sees standing by the sideline rushes to her 'rescue': , followed by ; and during Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) .....'s assault, which becomes a mock-assault (equally illegal): both of these females and their four co-mobbers smiling and giggling in contentment during and after the mock-attack they encouraged in the already developed target-specific dark mood (I just defined 'hate-ful discrimination', basically unlawful in education) inside Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) .....'s head; a support ..... has taught them to offer throughout the semester each time Dr. Øystein .....'s face, voice and demeanor grew darkly aggressive; each of the three times in one semester when I shared a surprising (surprising to him) scientific fact with him. The female team of mobbers then exit the auditorium, laughing and smiling, to join the rest and have their delayed and abbreviated recess. The show they put on is also explicitly invited in real time, by Dr. Øystein .....'s body-language and the female lecturer/administrator on the podium making the visually signaled contempt officially taught by action that constitute a conscious and planned method. The young adult candidates have just winessed discrimination taking place in each of the 'full class dialog' segments of the preceding 45 minute period of the lecture, and they therefore know well that I am videorecording to put them on record as witnesses to it. The female shouter, from Kristiansand, gets up from the position that has allowed her to shout without being seen as shouting. In front of her she sees Dr. Øystein ..... as he moves in towards me. team-work the one-brain-operated five-brain unit (left side, Marte in her grey skihat) a byte-limited large to full frame excerpt of the High Definition video record, with partial framing of selected details: a regular expression of the team's will in a modern unregulated female aggression-terrorized censorshipmob-manipulated Ed-Sci, as if in a stage play set in an amazonic hell – female bullies clustered in a mob that rules, angered by being now put on video record as witnesses to what took place the preceding 45 minutes. Their hysteria is manipulated into high gear by the grey-wool-sweater dressed female from Kristiansand (the red arrow), who's been behaving like this all semester, showing hostile aggression each time I debated a relevant theoretical detail – she each time reading the signs on the lecturer's face that speak of annoyance, then making herself a spokesperson for what the lecturer hopes for, left side, Marte in her grey skihat, unable to hide. and eliciting back-up from her co-mobbers. A cute gang it is, one that is now already doing harm wherever they observe children with the blindness to mobbing that comes with their own mob behavior, unchecked by Ed-Sci-administrators who are like them, the opposite of science-minded in very essential ways. The assault: (partial to full frame) Dr. Øystein ..... has been preparing the crowd for this outpouring of discriminatory behaviour throughout the semester. Humiliated for losing the debate on the forged Piaget-quotes, he has displayed the same visual anger, one on one with me and in class, over purely scientific revelations I shared with him: the abusive phenomena in team-work; and shared with the class: the translation of Vygotsky's term 'zone of proximal development', which the UiO professor/author Ivar Bråten has wrong (cf. details above), and that anger made him try his best to get rid of me since early Sep.2015, nine weeks earlier, by being involved in "informing" the practice-venue in advance that one of the candidates about to begin there "can be domineering" when it is really Dr. Øystein ..... who is domineering, without the scientific facts to back him up. Dr. Øystein ..... dominates over the facts I informed him of – just like the rest of them, Dr. Øystein .....'s colleagues, when I shared the real Piaget-quotes with them. They do not want to make facts dictate faith, but have instead their faith dominating the facts, calling them 'irrelevant' to it ! That is the depth of the contempt we can all read from Dr. Øystein .....'s face and the faces he has taught his contempt to from August to November. the female mob is cheering Dr. Øystein ..... on direct eyecontact Dr. Øystein ..... – myself. I am holding the Sony-cam slightly off to the right and slightly below my line of line of sight. direct eye-contact Dr. Øystein ..... myself Pure and ignorant hate, eyes glazed with rage. below: the female administrator along the wall (colleague of Jon Arild Lund) begins to turn her head towards Dr. Øystein ..... and I. the female administrator turns her head fully towards Øystein ..... and I. again, Dr. Øystein ..... has direct eye-contact with me as I hold the Sony-cam off my right shoulder, looking parallel to its aim. Dr. Øystein ..... is keeping his front foot in sight as he places it under my torso, as if to topple me as his body launches forward. This and the whole step-sequence is a standard martial arts technique, one that Dr. Øystein ..... is not allowed to use for provocation of non-violent people like myself. Dr. Øystein ..... knows this, and he knows he is in violation of the regulation of whoever taught him this. MOCK HEAD BUTT In the left side of the next photos: The female Shouter from Kristiansand, in her dark grey wool sweater – top left corner – attempts to avoid being viewed as a mobber and crowd manipulator, and sneaks away towards the right in the picture without even looking at what appears to be the moment of impact. The female she recruited into her mobbing-scheme senses the sudden absence of the female team behind her and turns her head to her right to see where they went. She gets a glimpse of the female Shouter's back and then turns her head to the left again towards the action in front of her, spotting what to her appears to be a fellow teachercandidate being thoroughly intimidated, getting what he deserves. She is about to burst out in a happy smile and a giggle: Dr. Øystein ..... moves his eyes to a new direction in the middle of his blinking, preparing the new angle of the eye-sockets before the lids open. He is in attack-mode, restrained only by his awareness of having witnesses present. The recruited mobber (with blue plastic water-bottle) senses the sudden absense behind her, turns her head to see where they went and sees the lead mobber female from Kristiansand, in dark grey wool sweater, sneaking away (below the word "below" in this sentence). kinetically deformed in his contours as he demolishes reason within the domain he sees as 'his'. Point of aborted impact: The recruited female mobber (next to the blue plastic water-bottle) sees the mob-leader the lead mobber sneaking away. They both miss the apparent impact, and they both turn around in the next second, grinning visibly. Pedagogically, they are both 'damaged goods', naturally so, as are the rest of the spectators, having had their sensitivity towards mobbing thoroughly impaired. They will not understand how to deal with 'bullying', 'gang bullying' or 'bullying with an audience' among children. The term 'mobbing' covers all of it, but it does not cover 'standing up against a crowd', which is the opposite of 'mobbing' and often, quite on the contrary, is the virtue of 'diversity', hardly ever 'bullying'. One does not 'mob' or even 'bully' the crowd by 'being different' or by expecting to influence the collective product against the will of the crowd. And this is where an entire Nordic Ed-Sci has run off a cliff and crashed. And lo and behold: faculties of ed-sci around the world try the same to the extent they can, held back only by the pressure to not get rid of high tuition fee paying students if they haven't done anything wrong; especially if all they do is being better than their teachers, proving them wrong or finding evidence overlooked by their teachers. The energy-absorption/avoidance-reflex results in the momentum that moves the Sony-cam left: left turn-momentum from the avoidance reflex to avoid the impact. I then bring the Sony-cam back to the right: (still holding my camera off to the side of my right shoulder) at least one happy female face, next to the blue water-bottle, two rows up from me. big laugh, next to the blue water-bottle. Great joy great joy on her face: female next to blue bottle, lower seat row (cf. great joy on p. 284, 285, 314, 550, 551 588, 592-594) having completed what they set out to do, the 5-female-mob can now go to recess. They feel rewarded. So their behaviour has been reinforced - 'strengthened'; that is, their habit schemata called 'mobbing' has become stronger by the exercise and reward of it. What these females have learned here is what they bring to our children. And this answers the question everyone asks every time there is tragic news about mobbing staged by children mob-gangs how is it possible? This is how. They have been taught to 'think as one' with the brain-power of one, an infinitely stupid unit of: a 5-brain team going on 1/5 of full capacity, because brains ARE NOT wire-connected. When left unregulated, One brain's FAITH and AGGRESSION DOMINATES making the rest SHUT UP In the background two administrators who evidently have not learned enough to have the job they have. And folks: we are all paying for this, with our taxes. Isn't it time to stop the whole show and make something radically different? The answer to the HOW is a new and radically different university, with only partial public funding, the rest by partial tuition fees; and making all universities charge tuition fees beyond a partial, and only partial, public funding; gradually reducing from full funding within a very short grace period, until all universities whether public or private compete on equal economic terms for the privilege of providing the best scientific quality, in Ed-Sci as in the rest of 'science', with academics openly forced to admit the facts: a radically new university, radically different. The Ed-Sci of such a radically different university MUST always be kept completely separate from the work-environment never involve pre-exam or pre-graduation 'praxis'/'practical training' in the work environment or in cooperation with the work-environment and it must provide government-regulated post-exam and post-graduation work-contracts for beginners without practical experience, without mixing in ANY 'signing-off-documents' or any other type of postgraduation 'documented release of new teacher' or any of that sort; nothing that even looks like it or smells like it or functions like it or is at times anywhere similar to it, not even with parts that remind us of it. The end of the current Ed-Sci – in Scandinavia corrupted by becoming the ideological likeable/not-likeable personality sieve (Norw. en ideologisk sil ) that sifts by observation, like/dislike-points, team-mobbing, and ipso facto ad-hoc extra-exams for the ones we don't like' is coming, sooner or later. Let's hope it arrives before anything acutely tragic occurs. But it will not 'arrive' by itself. It must be pushed into effect. The new land will not be arrived at until sufficiently pushed towards. And it will not be sufficiently pushed towards with the flat-earth-notions unopposed by the annoying facts that prove them the nonsense they are, and prove the preachers of them the liars they are. That is what I do. That is what has them so upset, so angry, so volatile-tempered, and so abusive, not even seeming to bother that they are actually teaching their contempt for educational science to the future teachers of children. We simply need to stop letting our taxes be used to pay for this harmful abuse. The way to stop it is to end full funding, force into effect a partial tuition-fee-funded university at every university; and have them compete on equal economic terms; and regulate the liaison between faculties of Ed-Sci and the work-environment (schools) by prohibiting all liaisons during pre-graduation and preexam periods. These liasons are always used as the sifting the schools cannot perfect in their job-interview rounds and aren't allowed to submit employees to. laughing 2:04 Big laugh (Sony-cam pans left) female bottom left observing stealthily, note the three males standing along the upper row. Dr. Øystein ..... has taught them all how dangerous it is to be a scientific dissident. young adults scared stiff, forced to 'learn' the low value imputed to one particular candidate, the dissident who discovered new evidence. the green-coated young male is Rolf, the neighbor of Miss May Britt Esse Berge, leader of the so-called "praxis" (Norw. "praksis"), teachingexercise, at the practice-venue-school Flaatestad (7th to 10th grade) 20 km south of downtown Oslo. As Miss May Britt Esse Berge's neighbor, and on good terms with his neighbor, Rolf is even more beyond the exclusive treatment reserved for dissidents than the rest of the candidates are, all of whom only have to shut up about theoretical discrepancies, brag about the environment and clone their teachingtechniques and content with the practice-guide-teachers' to sail through the teaching-exercise with tailwind. All of them are scared stiff with the idea of sticking their neck out for the sake of the facts that I have proven. And that is how campus fills up with alike-thinkers in a higher education unregulated against the very idea of such a scenario as this even being possible. This is a regulation-task for the Parliament, one they do not appear to want. Red arrow, below: The shouter, female teacher-candidate from Kristiansand, laughing on the way out. my voice on the video: "You saw what happened?" {demonstrative discrimination during the preceding 45-minute segment of the lecture, cf. transcript in Simultaneous-chatter-style-pedagogy, Soerfjord 2016} Norw.: "Du så hva som skjedde?" red arrow: the female shouter from Kristiansand laughing and mocking on the way out. The female shouter, a candidate from Kristiansand , laughing and mocking on the way out, , happy with her 'team-work', and ready to teach, encourage and ignore the same behavior among children nationwide. (Norw.: Den kvinnelige laererkandidaten som roper, fra Kristiansand, er tydelig fornøyd med sitt 'gruppearbeid', og er klar til å laere bort, oppmuntre til og overse samme atferd blant barn over hele landet.) great joy on the face of the female from Kristiansand at the top of the stairs as she exits the auditorium (cf.p.104, 122, 147-149). top right corner: the female from Kristiansand exiting victoriously. almost eye contact between myself and Dr. Øystein ..... (I am holding the Sony-cam off my right shoulder, and Dr. Øystein .....'s gaze aims left of me and above) almost eye-contact; I'm holding the Sony-cam a half meter or so off to my right, putting my own gaze parallel to the Sony-cam's aim. Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) .....: nods affirmatively to the question at 2:09, 5 seconds earlier (11 pages up). he must look away from my face, turn his gaze 45 degrees, in order to look at the Sony-cam in my right hand. myself: "And you are Norw.: "Og du er Oeystein Øystein .....?" .....?" mirroring one another's physical pose as well as mental pose, and seeing as little mob-bullying among themselves as they see among children: taught blindness and taught contempt for dissent, even when the evidence is in the dissenter's favor. - "-at the ILS !" {ILS=Institute for Teacher-education and School-research, UiO campus Blindern, Oslo, Norway} Norw.: "-på ILS !" {Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning}, myself: "It is-" Norw.: "Det er-" "discrimi-" Norw.: "diskrimi-" "-nation. " "-nering." myself: "It is mobbing," Norw.: "Det er mobbing, great joy at the tip of the red arrow myself: "institutional mobbing." Nor: "institusjonell mobbing." a team's contentment great joy at the tip of the red arrow myself: "And you are" Norw.: "Og du er" a part of it." Norw.: en del av det." BEWARE ! these are the teacher-candidates who in the next phase are the teachers supposed to protect our children from bullying and mobbing (mob-bullying). and this is a PhD of Pedagogy, like myself; and, like myself, Dr. Øystein ..... is attempting to serve something larger than himself – only whereas Dr. Øystein ..... serves the Institute, for money; I serve Ed-Sci. It is my position that Dr. Øystein ..... and the likes are a danger to our young adults and to our children (directly harmful to all); that they are genuinely bad in the job we pay them to do, and lack the will to do the things and think the thoughts that are required in order to turn the domain they are occupying into Ed-Sci. The place to build Ed-Sci, hence, will have to be: within a radically different university. The full frame view to the team-work: Notice the group inside the area of the red line, the female in grey wool sweater, top right of the photo being the one who initiates the vocal aggression while hiding her face. Her dialect reveals she is from Kristiansand. She is one of the few females I took notice of due to the way she attacked the act of debating in itself, and attacked the debater personally by way of judgmental personal attacks, in each plenum debate the entire semester; operating a 'topic-censorship', allowing certain topics to trigger either emotional outbursts similar to what we see and hear in this video, or intense vocally and facially expressed hatefulness, embarking on aggressive questioning that build up to personal condemnation. All of these candidates have witnessed the lecturers' discrimination of the questions I have raised, and lately also the lecturers' discrimination of the very sound of my voice when they explicitly invite the audience to participate. These females have now thoroughly 'learned' the Institute's taught contempt towards myself, have internalized it and have now become a collective police force in the lecture hall, a bullying group, the very definition of a 'mob', and they were all driven by female vocal haters of certain scientific topics. This is how these females mob individuals into letting them have their will, especially if they see their will coinciding with the preferences of the lecturers, who demonstrated consistently how they despise these topics. These are the females that these courses move to prominent positions, as in a NAZI dynasty from an amazonic hell; haters of topics they don't want anyone to speak of in their presence if the topics disprove anything within the faith being operated, learning-scientific topics no exception. They are the one's who trump their will through in this distinctly anti-scientific higher education learningenvironment, which in the next round is being unleashed on our children whose learning-environment, according to §1-1 of the Law for teaching MUST be dominated by "a scientific way of thinking". The Parliament can WRITE "must" all they want, it is time they ACT OUT their brave science-promoting empty words. Rune found himself in a tight spot, and chose to allow the female mob to terrorise him. That is the price for passing unregulated courses evaluated by the peer-gossip-criterion. An unhealthy learning-environment design? You bet, so harmful that our culture will not know what made us stuck in this mud-hole for so long I'm guessing since the 1750s. Rune is angry, has decided not to talk about it. The young male seated in the mid-row left of centre shifts his gaze towards Dr. Øystein ..... as he first walks into the camera's angle of view one row up from where I'm standing, then enters the row that I'm in: - Female mobbers in Ed-Sci being put on record as having witnessed lecturer-operated discrimination, both of scientific facts and a dissident's participation in the open class-dialogue; essentially institute-operated bullying and mobbing. Crocodile-tears will turn to gloating grins of malevolent satisfaction in a moment, when they see Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) ..... acting on the female team's encouragement which he elicits by standing at the end of my row looking my way with an angry expression on his face, and which he taught them to see the need for all since the first onset of the scientific-perspective-triggered dark mood of his, in September, when I told him of the in-group abuses in his course's team-work and elsewhere in Ed-Sci, which, as I told him, shows the need for pre-teamwork instruction in sound team-dialogue; a rage that resurfaced (visibly to the entire 25-candidate large class in the small room used for theme-oriented socalled 'seminar'-type instruction) in October, when I in my scheduled 2 minute presentation shared the more correct Norwegian translation of Vygotsky's term 'zone of proximal development' and said UiO-professor Ivar Braaten's version is obviously wrong (it is actually wrong in the most essential way, as published in an article among those listed as curriculum-literature (the visible rage bewildered the whole class, and when I visited the female administrator's office right after, Dr. Øystein ..... was there, his face still cooking in a brightly red rage, obviously complaining about me). And Dr. Øystein .....'s rage is now occurring a final time here in November (2015). This time the past abuses of his have informed me of the need to bring a friend, my Sony-cam. It is a research tool with potential, its sharp lens a dangerous weapon for self-defence. Symptomatic This particular lecture-rage problem of Oeystein (Øystein) .....'s, hence, is symptomatic of a chronic disorder of some sort. And these are the people the Norwegian parliament lets loose on our teacher-candidates. It spells deeply rooted problems on a grand scale. Their root is this very maldesigned learning-environment in teachertraining that we are looking at in this photo-strip, and which the Minister of Education isn't doing ANYTHING ABOUT ! The Minister needs to ask for my help, but won't. Male brutes lend their bodies to the satisfaction of these female scientific-topic-haters, and move in to enforce the shouted out female will. She now standing up, in her grey wool sweater, to the right is a chief-hater in Auditorium 1 of the Helga Eng's building on the UiO campus in Oslo this morning, and in the seminar chambers at other times, throughout that semester, and around the long table at the practice-venue school (Flaatestad, 20 km south of downtown Oslo). The past couple of minutes she has been shouting slurs while bending forward to hide her face. That female in grey-wool-sweater from Kristiansand, the shouter, now stands up and keeps shouting. Straight in front of her, at the end of the row I'm in, is Dr. Øystein (.....). His rage is boiling; has been boiling since September when I told him in privacy of the abusive dialogue in the group work he had just hosted, whereafter he took revenge: "informed"* 42 the practice-venue in advance (before our first week of teaching-practice, in September) that I "can be domineering"* 42 – which naturally signals a desire to have the practice-venue school sift me out (* 42 quoted directly as hurled shrilly from the tense lips of the receiver of that "information", Miss Mai Britt Esse Berge, who hurled it at me (spat it at me) with a sender she named as "ILS" – the UiO Institute for Teacher-education and School-research (Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning, ILS). Her contact at the Institue is Dr. Øystein ..... and the female administrators kept informed by him). Miss Mai Britt Esse Berge hurled it at me during her campaign to try to dislike me just like Dr. Øystein ..... told her she would. Dr. Øystein .....'s 'warning' about me reverberated in everything Miss Mai Britt Esse Berge said to me the 4 weeks I had the pleasure of knowing her methods – expressing her bias explicitly in front of all the other teacher-candidates, in the school she treats as 'hers' and whose teacher-candidates are for her to do with as she pleases. A nasty abusive environment is what results from such foolishness; a foolishness far below the level of normal adult behavior. It takes a noteable lack of intelligence to single out individuals for such hateful contempt, and it definitely isn't what we all expect from an environment responsible for the learning-environment of school-children. It is 11th of November 2015. The semester is almost over, and this particular team of 5-6 allied female teachercandidates demonstrate how well they have learned Dr. Øystein .....'s contempt for dissent, hence for a dissenter. They are shouting slurs at me for filming to put them on record as witnesses to what has transpired during the preceding 45 minute period of the lecture. Their taught contempt, being shouted as contextually meaningful implicit slurs, with hateful faces, is now an opportunity for Dr. Øystein ...... He has taught them this behavior. Dr. Øystein ..... is now about to introduce the female mob-team to an even more advanced stage of his pedagogic instruction, all of which will be expressed in the way the candidates in the next round teach our children, ways we all SAY we don't want (ways that involve teacher blindness to gang-bully-behaviour, mobbing, and children participating in it, passively or actively). Miss Marte from Rogaland here (and the front page photos) in her grey wool skihat is nondominant socially. She attaches herself to a female bully and thrives as a member of a winning team. She did so in the practice-venue, Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school, when Ann-Helen, from Akershus east of Oslo, applied her censorship and forced 10 other teacher-candidates (all except Oda) into silently acquiescing to anything she wanted. Throughout that 'team-work' Ann-Helen keeps up her "No, I think we should..."-interruptions, so no one else's thought can be told, until John stops trying to say anything at all and Rune (from northern Norway) slumps over with his head on his desk and his left index finger pointing abstractly to the ceiling. We all gave up, but I allowed my scientific perspective to irritate her until her hate materialized in threats: "I feel that you are working against us now" and "Now we have majority for doing it this way" (where 'this way' is a confused departure from the given task), while looking up towards the faces of the silently acquiescing females around the table to see if they remain passive, which one must when dealing with a neurotic bully who must be the 'Decider' in order to be happy, who vetos and threatens and understands no one else's idea. The 'voice-Accommodator' as a team-role-virture, a role that seeks to uphold principles of ethics and scientific validity, while making sure 1:everybody have a say and 2:everyone's idea, as a general rule, is to be fully accommodated in the team – nothing is more irritating to the type of pseudo-leader I call the 'Pusher', continuously talking pusher of opinions that have little support by facts. This is the terror that arises from leaving the teams alone to their own design while allowing them to socially threaten dissenters with factually possible (the Institute administrators make it official once it happens, which is unlawful) exclusion from that obligatory team-work, obstructing their access to the exam stage unlawfully so. It is the terror of team-work-design-by-the-socially-aggressive-and-stupid the bullies and their mob-alliance -when the socially dominant within a team is allowed to: threaten individual members, or not prevented from doing it and benefitting from it. What emerges here is: The 'Team-Leader'-ROLE puzzle What is a 'team-leader'? A team-leader can be an 'Accommodator': an anti-domineering social constructivist, analytically fact-oriented, and processand goal-oriented. These are the things to call it if you want to namecall it for what it is. It is ideally all that and more, by way of being fact-oriented and accommodating at the same time, soliciting everyone's view – especially the view of the passive members, insisting that they too have a say and have the opportunity to define their own contribution to the whole – the only way to find: the group-integral. 45. It is the GROUP-INTEGRAL that constitutes the materialized grouppotential, and it includes whatever is unwanted by the majority or by any individual, as long as one individual recognizes the value or relevance of the unwanted. Most of all it is a 'Word-Accommodating' type 'team-leader-role' I am talking about. That is the team-leader that brings about 'the group-integral'. The facts that apply and are recognized by a member are not in opposition to the 'group-integral'. That is because: the member who does recognize such unwanted facts, and their relevance, has a say in 'the group-integral'. The integral is in part made up by the facts that the majority does not want, as long as at least ONE IN THE TEAM recognizes them and their relevance. The ones who understand less, tend to seek censorship over contributions they do not understand, hence over that which is contributed by those who understand more. 46. The minority in a team, therefore, is CRUCIAL TO THE TEAM'S OUTCOME, and must therefore be learning-environment-design-wise encouraged and enabled to insert their contribution AGAINST THE WILL of the majority or the more dominant – in all education, hence particularly in all teacher-education. That is the HOW in the 'let's put the Sci back in Ed-Sci'. The 'learningenvironment-designwise' encouraging and enabling must be a first priority design-concern or no encouraging or enabling of it will result. It will then be a secondary priority, and be communiated as such through the learning-environment design. 47. It is the duty of our Minister of Education to MAKE SURE that all institutions of higher education, especially those of pedagogical studies, consistently and systematically enforce the right and need for anyone's team-contribution to be included, in a threat-free learning enviornment design. BUT: The reality of 2008 to 2016 is opposite of that. This is why the Parliament must intervene in this institute-run atrocity; that is, they must, if they want to do their job. A 'team-leader' does not keep the domineering happy – because that means to let the domineering be the 'Pusher'-type team-leader and form an alliance that pushes a set of opinions, which then begins the censorship-process. The 'Pusher'-type pseudo-leader, then, is almost always a maker of a 'negative-alliance', one that excludes, threatens and demands to operate a censorship. demands the passive to acquiesce, and then wants to 'vote' on what to include, eventually who to exclude. The censorship-forming 'Pusher' by sub-team alliance not really a 'team'-activity at all. 48. The sub-team activity of in-group alliance-forming is CONTRARY to the idea of 'team-work'. It needs to be regulated against in Parliament. Surprising fact: I never experienced a male team-member doing that. which only implies it may be relatively rare, but does imply that, because every mixed-gender team I was ever in had such a female member in it, the female team-member either becoming the 'Pusher-Task-distributor' or attaching herself to a 'Pusher-Task-distributor by censorship' Hence the problem is the functional result 'censorship' in unguided micro-team-dialogue. It is the Parliament's duty to safeguard against it beyond what they will say in their defense that they have already done (you know the replies they come up with in media) I could show them how. The twin team-role of the 'Pusher', or embedded within many 'Pusher'-type teammembers, is the mentioned 'Task-Distributor', equally limiting on the team-work's outcome, and equally censorship-operating, only by way of directing everybody else-where, away from ideas that begin forming in their own minds about how they see an exciting outcome from a completely different contribution in which they may thrive and benefit in ways never materialized in the 'micro-team' environment left alone to its 'Pusher' and 'Task-Distributor' type pseudo-leaders. This is a pseudo-Ed-Sci gone scientifically rogue. It happened long ago. Piaget had his theoretical work sucked into that by the benefit-seekers of Ed-Sci, themselves 'TaskDistributing Pusher'-type pseudo-leaders who sacrify scientific truth and the livelihood of dissidents in their path. Lecturers of today's Ed-Sci digress to references to Dr.Belbin and his so-called 'team-role'menu, a handful of oppositions where the non-prefered version is described derogatorily and the prefered favorably basically denouncing the stagnant analyst and praising the outwardly goal-efficient, skipping all notions of ethically and scientifically sound dialogic process; quite naturally so, inasmuch as Belbin's observation is through the eyeglasses of a money-counter in a Wall-Street world type environment. A good team-leader in this case a 'micro-team'leader on the contrary, opposes the alliance-maker by insisting on all the passive alliancemembers voicing their own ideas and the team accommodating all ideas the 'team' as idea-accommodator - and immediately becomes the target of that 'Alliance-Maker's social exclusion-process. What emerges, then, is the core of the real problem here: the 'Alliance-Maker' for rule-by-censorship is the narrowing down to a less diverse product. The sub-team here the sub-micro-team alliance-maker never wants the responsible lecturer to see what really goes on in the micro-team, but makes sure to feed the lecturer certain pieces of information whenever the lecturer opens the door and peeks inside to say hello, before leaving them alone again. It is in THAT moment the 'Pusher' in our 5-member micro-team on the first day in Flaatestad practice-venue, 20 km south of down-town Oslo Ann -Helen each time bursts out in an oddly sharp tone: "We are not reaching any agreement." Norw.: "Vi blir ikke enige, vi !" {literally: "We are not becoming of one mind !"} oddly amusing since Ann-Helen's voice filled 90% of the talk-time, and we never reached the point of concrete planning of anything the practice-teacher, Miss Maria Sofie Olsson, had ordered us to plan an English lesson on 'adjectives and adverbs'. Ann-Helen insisted on making it a lesson on adjectives only. I tried to explain the usefulness of teaching them together while pointing to the essence of the difference between the two and beginning with a sample text. Everything I said in this regards had the effect of throwing sand in the face of Ann-Helen, triggering unspeakably aggressive backlashes, culminating in Ann-Helen going: "I now feel that you are working against us" Norw.: "Nå føler jeg at du motarbeider oss" (cf. Appendix I) I decided to let her be. Nobody was there to tend to her neurosis, other than Rune, from northern Norway, who later talked to her about stress and symptoms of stress. 1. The first problem is that no one has a mandate to stop the tyranny of the neurosisdriven Pusher-Taskdistributor type Alliance-maker for censorship. 2. The second problem is that no one has a clue of what a real team-leader 'is' here a micro-team-leader that is, what a team-leader needs to be a)in order to actually 'lead' the team somewhere that is useful, its product within reach, and b)in order for its process to be scientifically and ethically sound. In the next photo view it full frame in Appendix V notice the contentment, the satisfaction, on the two female faces as the bully moves in to put the mob's will in effect: The female in grey wool sweater from Kristiansand, top left corner, has kept up the same campaign throughout the semester, vocally demanding her censorship, expressing slurs in class, slurs like "Then I cannot communicate with you at all", in reply to my claim that in science "facts dictate faith" and "the best argument must win"; closing the topic with her claim that "social construction determines the conclusion" a construction she obviously intends to construct herself by alliancegrabbing and an extortion type 'vote'. In the 'team-work' at the teaching-practicevenue* 43 she expanded that claim explicitly to her "But it is social construction that forms the topic" as I reminded her of the topic I had raised before she derailed it into a personal argumentum-ad-hominem attack on my personality (* 43 Flaatestad 7th to 9th grade school 20 km south of downtown Oslo). Her volatile temper made her a frightening social opponent that made the room quiet and softspoken in order to avoid having it (her) self-escalate. Among the thirty some candidates at that particular practice venue in the autumn of 2015, I noticed two individuals with an oddly ominous tone and a threatening volatile quality the young female from Kristiansand (south coast) standing up in her grey sweater here (photo above) and another young female, from eastern Akershus, east of Oslo (Ann Helen). It is a social aggression one either evades or becomes the victim of. Addressing it always makes you a target. It was myself, Marte from Rogaland and Ann Helen from east Akershus who made up the English didactics group of that particular practice-venue in the autumn of 2015. The female from Kristiansand is in the Spanish didactics group. What is a 'team-leader'? A much underestimated problem in teams left alone is the way these distinctly dominant individuals misinterpret their role, thinking it is true 'leadership' when it is actually bullying the opposite of the real 'team-leader'-role which I tentatively define as 'wordand idea-accommodator' (see Appendix I: pathologic dialogues). This particular female from Kristiansand top left corner of the photo on the previous page doesn't appear to be violent herself, but she entices aggression and explicitly elicits a classical mob (see the photo-strips below), a mainly female sub-team that entices violence from male brutes if necessary to get the mob's will through. It is a mob-will that in this case supports Dr. Øystein ..... and his colleagues, in their scientific fraud. It is a mob-expression that Dr. Øystein ..... has encouraged all along, the whole semester, by mimicking his annoyance and rage every time I bring up a scientific detail relevant to consensus, which Dr. Øystein ..... and company preach with critically blocked minds, and which the Institute administrators protect by 'calling in' and interrogating officially persecuting individual teacher-candidates who bring the evidence that says otherwise. These are the unregulated terrifyingly conditional cosy 'around-the-table-type' local dictatorships that form wherever department leadership is incompetent but left alone by government departments and Parliament. In this case that lack of competence extends from the Institute on campus through all of its tentacles and into the pedagogic work-place in every local community. It breeds the mobbing we all see in our society's young population, school-children. The unregulated and socially 'free' collective brain is infinitely stupid One does not need to be super-intelligent to see the facts of Piaget's cognitive model, nor the unhealthy nature of the context in which the fake quotes ('Piaget's accommodation is modification'-pseudo-quotes) play their role. However, the collective brain is so infinitely stupid, when impeded by social restraints imposed by collective-will-enforced censorship, that it comes to a virtual stand-still. 49. The only way to make it move seems to be to terminate that particular venue for the collective-brain's collective will, and open a radically different institution, one where the reasoning-obstructive forces have no venue, redirecting all political activity towards the Parliament, where it belongs. Despisers of central power over themselves, they are, but are themselves central dictators in the domains they claim and grab; vocal despisers of micro-management of themselves, but nonetheless micromanagers of the lands they grab. This is the anti-science in Ed-Sci that we need to get rid of. I challenge politicians intelligent enough to grasp this to act, and not be deterred by the threatening outcry that always boringly predictably mounts against them from the faith-based society when they do. It is a pathology that practice-venue teachers and lecturers and professors of Pedagogy lacking in competence: refuse to assist in. They all from the institute down to the practice-venue refuse to explicitly instruct in scientifically and ethically sound dialogic practice in team-work, obligatory micro-teamwork, so-called "group-work". That must change. They all need help. That very domain needs help. It needs help from established educational institutions (institutes, faculties aso) of: Sociology, Philosophy and Psychology, in particular. But who's going to want to help them when they don't even want to be helped hell, they want to be the ones helping the other domains become like them* 44 , teach like they do in the Institutes of Pedagogy, when they are effectively scientifically lost themselves, stranded on their ancient pulpit-authored 'admit-and-repent' type paradigm of teaching, using moballiances to sift away dissidents and must therefore be forcefully helped? We are, through the Parliament. * 44 cf. Seeking Campus-Universal Didactic Dominance, and getting it, by various means other than scientific (Soerfjord 2016) Lecturers of Pedagogy and their administrators keep chanting the defence that teachercandidates allegedly "are adults, and must be assumed to be aware of such scientific and ethical principles that apply to team-work" it is like pressing a pre-recorded message button. That slogan is what they always mechanically spit forth, the only claimed reason in their invalid argument. Why? Because 'the status qua' is the environment they want. They want this abuse to go on, because to them it isn't abuse. Tell them it is abuse and it's like telling them they are abusive people, which they have proved demonstratively that they are. Lecturers and administrators all say they want this abusive reality, and some of them have themselves grabbed what some call leadership - 'pushers of the passively acquiescing' – makers of useful social alliances within Instituteand Faculty-administrations, themselves dominators within teams left alone at the 'Institute'-level by responsible aka 'central' authority. I challenge a Parliament full of cowards to end this. They can call me and I will show them how. A few more words about the real model: Piaget's "connaissance" is in that book (1967) "awareness" in the sense 'consciousness', which, according to Piaget, functions as a 'cognitive adaptation', driven by an internal balance within itself, just like all the biologically self-balanced processes. Piaget knew that life is essentially self-regulation, and supposes cognition to have an essential allegorical likeness to the biologically balanced organic processes. Piaget then hypothesizes we may treat the humanly held knowledge-structures the same way, or in a very similar way, the direction of its development being the outcome of a balance between two internal drives or tendencies. Piaget called them 'subfunctions' (1967:215) of the function he calls 'adaptation', cognitive adaptation. The mind assimilates the environment, molds it into its own internal forms. But that can only yield a self-sustaining adaptive effect, he hypothesizes, if the internal forms, like the biologic, are plastic and self-malleable. Hence, there must be the opposite tendency at work at the same time, the opposite being the capacity to yield to the forms that impose on the structures of the mind. And this is precisely what Immanuel Kant said too. Piaget just says it in biological terms, while Kant said it in general physical and logical terms. And Piaget too uses the logically evident as stepping stones: Assimilation making the outer forms similar to the inner forms, to the concepts we are already familiar with, can only happen if we at the same time 'allow them to enter undisturbed', simply 'yield to their properties as they are', accommodate them; an absolutely "banal" model, says Piaget, so banal that it is necessarily correct. The model doesn't say anything beyond the obvious. It is essentially no more than a namecalling of the two halves of the sum of all the tendencies at work in acts of observing the world. It is ridiculously banal, obviously correct. Its scientific strength lies precisely in its simplicity. It invites for future science to fill in the blanks, and there is no need to call it 'wrong' no matter what science discovers in the future. Whatever Piaget saw in his own cognition of things, that is what he called 'equilibrium', 'neutralization', a principle that as far as I know all automated mechanical processes operate by, certainly all I have dealt with. the final moment of the mock-assault: After deflecting the direction of the assault exactly at the moment of inferred impact, the expressions changes gradually. It is what I evaluate to be a less than pedagogically fit mind, in teacher-education of all places. And the two administrative colleagues in the back are almost worse for taking part in it; passively at first, the male among the two, Jon Arild Lund, then desperately seeking to confiscate my Sony-cam. Mr. Jon Arild Lund departs and returns together with a semi-restrained bully in uniform who pursues me on foot an entire 1 km or so down the road from the UiO campus Blindern, while trying to get the police on his mobile in order to have them confiscate it. This is an Institute with lots of things to hide, secrets not protected by any of the codes-of-silence-paragraphs of the law. All they have to protect themselves with is aggression. Anyone willing to fence off that aggression is useful in this important work: disrobing them of the veils that hide their abuses of people and scientific facts; and eventually disposing of them as a whole in teacher education. Only a radically new form of competition, between a radically new Institute and the old, will do it. But that will do it; and by radically I mean funding-wise, hiringwise, promotion-wise, job-title-wise, tuition-fee-wise and so on. It takes a political program to deal with these particular officeholding obstructors of Parliament-authored democratic will. Eye-contact. Dr. Øystein ..... moving towards the face of the camera-holder, who holds the Sony-cam 90 degr. off the right shoulder, the eyes of the camera-holder aiming almost parallel to the aim of the lens, not along its aim. This is a physical assault, a gesticulated threat of physical injury: At the moment of deflected direction which makes the assault a 'mock assault' the expression changes: his black-out-rage begins to clear up, but the rage still lingers mechanically in his detached eyes. He has done this before. He has obviously been doing it all his life. And as long as taxpayers pay him for it, there will be more of it. It will not be punished, which is why it needs to be ridiculed until Parliament modifies these people by force, removing those among them that refuse to be modified or are unable to be modified. Political Scientists looking for the meaning of life, go look elsewhere authors who defend consensus but never checked the facts: -These are two political-science-graduates who ventured into the teaching of pedagogy, where they have cemented the fraudulent Piaget-quotes and paraphrases in the minds of all Norwegian teacher-candidates since 1999, young adult minds forced to memorize details from this textbook just because it is on the curriculum or reading-list for their course program. The excuse that "these authors are only two among many" is just noise we need to ignore. There is no valid excuse for letting non-scientifically minded authors like these two rule Ed-Sci, even if they merely rule by their membership in the ruling consensus. As authors in science checking all their facts is their duty. The problem is, they check their facts merely against other books that claim the same facts without checking the facts themselves, in this case the real 1967 Piaget-quotes. These are the ways of the non-science minded. A major uprooting of connections, fundings, as well as the use of 'consensus-internal peer-panel' type screening of manuscripts for publishing is called for; where we just root it all up, level it, and begin from scratch, finding a more incorruptible structure to govern university-institutes. Interestingly, to 'govern' means to 'steer'. A government that does not steer these institutes from the driver's seat or from the 'wheel-house' which is the Ministry and Parliament is not 'steering' them but is letting them steer themselves, 'self-steer' meaning no one steers them because they are 'selfsteering'. The Ministry actually say they let the Rector 'steer', who says he lets the faculty 'steer', who says it lets the Institute 'steer'. In fact, nobody 'steers' this except the recipients of the money and the glory themselves. They are let loose, and loose they are, scientifically loose from all facts, allowed to chain all human beings within 'their' territory to articles of pedagogic faith that stem from the pre-rennaissance; and loose from the law of the land, allowed to exclude whomever they do not 'like' and can say peers don't 'like'. Government does not 'steer' by merely 'telling someone to steer'. I suggest it's time we connect this scientifically rogue domain to the steeringwheel, and doubly connect the steering-wheel to the wheel-house. It's been going on much too long. The aggression in the left-margin photo-strip proves its belief in itself, hence its incapacity for self-modification, the very slogan they preach to everyone else. The quote-error teaching-method connection The fact that teachers of pedagogy so persistently claim that Jean Piaget defined 'accommodation' as 'modification of existing knowledge', or 'fault-correction' and such, is connected to the same teachers' preferred form of "Socratic dialogue"; or, more precisely, their pseudo-Socratic dialogue, in which the teacher of pedagogy evaluates how hard it is to make the teacher candidate 'realize how wrong he or she is' and 'adjust to authority or to one's own peer group', which again is a criterion for getting a passing grade when the teacher of pedagogy evaluates the 'personality of the candidate' during his or her practical training, and labels that activity "an overall assessment", which is a patently unlawful method of evaluating teacher-candidates, but standard totalitarian practise in Norway. The thing about 'accommodation' allegedly being non-existent whenever the child misconceives something is a formidable error of logical conclusion, a pedagogical smoke-screening of a very simple, even banal, cognitive model. Consensus has in fact in part mixed up the essence of 'accommodation' and the essence of 'adaptation' where the latter consists of the two abstract subfunctions 'accommodation' and 'assimilation'; so 'adaptation' (which is 'adjustment'), according to Piaget (and Kant), is to 'make {whatever one grants access} similar to {the things that are already represented as concepts'}, make whatever one allows to enter similar to what entered previously, the model itself making it absurd to think of a single moment with only one of the two parts operating (1967:9-50 and 200-215 in French / translated to English 1971:1-37 and 171185) in a model I then trace directly back to Immanuel Kant (1781:50-52). Piaget himself commented: "The hypothesis which we propose is at the same time very simple and completely banal" ("...a complete banality") (1967:37 / translated 1971:26). It is such a simple model that it is actually correct by logical necessity, just like Kant's formulation of the same banal essence (1781:50-51). They are two verbal versions of the same banal basic thought. And it is precisely the banal simplicity of the model that gives it the scientific elegance needed for it to last, and which makes it the cornerstone that it is in all modern learning theory and research. The internal opposition within the model is simply this: 'assimilation' being 'to form the impressions so that they appear similar to earlier impressions', while 'accommodation' is 'to not form them at all but merely letting them enter as they are'; and the result is always a 'building onto' but not always a 'fault-finding' or the euphemism 'identification of what one may improve', the way ignorant tyrants within pedagogical studies want to have it; decidedly tyrannical and equally ignorant, in the case of Norway. It is the {'building onto' without necessarily having to 'tear down anything' or 'modify anything', without having to identify anything at all that isn't useful, as it is, as a building-block}, Piaget is talking about in the whole book, which the mentioned tyrants have hardly read at all and do not care reading at all when I point at their fraudulent quote. The mathematician and physicist Immanuel Kant saw the same as the biologist Jean Piaget; and he saw it 186 years before Piaget, who, naturally, saw it with the help of the former. Kant said the human mind "constructs" the objects of the mind's sensewise perception within the roomwise quality of reality, and this is then the basis of Piaget's "structuralism". Kant, furthermore, saw the possibility of the 'group' abusing its power over the individual, and he saw the need for the pedagogue to interfere immediately and with a firm hand, interfere both with physical strength and firm intent (1803: On Pedagogy §95). But Kant does not seem to have seen the problem of the medieval prayerhouse style version of the Socratic pedagogical dialogue: the command to 'find your fault and repent' the abuse of power that lies in the pedagogue's (and, naturally, in the metapedagogue's) pseudo-Socratic demolition dialogue the 'tearing-down-talk' style pedagogy. Piaget saw it.*45 * 45 One who also saw it was Basil Bernstein (1924-2000). There is a bit of the falsified Piaget and a bit of the misunderstood Vygotsky in the true story Basil Bernstein told of teachers who inspect the children's drawings and let praise be followed by comments on what's missing in the drawings, comments like "But where is the chimney?" aso (Basil Bernstein 1990, ch.2 / 1996, ch.3), which paints this in a bit of a darkly humoristic shade. The 'tear-down-talk' style dialogue is of course as old as the phenomenon 'instruction'. The real 'Socratic' dialogue, namely the type that Sokrates, according to Platon, himself engaged in, incidentally, is not at all of the 'designed self-falsification' type but a 'designed self-discovery' type leading towards the point where the pupil 'gives birth to his or her own knowledge' and the pupil realizes that the knowledge proceeded from within and this, naturally, holds for meta-pedagogical dialogues as well, in teacher education. Structuralism (the idea of the mind's internally structured building process) implies that 'self-falsification' as a dialogic element is destructive. Both structuralism and constructivism (the idea that we do in fact build 'the idea of reality', or 'reality' as 'an idea', together) dictate it is in fact the opposite that one ought to elevate and advocate: 'compounding'. And structuralism is precisely about the discovery of the human mind's natural and constantly ongoing idea-wise compounding, or 'building onto', the 'building on top of and around what is already there, without having to tear down any of it'. It is 'continuous compounding' continuously building on the good parts, without necessarily having to tear down anything at all (Piaget 1967:13, 200-201 / 1971:4, 171). That is what Piaget's 'structuralism' is; itself based on Kant's 'structured cognition' (cf. Kant 1781/ 87). In 'social learning' this would imply the putting together of what each and every individual member has to contribute, all of the contributions; 'putting them all together', rather than 'voting on' what to include or exclude and inevitably voting on who to include or exclude. This is how we unpack postmodernity's idea of 'cooperation', the 'group work'/'teamwork' paradigm we get from 'unregulated group-mediated regulation of the self' the oxymoron 'unregulated group-regulation of self-regulated learning' and expose it as the giant postmodern hoax it is. It is in fact the mere opposite of 'cooperation', built on the opposite of what both Piaget and Vygotsky taught us, not to mention what Ann Brown taught us about how social structures can function as externalized collaborative organizingprocesses (the 'Fostering a Community of Learners' movement, FCL, of Ann Brown in the early 1990's). In these times of collectivistic endeavors, individual knowledge is incorporated into the domain of collective cybernetics (a collective controlspace for metacognition and synthesizing, with collective metacognition, expertise-sharing exercise) the application of locally networked computers and concepts like 'opportunistic collaboration' (Toronto Institute of Child Study, 2009) being a further development of the collective learning environment. The collective production of electronically presented structures of knowledge artifacts, where the focus is on individual metacognitive awareness and hyper-individual metacognitive tracingcapability (the CSILE/KF medium and the Moodle), where the theoretically conceptualized collective cognitive responsibility leaves transparent traces, seem to provide the possibility of a safer environment for the individual, compared to having students of pedagogy working together but in seclusion, in separate rooms, necessarily away from the responsible teacher, or any teacher, because the teachers are fewer than the groups. The University of Hong Kong (HKU) uses these resources, and remarkable structural qualities exist in Hong Kong's teacher-training. Viking-land seems to lag behind in this regard, clinging to venues of abuse in a way that might have the world raise an eyebrow or two, or ought to anyway. Cognitive 'crisis' a popular abusive fad Just like with the 'leading-the-learner-into-self-contradiction' fad, there is NO NEED, in Piaget's model, to experience cognitive CRISIS in order to learn efficiently. That whole fad, hence, is a pedagogical farce; built on lies, nonsense and incompetence throughout the field of the Learning-Sciences and teacher-training, which therefore has suffered immensely. I'd say it has suffered too much. We need to put an end to this. Piaget's model dictates healthy, productive development of previous ideas as they are, into their future states, the building of structure upon structure, ideally without replacing any of the previous ideas, but certainly adding to them. It is not primarily the subject but the object we need to instantly 'modify' change into the internal forms we already have as we perceive it, according to this model. The presently held forms are 'previous' and 'preexisting', but not innate in their specified form; they develop from an inherited structure, in both Kant and Piaget's texts emerge gradually (in stages, says Piaget) into the overlapping updated, specific schemas of the present. The modification Piaget talks of isn't the crisis-induced modification of failed preexisting ideas, but "intermittently occurring reactions between previous elements of ideas and new elements that we have already accommodated, analogous to Piaget's algebra-ish formulated example of "organic" assimilation (cf.p.4, 171, 172, 173, 177, 180 of his Biology and Knowledge – a translation tainted, regretfully, by Beatrix Walsh the translator, who evidently saw it as her duty to 'help' Jean Piaget. Piaget, it seems, died fully aware that the world didn't understand his model, but he hardly understood that Beatrix was partly the cause of it. The rest of the cause was the ruling pedagogical faith, church-invented, the same faith that today rules on campuses. The OPPOSITE of this 'faith-opinion' shines through when we look at the research-based meaning of "accommodate". What, then, is the meaning of "accommodate" in Piaget's cognitive theory? Here's a key segment from Piaget's launching his model, in 1967 (Biologie et Connaissance, Essai sur les régulations organiques et les processus cognitifs, Éditions Gallimard). See what it means in English right after the two paragraphs of French text: (p.70) Depuis Kant, au contraire, la connaissance a pu être considéré comme une incorporation ou intégration de l'objet à des formes intérieures au sujet (ou « formes » a priori), de telle sorte que, à conserver le vocabulaire précédent, tout en retenant ce déplacement des formes de l'objet au sujet, on pourrait dire aussi bien que l'objet « devient » le sujet ou s'identifie à un secteur de son activité connaissante. ... (p.71) Nous dirons donc que la première fonction de la connaissance est d'être une assimilation, au sense précisément d'une interaction entre le sujet et l'objet, telle qu'il y a tout à la fois accommodation aussi possée que possible aux caractères de l'objet, mais incorporation tout aussi essentielle à des structures antérieures (quel que soit le mode de construction de celles-ci). En cette assimilation le sujet devient l'objet tant que l'on voudra, puisqu'il lui accommode ses schèmes, mais, pour devenir tel, il ne sort pas de lui-même ni ne change de nature: il le « comprend », le « saisit » ou le « connaît », autant de termes qui étymologiquement déjà impliquent à la fois une prise de possession et une collaboration. (1967 p.70-71) which in English means something very close to this where text in parenthesis, (...), is original but text in brackets, [...], is inserted by me: (p.70) Since Kant, on the contrary, it's been possible to think of knowledge as an incorporation or integration of the object in the interior forms of the subject (or a priori « forms »), in such a way that in order to preserve the presently existing vocabulary, and fully maintain 'the displacement of the object's forms into the subject' one could equally well say that the object becomes the subject or identifies itself as a sector of the subject's awarenessproducing activity. ... (p.71) We shall therefore say {in our model} that the primary function of the awareness is that it is assimilation, in the specific sense of interaction between the subject and its object, so that one at the same time has [1] as much accommodation as possible of the object's characteristics and [2] full incorporation into the essential earlier structures (whatever construction may result within these). In this assimilation the subject becomes its object, if you like, inasmuch as it accommodates its schemas for the object; but, in order to arrive at that, the subject never leaves itself or changes its nature: it «includes» the object, «catches» it or «knows» it, as far as the terms that etymologically already imply the capturing of ownership and cooperation. (1967, s.70-71) To adapt means to assimilate impressions into structures that "either continue as they were or modify themselves after the accommodation of a new element", (1967:200; cf. p. 203-204 / 1971:171; cf. p. 174); and these two shall we call them 'pressures'?: accommodation and assimilation constantly push in opposite directions, continuously re-establishing the point of balance between the two "constant" and functionally opposite "conditions" of (corresponding premise-requirements) for adaptation, the two "abstract" extremes, "two opposite poles". This note serves to illustrate the fact that Kant's Critique of pure reason (1781) in its entirety, in addition to the brief segment pp.50-51 (1781)/pp.74-75 (1787) speaks the very cognitive model that Jean Piaget made known to a wider audience in 1967, a model that the audience then went to work on with a pick axe before they glued some of its broken pieces to a political poster and made it into the slogan and the ppt-banners that have indoctrinated teacher candidates ever since, worldwide. Not only is there no need for 'cognitive crisis' in order to have efficient learning, it is counter-productive to consciously design teaching so as to induce cognitive crisis, partly because it causes teachers to 'go fishing' for the 'necessary present confusion', looking for students to impersonate the holder of that 'necessary present confusion', or worse: interpret students dialogically with a bias towards that 'necessary present confusion'. That whole fishing-expedition type of pedagogy is contrary to the imperative to interpret according to the 'principle of charity'. The 'fishing for a necessary present confusion' is a pedagogical charade I have witnessed too many times for too long to not speak up about it. It is patently detrimental to efficient learning, patently contrary to both Piaget and Kant. The 'cognitive crisis' fad is religious in its origin, produced by men of the dark. It isn't Piaget's recommendation. It is a 'confess-and-repent'imperative. It is abusive, based on a lie, and it isn't very intelligent at all as learning-environment-design. We need 'intelligent design', if I may steal a phrase often applied about the idea of a cosmologically manipulated evolution unto the present world we need intelligent design of learning environments. To get that, we must strike down on the abusers of social power in the institutions of teacher education, and strike hard. Rock the boat, is what we need to do, rock it so hard that the water pours in through the gaping holes in its side and sinks it. That is when a new boat takes form, with another structure altogether. one side of the balance being incident type 1:seeing objects we come across (hear/see/touch/ smell) in the environment as similar to what we already know, similar to the schemas (Norw.: skjema) we already have ('making-similar-to-present-knowledge/schemas' the first central notion being 'seeing-as-similar'/'making similar' (assimilation'), an assimilation that is "cognitive" (simply Latin for "grasping-wise": 'with-respect-to-the mind's-grasping'); the other side of the balance being incident type 2: modifying oneself so as to be formed by the objects we come across in the environment or merely being modified by the objects, the second central notion, then, being 'modify one-self' or 'being modified', which all lecturers say is Piaget's 'accommodation', which, they say, Piaget defined as 'modification' or 'self-modification'. The same lecturers then proceed to give everyday examples of the human mind doing only one and not also the other, examples of how we get confused when we only do one of them. The way they explain it is by setting two equally non-constructive incident types up as examples has the benefit of promoting 'willingness-to-selfmodify'. The rest of the gossip, beyond the 'disliked'-claim elaborate slurs are added to solidify the eviction from these courses, when such gossip and slurs should INSTEAD lead to administrators and whoever write them getting dismissed from their jobs. The defenders of the 'admit-and-repent'-type pedagogy are promoters of an ancient church-authored pedagogic faith, from the age of a church-run higher education in Europe. They defend their faith through forgery of quotes (Piaget 1967), abuse of the human right of equal access to the exam-stage it is a human right to be allowed to take the exam regardless of faith, in this case 'pedagogic faith'. The facts that in fact have bearing on it are supposed to dictate that faith, it isn't supposed to be done by the use of bullies-for-hire, thugs who 'merely follow order' all in all a ruling campus-party that cannot be left to 'its own self-regulation' because it refuses to let scientific evidence regulate them, refuses to adapt to the evidence (as I have proved), but nonetheless it regulates all the selves within its reach. The political way to lead them out of their monopoly is by the political measures I have indicated above, for all the reasons I have indicated above, all related to public health and the quality of primary-, secondaryand higher education; lately in all the 'fields' of higher-education (cf. Seeking Campus-Universal Didactic Dominance, and getting it, ... Soerfjord 2016). Appendix I: Pathological dialogues in the absence of taught team-ethics by Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord) © The author, Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord), asserts his right to be identified as the author of this work. as "appendix I" of Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary (p.627-636) Participants: ADULT TEACHER-CANDIDATES (most of them in the range 20-30 years of age). Place: in a practice-venue school (Flaatestad) 20 km south of down-town Oslo, Norway, on the ridges along the eastern side of the Oslo Fjord. Day: Tuesday 15.Sept.2015 – (ir)responsible University Institute: University of Oslo's (UiO's) "ILS" – "Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning" (Institute for Teacher-education and School-research). Dialogue 1. SOCIAL WARFARE FOR TEAM-DOMINATION on Day 1 of the 'team-work'; Task: "Plan a lesson about adjectives and adverbs." ("Planlegg en undervisningstime i adjektiv og adverb.") Guidance-teacher (praksislaerer) is Maria Sofie Olsson, who tells us the class has problems with the difference between adjectives and adverbs. The team seated around part of an oblong table: (female:) Cora Lillian (female) Ann-Helen (Female) Kai Sørfjord (male, myself) Ann-Helen: "I think we should reach agreement on everything before we ... (move on)." ("Jeg syns vi skal bli enige om alt før vi ...") After 5 minutes: No concrete suggestion has been uttered by anyone other than the censorship-operator (AnnHelen) and myself, whom she will now proceed to threaten in her fight for Dominance. Kai Sørfjord: "We could begin with an example sentence that has adjectives and adverbs in it, and move from there into the difference between adjectives and adverbs, thereby 'moving from practice to theory', as the guidance-teacher urged me to the last time I had practical teaching-exercise." (my transl. of "Vi kan begynne med en eksempelsetning som har adjektiver og adverb i seg og så se på forskjellen på adjektiv og adverb, og dermed 'bevege oss fra praksis til teori', som praksislaereren anbefalte meg forrige gang jeg var i praksis.") Ann-Helen: "I think we should do adjectives only." (my transl. of "Jeg syns vi skal ta bare adjektiver.") Kai: "The task is to teach adjectives and adverbs." ("Oppgaven er å undervise i adjektiv og adverb.") Ann-Helen: "I think we should begin by explaining the definition of an adjective, and then ..." ("Jeg syns vi skal begynne med å forklare definisjonen av adjektiv, og så ..." 5 minutes later (Ann-Helen talking continuously throughout, with no interruption) - Kai: "That is the difficult way of teaching it, moving from theory to practice. My practice-guidance-teacher before recommended we begin with the experience and then move to the theory of it. It is the pedagogically more efficient way". ("Det er den vanskelige måten å forklare det på, bevege seg fra teori til praksis. Min praksislaerer tidligere anbefalte å begynne med opplevelsen og så bevege seg til teorien. Det er den pedagogisk mer effektive måten å gjøre det på.") Ann-Helen: "I now feel that you are working against us. We now have majority to do it this way." ("Nå føler jeg at du motarbeider oss. Nå har vi flertall for å gjøre det sånn.") – without having voted, but implying the two muted females (Cora and Lillian) will let her (Ann-Helen) dominate and dictate the forming of the product and prevent me, as it were, from 'dictating that no one be dictated and all speak freely' (get it?). = a threat: you either agree with me or 'we' make the 'majority decision' that 'you are working against us'.* 46 Ann-Helen looks over the table to each of the remaining two members in the team seated around the table, verifying that neither of them show signs of wanting to object to her claim of constituting 'the majority voice'. Kai Sørfjord: "Such an aggression isn't necessary." ("Det er ikke nødvendig med en sånn aggresjon." The meta-discursive nature of the last exchange – you are working against us and Such an aggression isn't necessary marks that the end of the 'team-work' has already occurred. It ended before the dialogue-form itself became the theme of an utterance. This was the first and last of the meta-dialogic utterances exchanged within the team. From that point on Ann-Helen was so much feared by the other two team-members (Cora and Lillian) that they never uttered a word to suggest anything or share a thought on anything. At an earlier point in the same dialogue I notice the fear building in these two females while they observe the way Ann-Helen operates her censorship of all ideas not originating in her own mind, so I specifically ask each of the two to express their thinking with respect to the task at hand. They respond by aiming their face towards Ann-Helen and micro-nod upwards, and Ann-Helen then begins another 5-minute rant, beginning on the need to 'agree on everything'. What materialized was what I can only call a paralyzing fear of disorder. Her (Ann Helen's) main project was that she should lead, and that she should lead by: herself, the 'leader', constantly talking; herself having the right to re-define the task given by the guidance-teacher, effectively changing the task; and herself consistently vetoing everyone else's suggestions until everyone else stops trying to contribute in any other way than agreeing with her plan, her veto (her jumping in while a team-member is explaining and vetoing before anyone has even heard or understood the essence of whatever idea is about to be revealed), her exclusions and, by explicitly counting the silently acquiescing as 'her votes', her threats against any individual standing in her way. The endlessly repeated statement by Ann-Helen, throughout the almost 2 hour dialogue is: "I think we should reach an agreement about everything before we begin planning any of the details." ("Jeg syns vi skal bli enige om alt før vi begynner å planlegge detaljene.") Each time the guidance-teacher (Maria Sofie Olsson) opens the door and briefly enters, Ann-Helen laments in a frustrated accusatory tone: "We cannot manage to reach agreement." ("Vi klarer ikke å bli enige.") Little does the guidance-teacher know that Ann-Helen is the one 'not agreeing' with anything suggested by anyone else; who vetos all suggestions before we hear enough to even have an opinion about them, then begins talking about everything she can think of connected or not connected to the task at hand; and threatens the one team-member who continues to contribute in addition to herself. Her threat is: 'You either agree with me or you are working against us.' (the essence of the above quoted threat)* 46 * 46 The allowing of that threat, and other threats like it (in-team abuses), by guidance-teachers (here Maria Sofie Olsson), practice-venue-schools (formally the practice-coordinators, here May Britt Esse Berge, cf-photo p. 92 in "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary"), the university institutes (here those of the faculty of Ed-Sci at the UiO), academies of Ed-Sci and by the State Department of Education (and why not include the Parliament) is internally self-destructive, as it eliminates all good intensions as put forth in the existing laws and national plans for teaching. The elimination of all legislated good intentions is a local contra-policy consistent set of practices; the working of a strategy that does something else, other than what Parliament has ordered for our schools, by law. Those intentions are laid forth in the 'law for teaching', in §1-1 of it. So what is the problem? It is this: The teacher-educating institutions do as they want anyway, and literally refuse to accept the logical fact: that §1-1 of that law DICTATES THE FORM AND CONTENT OF ALL TEACHERTRAINING. THAT is one big mother-load of worms in teacher-training refusing to play the tune written in Parliament the tune Parliament wants all teaching of children to adhere to, hence the tune Parliament WANTS ALL TEACHER-EDUCATORS TO ENABLE ALL NEW TEACHERS TO ADHERE TO. Hence, Parliament does not want any abuses (in-team or otherwise) to go on in teacher-training. But what it WANTS and what it necessarily GETS are here opposite. It is what I call office-situated civil disobedience (cf. "Seeking Campus-Universal Didactic Dominance, and getting it ...", Sørfjord 2016). Dialogue 2. TWO-DOMINATOR STAND-OFF Day: Wednesday 16.Sept.2015, in a larger team that includes the participants of dialogue 1. Task: "Plan a lesson about London and New York." The team, seated in the same room (a small chamber) and around the same table as in dialogue 1: Oda (Female from Trøndelag, ø=oe) Rune (male, from northern Norway; cf. (female, from western Norway:) Cora "When a teacher-candidate is afraid to talk") (male, from western Norway:) John Ann-Helen (Female, from east of Oslo) (male, from Oslo:) Erik Lillian (female, from the eastern region) Kai Sørfjord (male, myself) Oda: "I think we should all reach an agreement about the superordinate structure, and then ... , and then divide ourselves into smaller teams (groups)." (My transl. of "Jeg syns vi kan bli enige alle sammen om den overordnede struktur, og så ..., og så dele oss inn i mindre grupper.") Ann-Helen: "I think we should continue to work together." ("Jeg syns vi skal fortsette å jobbe sammen.") Oda: "But can we agree on the structure?" ("Men kan vi bli enige om strukturen?") Ann-Helen: "When we spoke with Maria yesterday, it seemed to be ok to use 'brainstorm'." * 47 ("Da vi snakket med Maria i går, virket det som det var ok med 'brainstorm'.") John (cf photos p. 489): "What if we have photos, several, one after the other, from London, in power- point ?" ("Hva tror dere om vi har bilder, flere etter hverandre, fra London, i ppt ?" Ann-Helen: "I think that will be confusing.* 47 Maria, anyway, thinks brainstorm - " {pauses} ("Jeg tror det blir forvirrende. Maria syns hvertfall at brainstorm -" {stillhet}) Kai Sørfjord (myself): "But can we not have that photo-series too ? That was a good idea." ("Men kan vi ikke ha den bildeserien også? Det var en god ide.") an initiative towards an inclusive dialogue, one that aims at bringing together the contributed suggestions into a composite whole. But the air has immediately gone out of John. He sees the obvious strategy and mannerism by which Ann-Helen intends to dominate by excluding 'opponents'. John: "It is no big deal." ("Det er ikke noen big deal.") John is gradually being made passive, and my support cannot erase the censorship expressed by Ann-Helen. Then, Lillian too wants the inclusive strategy that welcomes John's suggestion: Lillian: "Many photos simultaneously, maybe." ("Flere bilder samtidig, kanskje.") Kai (myself): "A collage." ("En kolasj") Lillian: "Yes." ("Ja.") Ann-Helen: "I think we should begin with a text, and ..." {Suddenly, then talking rapidly for almost a minute about what she, Ann-Helen, wants the lesson to be like.} ("Jeg syns vi skal åpne med en tekst, og ...") Rune: "Instead of a photo-series, which draws the attention (away from...)." ("Istedenfor en bildeserie, som drar fokus ...") {as if to soften Ann-Helen and make her see the need to validate one another's suggestions, absurdly enough by validating Ann-Helen's rejection of John's.} Oda: "But can we proceed on (about) the structure, then?" ("Men kan vi gå videre på strukturen da?") Ann-Helen: "Details on structure come later, I think; but I see you have found a suitable text?" ("Det med struktur kommer etter hvert, syns jeg; men jeg ser du har funnet en brukbar tekst?") Oda: "I have found many texts, but I don't know if they are suitable." ("Jeg har funnet mange tekster, men jeg vet ikke om de er brukbare.") Time 8:32 AM Ann-Helen: "Maria suggested yesterday that we could have 'brainstorming'." ("Maria foreslo i går at vi kunne ha 'brainstorming'.") Rune: "That was something Maria suggested. Now, it is for a fact not the case that we absolutely must make choices of her liking." ("Det var noe Maria foreslo. Nå er det jo ikke slik at vi absolutt skal gjøre henne til lags.") Ann-Helen: "But at the same time I think we should follow her idea. We'd better take advantage of ..." {('the advice we get')} ("Men samtidig syns jeg vi skulle følge hennes ide. Vi får utnytte ..." {'de rådene vi får'}) Rune: "They have 'learning-partners'; (and) it might be beneficial to ..." ("Man har laeringspartner; (og) det kan vaere greit å ...") Rune too has now been made passive, and is about to be made silent. Rune here modulates his suggestion into such a weak claim that no one can rationally see any sense in objecting to it, but Ann-Helen STILL keeps rejecting everything Rune says as irrelevant: Ann-Helen: "I thought more in terms of ..." ("Jeg tenkte mer ...") and Ann-Helen does this every time Rune opens his mouth to contribute to the team; until Rune slumps over on top of the oblong table top in front of him, his right forearm under his chin, the left arm's elbow supporting his partially raised forearm and hand, with the index finger raised towards the ceiling, waiting for a pause in the constant chatter-flow from Ann-Helen. In short brakes, every now and then, a half sentence from John or Rune is optimistically finding its way to our ears, but Ann-Helen cuts them off when they inhale to proceed into the continuation of the sentence in what might be a fruitful contribution. These halfsentences are the aborted fetuses of a social construction that could be, but isn't. So, with reference to the 'live photo-strip' – titled "Truthtelling shoulder-heaves of deception" ('Løgnens sannferdige skulderkast') in "Scared Stiff, a Documentary" (p. 325); as separate article titled "When a teacher-candidate is afraid to talk", Rune knows exactly what I am talking about when I talk about the need for mandatory 'team-work'-guidance and instruction in team-work before the teamwork begins. Some young adults just aren't suited for 'team-work', do not become suitable on their own, but may be able to be taught a dose of 'team-ethics'; and, having been taught such, one can then address the violations of such principles and hold violators of them accountable. One can then even demand all this 'secrecy-inchambers' nonsense to end. Without such instruction, some individuals operate harmful principles in these 'team-work'-dialogues; though they often manipulate practice-guidance-teachers and lecturers of pedagogy into thinking it is the targets of their censorship that "have a problem with team-work"; while they in fact dominate the team by bullying, threatening and pretending to be: 'victims of disagreement', saying things like "we just cannot reach an agreement" when the guidance-teacher pops in. Everyone who listens to Ann-Helen's censorship throughout these two dialogues know that the only way to have progress in the 'team'-work is to let AnnHelen effectively dictate all. Anyone who attempts to say anything is immediately vetoed by an Ann-Helen that cuts off and rejects almost everything that is not her own idea, and imagines to have the right to do these things, obviously imagining it is what a 'leader' is supposed to do win a social battle for dominance. Time 8:40 AM Cora says something for the first time, but is interrupted by Oda, who seems unaware that she is indeed interrupting and taking over, taking the chance to speak away from Cora. Ann-Helen then jumps in when Oda inhales for a breath of air, saying things no one is listening to, because we all obviously still want to hear the continuation of Cora's sentence. Then, when the voice of Ann-Helen fades: Cora: "I'm just thinking, if I may ask ..." ("Jeg bare tenker på, hvis jeg kan spørre ..." looking nervously across the table while talking, addressing her request to pose a request in the direction of Oda and then towards Ann-Helen. Oda takes charge: "You will have to address that in plenum then." ("Da må du ta det i plenum da.") Ann-Helen jumps in and rapid exchanges follow between Oda and Ann-Helen. Everyone else just want the two to finish talking so we can begin doing something. We are beginning to itch for the chance to leave, split up into smaller units of 'cooperating' adults. Time 8:48 AM Erik: "I can write." {operates the keys of his laptop} ("Jeg kan skrive.") Oda: "The – city – of – London" {gives dictation to Erik} Lillian: "We can have ..." {suggestion is cut off before Lillian has the chance to put forth her reasons and line of thinking:} ("Vi kan ha ...") Oda: "I think that will be fine, but I think it shall come a bit later." ("Jeg tror det er greit, men jeg tror det skal komme litt seinere.") Time 8:51 AM Erik: "Can I just insert a question?" ("Kan jeg bare skyte inn et spørsmål?") {asks permission to ask, rather than just asking; overly polite on account of two aggressive females in social warfare against all others and each other.} "Once the Thames is mentioned, are we not going to include any of the rest?" ("Når Themsen er nevnt, skal vi ikke ha med noe av det andre?" {addressing his request to the Oda/Ann-Helen entity, knowing these two females imagine to have the right to veto anything that isn't exactly what they want}. Oda: "I think we'll use some of it." ("Jeg syns vi skal ta noe av det.") {constantly seeing herself as a siftingorgan, which is basic team-work-problem, though in competition with Ann-Helen, Oda does have a more inclusive attitude} Erik: "Yes" ("Ja") Oda: "But can we take in sequence, so we get something done?" ("Men kan vi ta noe av det i rekkefølge, så vi får gjort noe?" Time 8:55 AM Rune: "See if some of this is suitable? ("Se om noe av dette passer?") Ann-Helen: "To me it clashes with ..." ("For min del krasjer det med ...") {AND HERE WE GO; THE CENSORSHIP-OPERATOR TAKES OVER, AGAIN. Rune is surprisingly resilient, but he now appears to know he is dealing with a sociopath or two. This is what he MUST lie about back in the UiO lecture-hall (cf. p.322 onwards) if he wants to avoid being sifted out of the course by the whim of the bullies who operate the course.} Rune: "It is only a rough outline. It was only a suggestion." ("Det var bare en røff skisse. Det var bare et forslag.") Ann-Helen: "Because when we have ..." ("Fordi atte når vi har ...") {offering her reason for the absurd act of rejecting the rough outline of Rune's ideas, all of which sound pretty good to me, as rough outlines. I too am in shock over the fact that we appear to be dealing with acute sociopathology, and no one is here to assist. The same absence of the guidance-teacher is about to occur in a later dialogue. I then walk the 20 meters or so, while this goes on, to the canteen section of the school where the guidance-teacher, Miss Maria Sofie Olsson, is seated; and I beg her to come and assist us in the team-work. But she is too busy chewing her food, and, besides, she obviously has decided to not like me very much. I walk the same 20 meters three times in less than an hour, with the same result: none. She obviously does not want to 'interfere'. What follows next is some productive knowledge-organizing exchanges between Lillian and Erik. Rune, still slumped over, is holding a hand up, reduced to a school-boy who asks permission to speak. Each time he eventually begins to say something, his face moves as if in pain, painfully aware as he is that two aggressive females are inhaling and ignoring him, getting ready to jump in while he inhales. It isn't 'team-work', stopped being it at the onset of the exclusion-tactic of individuals who do not know what cooperation is, individuals who imagine that 'to lead' in pedagogic 'teamwork' is 'to dominate' by excluding others. Time 9:02 AM Rune: Should we have any summing-up on the wall-board ?" ("Skal vi ha noen oppsummering på tavla?" {It is the 'consolidation-phase' Rune is interested in; possibly seeing a good partial task for him to go work on in another room.} Oda: "For god's sake, do not distract {us} now!" ("For guds skyld, ikke distraher nå!") {Oda always with her painfully sharply pitched and stressed voice, intentionally so, a tool by which she penetrates everyone else's verbal interactions; using deliberate nasalpassage and narrowing of the mouth-flow, much like Ann-Helen's usage of her noise-capacity.} Oda is downgrading Rune, and this goes on for 1 hour and 30 minutes or so; each time Rune opens his mouth he is abused by Oda or Ann-Helen; much the same way I myself was abused by Ann-Helen in dialogue 1. Rune, however, does not address the abuse, does not mention it with any meta-dialogic comment; he does nothing meta-discursive to defend his right to contribute, nor to defend John's or any of the silenced females' right to contribute. It wouldn't have done any good either. I tried to defend Cora and Lillian's right to contribute in dialogue 1, but they were sunk too deep in fear, had become mute by rational choice. At this point in dialogue 2 we are, all six of us socially non-aggressive team-members are, just looking for an escape; a partial task to grab and depart the room with; more specifically, looking for a chance to work without any censorship-operator sabotaging the progress and thinking they are 'team-leaders'. Then a series of darkly interesting exchanges between Oda and Rune: Time 9:04 AM Each time Rune begins to explain his very good outline of an idea, he reaches a point where he inhales and is about to begin his next sentence. At that moment this occurs: Oda: "No, I think ..." (Nei, ae syns ...") – with strong emphasis, by intonation and duration, on "I" ("ae") If this was about evidence that have bearing on matters believed to be facts, then a "no" is appropriate, whether people are annoyed by it or not, and regardless of how annoyed they are or how many of the annoyed ones there are in the room. This is not such a case. The home-brewed Piaget-stew, on the other hand, is: the fake Piaget 1967 quotes-for-methodological-control. So is the Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad posing as PhD in pedagogy case of administrative fraud at the UiO. Time 9:33 AM Erik, John and I (Kai) leave the room, and the floor, in order to plan our part of a lesson on London: Time 9:38 AM Erik: "I wonder if the ones upstairs have written much about tourist spots." ("Jeg lurer på om de oppe har skrevet mye om severdigheter.") John: "I do not think they have reached any agreement, because they have probably disagreed about the inflection of a verb." ("Jeg tror ikke de er blitt enige, for de er sikkert blitt uenige om bøyningen av et verb.") Erik: "and then they have ended up killing one another." ("og så har de endt opp med å drepe hverandre.") Sociopathic plenum: Friday 18. Sept. 2015 The leader of 'practical-exercise-teaching' at Flaatestad School (20 km south of Oslo), Practice-coordinator Miss May Britt Esse Berge (photo p. 92), this being the end of the first week of 'teaching-practise' (mostly observation), gives an individual task to all 30-40 teacher-candidates in 'her' school. The task is – May Britt Esse Berge: "You shall reflect on what you have observed in the lessons and tie it to learningtheory." "Dere skal reflektere over det dere har observert i timene og knytte det til laeringsteori." Each of the 5 or 6 larger groups assigned to Flaatestad School will now present a summing up of what they have observed, experienced and learned during that week. This will take place in the school's combined auditorium-and-gym. Rows of chairs are set in a semi-halfcircle and one by one the 10-12 members of each of the larger teams line up and talk freely. Anyone in each large team who wishes to say a few words while lined up do so, and the audience, consisting of the remaining 20-30 teacher-candidates, then ask questions for the following 2 or 3 minutes. In our group, the language-teaching-group, I wait until all the others have said what they have on their minds, nearly everyone saying something, and I then add an observation of a method used by some of the experienced teachers at that school, and I connect that to something I have read about Lev Vygotsky not an extraordinarily clever comment, but still the only comment that does exactly what the task is: tie an observation to learning-theory ("knytte en observasjon til laeringsteori"). Within one second of my contribution, in front of the audience, this occurs: Ann-Helen bends forward so that her head protrudes from our 12-candidate line-up, turns her head and looks at me and, with a debate voice that fills the auditorium, exclaims: Ann-Helen: "But that isn't what we were supposed to 'observe' !" "Men det var jo ikke det vi skulle 'observere' !" Kai (myself): "Sure it was, we were supposed to tie observations to theory." (which no one else did, as far as I noticed) ("Jo, vi skulle knytte observasjoner til teori.") Naturally, standing in front of the audience of peers, it is a comment that feels like bullying, and the reason why it feels like bullying is that it is bullying, mobbing. That is one form that bullying or mobbing takes, and all 'cases' of it are 'bullying' or 'mobbing'. So even if I had no sensitivity with respect to such, it would still amount to bullying or mobbing. That is because it is the nature of the behavior that makes something bullying or mobbing, not the allegedly perceived depth of the wound in the skin of the target of the behavior in question. Inter-subjectively identifiable shared processes and judgments is why it is what it is regardless of the alleged effect on the target individual. This is where many are confused, and spill their confusion as claims to the contrary, exerting influences they ought not have, doing much damage that wiser people can avoid when the structure of hiring-procedures allows them to deal with these matters. Broadly speaking, but narrowly within Ed-Sci, it does not. The internal hiring and pseudo-apprenticeship for Consensus-hood is ideological incest: it brings no valid offspring, and morally it is rape of reason conducted by logical perverts. Miss May Britt Esse Berge remains passive during and after this odd social attack, one in a long series of mobbing-events conducted by this particular individual. Sociopathy in the grill-restaurant: It is 5 or 6 PM, in a planned meal-with-colleagues, just before an evening gathering at the practice-venue-school (still Flaatestad 20 km south of Oslo), at the end of a week of student's social-projects ("elevdugnad"), in October 2015: 8-10 teachers at Flaatestad School, the practice-venue we are in, are seated around a neighboring table at the grill a couple of km south of the school as Ann-Helen, Marte and I arrive, order our plates and have a seat at a table 2 meters away from them. The conversation begins by Marte asking me about my PhD-degree from the University of Hong Kong (HKU), then explicitly determines that "that degree isn't valid in Norway !". Marte repeats it a half dozen times as she argues her case energetically and vocally, quite audibly throughout at least half of the grill's floor surface, and wants to hear my view on it. I am challenged to give my reply repeatedly, and repeatedly I give the - "oh, yes, it is; it is even more valid than the Norwegian degree" an intonation and facial expression that locates it in an indistinct area somewhere on the safe side of ironically condescending; as if I am merely mildly humored by the two females' joint interrogative engagement, rather than disgusted by their immature aggression and the way immature aggression dominates these Norwegian 'team'-ventures whenever good healthy Norwegian leaders of teacher-training aren't around; which is most of the time and that is only partly because they leave the 'teams' alone to 'fight out their social battles', literally so, defending it with much the same lame rhetoric that the police force long ago used to explain why the entity called 'family' should be left alone regardless. The Dominator then takes the spoon in her hand, to finish me off socially: Ann-Helen: "You (with reference to "who has a PhD in pedagogy") probably think what we are doing here is just plain stupid !" ("Du (med ref. til "du som har PhD i ped") syns vel at det vi driver med her bare er helt dumt !") once again activating the 'you' versus 'we' distinction to push somebody down. And this type of behavior is what Norwegian teacher-training actually rewards. Let no one then wonder how these teachers end up as blind to bullying and mobbing as parents continuously (year after year) report in the media. Sociopathy in 'briefing': 1. In a conversation with the leader of the teaching-practice activity ("Practicecoordinator") at Flaatestad School, May Britt Esse Berge, as I inform her of mobbingtype abuses in the lecture hall, by some among the students (students who observe how annoyed the lectuer is and sees a venue for 'legitimate' abuse of a peer* 48 ) as I bring up things like the real 1967 Piaget-quotes in learning-theory, quotes that are actually opposite of the ones consistently alleged by the lecturers in our course program: Kai Sørfjord (myself): "When I shared the facts of the real Piaget-quotes in the full class dialogue segments, the lecturers (who had the fake quotes projected on the wall by their power-point slide) were visibly annoyed and allowed aggressive shouting at me from some in the audience." May Britt Esse Berge: "Does that happen often with you ?" ("Skjer det ofte med deg?"). And, as I continue, she who obviously believes the fake quotes herself stabs (or spits forth): "ILS (the UiO institute within the faculty of Ed-Sci) informed me that you can be domineering." ("ILS informerte meg om at du kan vaere dominerende.") * 48 a key problem in Norwegian universities. This is the way Norwegian lecturers use the masses of Ed-Sci-students to exert pressure on anyone who questions any of their methods, which, incidentally, are the same basic methods of 'pinning the group-against-the-individual' type methods that Norwegian teachers use against children. They too (like the learning-theory they falsely atribute to Piaget) are essentially cost-efficient methods inherited from the age of a church-dominated society. 2. In a conversation with the 'practice-guider', Maria Sofie Olsson, during English language teaching excercise (at the same school: Flaatestad, 20 km south of Oslo): Kai Sørfjord (myself): "There was abuse in the team-work, against others in the team." ("Det var mobbing og maktmisbruk i gruppearbeidet, mot andre i gruppen.") Maria Sofie Olsson: "You must talk for yourself only. The others must speak up for themselves." ("Du må snakke (bare) for deg selv. De andre må jo si fra selv.") Standing back and looking at the social monster: My conclusion is that the 'guidance-teacher' involved in this case (Maria Sofie Olsson) is psychologically, ethically and legally confused, which I reported in writing to the UiO institute (ILS) as early as September 2015, a report whose content was never responded to by anyone. It is my judgment that the same holds for the leader of these activities at that high-school, Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school, Miss May Britt Esse Berge. I might add, also, that the same naturally holds for the individuals I reported this to, in the 'Institute for Teacher-education and School-research' (ILS) at the University of Oslo. Never had I imagined that a public university could possibly be so full of incompetent and ideologically corrupt individuals with ill intentions as is indeed the case in the UiO-case. Socially sick dialogic processes as the ones exemplified above are harmful to the learning-environment of teacher-candidates; hence, by logical necessity, most likely very harmful to the learning-environment of the children taught by teachers educated in such an environment. Socially pathological individuals have the opportunity to take control in teams whenever the teams are left alone or work without anyone among the teacher-trainers present in the same room. Without explicit instruction in healthy and efficient 'team-work', as well as 'team-work-ethics', abuses are left unchecked, even rewarded, usually never addressed, and when addressed resulting in unlawful exclusions of the one who reports the abuses, processes in which the institute and practice-venue in collaboration commit a series of deliberate and commonly perpetrated acts that constitute fraudulent custodianship of state power (Soerfjord 2016). The so-called 'institutes' (institute-clusters organized as 'faculties') are responsible for it, but the Ministry of Education is responsible for the ones who are responsible, so to speak; and in this manner the Ministers of Education hide, as if they were Nazi-generals evading the Nuremberg-trial. It is a 'responsibility-relay' that does not function, a structure made for fascists who evade accountability. One would naturally wish to hear what team-members like Rune (photo p. 322), John (p. 492), Erik, Lillian and Cora have for ideas and what they want to share and contribute in 'team-work' type dialogues, in teacher training and in the work-situation. But a certain type of individuals prevent all of them from contributing, prevent the alleged 'team-work' from being what we suppose team-work can be. A methodology needs to be developed in teacher-education to prevent this, a methodology that ensures the opposite. The Parliament can contact me if they wish to learn how we can do just that. I am easy to find and easy to ask; and I have some ideas. Asking the consensus-mob how to repair their own consensus is like masturbating and watching them when they masturbate. It is a scientific perversion. Parliament and Ministries need to stop doing that. They will not grow hair on the palm of their hands if they keep doing it, but they will be widely viewed as clowns in some near or distant future. Appendix II Ivar Bråten's incredible FIXING of Vygotsky's ZPD into PZD. a ridiculous translation error http://www.uv.uio.no/iped/personer/vit/ivarbr/index.html Ivar Braaten (Bråten) has mistranslated Vygotsky's term "zone of proximal development", ZPD (the English phrase having been derived at by Vygotsky's Russian assistant in cooperation with U.S. PhDs), by making it into the Norwegian phrase "den naermeste utviklingssonen", syntactically making it "the nearest zone of development", the "proximal zone of development". Ivar Braaten has the modifier "proximal" qualifying 'zone' instead of 'development'. Rather than simply doing it the correct way and make it "sonen for naermeste utvikling" or "sonen for proksimal utvikling", he makes it into something else, something distinctly less, each time he mentions the notion by that label, beginning in the article's heading. He has thereby annihilated the key detail that in itself constitutes the core of Vygotsky's whole point with the phrasing of that concept. In his article or book chapter, with co-author Anne Cathrine Thurmann-Moe, he then uses two pages in the hopeless attempt to bring that core essence back into the understanding of what that phrase refers to. But students of pedagogy, naturally, understand nothing of that core essence when they read it, having been derailed from the beginning by the heading: "Den naermeste utviklingssonen som utgangspunkt for pedagogisk praksis", which actually means "The neares zone of development as point of origin in pedagogical practice {/practical pedagogy}", in Vygotsky i pedagogikken (Vygotsky in the learning-sciences) pp.123-143, Norway: Cappelen (1998). The horrible error is so obvious that one wonders about the intention by which they enter into their work in the first place. The aggressing on Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) .....'s face, both during my scheduled presentation of this article and in the rest of the socalled 'seminar'-class, the remaining hour or so of it, in October 2015, was printed in his emotionally inflamed face, just like the visible rage a month later, on 11.Nov.2015 - hard to believe until you see it; a rage that bubbled into the mannerism and staccato monotone-sounding speech of an angry person, the sound everyone recognizes, between long pauses to invite class-participation, some response to the prepared questions for the topic he talks about; and getting absolutely no response from anyone except myself, no hands raised other than mine; everyone suddenly busy investigating Dr. Øystein .....'s unusually monotone intonation and facially expressed aggression, eerily announcing to all that something very bad has just occured. I was the only student tuned in on the topic Dr. Øystein ..... was talking about as he elicited response from the class. The entire seminar class had turned passive, about 25 teacher-candidates; everyone staring at Dr. Øystein .....'s visibly darkened enraged faced, then turning their heads in the direction of his gaze, towards me, then back to Dr. Øystein .....'s face, wondering what the hell is going on. I observed the masses of skulls swivelling 60-170 degrees back and forth, and I knew they were learning something that would mark them for life, shape their whole professional outlook as academics in what to them is a science Ed-Sci put into praxis in a 'field' with direct connection to 'theory'; the phrase "connecting the practical to theory" being an explicitly emphasized ideal. Appendix III Lars Løvlie's incredible FIXING of Kant to fit his educational politics: Lars Løvlie displays the same tendency as Ivar Bråten, proving essences having passed him by without being grasped. Løvlie has Kant's "nature-given desire to be free" ("von Natur ...Hang zur Freiheit", §5 On Pedagogy, 1803)* 49 as 'natural capacity to be free'; where Kant's On Pedagogy actually emphasizes the exact opposite: the human child's inability to be free until properly formed" for that freedom (Bildung forming), formed by being brought up, having been cultured, as in 'formed by culturing'. Lars Løvlie extracts a particle, reverses it and then uses it to pay tribute to 'youth autonomy', referring to Immauel Kant's excellent and huge (little in word-number, tiny actually) book as a testimony of the human child's 'ability to be free'. Lars Løvlie even conspires with a Swedish translater of the book, Jim Jakobsson, to commit forgery by doctoring the text in a segment where Kant gives an example of how to react to bullying. Løvlie comments on the segment in a 'Postscript' he added in the translation, published by Daidalos in Gotenburg. Details follow: * 49 It is a book with a couple of weaknesses due to the time of its coming into being, but unclarity is not one of those two weaknesses. They are: 1) condemnation of merely almost all physical punishment rather than condemning all of it, and 2) a religiousculture-conditioned (culturally dictated) condemnation of masturbation among youth. Ignore the two elements and the book has perpetual validity. A third weakness is irrelevant: a mild inaccuracy in its references to non-human species and their upbringing but only because he underscores the relative complexity in specifically human upbringing. Lars Løvlie, I am certain, isn't a bad person outside of his work, but he fails his duty when he enters another field to extract something useful to him, rapes and plunders the other field, and then uses a particle to his own benefit in a way that is contrary to the scientific fact of the rational range of usages of that particle, which in this case blatantly and patently excludes the use he makes of it. It is a glaringly obvious fact to a moderately competent student of philosophy (even teachers of philosophy are merely students of it, though they flatter each other by calling each other by the label 'philosopher', and I think they ought to stop that habit). Teaching philosophy and being a philosopher are two distinctly different matters; and looking into philosophy as a resource-management or as a harvesting of premises for pre-fabricated arguments, is not even a way to learn how to study philosophy. So, Lars Løvlie tells a lie, a scientific lie. He also quite evidently has coerced Jim Jakobsson, the official 'translator' into Swedish of Kant's book, into forging Immanuel Kant's example of how to react against mobbing or bullying so that Kant's example will look as if it fits Lars Løvlie's philosophy of letting the socially aggressive be free to dominate less aggressive peers. This is the "self-regulating group"-oxymoron ideology I address in teacher-training, an oxymoron (stinging stupidity) whether you look at the philosophy, sociology or psychology of it, on account of it being logically absurd, in every analysis of it; a logical perversion of the individual's right to 'selfregulated learning'. It is essentially unrestrained-group-internal-relationsbased team-work, where a dominant team-member can discriminate or threaten, even exclude, another member if the rest of the team goes along with it, by acquiescing or agreeing (cf. Appendix I). It is an absurdity even in a judicial analysis of it, hence an unlawful learning environment design element whenever participation in a team is mandatory to pass the course. That is a truth lawyers do not understand, not yet, which is remarkable; it speaks of 'forbidden areas of thought' in law, which points to the existence of organisations exerting social power beyond their legitimate range, totalitarian control within self-regulated partial anarchy. That perfect fit of the Løvlie-Jakobsson-doctored text-segment is a benefit we need to look at in order to get over our benevolent doubt in whether anyone would actually be interested in doing such an absurd and scientifically unethical thing as forging a translation, and doing it with a motive, a benefit. Lars Løvlie manipulates quote-particles: The manipulation is in Løvlie's "Postscript" of the publication containing Jim Jakobsson's translation into Swedish (pp. 69-83), in Løvlie's references to the content of On Pedagogy (Om Pedagogik, publisher: Bokförlaget Daidalos AB, 2008), where Løvlie tells the reader, in Swedish, which I now render in English: "Freedom, to Kant, is obeying reason and letting the moral duties restrict one's behavior. This freedom must also be for the child to have (idiosyncratic Swedish: also be valid for the child) before it reaches the age of reason, (and then Løvlie's reason:} because it cannot become free as an adult if it has not already received this freedom as a gift from birth." In Norwegian (my translation of Løvlie's Swedish): "Frihet er for Kant å adlyde fornuften og la de moralske pliktene begrense ens atferd. Denne frihet må også gjelde for barnet før det når fornuftsalder; for det kan ikke bli fritt som voksen dersom det ikke allerede har fått denne frihet som gave fra fødselen av." (Løvlie/Jakobsson 2008:74) As a guidance to students of pedagogy this isn't very accurate. It is what I would call a LIE ABOUT KANT, because: What Kant says in that entire book which anyone who reads the book will know, Lars Løvlie too is the exact opposite: a) that humans ('man') "is the only species that need upbringing" (in the sense Kant uses the word upbringing); b) that man "has from nature such a desire [Hang] for freedom, that once he gets used to it he will sacrifice everything for it" (§1-5) a desire/ need/addiction for freedom that is there from birth, but not yet the ability to be free; c) that humans therefore need "caretaking and forming" [Wartung und Bildung] where "forming [Bildung] includes restraint [Zucht] and instruction [Unterweisung]" (§6) to leave behind the animal in us and "become human" (§7); "make the good seeds grow" (§10). He says "in the human child there are only good seeds" (§10), and "man needs restraint ... cultivation ... and discretion {sound judgment, ability to distinguish}, which requires civilizing {wisdom, politeness and knowledge of how to go about things and how to treat people in order to do what you need to do" (how to let people live their lives the way they want in order for you to live your life the way you want) (§18) So, Kant says, "more important than just training children is teaching them to think." (§19) After "the initial stage", "the child should have some freedom, but under guidance of certain rules." (§27) "How do I cultivate forth freedom when there is restrain? I make my pupil used to tolerate some restraint and at the same time guide him into using his freedom correctly." (§29) The 'positive obedience' enforced in the "initial stage" of a child (§27) is for the child's safety, "so it doesn't get hurt", and it must be combined with "perfect liberty in every way, but only as long as it does not interfere with the liberty of others" (§29), which is rule one: restraint and Socratic dialogic guidance in the right use of freedom. Rule two, as the child grows, is that "one's goal can only be achieved when one allows others to also achieve theirs." And lastly "one must prove to the child"- "as the third" {rule} that "restraint is laid upon it {the child} in order for that to lead to the use of its own freedom, {and} that one cultivates it {the child} so that it thereby may one day {in the future} be free." {dass man ihm einen Zwang auflegt, der es zum Gebrauche seiner eigenen Freiheit führt, dass man es kultiviere, damit es einst Frei sein könne. (§30) } where it seems that Kant, by 'beeing free', is also referring to the notion of man 'having a free will', hence being capable of being accountable for one's actions. Lars Løvlie's ideologically motivated lies about Imanuel Kant is FRAUD What Løvlie says Kant says is that there is an inherent capacity, in children, to function as autonomous human beings, but what Kant says is that there is an inherent "desire"/"will"/"need" ["Hang"] to be autonomous, only to be followed by the corresponding "capacity" after long education Über Pädagogik §5, 29, 30 etc., which means Lars Løvlie is cheating, committing what might justifiably be called academic fraud. Kant's inherent "capacity" is really merely 'the capacity to learn how to be autonomous, or free'. Løvlie says Kant at the same time recognized the apparent paradox made up of this capacity coexisting with a vulnerability that requires guidance and education. This is what Løvlie calls "the pedagogical paradox", and Løvlie says we see it in the way Kant, to every advice on upbringing, adds "a tag that says caution" for example, Løvlie says Kant says: "impose rules on him" (the child) "but remember to allow for his free judgment". Løvlie says Kant's 'paradox' is "constrain him but let him savor his freedom" etc. (cf. Løvlie: The Pedagogical Paradox and its Relevance for Education, 2008). But Kant's tag is OPPOSITE of what Løvlie says it is. Kant explicitly says it much stronger and more to the point, and in the opposite way: let the child be free, and feel free, but only as long as no other child is hurt by it Über Pädagogik §30, 95 etc.). So Lars Løvlie isn't merely lying by omission, he lies by manipulating the original content he paraphrases, misrepresenting Kant's theme and emphasis, reversing the logic of Kant's clauses into another message. And that isn't all: Løvlie stresses that "all-important is the respect for the dignity of the child." But there is an angle missing within this perspective, and that is the quite relevant application of the 'pedagogical paradox' (using the free will but restricted by rules and guidance) with its moderating effect to the issue of choosing a method that maximizes the safeguard against social abuse among students of all ages, teacher candidates and students of Pedagogy too young adults in curricula that involve mandatory team-work (Norw. obligatorisk gruppearbeid). Let them feel their freedom, but be there and watch, so that even the weak can feel his "freedom", is precisely what Kant says in Über Pädagogik. Applying restraint to the freedom of the socially dominant requires presence, explicit rule and high-quality prior instruction in healthy and efficient team-work and team-work ethics. Restraint of the socially dominant cannot be applied based on rumours about, or the voting on, who 'the domineering' is. And rumours is all one can have when team-work is conducted without explicit rules that forbid exclusionbehavior; or the team-work is started without the mentioned prior instruction; or the instruction not being followed up by the lecturer's presence as a norm rather than the exception. Add the notion of that team-work being mandatory, and what we have amounts to opportunities for the socially aggressive to operate censorship of a member, gather social alliance-partners and form sub-team entities that can dominate and threaten a non-allied individual in the team (cf Appendix I, dialogues 1 and 2). This is just unimaginably amateurish and a quite harmful stupidity, and it is the method used universally in Norway. Think about that mindbogling standardized foolishness. I suspect the method is standard in Denmark and Sweden too, and beyond. It is a dark secret the world has been unaware of and may not yet be ready to believe. An in-team mob majority will vote on the victim of their mobbing to be labeled the 'mobber' or 'non-contributor' to be weeded out. Unimaginable incompetencies exist about this in the field of teacher-education, and unimaginably deficient thinking is taking place in the rhetoric we hear. There is simply no valid rationale available to argue the point of view that "teachercandidates are adults and one must therefore assume that they know how to behave". The facts are: they must be there to pass the course, and they aren't being protected; hence they aren't learning how to protect children. They are not even learning what to protect children from, in this regard. And it is rather obvious: We cannot expect future teachers of our children to respect "the dignity of the child" unless we secure the same "dignity" of each teacher candidate and each student of so-called pedagogy and not merely the 'dignity' of these future teachers as a group. What "dignity" means here is the "dignity of each as an individual, especially when in the "team" (group), and even more so when that 'team-work' is mandatory. What Kant says about the dignity of humankind or the individual as a worldcitizen who has learned how to think, and everything else he says about anything related to this, excludes any training schemata that even resembles the divide into groups – work in separate chambers – exclude non-contributors paradigm, which consequently needs to be weeded out of Ed-Sci or the teaching of pedagogy, and kept out. This is merely the obvious application of the minimum of pedagogic insight one needs to expect. Anything less is a numbing evidence of the rule of ideology, a tyrannical force irreconcilable with humanistic "science". I therefore suggest the mere obvious: Guarantee that every individual student in the teams (groups) has access to the savoring of freedom during mandatory team work, but make sure the team or the socially dominant in the team cannot attempt to operate a censorship or effectively eliminate the contribution of any individual; and allow no 'voting' on which contribution to exclude. It is the teacher of pedagogy's responsibility to enforce the opposite: the compounding of everyone's suggestion into new exciting wholes; The allowing of a method (a learning-environment design) that makes it possible for socially dominant individuals individually or in the alliances they form with acquiescing individuals seeing opportunities to join a winning subteam to dominate the team into making decisions that exclude certain contributions or one of the contributors in the team, threaten an individual dissenter, ultimately exclude a dissenter, or attempt any other form of abuse, is: "the modern pedagogic perversion". Parliament needs to step into action here and stop this from continuing. The Minister of Education is presently hiding this problem, like his predecessors did before him. Teaching the 'team-host'-duty: We need a centrally emitted law or rule that expresses the imperative that no mandatory group work ever take place unless: a) solid instruction in 'healthy and efficient team-work' and 'team-work ethics', has been provided in advance – an accompanying principle here being the leacturer's presence in the room initially, with regular visits throughout; and b) it is conducted with a scheduled rotation of 'team-leader' duties; and c) where the operating definition of a 'team-leader' is 'host' a host that makes certain that everyone in the team can speak without anyone in the team rejecting or down-grading the contribution, not even interrupting except to ask the team-member to repeat or clarify – a leader charged with the rosponsibility of enforcing an explicitly taught ban on taking over anyone's flow of speech, this being one of the dialogic rules of operation. The 'team-host' is a team-leader who secures everyone's access to contribute, This needs to be universally taught as the main 'team-leader'quality, and it needs to be taught by way of 'host'-duty rotation. The team-host rotation exercise: Using the operating definition of a 'team-leader' as 'host', rotate the duty of 'team-leader' every day of the mandatory team-work. The lecturer instructs the team in the meaning of the definition of 'teamleader as host', then supervises a draw-names-from-a-hat type selection of the team-leader rotation. Avoid allowing anyone to 'volunteer to begin', and do not allow it if initiated, nor any other volunteered place in a sequence. Avoiding all such will cause a gain in confidence that is minimally affected by the perception of fear associated with being the first to 'lead'. All team-members then have equal access to healthy team leadership practice, and it will then be an efficient leadership-course in general. The 'host'-type leader is a far healthier leadership-type than the belbin-type paradigm with its negative characterizations of many qualities that are rather praiseworthy in any academic context, except for the immediate-profit-dictated leaderhip environment that Dr. Belbin works for, the latter, I say, being decidedly unhealthy among the future teachers of children, whom we ought to stimulate to curiosity and the will to dwell and look deeper into matters and relations than the simplistically defined role of Dr. Belbin's tyrranny. I reccommend placing Dr. Belbin in the Dr. Mengele-category and ban him from the classroom of children and teacher-candidates altogether. The priority needs to remain on the process rather than on product. After an initial round of 1 day per member host-rotation, raising it to a week per member the following round. The method used in teacher-education needs to be the SAME METHOD that we want to be used among children. Methods instantiate principles and values, and teacher-education needs to simulate the learning environment we want to make for children. There can be no healthy 'team-work' in seclusion in teacher-training without solid prior instruction in healthy and efficient team-work, team-work by proper ethical standards, and initially and regularly with a responsible and qualified PhD in pedagogy (not merely a teacher) in the room, able and willing to act promptly as I have indicated, never letting abuses, exclusion-behavior or -language or threats happen among teacher-candidates (cf. Appendix I); the lecturer never pretending to be innocent witness to it, or relating to it by appearing in the false suit of a Mediator when Instigator is the real role being played. The 'free in-team-abuse' and the 'Instigator dressed as Mediator' is precisely the standard learning-environment design used in Norwegian teachereducation. It apparently needs to be solidly ridiculed before the consensusdictated are able to see the evil stupidity of it. That method constitutes gross neglect. It is what I have called "scaffolding for abuse". It is in itself, before we even begin discussing the actual cases of abuse taking place, a violation of the human rights of the individual. It is betrayal of whatever measure of trust the socially non-dominant may have to school and to teachers of so-called 'pedagogy'. Teachers of pedagogy leaving the room after telling the groups that "Noncontributors are to be weeded out", is a legal offence in Norway's higher education, whether considered such or not. It is the social acts of considering that in this case are corrupt. The socially non-dominant have the RIGHT to NOT be placed in a position where the socially dominant can get to them and damage their education, and that holds for teacher-education more than anything. Even without including the mandate/instruction to "weed out non-contributors", the presently used method is a legal offence. The words "weed out" demonstrate the primitive and uneducated state of mind behind the madness. They were spoken in the lecturing hall of the University of Agder (UiA), with myself present and audio-recording. They were proclaimed three times in a 45 minute period, by lecturer Tor Tanggaard, and with hand gestures to emphasize the threat, "the non-contributors...are to be weeded out" – and who decides who it is that isn't 'contributing'? "The team!", says Tor Tanggaard, who apparently refuses to learn better methods, as they all do, seeing their internal "agreement" as a sign of good quality. These are the academically deficient lecturers I contend teacher training and pedagogic studies need to be freed from, by anyone willing to step in. If the intervening agent is the national educational authority, then that means these civil servants (politicians) have finally understood their role and their duty: secure individuals' rights, and reclaim rights that have been methodologically annihilated by domain-local abusers of power occupying offices meant for knowledge, offices presently usurped for private economic gain, in Norway of all countries, and, I think, in Denmark and Sweden too. Pedagogues who do not see much wrong in the practice of autonomous groups away from the teacher's eye, without thorough and prior instruction in a)'healthy and efficient team-work' and b)'team-work ethics', and with teamwork-rules consistently enforced, have failed to grasp the very essence of pedagogy. It is, I contend, precisely that serious, and it involves a particularly crucial inability to be guided by rational argumentation where facts impose on ideology and the ideology rejects them. We do not, as we believe was believed in ancient times, love with the heart and think with the brain. It is the brain that loves and it is the brain that ensures the corresponding behavior. Just like loving our children, as I suggest, involves not ever leaving them alone among unknown peers or children older or stronger than they are, or even leaving them alone with anyone else, ever, I suggest loving our children must also involve loving the young teacher-candidates and students of pedagogy studying for teacherhood; and we ought to love our children enough to not leave their future teacher in an autonomous team that may cause him or her harm or cause him or her to learn harmful habits or values whether it be by ignorant and immature aggressive behaviour in teacher-candidate-teams unequipped for healthy team-work or any of the socially more sinister versions of in-team abuses that such factual vulnerability in teacher-education opens up for. Teacher candidates and students of pedagogy ought to be treated the way we want them to treat our children, simply because whatever we do against teacher candidates and students of so-called pedagogy will have an effect on the children taught by them. Lecturers who argue in defence of the 'selfregulating team left alone'-paradigm in teacher-training, without instruction in proper team-work-principles and without the enforcing of such principles, are hiding behind slogans that have no merit for example the notion of letting the teacher candidates "grow into autonomous beings" or "realize their autonomous nature", where "their" means "it's". All such are mere noise, because the 'team' isn't an individual, a 'he' or a 'she', it's an 'it', where anyone can take control by threatening a dissenting individual. Dissenting individuals may happen to be right, so we cannot have methods in teacher-education that open up for them to be discriminated against in pathological manners that harm everyone present. Children will somehow be harmed when taught by teachers trained to silently accept the threatening environment of a 'team' let loose against them, a team vulnerable to in-team discrimination by dominant individuals enacting socio-pathological forms of dialogue (cf. Appendix I). The very structure of a 'team' let loose against the individuals in the team, is harmful and contradicts §1-1 in the law for teaching, specifically its explicit orders for all instruction to enact and promote principles like "critical thinking" and "a scientific way of thinking" etc. (cf. Appendix IV). There is in various parts of literature an expressed ideal or experimental notion of pedagogy imitating the 'real' external world beyond the schoolenvironment of children, and the rationale is the need for the teaching of pedagogy (teacher-training) to therefore do the same. The answer to it is that the "identify non-contributors and weed them out" pathology may have originated outside of pedagogy, somehwere in really abusive parts of the 'real' world outside of the 'real' school charged with the duty of providing an education with 'real' virtues. But it was a problem, not a virtue, wherever it was taken from. The problem picked up by confused so-called "pedagogues" in the Learning Sciences is now being poured into the minds of young adults as a virtue of social behavior, and has been for some time. But I contend it is the OPPOSITE of a virtue. The "let-students-weed-out-students" pathology is not only unhealthy, I contend, it is a violation of both law AND human rights. Again, I am only suggesting the obvious: It is up to a university and a teacher academy to do the "weeding out" that needs to be done, and do it themselves, without the help of co-students. This is a giant legal matter. Let us not wait the decades it takes for the courts to react. We must be much better than the players in society that only improve when driven to it by judges pushed to the limit of their resistance against it by lawyer teams paid to push, or when the majority consensus crawls along paths that the logical mind can travel in a minute. Rejecting the 'team-threat' censorship of dissent, in mandatory team-work is a basic application of Kant in the teaching of pedagogy. It amounts to methodologically securing the rights and the dignity of every single individual most importantly of the individuals whose rights and dignity are being threatened, sometimes the academically more capable individuals, whose contributions tend to be censored by social power-grabbing individuals in the autonomous and secluded group, individuals who take the lead in the effort to define not only the "group" but also the less dominant group members, who otherwise, in the teacher's presence, would be allowed to define themselves, enjoying their right to 'self-regulate' rather than 'be regulated' by a dominant team-member, a censorship-operator saying: "You either agree with me or we decide that you are working against us" (cf. Appendix I, dialogue 1). Anything less than this very practical application of Kant amounts to idle talk. Løvlie, in his 2008 essay, says "As we know, just as silence may speak, inaction may act", and he says "The pedagogical paradox is for self-reflection rather than for therapeutic intervention." But Løvlie does not seem to realize that NOT applying the rules-restrained freedom concept as a moderator of the strategies for team-work in teacher training, and NOT establishing a set of mandatory rules for mandatory teamwork that correspond to that insight, amounts to "acting by not doing". It is the enacting of an environment that enables discrimination, and posing that as a threat against dissenters. That makes it an unlawful learning-environment design element. By not enforcing such moderation nationally; by not establishing standardized rules for inclusive group methodology, Ed-Sci is acting by not doing, which means that what Løvlie calls a "pedagogical paradox" CANNOT BE ONLY "for self-reflection". It MUST ALSO be for therapeutic, political, and legal intervention to free these courses from the special interests that presently holds it hostage, and corrupts Ed-Sci to make it look as if 'theory' back them up. This is a legal matter, a human rights issue. It is a job for somebody in Parliament, when they WAKE UP. The act of not disrupting the methodological scaffolds for social abuse and violation of human rights that remain in the mandatory team-work method of a colleague, a neighbor discipline, institute or faculty of so-called Pedagogy, amounts to supporting the abuses being scaffolded for. We need to ridicule the scaffolding for abuses. This is NOT the type of issue where we can afford to let local lecturers of pedagogy in teacher-training have the 'freedom of choice'. If team-work is to remain mandatory in such courses, the method of conducting such team-work must be equally mandatory and standardized in a manner that is or CAN be healthy for every single individual. Mandatory team-work needs to be structured so that it proactively prevents team-internal social abuse; prevents acts of censoring or excluding individual contributions; prevents the "group-defining" of individuals as "non-contributors"; prevents the threatening of individual students with exclusion from the mandatory team, threatening their future career. The very idea of structurally enabling that threat is Stalinistic, evil, simply stupid. We cannot have mandatory group work methods in "higher" education that allow these abuses to happen, which the presently practiced methods indeed do, objectively so, verifiably and irrefutably so. And wherever the possibility of such abuse is allowed, the abuses tend to happen. I have seen it personally, and I have protested against it, then been threatened for protesting against it, in the UiA (2008) and in the UiO (2015). It is as real as it is stupid and unlawful. So: 1. If team-work is mandatory, it cannot be allowed to take place in seclusion without thorough prior instruction in 'healthy, efficient and ethically sound team-work', simply because seclusion (working away from the teacher/ lecturer's presence in the room) is autonomy for individuals who discriminate, which prevents the socially non-dominant from being autonomous selves together with some of the actively or passive-aggressively socially dominant who take control, even right before the noses of academically deficient lecturers who fail to understand what is happening. Some of the socially aggressive that seek to these courses, as if drawn to them, are drawn as if to prove to themselves the possession of some misunderstood virtue they project to the role of "leader", and have no conceptual clue about the 'team-leader' as a 'team-host' that protects everyone's access to contribute. The non-dominant have the RIGHT to be in the 'group' AND be guaranteed the opportunity to be as much autonomous "selves" as the rest, which means they have the RIGHT to be in the group WITHOUT having to yield to and be defined by the socially dominant. Ed-Sci, then, needs to change the present abstract quality of that RIGHT to tangible reality, and they must evidently be forced to do it, by Parliament interfering in concrete ways. It is my distinct impression that the well-intended men and women who write and talk of "selfregulated learning" are referring to the "individual", NOT to the "team", especially when assigning the right to "selfregulated learning". I have yet to see any sign of policies or published methodology bypassing the level of the "individual", as if to impute such rights to the 'group'. 2. The paradigm of "divide yourselves into teams – choose a team-leader – identify and weed out non-contributors" is doing harm to higher education, harm to education in general, and harm to society. It is that paradigm that needs be "weeded out", along with its confused (at best) persisting proponents. And if that can only happen through central control, then central control is a friend of the socially less dominant and a friend of higher education, regardless of the stubbornness of daydreaming lecturers of pedagogy educated mainly in one specific ideology, one that tells lies about Piaget and Kant, and even makes a mess of Vygotsky. It is, obviously, in the usual case or even almost always, local power that directly violates the rights of the "individual". In this case we have trusted civil servants (lecturers of pedagogy) who methodologically violate the rights of the socially non-dominant individuals, mainly their freedom to safely contribute in the "group"-situation, in mandatory 'team-work'. The autonomous teams secluded in separate chambers – have individuals in them who are nonautonomous on account of the socially dominant individuals let lose against them, unobserved by the responsible Instigator/lecturer, at the mercy of these socially dominant individuals who make good use of their own freedom, their freedom to violate the freedom of selected others and threaten their rights to realize their own 'selves' during their mandatory presence in the team. It is a violation orchestrated in the so-called "professional" domain of "childcontrol", with methods socially constructed by "child-controllers" who refuse to understand what they are doing. National educational authorities in this case did not orchestrate the abusive methodology insisted upon domain-locally, and these national authorities see themselves too weak academically to weed out the Instigators of the "autonomous-in-seclusion" and "identify non-contributors and weed them out"syndrome. It is a pathology of teacher training and courses in so-called "pedagogy" in Norway, a pathology that has been left untreated while pedagogic philosophers apparently have been busy elsewhere, which is a shame. 3. Lars Løvlie* 50 cheats when he says Kant says 'freedom' is a gift from birth. It is 'the ability to be cultivated into freedom' that Kant says is a gift from birth. Løvlie has cheated and he is constantly cheating, by having students of pedagogy be formed by his manipulation of that quote. He cheats every time a student of pedagogy reads what he says about this and believes Lars Løvlie to be telling the truth about what Immanuel Kant wrote or meant. Kant says the child and youth must be restrained, throughout, taught to get used to the restraint early on and remain restrained until proving the right use of freedom, free usage of one's will, the presence of 'free will' in the functioning of one's reason; which is proved by using reason (Norw. fornuften), reasonable thinking, in the presence rather than the absence of the pedagogue. This is the precise OPPOSITE of Løvlie & company's practical pedagogy of 'leaving them undisturbed', and leaving teacher-candidates alone in team-work, and expelling dissidents; allowing and even encouraging mobbing of dissidents and the labeling of dissidents as 'working against the team'. This is the 'Acquired Blindness to Mobbing' what I would call ABM if I didn't think it would look as if I am making fun of the silly uses of acronyms in Ed-Sci to make things look complicated and make the ones who don't know the spoken acronym look accutely stupid, which is instead precisely what the acronymically eloquent fools are themselves. There is a core compound quality about acts of structuring the learning environment so that it enables mobbing in a team of teacher-candidates, a distinct form of ignorance that is 'void of good intentions and full of self-preservation' the Bible calls it by the word "evil", but having fallen out of fashen lately, the outdated terminology of "good" and "evil" has dragged the concept of that very real 'void-and-fulness' with it into vulgarized oblivion. So forget about finding out that 'good and evil' have no meaning in science or in modern academia, and hear me say this: that this particular referent, 'void of good intentions and fulness of selfpreservation', is a good enough definition of the referent of "evil" to me, and makes it a useful label. I'd stick it on the appearances of Lars Løvlie's stealthy co-translator-work and his pseudo Kantmediator-to-Ed-Sci function and not bother about what Lars Løvlie might be like in private, and not be blinded by his agreement-conditioned preacher-like sweet smile either. I'd recommend anyone to follow suit. The facts prove him either a liar and a fraud in office or unrealistically confused. * 50 lecturer in UiO's "institute for Pedagogy", IPED 4. UiA Lecturer Tor Tanggaard's spoken (in his lecture) "Everyone must contribute in the team-work. The one who doesn't contribute is to be weeded out." ("Alle må bidra i gruppearbeidet. Den som ikke bidrar gjelder det å luke ut") and his answer to the spoken question "But who gets to be God? Who decides who it is that isn't contributing?" ("Men hvem skal vaere Gud? Hvem bestemmer hvem det er som ikke bidrar?") coming from myself in the back row of the lecture-hall, Tor Tanggaard the lecturer of pedagogy, instantly and confidently, with a strong voice: "The team !" ("Gruppen !"); - "calling me in", into chambers, a few weeks before that, with a female lecturer to back him up (if they need to lie about it) telling me that since I have English Master's degree, I am supposedly "over-qualified for the course", so would I "consider giving my study-seat to someone else on a waiting-list for that couse?", Tor Tanggaard then warning me "It's all about playing one's cards right in the team." ("Det gjelder å spille kortene sine riktig i gruppe-arbeidet") The quotes are from Sep.2008 Jan.2009, uttered in my presence, by the self-esteem-wise eminent Mr. Tor Tangaard. And one may wonder for the rest of one's life what might drive any mind to the base conceptual level proven by those words, not to mention his simultaneous (proving he can in fact walk and talk at the same time): pacing in front of the more than 60 teacher-candidates, bending over, reaching to the floor, doing a gripping motion with his right hand, and on the sputtering forth of his "weeded out": tossing the imagined team-tagged as 'non-contributor' teacher-candidate up in the air and off to the right side of the field he simulates the 'plucking away of non-contributing growth' from. or one may simply shrug it off as fruits proportionate to their source. It is an unlawful threat that Norwegians have grown numb to and have internalized as a normal thing. But I think Tor Tanggaard and all adult schoolbullies like him ought to be charged in court and put in prison for this sort of abuse and corruption, grave mis-usage of public office. Shall we say about 3 months or so in prison would be a reasonably lenient sentence, to set an example ? (https://www.facebook.com/tor.tanggaard) (cf.p 281-284 above) The foolishness proven by the lecturer and his friends can hardly be remedied, but it can be harnessed, by a Parliament that begins to see that these lecturers measured by the standard set by the concepts we find in Immanuel Kant's On Pedagogy (1803) have not yet been 'properly formed', that much philosophical culturing of their minds and methods remains, and that they do not yet possess the capacity for freedom from interference. As of yet, they do not even signal the presence of the capacity to learn how to be free. They need to be restrained until they one day prove they have learned how to think, become able to use their judgment freely; have become 'science' and stopped being faith while occupying space in offices that belong to science. There is a serious truth in all of these mildly (sort of) humoristic applications of Immanuel Kant's well put phrases, phrases that all unruly adult but youthfully aggressive faith-based forgerers of Ed-Sci would benefit greatly from being forced to learn and memorize, and why not imagine it done by the physical discipline that Kant rejected but which I recommend in special cases like Løvlie, Tanggaard, Dr. Øystein ..... etc.? Tor Tanggaard, Dr. Øystein ..... and the entire dual string of institutes in our faculties of Ed-Sci have pretended to have the capacity to use sound judgment in matters of theory and practical pedagogy for the last 50 years, have treated the parliament as fools, have cheated with quotes, lied in harmony and caused unspeakable harm. I'd slam that useful label I mentioned 1 1⁄2 page ago on this forehead as well. How do we stop them? remove them? By letting time pass, but that is only half of it. A new structure needs to be set up, so that, while this pathological generation of the 'field' or 'branch' in question passes into nothingness, a new and different can simultaneously grow up next to but shielded from the wrotten stalk, unpolluted by it. The first step is for our reason (Norw. fornuften) to form a compound insight, perform a fusing of known parts of the pathology into an immediately integral (Norw. helhetlig) entity, and deal with its structure. We must begin before we see 'the whole pathology', because we never will see 'the whole'. All we can do is begin with the structural parts we know, for example: The Lars Løvlie and Tor Tanggaard type syndromes; one and the same pathology. I think it takes a distinct lack of the ethical dimension of one's intelligence to be as stubborn about homebrewed ideas backed by forged quotes as these two and all their friends have proven to be, and it is quite astonishing the way they all seem to agree until death they part, married to their scientific deceit. The mob of political agenda equipped academics united by faith are ready to lie and commit acts of state custody fraud to keep their positions; acts like appointing Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad to answer my report to the UiO institute (ILS) in August 2015 about the fraudulent cognitive science quotes they use in the lecture-halls of the UiO to back a model of learning that stems from medieval times. Eyvind Elstad the Dr. Polit. is not qualified to answer that letter; and his rejection, in writing, of the matter of those quotes by concluding that they are "not important" amounts to administrational fraud and misrepresentation of one's own academic qualifications, which is a serious matter. The quotes forged in that case are the Piaget 1967-quotes. This is truly a dynasty-like corrupt mob that needs to be dealt with politically. What we have before us is a dual violation of public trust: the theoretical forgeries and the enabling of in-team abuses, a dual dimension series of misusage of public office, and it is going on all over Norway; I am guessing in Denmark and Sweden too (and maybe in Island and Finland). The role-model university in Norway, the UiO, with its three 'Institutes' of Ed-Sci, is a major proponent of that practice. But they all do it, all teacher-educating institutions in Norway. Few lecturers profess it as explicitly as Tor Tanggaard did in 2008/9. If they don't make it explicit, you still see it in their acts of evicting victims of teammobbing in teacher-education; and we see it in the way dissenters become targets of this during the mandatory 'team-work'. Lecturers even signal to the teams of teacher-candidates who it is that need to be "weeded out" from among them, weeded out by classmates, in teacher-education of all places. You also see it in the incredible rationale they utter or write to defend it. My Sony-cam has proved that UiO's lecturers and so-called 'administrators' in the institutes allow the exclusion of mob-targets and point out to the class who it is that is to be "weeded out" by "the team" or "the whole class", and encourage it; use it as a weapon against dissenters, especially the kind of dissenter who brings unwanted evidence. I have proved what we have all known for decades, but have called NORMAL. It is NOT 'normal' in the sense of 'acceptable normality' and it shows in Lars Løvlie having to lie WHEN HE REFERS TO Kant's On Pedagogy. Lars Løvlie WANTS to use Immanuel Kant but has to FORGE the quote-references to Kant to make things LOOK as if they go Løvlie's way. They do not. Lars Løvlie's photographed smile invites us to think well of him, but one is always aware of the readiness to display the opposite when confronted with a forgery. One knows it well, the way the face twists into the pending rage that inevitably ignites, and one decides to keep quiet, and keep one's job. That is how their forgeries survive, corrupting an entire industry. http://www.uv.uio.no/iped/personer/vit/larsl/index.html Lars Løvlie has obviously coerced the translator, Jim Jakobsson, to 'translate' the mentioned passage in Kant's On Pedagogy so that the example Kant gives in that passage matches what Løvlie says in the 'Postscript' to it and elsewhere that Kant says which is that the allegedly 'restraint-free' "freedom" among modern youth is somehow defended by Kant. It isn't ! And how do we know Løvlie coerced Jakobsson in that particular segment? Because the evidence proves the segment is forged, and because it takes a motive to commit that forgery. Jakobsson would hardly have that motive on his own. It must stem from Lars Løvlie's implicit or explicit 'interaction'. The 'Postscript' is a piece where Løvlie says we cannot understand Kant's On Pedagogy unless we understand other books Kant wrote. That is not true. On Pedagogy stands alone, but all the wisdom that Kant put into the other books, naturally, spills over and into this one, his last; leaks into it. Students of pedagogy who see Løvlie saying we cannot understand On Pedagogy unless we study other books of Kant's are effectively told to take Løvlie's word for it when he tells them what Kant says about unrestrained youth using their god-given freedom, a freedom that is in fact stolen and often used to bully and commit acts of mobbing which then would be something of a 'colateral damage', supposedly, of a healthy pedagogic philosophy. That whole quackery is what Scandinavian (maybe even Nordic as a whole) students of pedagogy devour each semester. But the worst part of this is that Lars Løvlie has talked the translator, Jim Jakobsson, into FIXING the example Kant gives on how to react to bullying, fix it so it fits Løvlie's educational politics. And Jim Jakobsson does it. He does it by taking away Kant's reference to an intervention that physical-force-wise is equal to the partly physical assault in the example, the "striking with the hand" or "punching" that a child does against another. Kant's 'verbal and physical intervention' translated into 'verbal only': In that 'how to properly understand Kant's On Pedagogy crash course' he called Postscript and inserted in the back of Jim Jakobsson's Swedish translation of On Pedagogy, we have Lars Løvlie's guide to the immediately preceding Swedish version of §95 by the 'translator' Jim Jakobsson, obviously inspected and 'edited/approved' by Lars Løvlie. This segment (§95) in which Kant deals with the child's duties towards itself and towards others, and "the dignity of mankind" is discussed by Lars Løvlie on the tenth page of the "Postscript" he added (page 78 of the book), where the example is introduced by Løvlie with the words "Let us look at Kant's example:" and it is quoted by Løvlie as follows: " "Om ett barn till exempel träffar ett annat, fattigare barn och stolt knuffar undan detta, slår det osv., så får man inte säga till barnet: Gör inte så, det gör ont på den andre; Visa medlidande! Det är ju ett fattigt barn, osv.; utan man bör själv bemöta barnet stolt och strängt, eftersom dess uppträdande stred mot mänsklighetens rätt." (s. 57)" – and this Swedish version means: " "If a child, for example meets another, poorer child and proudly pushes this child away, hits it etc., then one must not say to the child: 'Don't do that, it hurts the other; Show compassion! It is a poor child', etc.; but, rather, one ought to oneself meet the child proudly and strictly, since its conduct contradicted the right of humanity." (p.57)" where "merely" is obviously implicit, making it '...then one must not {merely} say..." The only problem here is the last part of it, the words in red, but a small problem it is not, for Kant's example is, from the beginning of the paragraph: "Die Pflichten gegen andere. Die Ehrsurcht und Achtung für das Recht der Menschen muss dem Kinde schon sehr frühe beigebracht werden, und man muss sehr darauf sehen, dass es dieselben in Ausübung bringe; z.B. wenn ein Kind einem andern ärmeren Kinde begegnet, und es dieses stolz aus dem Wege oder von sich stösset, ihm einen Schlag giebt u.z.w., so muss man nicht sagen: thue das nicht, es thut dem Andern mehe; sei doch mitleidig! Es ist ja ein armes Kind u.z.w., sondern man muss ihm selbst wieder eben so stolz und fühlbar begegnen, weil sein Benehmen dem Rechte der Menschheit zuwider war." which I think says, from the beginning: "The duties towards others: The reverence and respect for the right of humans are matters that must be brought to the children very early, and one must thoroughly see to it that the children themselves bring it into practice; e.g. if a child meets another, but poorer, child, and he proudly pushes the other [it] out of the way or from himself, gives it a punch [/strike with the fist] and so on, then one must not {merely} say: Don't do that, it hurts the other; be compassionate! It is a poor child a.s.o., but, rather, one must see to it that he is himself* 51 treated just as proudly and {just as} physically felt [/as tangibly], because his conduct was against the rights of humankind." - * 51 where I indicate I think the reflexivity of "selbst" is not at all as translated by Jim Jakobsson (Løvlie looking over the shoulder), but quite another; where I see "ihm selbst" as an obvious compound pronoun in Dative, an indirect Object; one I recognize from my own native language, Norwegian, in the same Dative sense: "ham selv" as in "mot ham selv" ("himself" as in "against/at himself"), where the "against"/"at" is grammatically explicit sense in German, sense we need to make lexically explicit in English, Swedish and Norwegian, which means we must construe a syntax that allows it when we translate. The Accusative case of it is "sich selbst" ('oneself' as direct Object, as in 'sustain oneself' Norw. "klare seg selv"), where there is no difference in the degree of lexical explicitness in German, English and Scandinavian. But in Dative three is. So I think "see to it that he is" or "cause ... to" or "make it so that" is obvious grammatically explicit sense, Dative case sense. In English, Swedish and Norwegian that sense can often only be made lexically explicit, and in such instances it needs to be construed with lexis, words, and the corresponding syntax that fits the use of those words; or else part of the sense that is grammatically explicit in German is lost and confusion arises, sometimes even, as here, leading to what I think if I may put it this way is an objectively wrong Swedish translation, verifiably and positively wrong about the indirect Object semantic function assigned to "oneself", making it "himself" and "at himself", not "oneself" as Subject in the sentence, the absurd way Jim Jakobsson has put it, obviously to satisfy Lars Løvlie and his positively radient facially expressed mood. Why else? That is how the consensus-mobsters get their will. It is a physical sensation Kant here refers to with the word "fühlbar", quite obviously so, because the two halves of his phrase "stolz und fühlbar" refer back to and communicate logically with the corresponding halves in "stolz aus dem Wege oder von sich stösset, ihm einen Schlag giebt, u.z.w." respectively so. I colourcoded the obvious logical-poetic correspondences, where the blue leads to the blue and the red to the red. This is how Kant writes, it is the Kantian style I call 'poetic logic'. It is the answer to why key words in Kant's sentences must be translated by preserving the words' semantic function as metaphoric 'Vehicles', rather than 'translating' them into functional 'Tenors', and I suppose one needs a background in grammatic linguistics to immediately understand what the words 'vehicle' and 'tenor' mean in this particular context. In short, Kant's metaphors, even the most everyday-sounding of metaphoric expressions, are building-blocks in his conceptual composites; and when we simply maintain the metaphoric functions of 'Vehicle', throughout, we see the conceptual structures form right before our eyes, as necessarily true metaphorically depicted idea-structures, described with everyday German metaphors. And that is when we see that Kant for the most part describes the obvious, and that what he says for the most part is obviously true. It is when we maintain the functions of metaphoric 'Vehicle' throughout all key 'logically-poetic' verse-type clauses that the so-called 'Principle of Charity' leads the reader to disambiguate all into the range of the necessarily true, not at all because they are vague or dilluted in the course of a particular way of interpreting Kant, but because they are accurate. Wrong translations destroy that accuracy. Readers and 'translators' blind to this distinctly Kantian writing style do not understand Kant's work, nor its content, not fully and in some places not at all. It is a color-blindness or tone-deafness type state that can be educated away, but one that certainly does make Kant look 'cryptic' to translators inflicted with a measure of this type of pattern-blindness, when they try to 'translate' Kant. They cannot, not without creating chaos and what is widely described as a mysterious* 52 or dreamlike, even self-contradicting and cryptic, philosophy, when it is actually the opposite of that. Yet, huge public funds have been paid to such 'translators', and their work is booked on course-curricula for decades into the future. It is a pity. * 52 Such 'translators' follow consensus-enforced pseudo-dictionary type rules-for-translating imposed by the brotherand sisterhood of consensus who rule the corridors, engraved templates by which they make OLD translations LOOK NEW; using the old translation as foundation rather than using the original, unpolluted by earlier translation-work. Through that tax-funded stageplay, in the corridors of the Georg Morgenstierne's Building on UiO Campus Blindern and elsewhere, they recycle 100 or 200-years-old Norwegian lecturenotes that have Kant's "Anschauung" switched with an old Norwegian derelict word, abandoned and forsaken by the culture now expected to read the translation and understand it and they choose that old word only because it is the ancient Norwegian form of the loan "Anschauung", the Norwegian form made from the German the first time somebody translated "Anschauung" into Norwegian. The no longer intact German loan is written "anskuelse", and was in normal use, I suppose, when Norwegian lecturers first taught Immanuel Kant's Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Critique of pure reason), I suppose soon after 1813, in "King Frederik's University", before it was named "the University in Oslo" (Universitetet i Oslo, UiO). Through the sum of its uses in the Scandinavian host language the last 100 years or more, the loan "anskuelse" has taken on a meaning that is now almost exclusively restricted to the purely abstract metaphoric sense that all words synonymous to "Anschauung" still have if used in such a context, 'thoughtful consideration', with a transitive preposition ('of' or 'upon') added ('thoughtful consideration of'), the very same abstract sense that can be given to the English word "observation" if used in those contexts, indicating an 'observation of qualities that require the use of reason and sense of judgment', just like with the Norwegian form of that direct Latin loan (observatio), "observasjon". So Kant's "Anschauung" had the full dual-phora sense in use, the same dualphora that the Latin "observatio" loan forms "observation" and "observasjon" still have in English and Scandinavian, but which the German loan "anskuelse" does not have any more in Norwegian. So why would anyone in their right mind translate a word that has both levels of abstraction within reach in the source culture into a word that only has the more abstract half in the host culture? Is brain-capacity that impeded in consensus-defined cultures? I'm afraid so. The specific question here is why would Norwegian translators of this particular book, or this particular author, think they must choose a German loan to translate this particular German word the word "Anschauung" ? The obvious attraction to the appearence of a perfect philosophical fit between the German source "Anschauung" and the partly abandoned German loan "anskuelse" surprisingly even in quite recent (2005) UiO-produced, taxfinanced, translations is, in one sense, accidental. That is, it probably is the etymological relation that has attracted Norwegian translators. But other cultures are messing up too, and not with a German loan, so there is another underlying cause at work, a shared phenomenon. In English translations (Cambridge 1998-2009 etc.) they have made "Anschauung" into "intuition" which in everyday modern English refers to something of a 'neurological hint' from one's own subconscious, a sudden onset of 'knowledge based on insight or spiritual perception rather than reasoning' (Scribner-Bantam). So, what is the common semantic factor in 'intuition' and 'anskuelse'; that is, in 'sudden onset of insight or spiritual knowledge' and 'thoughtful consideration of something' ? It is 'thought', or 'mental process'. And why is that SUPERPROBLEMATIC ? a shot in the foot ? Because 'thought' and 'observation' in Kant's model of human awareness are the minimally specific paraphrases of the two 'ground sources of human awareness', the two necessary and always active functional components from which knowledge ["Erkenntnis"] in the sense of 'awareness' "springs forth" (1781:50-52). In Jean Piaget's work (1967) they are the minimally specific necessary opposition in all organisms, the 'necessary conditions of' in the sense of 'requirements for' - 'organic self-regulation'. They are the "two opposing poles" that Jean Piaget tagged with the biological labels he knew from his early work as a biologist and hypothesized fit on human cognition as well as on the evolution of the species: cognitive "Assimilation" and "Accommodation" (cf. The Kant-Piaget-connection nobody wants to talk about, Soerfjord 2015/2016). Kant says the mind does two things simultaneously: it "observes", as in "catching what is set forth" ("Vorstellungen zu empfangen"), and uses its concepts to "think" the object "relative to that which is set forth". Only together, and only when together, do they cause "awareness" to continuously spring forth. So, by translating one of Kant's TWO MAIN metaphoric 'Vehicles', the first in the "Anschauung" and "Begriffe" pair, into a synonym for the other, one of the pieces in the puzzle is put in the wrong place, on top of another piece. We cannot translate "Anschauung" into '(sudden onset of) insight or spiritual knowledge' ("intuition"), nor into 'thoughtful consideration (of)' ("anskuelse"), nor any other word that primarily refers to 'thought', when Kant, as he does, uses "Begriffe" (concepts) to refer to 'what enables us to 'think' the object relative to what is "given" by "observation". Kant says objects are "given" by "observation", and through the "concepts" they are "thought" (1781:50-52, 1787:74-76), even if we also 'think forth' an object from memory, or 'think forth a sudden 'insight or spiritual perception'. The word "Anschauung" allows for abstract or 'introvert' observation too, which is 'thoughtful consideration of' or 'meditation upon'; but Kant begins in the end of physical "observation", and says what is "observed" by sensitivity is "thought" by concepts. The "observed" is "thought" into "awareness" of the observed. It is the active mind that forms the outline of "what shines forth" [Erscheinungen] appearances in the sense of emitted signals with form Kant is talking about. It is his 'turning around' of the relation between observer and object, while referring to the way Copernicus reversed the concept of stars travelling across the sky to the earth rotating (1787:XVI) we have before us. This is Kant's description in his "aesthetics", his chapter on 'the awareness of forms', which logically is half of the dual theme 'physical form' and 'conceptual form' "aesthetics" and "logic". Kant's "Anschauung" is a metaphoric 'Vehicle' whose function as 'Vehicle' is not to be messed with. Even in cases where Kant's word for "observation" is meant in the abstract metaphoric sense, we still need to translate it to "observation" in English and "observasjon" in Norwegian. UiO's Steinar Mathisen, Camilla Serck-Hanssen and Øystain Skar do not understand this, and neither do the British translators Paul Guyer and Allen Wood in USA, Cambridge University Press (in 15 printings from 1998 to 2009). Imagine the kind of money that keep rolling into this machine, and imagine their unwillingness to break loose from their friends within the pack of that consensus-mob. The word "observation" 'translated' into an obvious synonym of "thought" is only the beginning of the giant mess they have made out of that book, imagining, as it seems they do, that what is done by all cannot possibly be stupid. I beg to differ. Exhibit 1: 'The flat earth'. Jokes aside, this is how a modern society collectively commits the same idiotic error in a variety of ways, all producing the mysterious or cryptic translated Kant we see being taught in universities, enforced by a collective consensus that is dead wrong, voting into existence a philosophy that Kant never wrote. The way to address it is by strategic coordination, a massive attack on the stupidity of encouraging 'consensus', agreement. And "agreement" is precisely what schools like Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school, 20 km south of downtown Oslo (witnessed by me personally) teach all children they get their hands on; burn into the minds of innocent children who deserve far better. They impress it upon them consistently and methodically, even spelling out the phrase: "reach agreement with learning-partner" (Norw. "Bli enige med laeringspartner") with thick marker on the white-board, for heaven's sake, as one among a handful of 'commandment' type imperatives. They teach it to all their pupils, completely contrary to §1-1 of Norway's Law for teaching. That particular school south of Oslo (Flaatestad) systematically teach in blatant violation of the law for teaching, while at the same time not seeing the physical bullying I spotted and addressed on the spot. And no one in the so-called Ministry of Education seems to care when I report these things. Why doesn't the Parliament react ? It seems to think their job is limited to the writing of principles and not having to bother with or say anything about methods, nor about the local offices and their practice of issuing 'local law' that Parliament never voted on. I think this is the Parliament sneaking away from its DUTY. It makes it really easy for lecturers of the mistranslated Kant to sneak away from their duty to MARCH INTO the lecturing halls of a gravely disturbed Ed-Sci and call them what they are. (cf. A gravely disturbed Ed-Sci hiding behind lock and bolt, Soerfjord, to be uploaded soon) Mistranslated philosophy is damage that lingers, and keeps giving. It is damage that reverberates. Universities do not let themselves be corrected, do not easily self-correct, not voluntarily. Its academically weak lecturers hide behind socially dominant mobsters, and together they resist self-adjusting even to known evidence that offers better knowledge, even evidence shoved down their throats while holding a Sony-cam to their heads and saying 'hands up, assholes !'. The mitigating circumstance for some of the individuals that hide in their shelter but feel bad for doing it, is that within reach of the exclusion-alliances that guard the consensus-brothel, one is forced to agree and keep silent. If one cannot keep silent cannot prostitute oneself for the sake of mortgages and car loans one must find another venue, go around them and speak from without these public offices meant for better causes than what they are currently being used for. With regard to Kant's bully-example, I am merely suggesting the obvious: that Kant actually wrote that if the child in your care strikes another child, you must immediately intervene to end the abuse, but how? by immediately returning the application of physical force on the victim's behalf, apply physical force against the aggressive child in your custody, both the proud behavior and the physical use of force even so hard; as physically felt as the child aggressor in your care made it physically felt. Kant tells us to not waste the occasion by impotent talking, but simply let the physically aggressive side of the child meet itself as well as the socially proud side of the child. Løvlie understands that it is the indirect results of the impotency of the 'talk only' approach that Kant says needs to be prevented; the wasting of the occasion to culture the aggressive child; and Kant says it is wasted by not letting the violent side of the child meet its own violent experience, as is the case when ONLY the proud side of the child aggressor, not also the 'physically felt'* 53 , is aimed back at himself. Kant is saying "moral" punishment isn't enough in this case. The 'look of contempt' from the adult is not enough in the case of violence, not even words of 'reason'. Kant said it, right here in §95. Løvlie and Jakobsson evidently do not like that fact, and falsified the evidence just to have it their way on the surface, as they preach their view and call it 'EdSci'. Parliament ought to move towards a dismissal of proven evidenceforgerers among consensus-operators, and retraction of their home-brew based literature, partly Dr. Polit.-products, and clean house. * 53 The "fühlbar", by the way, obviously here refers to 'physically felt', inasmuch as the 'non-physically felt' falls in the 'proudly'-half of the dual-category division of ways to react to the bullying in the example. Kant's main resources against peer-abuse, then, are a)restraint, which includes immediate and forceful proactive intervention, and b)well thought out measures of forming the youth; never the implied and exemplified Lars Løvlie version of letting youth-groups and student teams 'regulate themselves', a regulation-process that unavoidably manifests itself as social mobbers that 'regulate' the socially non-aggressive, mobbers who themselves evade the ones who could regulate them; mobbers who work in 'teams', verbally and emotionally attacking a person's humanity in reply to a logically valid argument; mobbing trumping reason, which of course is what adult social mobbers want too. They consistently preach the structures that protect such mob-behavior, saturate Norwegian teacher education with that kind of thinking; and fool the entire Parliament into imagining that they, the politicians, can 'guide' teacher-education by a 'law for teaching' and a 'national teaching plan', while censorship-operating ideology-wankers do what they want in the lecture hall all along. We now have one result of it captured by my Sony-cam in auditorium 1 of the Helga Eng's Building on the UiO Campus at Blindern, Oslo, on 11.Nov.2015. It isn't a pretty sight. One of the 'helpers' of these abusers, attorney Bjørn Engeset, employed in the UiO "Section for custodianship of research and education" is now engaged in various acts of intimidation on behalf of the institute I am exposing (Institute for Teacher-education and School-research, ILS, at the Faculty of Ed-Sci, uv-fak. at UiO) - http://www.uio.no/personer/los/af/sffu/bjorneng/index.html Notice he doesn't want his photo on the staff-list. He is one of the 'special-task'agents (a bit of a 'wet'-agent), one who does 'things' for 'the Company' that make him think it would be unwise to show his face. behaviors that include attempting to discredit me personally in the eyes of the University of Hong Kong; lately (just before Christmas) by contacting the HKU, presenting themselves as an 'investigative body' and pretending that various circumstances give the UiO reasons to investigate the authenticity of my PhDDiploma, which UiO has an electronic copy of from the application I filed for the pedagogic courses I was registered in as part of my research in 2015, rsearch where my method is what I call: 'embedded empiricism' precisely the method that uncovers the wrotten apples we see in the left margin above, a method that reveals the entire apple-field now has rotted (it's time to move in the tractors). Kant also says this, in §85: "Punishment performed with the showing of work-marks [/signs] of wrath work in a counterproductive manner" ["Strafen, die mit dem Werkmale des Zornes verrichtet werden, wirken falsch."] I challenge the reader to see the poetic logic, here too, in Kant's writing style. Ludwig Wittgenstein obviously learned this from Kant's writing, and this is how the complete blindness to this, in the mind of the translator Denise Paul (together with G. E. Anscombe's blindness), in 1972 virtually destroyed, as I suggest it did, Ludwig Wittgenstein's Über Gewissheit/On Certainty for the thousands of readers who every year attempt to read that little book in English. Poetic logic became Ludwig Wittgenstein's best tool, in my view, and without reproducing it in the language translated to, at least in part, I suggest his work had better been left not tampered with by any so-called 'translator'. The poetic logic needs to be re-construed in the new language wherever it is possible without sacrificing the accuracy of the philosophy; and, wherever this is not possible, the key words need to be consistently added in the original German form, either [bracketed] and inserted in the translated sentences (my preference), or footnoted. It would be better for Philosophy as a whole, I think, if all philosophy students had to learn German, than having lecturers a.k.a. translators control the world by their internally learned consensus-dictated limitations. Lars Løvlie, in his 'Postscript' to Jim Jakobsson's Swedish translation of On Pedagogy (Über Pädagogik), says Immanuel Kant 'contradicts himself' in that book. That claim is verifiably nonsense. Lars Løvlie uses Kant to stress whatever he, Løvlie, wishes to stress, just like some religious preachers do with the Bible. He goes shopping for fragments that he applies on his rhetorical path towards his main goal: the stressing of the virtue he calls "freedom", the way he understands "freedom" to apply to children; and on the way he pauses by the notion "dialogue", as if to validate the way he, Løvlie, freely imputes unsubstantiated sense (and lack of it) to Kant's text within his about to be announced perspective, within which Løvlie's mind sees Kant to be selfcontradicting; and from there Løvlie skips most essences of Kant's, obviously moving towards his own (Løvlie's) essences. In the second paragraph of this "Post-script" of his, Løvlie passes the following judgment on Kant's book On Pedagogy, saying: "The first thing that strikes us is that the pieces of advice given are being contradicted either immediately or later in the text, and that the text does not give clear answers but asks questions which the reader must answer himself. The reader, in other words, is invited to a dialog." my transl. of Løvlie's: "Det första som slår en er att de råd som ges motsägs omedelbart eller senare i texten, att den inte ger klara svar utan ställer frågor som läsaren själv måste besvara. Läsaren inviteras med andra ord till en dialog." From here Løvlie flies to the next thing that supposedly "strikes us", which, he says, "is how sensitive the text is to the student's dignity and integrity. The reason for that" ["the connection"], he says, is the role of the subject" ["the place of the subject"] "in Kant's philosophy, the status as independent individual" ["statusen som självstendig individ"] "with a responsibility for one's own and other's lives." The first thing that ought to strike the reader of Løvlie's 'how to read Kant'script is that Løvlie sees no contradiction between Kant's supposedly "independent individual" in the world of "World-citizens" ["Weltbürger"] on the one side and on the other the 4-6 student unit called "the group" in Norwegian teacher training and courses in Pedagogy having the right to exclude the "independent individual" from compulsory team-work, team-work without which the course is not passed, as in 'is FAILED', by that single "individual", but PASSED by the rest of that "team". All team-members pass the course, except the individual being mobbed by discrimination and exclusion, who is then evicted for having ratted out (Norw. sladret på) the 'team' to the lecturer, who demands the 'team' to 'self-regulate' and deal with all in-team abuses internally. (cf. the Tor Tangaard lecture-dialogue transcribed above) That, I suggest, is the contradiction Løvlie ought to have seen decades ago, mentioned in his "Post-script", written angry articles about, debated and protested loudly and repeatedly against, until that pathology was removed. Instead, it is very clear that it isn't only his acquiescing that has cemented the problem, perpetuated it, but his actively contributing to it as well. Only 'embedded empiricism' reveals these violations of reason and law. Løvlie calls his generalizations "essences", but I see Løvlie's 'essences' more as premises of Kant's essences, some of the premises. One need not understand much else in order to understand the need to see oneself as a "World-citizen" ["Weltbürger"], in §113, only 4 sentences from the end of the book, in a list of what we are to direct ["hinweisen"] the youth towards, beginning with: "joyfulness of the heart" ["Frölichkeit des Herzens"], "good mood" ["gute Laune"], "evenness of mood" ["Gleichheit der Laune"], moving on to "always seeing many things as duty" ["dass man vieles immer wie Pflicht ansieht"], "having love for others merely for being humans, and then also towards a World-citizen-like state of mind." ["Menschenliebe gegen andere, und dann auch auf weltbürgerliche Gesinnungen"], which makes a textual tie back to §16: "The draft ["onset of"/disposition] for a plan of upbringing, however, must be made cosmopolitan." [Die Anlage zu einem Erziehungsplane muss aber kosmopolitisch gemacht werden."] Based on the evidence, the observable facts of Ueber Pädagogik, I am saying it is the HOW to strategize towards that composite goal, and WHY, that constitute the "essences", the "message" of the book, and we really need to understand the text in order to grasp those essences, a text that is all about using the "Vernunft", one's 'power of reason', in order to culture the "Vernunft", the 'power of reason', within children and youth in the "forming" ["Bildung"] of temper ["Gemütz"] and soul – where the words "culturing of the soul" ["Kultur der Seele"] and "This physical forming of the spirit" ["Diese physische Bildung des Geistes"] in §63 are ways Kant talks about the coming into being of intellect quite beautiful ways, ways that 'translators' and ideologically motivated 'reeditors', evidently, tend to not grasp. There is a huge menu of Kant-defined "essences" (super-ordinate themes that define timeless concrete ways of reasonable strategizing in pedagogy, declared by Kant to be his essences) BETWEEN the two simplistically extreme ends that Løvlie reduces Kant to – namely between 1:) what Løvlie refers to as "methods of upbringing" ["uppfostringsmetoder"] (p. 72 in the Jakobsson/Løvlie re-edited version of Kant's book), or "a methodology suggesting how one ought to perform the upbringing in concrete contexts" ["en metodlära som föreslår hur man bör uppfostra i konkreta sammanhang"], and 2:) Løvlie's hyper-generalizations (redundantly general, thereby trivial), the things Løvlie calls "the essential in Kant's text" ["det väsentliga i Kant's text"] (i.e. in THIS text, On Pedagogy), "this essence" ["denna essens"] (p.69), that is: what Løvlie refers to as "the message of the book". Briefly put: there is a huge menu of Kant-declared essences on how to strategize in pedagogy, essences that are BETWEEEN the 1)'concrete methods of upbringing' and the 2)hypergeneral that Løvlie is ready to commit forgery for. Why Løvlie does not see the Kant-declared essences on how to strategize in pedagogy is anyone's guess; but whatever the reason, it makes him a hostile custodian of Kant's texts. Students of Ed-Sci ought to ignore Lars Løvlie and look directly at Kant's work, not even pollute their minds by the awareness of what Løvlie or Løvlie's brothers in arms think or say, just go straight to the English translation of On Pedagogy, and compare it with the German original text. That is my advice. But there is translation-produced ambiguity in the English translation too, from a pattern-blind translator translating Kant's metaphoric 'Vehicles' into 'Tenors'. So keep the German original and a good dictionary open. Løvlie's reduction towards the simplistic and trivial culminates in: "To summarize the message of the book as simply as possible, the goal of pedagogy is to raise the child for life in society, for culture and for morality." ["För att enklast möjligt sammanfatta bokens budskap, så är pedagogikens mål att fostra barnet till samhållsliv, kultur och moral". And here we have a trace of Løvlie's confusion, inasmuch as I only see Kant's "kultiviert" and "Kultur" in On Pedagogy referring to 'culturing' of the body and "soul"/"spirit"/'intellect'. Not one place do I see Kant's message or essence being the raising of children and youth to a life with 'culture' as in 'theaters' and 'concert halls' and such, the way it appears Løvlie has in mind in this "Post-script" to the Swedish 'translation' (p.72). Quite on the contrary, Kant warns against excessively fine clothes and outwardly fine habits (not at all inconsistent with his background as a student of theology so, again, a self-contradicting Kant is NOT what the reader is offered in the book On Pedagogy). And if Løvlie says that what he meant is that Kant by "Kultur" meant something like a 'modern civilized state of being', Løvlie is equally wrong, because Kant, by "Kultur" is indeed referring to the 'culturing process', as he is with the word "Bildung" the "forming process" being 'education' metaphor. It is to the process of developing the "seeds"[/"germs"] he is referring, all of which are good (§16). Løvlie, two pages later in that "Post-script", reveals a more serious side of his confusion when he says that Rousseau assigned to the child "authenticity, an inner space of freedom for the moral or religious self", and adds: "Kant assigned autonomy, or authority, to the child." – and then says that "both" (both Rousseau and Kant) "believed in the ability to decide-for-oneself. Freedom, to Kant, is to obey one's reason and let the moral duties place limits on one's behavior. This freedom must also be for [this claim must also be valid for] the child before it reaches the age of reasonability, for it cannot be free as an adult if it has not already received this freedom as a gift from birth." As I have established above, Lars Løvlie does not understand that book, and he makes a mess out of it when he tries to teach its content. He basically uses it to preach his political views, which makes him corrupt even before we begin talking about his forgery of the bullying-segment he quotes in that 'Postscript'. To me, Lars Løvlie's forgery is as serious as the foregry of the Piaget 1967quotes. In the neighbor building on the UiO campus, UiO's translators of Critique of Pure Reason Steinar Mathisen, Camilla Serck-Hanssen and Øystain Skar are slightly confused themselves about Kants Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik der reinen Vernunft), a confusion that multiplies in the minds of everyone who reads their pseudo-translation of it, especially when they see their confusion validated by Camilla Serck-Hanssen, in her 'Introduction' to the translation, saying she finds Kant's reasoning to be somewhat "cryptic". Cryptic it will necessarily be when the entire lexical translation-vocabulary used by these alleged 'translators' paid by our taxes is the one pre-set by long dead Norwegian academic ancestors who re-modeled a native Norwegian-language speaking and Norway-born immanuel Kant that never existed. But that is a story to be told later. The Løvlie-case, nonetheless, goes to show we need to keep them out of an 'officially legislated application of philosophy in pedagogy'. That task must remain the responsibility and mandate of an independent Faculty of Philosophy. So let's get Philosophy out of the garden where it is being forced to 'play nicely' with the rest, and where 'nicely' means 'shut up when they distort and usurp it; make it theirs by raping it, then marrying it'. It is the duty of Philosophy, rather, to aim for what Pedagogy is trying to acquire, and do what Pedagogy has been doing for some years now in all the other domains in universities everywhere (cf. Seeking Campus-Universal Didactic Dominance, ... Soerfjord 2016). But the Philosophy-offices do need to improve their thinking. Then there is this, which is directly connected with the need for improved thinking and less focus on the expertise in scriptless talk-fluency and preacher-style charisma: It is an incentive to dilute scientific concentration, intensity, complexity and accuracy, and aids the structurally cemented tyranny of the consensus-mob that now has a universal hold on campuses in Norwegian (even Scandinavian or Nordic) universities, specifically: 1) The incest-like hiring-and promotion practices – inbreading of PhDs who then stand in line for promotion to 'Professor-title-carriership', as if they are not 'professors' the very moment they enter a classroom as PhDs to teach together with: 2)the liaisons between socially dominant academic appropriators of idea-wise monopoly and (equally selfappropriating of public funds) so-called 'administrators'; a liaisons that trade exclusion-favors that both of these corrupt groups benefit economically from, is a huge part of the problem. The Løvlie-as-Kant-interpreter problem boils down to Lars Løvlie apparently being a teacher-trainer but certainly not being a philosopher-pedagogue: not a moderately competent student of philosophy and not a bridge-maker from philosophy to pedagogy, in spite of his sweet smile. That smile, I suspect, becomes something else the moment I begin speaking to him about the real Piaget-quotes or ask him why he 'fixed' the Kant-segment. He is of course free to contact me and try to prove otherwise, or simply read my evidence and admit the facts and all their implications for teacher-training. I'm not holding my breath, as they say. Dr. Kai Sørfjord Oslo, Norway, 22.12.2016 Lars Løvlie's acts of cheating can be verified by visiting: Løvlie, Lars (2005), article: "Ideology, Politics and the (National) Plan for Learning" (my translation from Norwegian), published in Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift (Norwegian Journal of Pedagogy) (2005 Nr 04). Løvlie, Lars (2008): The Pedagogical Paradox and its Relevance for Education. / Har det paedagogiske paradoks nogen betydning i uddannelse?, chapter in Lars Emmerik Damgaard Knudsen; Mattias Andersson (red): Skab dig! Paedagogisk filosofi ("Behave! Pedagogical Philosophy". København, Denmark: Forlaget Unge Paedagoger. Løvlie Lars (2008) "Efterskrift av Lars Løvlie" ("Postscript by Lars Løvlie" – postscript to Kant's On Pedagogy), in Jim Jakobsson's translation of Kant's Ueber Pädagogik into the Swedish Om Pedagogikk, Göteborg, Sweden: Bokförlaget Daidalos AB, (2008). acknowledgement: This documentary was written and edited between May and December 2016, under the influence of minds that continue to inspire me. I continually think back and acknowledge the academic and ethical integrity of men like Sigmund Ro (retired lecturer of English at UiA), Jan B. Ørmen (retired lecturer of logic at UiA), Paul J. Thibault (lecturer of communication and linguistics at UiA) these are men I admire and I could mention other academics of both English and Philosophy at the UiA and many academics of Educational Science at the Univ. of Hong Kong (HKU). They are all people I admire and who have been an inspiration for me HKU's Dr. Carol K. K. Chan, Dr. Jingyan Lu, Dr. Mark Bray and lecturer Tess Hogue to mention just a few of them. The Faculty of Education at HKU has a level of academic and ethical integrity I have not seen in the corresponding institutions within Norway. Who would have thought Hong Kong to be a role model for Norway to follow? an example for Norway to one day try to emulate, if they can? In the areas of team-work, collaborative learning and evaluation the Faculty of Education of the Univ. of Hong Kong is far ahead. I recommend anyone interested in finding out how that is possible, to look into the structure of evaluation of teacher-candidates within Hong Kong. Dr. Kai Sørfjord Oslo, Norway, 22.12.2016 Appendix IV Law for basic and advanced schooling (primaryto highschool) (Norway's Law for teaching) Law for public schooling from primary to highschool (the law for teaching): §1-1 The purpose of the education: The education in schools and apprentice-firms shall, in cooperation with the home and with a shared understanding, open doors towards the world and the future, and give pupils and apprentices historical and cultural insight and a sense of belonging (a point of anchorage). The education shall be built upon basic values in Christian and humanistic heritage and tradition, such as respect for human dignity (worth) and nature, on freedom of mind (spirit: 'faith'), love for humankind (one's neighbor), forgiveness, egalitarianism and solidarity, values that are also expressed in various religions and views of life and which are anchored in the human rights. The education shall help expanding knowledge and understanding of our (the) national heritage og our shared international cultural tradition. The education shall give insight into cultural diversity and show respect for each individual's personal conviction. it shall promote democracy,equal rights and a scientific way of thinking. Pupils and apprentices shall develop knowledge, skills and attitudes to master their lives and be able to participate in work and companionship in the community. They shall have the opportunity to experience creativity, involvement and a sense of discovery. Pupils and apprentices shall learn critical thinking and how to act ethically and with awareness of the environment. They shall have shared responsibility and the right to contribute.* 54 Schools and apprentice-firms shall approach pupils and apprentices with trust, respect and demands, and give them challenges that promote education and a desire to learn. All forms of discrimination shall be discouraged ("worked against"). * 54 (last change by law on 19 Dec 2008 no. 118 (ikr. 1 Jan 2009, after res. 19 Dec 2008 no. 1424) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61#KAPITTEL_1 * 54 The individual has these rights; not the 'group'. The individual, each member of the group, has them. ________________________________________________________ (my transl. of:) Lov om grunnskolen og den videregående opplaeringen (Opplaeringsloven): §1-1 Formålet med opplaeringen Opplaeringen i skole og laerebedrift skal, i samarbeid og forståelse med hjemmet, åpne dørene mot verden og fremtiden og gi elevene og laerlingene historisk og kulturell innsikt og forankring. Opplaeringen skal bygge på grunnleggende verdier i kristen og humanistisk arv og tradisjon, slik som respekt for menneskeverdet og naturen, på åndsfrihet, nestekjaerlighet, tilgivelse, likeverd og solidaritet, verdier som også kommer til uttrykk i ulike religioner og livssyn og som er forankret i menneskerettighetene. Opplaeringen skal bidra til å utvide kunnskapen om og forståelsen av den nasjonale kulturarven og vår felles internasjonale kulturtradisjon. Opplaeringen skal gi innsikt i kulturelt mangfold og vise respekt for den enkeltes overbevisning. Den skal fremme demokrati, likestilling og vitenskapelig tenkemåte. Elevene og laerlingene skal utvikle kunnskap, dugelighet og holdninger for å kunne mestre sine liv og for å kunne delta i arbeid og fellesskap i samfunnet. De skal få utfolde skaperglede, engasjement og utforskertrang. Elevene og laerlingene skal laere å tenke kritisk og handle etisk og mijøbevisst. De skal ha medansvar og rett til medvirkning. * 55 Skolen og laerebedriften skal møte elevene og laerlingene med tillit, respekt og krav og gi dem utfordringer som fremmer utdanning og laerelyst. Alle former for diskriminering skal motarbeides.* 55 (sist endret med lov 19 des 2008 nr. 118 (ikr. 1 jan 2009, etter res. 19 des 2008 nr. 1424) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61#KAPITTEL_1 * 55 Individet har disse rettighetene; ikke 'gruppen' men 'individet', hvert medlem i gruppen, har dem. Appendix V In comes Dr. Øystein ....., while the females are chanting hate-coded banalities, a support they know Dr. Øystein ..... seeks, and they know it because Dr. Øystein ..... showed it actively with the agression he signals with his face, posture, gaze, explicit discrimination in lecturs, all of which constitutes explicit condemnation of the dissident who brings unwanted evidence. female shouts (next to the blue water-bottle), having joined the alliance formed by the female from Kristiansand, in dark grey wool sweater, now standing up, a chief hater throughout the semester. Dr. Øystein ..... now has the backing of that team, which by definiton is a mob, a team of 'mobbers' bullying in gang. two females shouting eye-contact between Dr. Øystein ..... and myself aggression or hate ? And does it matter which? direct eye-contact with camera-holder (myself) placing his right foot under my torso, and preparing to launch the mass og his torso forward until vertically over his foot, as if to topple me on impact by momentum and torque, a classical martial-arts technique; and he seems to imagine he can deny he is doing it on account of his arms deviating from the fight-mode position. It is a school-mobber a gang-bully leader we are seeing here, in teacher-education of all places. It is an organizational structure that invites it and a behind-the-curtain administrative team that suppresses science and scientific evidence, and threatens all who speak about such evidence, then removes such teacher-candidates by unlawful means. No proponent of certain 'unwanted evidence' gets a job among them, or keeps it for very long if beginning to profess the relevance of such evidence. martial-arts-steps and mock tackle, with mock head-butt -below: in upper left corner, the female self-appointed mob-leader now leaves; eye-contact Dr. Øystein ..... – myself final mock-assault-phase, with eye-contact (holding my Sony-cam off my right shoulder) Dr. Øystein ..... applies his thigh muscles to change the direction of the assault at the moment of signaled impact. Abuse by the modeling of CONTEMPT the abused spectators are forced to learn the low value imputed by Dr. Øystein ..... to this particular teacher-candidate. impressionable victims of MODELED CONTEMPT: JOYFULNESS two of the aggressive females are now hiding it, one still displaying it; smiling male to the left in photo feeling it too. All victims of abuse by modeled contempt, hate and aggression. Conditioned acceptance of mobbing/bullying among children, in teacher-education of all places. LEARNED CONTEMPT (three males, top row), and LEARNED FEAR (female in scarf, lowest row in photo), fear of the scientific perspective that brings evidence to its conslusion. These young adults are victims of abuse, and need to be helped out of the grip of the cult that controls these courses. The public funds donated for EdSci is meant for the cultivation of principles quite opposite of this cf. §1-1 in the Norwegian 'law for teaching', which implicitly dictates the content and form of all teacher-education. That is a logical implication that Parliament needs to make explicit and actively enforce by directly interfering in Ed-Sci. NONE OF THESE will be able to "promote a scientific way of thinking" among children, have their students "learn critical thinking" I am quoting §1-1 in Norway's law for teaching ('Opplaeringsloven') and none of the 200 that exited for recess will. They can all be expected to use the discriminationgestures and -language they observed the female lecturer using against a teacher-candidate who refuses to shut up about the real quotes and what §1-1 in the law for teaching means for teacher-training. They can be expected to copy what they just heard, and say: "You are not allowed to speak; anyone else with a question?", and they can all be expected to not see the behavior they learn here as mobbing/bullying when they see it among children. This is the reality that leads to the present teacher-blindness towards mobbing and their inability to react properly and in time when it happens right under their noses among the children they are supposed to learn to teach according to the mentioned §1-1. But they do not. This problem can only be improved on by improving it in teacher-training, and re-structuring teacher-training so that it shapes teachers according to the qualifications §11 dictates they must be equipped with: the ability to "promote a scientific way of thinking" and have their pupils "learn critical thinking", aso. Below, red arrow: the female shouter, the mob-leader from Kristiansand, leaves, happy with her team-work. red arrow: the shouter from Kristiansand leaves for recess Myself: "You saw what happened ?"*56 "Du så hva som skjedde?" * 56 I'm referring to the preceding 45 minute lecture, in which the female lecturer explicitly invites the audience to participate ask questions if they have any aso but refuses one particular teachercandidate to ask any or participate in any way, before he has even uttered a word: the one candidate who has brought forth consensuscondemning evidence the real Piaget-quotes, the quotes that in themselves, with no help from anyone, prove the ridiculous hoax. Only two other than myself raise a hand. The audience participation segment is then cut short by the female lecturer, who sends all 250 teacher-candidates to recess, canceling the whole class dialogue when she can no longer control the premises of the collective argument and it conclusion. She did exactly that the two times she invited the audience to participate during the first 45minute segment of the lecture kept the premises and their outcome in control by censorship, censorship of the one teachercandidate who knows about the real quotes and understands §1-1 and what it dictates for teacher-education. I audio recorded that with a hidden Sony-cam. The same thing is about to happen repeatedly after recess, in the second 45-minute segment the female saying "I do not give you access to speak, anyone else with a question?" – from the pulpit of Norwegian Ed-Sci, which I video-record visual and audio-recording clear and secured. Dr. Oeystein ..... and pseudo-administrative officer aka "1st Consultant" Jon Aril Lund will then engage a security guard to confiscate the videos on the scene, a guard who will follow me on foot, remaining in pursuit until almost 1 km off campus while trying to call the police to have them confiscate the video, but will loose me in the crowd at the bus stop, where I'll get on and let the hired nazi guard return to his base on the UiO campus on his own. This is Norways' alleged post-nazi era. But first: 5 seconds pause (nods affirmatively to my question "You saw what happened ?" in the preceding 45 minutes ? – Dr. Øystein .....'s nod is delayed until he realizes I'm not referring to the assault-turning-mock type intimidation he just perpetrated himself.) Myself: "And you are Oeystein -" "Og du er Øystein -" "- .....?" ".....?" Myself: "at the ILS !" (ILS is 'Institute for Teacher-education and School-research', Faculty of Ed-Sci, UiO, Oslo, Norway) "-på ILS" (Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning, uv.-fak., UiO) Marte in her grey skihat, along the white wall 11.Nov.2015 Auditorium No. 1 Helga Eng's building University of Oslo (UiO) campus Blindern, Oslo, Norway The plucking away stage between course-initiation and final exams in Norwegian (Scandinavian) Ed-Sci is a state-within-the-state that itself needs to be plucked away. The institute-situated 'freedom' to sift away the ones that a consensus of inbread academics in a given 'institute' of Ed-Sci (ILS, IPED or SPED in the UiO-case) have 'felt doubt' towards is uncontrollable the scientific perversion is done no injustice by the unlawful sexual perversionallegory. That 'freedom to abuse' inevitably turns into the whorehouse on campus we have today, calling themselves 'Ed-Sci' while running on mediaval faith, and comitting perjory to defend it. Their sifting by 'liking' and 'not liking' is a mob whose emotions change from in the Dr. Øystein ..... case a ) to b) http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/ / my Sony-cam by the slightest sound of a 'scientific' fact they do not 'like', for example the mention of Ivar Bråten's (a UiO-lecturer's) translation of the phrase "zone of proximal development" to the Norwegian equivalent of "proximal zone of development" just being grammatically wrong, scientifically wronger and pedagogically disastrous and would be almost silly on its own, without the aggression that defends it and all other errors committed by the consensusmob. The lab-monster-Ed-Sci that found it worthwhile to cheat and then forged its rhetorical evidence by supplying the home-cooked quotes they attribute to Piaget, will continue as it has until the Parliament does something about this beyond collecting opinions about it. Minds that morf from friendly to hostile a) to b) by the mere sound of scientific facts they do not 'like', are not the science-oriented minds that Parliament expect them to be. They must be fundamentally restructured for that to happen, their power to 'dislike' teacher-candidates out of their career-choice between course-initiation and exams (retrospectively transparent) removed permanently, structurally. This is about making Ed-Sci what Parliament expected it to be all along. I'd say it is the worst people we can possibly imagine for the job that are now in control of the sphere of teacher-education from the lower-level lecturers who routinely present a set of fake Piaget 1967-quotes in support of a Biblecompatible model of human learning (the 'admit-and-repent'-commandment dictated) from the Middle-Ages one that translates to the 'errorremoval' type negative pedagogy that creates academic loosers among children to the institute-level pseudo-administrators who threaten anyone who debates the issues with consensus-damning evidence in hand and refuses to shut up about it when told to, the way I am told to shut up about it on this very significant day of Nov.11.2015, when I after many hidden audiorecorded samples of it am prepared for a visually distinct part of their abuse to enter the Sony-cam lens, an opportunity signaled by abusive emails from dept.head Miss Mai Lill SUhr Lunde up to the last hour before lecture; and was lucky enough to get away with the memory-card intact, in spite of their effort to have their own security-guards and police confiscate it. Open scientific debate in Ed-Sci really does spell doomsday for present consensus. This is teacher-education we are talking about, where these consensussensitive aggressive fools should have no role. In a democratic and open society it isn't the individual scientist in this case educational scientist that runs rogue, remains on the loose and continues to do damage in spite of being 'found out' and proven to be a fraud, it is the sub-national manipulated plenum kept in the dark that does; the sub-national fieldspecific crowd hired for their allegiance to 'consensus'. Dr. Øystein ..... is one such. He must jump really high for the bone hung up the 'Professor'-title to get it. And jump high he does. Anything he is expected to do for consensus, he will. And there is a whole crowd of 'Amanuensis'-titled hopeful jumping alongside him, for the same limited number of bones. This is how totalitarian regimes build the foundations that make the most revolting and evidence-contradicting into accepted norms. That crowd cannot be jerked out of its misperception and apathy, no matter how wrong they are in every debate they escape from. For a new crowd to grow, it must be legislated into competition with the old one, legislationwise cultivated and enabled to compete with the old crowd on equal or better terms. The old crowd is kept in the dark by field-internal abuse of public office. It is a closed sub-national society within the so-called 'open' nationdefined society. The duty of a 'government' is to 'govern the individual' as in 'centrally guide the individual'. It isn't enough for a government to 'govern the ones who locally govern the individual'. If the connection between the 'government' and the individual is broken by a Mediating local Actor of a radically different kind, one that enforces radically different principles than the ones ordered and legislated centrally, the government's duty is to interfere on its own initiative, acquire central control, regain it if it ever had such control; and let no mediating functional agent insert its own principles. A government must intrude on a routine and appropriately unpredictable basis and on its own initiative to keep itself updated about the connection between their legislated principles and the locally enacted principles. A 'government', in other words, secures the validity and reality of centrally legislated principles in the local sphere of the individual, by verifying directly whether the same principles that are emitted by legislation, have validity and reality locally. The best way to make sure that such a verification-effort and its result cannot be trusted is to ask the locally Mediating Agent, in this case the enforcer of consensus within the field in question, here Ed-Sci. It is a Parliament that talks in chambers about this while keeping members of the local consensus-enforcers away, that enables itself to improve matters. This documentary has put the spotlight on a radically contra-government national-policy-thwarting field within higher education, a local-policy-author perpetrating institute-situated civil disobedience, and not at all of the heroic kind. the face of a healthy teacher-education? It is an initiated and signaled physical assault, in the Ed-Sci lecturing hall, Univ. of Oslo, UiO a mock head-butt (cf. photo-strip page 260-273); and then, while the female Shouter from Kristiansand, in her dark grey wool sweater, attempts to avoid being viewed as the mobber and crowd manipulator she is and sneaks away to the right in the picture without even looking at what appears to be the moment of impact – that's her right here in the top part of the next photo, just below the word "top": the female she recruited into her mobbing-scheme senses the sudden absence of the female team behind her and turns her head to her right to see where they went. She gets a glimpse of the female Shouter's back and then turns her head to the left again towards the action in front of her, spotting what to her appears to be a fellow teacher-candidate being thoroughly intimidated, getting what he deserves in Dr. Øystein .....'s bodily enacted threat of imminent physical harm by the ongoing physical assault. She bursts out in a happy smile and a giggle: Direct eye-contact with target, holding the Sony-cam off his right shoulder; Dr. Øystein ..... launching towards a body-impact, and re-directing the assault just before impact. The four-finger-nail-biting clerk by the wall, a so-called "Consultant", Mr. Jon Arlid Lund and his female colleague are definitely worried. She is visually absent from the UiA staff-list, which means she is probably among the employees who 'advise' on sensitive matters, among them matters of importance to the ruling consensus. The rulers of that consensus, as I have proved, bury the evidence that need to be buried, and pluck away teacher-candidates who see too much and talk about dangerous evidence they should learn to shut their mouth about. Read about the rational fear we may impute to these female members of this very much unlawful "Special Exclusion Services Unit"* in "Female Administrative staff in Norwegian Ed-Sci live in Fear", 2017, by Dr. Kai Soerfjord (*read that article too, to inform yourself of the structure of this incredible corruption). It is an Ed-Sci administration-clan out of control we are seeing. It needs to be understood in light of the constant flow of public funds into these Nordic universities' offices, combined with the delegated state power entrusted in the recipient dominant colleague groups who grab social power over these public funds funds that replace what would otherwise be a corresponding flow of student fees and a very likely counter-balancing sociological effect associated with that, an effect that would tend to restrain any unmerited exclusiontendency within these courses in Ed-Sci. More than anything the incentive to keep all students, even those who discover 'dangerous evidence', would tend to restrain the blatantly unlawful among exclusion-tendencies, and with them the abusive of human rights or parliament-issued principles of law. In this case we are dealing with exclusion-tendencies and exclusion-processes that violate superior principles defined by Norway's 'Law for Teaching, §1-1'; {a law paragraph that, by logical implication and obviously also by intention when passed in Parliament, outlines the principles we are to enable all teacher-candidates to teach to children}*, in public and private schools. The public funding, in other words, needs to be combined with a new form of restraint, a restraint presently unseen and unheard of but envisioned by superior insight originating externally, where Ed-Sci's office-operators have no say; and that restraint needs to be secured by a new process structure and a new personnel structure (including a new hiringand work-title structure), all externally forced into place, eliminating any 'evaluation'-process that isn't or cannot be according to universal science-criteria of retrospective universal transparency and randomness of subjectivity. The point I marked {.....}* is something politicians and Ministry-clerks simply refuse to understand when I tell them. They say it isn't their duty to tend to it. Their obviously convenient confusion and deference to local abusers of individuals' rights is a part of this corrupton. Heads that would be rolling under the criteria of science, ethics and law are allowed instead to keep governing the misery and uphold it by patent fraud, as I have proved and accounted for above. We only have two rational ways to go: end the public funds that feed the corruption or envision and install a restraint that disables it. TO BE CONTINUED, regretfully. Too little interference allows improperly equipped individuals to structure functions for themselves where they have too much power over the wrong things. From the local offices they buy with consensus-allegiance, they have been doing serious and concrete harm to our educational system, to its structure, that of Norwegian higher education in particular, and more pathologically in teachereducation than anywhere else; enabling themselves to cause a stream of persisting and pervasive concrete harm to daily inflict our young adults in educational science (Ed-Sci) education programs, and in very concrete ways. And they will continue to do so until sufficiently interfered with, in concrete ways that bring the necessary fundamental structural change. Read the above. Browse the 'live' photo-strips, rewind and examine. Do not be a bystander - have an impact. Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord) (PhD of pedagogy; and of logic; Ma of English linguistics) ksorfjord@gmail.com