the Special Exclusion Services Unit and its unlawful trade of exclusion services in Norwegian Ed-Sci 2017 by Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord) © The author, Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord), asserts his right to be identified as the author of this work. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils (cf. "Scared Stiff -..., a Documentary") http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/kirstien/ index.html Kirsti L. Engelien, a faith-based EdPolit.-operator running rogue with state funds allocated and meant for Ed-Sci and protected by Ministrylocated clerks like Anne Grøholt (photo below) and Kasper Aunan. Introduction: Creepy smiles and ill intentions Five females in the liaison between UiO's "Institute for Teacher Training and School Research" (Norw.: Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning, ILS) and one of its associated practice-venue schools (Flaatestad 7th-9th grade school 20 km south of downtown Oslo) – Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, Mai Lill Suhr Lunde and Lisbeth M. Brevik, in the university institute; and May Britt Esse Berge and Maria Sofie Olsson in the practice venue – are instrumentally active in unlawful sifting activities within their region of Norwegian teacher-training. But that isn't all. Part of their sifting-activity is being perpetrated to remove anyone among teacher-candidates who voice certain facts regarding a core set of quotes that, since 1967, have been so distorted that we are talking about systematic quote forgery. The institute-situated females became aware of my awareness of that fact when I sent them the first letter about it in August 2015, informing them of the false quotes attributed to Piaget and wrongfully used in UiO courses, including the one I attended from August to November 2015. At the same time we have the following distortion of official university organization structure, with its corruption of procedures: A so-called "Rector" (rektor) of a Norwegian university has no intent to 'use' refuses to use the required academic command line they brag about and most of all this is true in the case of Educational Science, Ed-Sci. The alleged command-line from Rektor, http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/kirstik/ http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/brittfo/ Kirsti Klette and Britt Oda Fosse, the two lecturers who posted forged Piaget-quotes on the Power-point screen in the Auditorium as they lectured on basic cognitive theory in the autumn semes-ter of the PPU (practicalpedagogical 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. *cf. p. 7 and 8: Eyvind Elstad, a Dr. Polit., Dr. of Political Science, who has remained visually anonymous on the UiO staff list throughout 2015, 2016 and up to the present, for a good reason: the Dr. Polit. is equipped with the JOB-TITLE "Professor of Pedagogy" but he has NO ACADEMIC degree in pedagogy (Ed-Sci), none whatsoever (cf. p. 11). In spite of that fact the female leader-team of the facultydepartment ("institute") 'ILS' within the UiO faculty of Ed-Sci (uv.fak.) appoint Dr. Polit. Eyving Elstad to answer my letter to the institute about the proven systematic quote-fraud in cognitive science, and Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad's written judgment call is simply that this matter is "not important", "does not belong on campus" and hence is not a matter worth discussing. allegedly "down" to the "faculties" and further "down" to the "institutes" are fraudulent claims of adherence to legislated organizarional "structure". In reality their 'structure' is quite another. In reality the individuals who demand control in Norwegian 'institutes' of Ed-Sci maneuver themselves into friendship-positions where "Rector" refuses to force the "Institute leader" to be influenced by evidence against her faith. She simply retreats behind a wall and leaves everything in the hands of a "Leader of instruction" who retreats behind another wall and leaves every act of unlawful custodianship of state power in the hands of a periferally educated opinion-controller in this case pedagogically ignorant cancereducated Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, who hides behind a staff-photo taken in the 1980s. They all hide behind pin-code and id-card-swipe operated vaulted walls on campus Blindern, obviously aware of some danger to their personal safety that they put themselves in by their acts against human rights and law offences that Ministry, lawyers, courts and even Parliament all turn a blind eye to. The mentioned quotes are being used 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 Immanuel 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 lying: The two female disseminators of false Piaget-quotes in the autumn-semester of 2015 at the UiO Institute for Teacher-education and School-research (ILS) teachers of basic cognitive theory: Kirsti Klette and Britt Oda Fosse hide behind the female instituteadministrators, 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 very 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; Tor Tanggaard, outside UiA's main building, in Kristiansand, Norway (cf. Appendix III below, in "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary") https://www.facebook.com/tor.tanggaard Bjørn Jan Monstad, published April 22. 2015 https://www.nrk.no/sorlandet/rekordmange -sokere-til-uia-1.12323010 theory; and they need to replace the mentioned inheritedpowerpoint-mediated-slogan-operators. Kirsti Klette and Britt Oda Fosse (left margin above) 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 Scandinavian 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. Tor 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 grippingmotion 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?" Tor 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?" Tor 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 'non-contributor', report as such a specimen, and let Tor Tangaard, formally by coordinating an 'administrator' (here a veritable fascismoperator), "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 below shows him in his role as Attractor. We may safely assume the reason why he hides his appearance on the staff-list has http://www.uia.no/en/kk/profile/bjornjm Bjørn J. Monstad on the staff-list 2008-2016: visually anonymous his most active period of letting himself be used to officiate the functions I say we absolutely should call out by its true quality-defined name: the Special Exclusion Services Unit. It is SECURITY-concerns he and his colleagues worry about – and it is a rational fear. But SHOULD they fear for their lives if ALL they do is PROPER MANAGERIAL work ? The special TASKS that I refer to, many of which transgress what I say are the limits of the LAW, would really put him in a danger he would feel the need to calculate with and protect himself from. 2017: After my analysis of their unlawful activity in higher education a more recent photo was just uploaded – of a "Retiree", but rest assured: he continues with the same type of activities or offers advice in the training of new personnel in the same function: threatening whomever has the skill and evidence to win a debate and is targeted by the incompetent mob who rule on local corridor-approved doctrine even if the scientific evidence is against them; in exchange for reciprocal services rendered. to do with his real role as Exclusion-Operator in the universitysphere; officiator of unwarranted mob-demanded exclusion-services in the studyand work-environment, an agent of the veritable ESU Exclusion Services Unit. managerial doubles, and their function – an unlawfully functioning set of managerial doubles, trading exclusion favors that cancels out workers' rights and human rights; state funded local fascism. The "ESU" – an unlawful function 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 these 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 by invariably officiating the mob's will, turning unlawful mob-activity-driven threats against non-allied individuals into official threats against the real winner of key scientific debates worth having but not tolerated by a majority proven to be wrong. It is a most unethical liaison, and in itself a roadblock to major scientific advances in Ed-Sci. For concrete information on how Monstad and Aagedal (photo next page) 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/publishedpapers/volume-6-2015/Unlawful-Norwegian-Methods-inTeacherTraining.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 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 http://www.uia.no/en/kk/profile/bjornjm http://www.uia.no/kk/profil/tora And no one in Parliament wants to interfere with these manageiral doubles. Politicians call their fascist activity local self-regulation if you embarrass them in public and force them to comment on it. have, because it is each of the individuals in the group that has it on behalf of the 'group'. Tor A. Aagedal and Bjoern Jan Monstad, hence, have been and are, to the degree that they are still active, players in what effectively is a continuously active: 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 moboriginated irrelevant rumors into official pseudo-knowledge. Only occasionally do these mob-driven 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-/ or department-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 and hear 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 with a smirk that, coupled with her "we will not answer any more questions about the same matter" after evading the matter for months by sending me reply letters that ignore the only question I pose before them in writing blatant expressions of contempt only the corrupt dare display tells me the UiO institute's users of forged Piaget-quotes (Kirsti Klette and Britt Oda Fosse in the ILScase) and the three institute-level 'leaders' (Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien and Rita Hvistendahl) have little to worry about as long as she, Anne Grøholt, is there to block every move towards re-establishing the real Piaget 1967 quotes. Corruption assisted 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/akademi-tilbod-falsk-master 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 cf. page 65 in "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary". 2015, 2016 and up to the present, May 2017: the Dr. Polit. hiding his appearance on the UiO staff list: http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/english/people/aca/ eyvindel/ 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. After her, new fascism-cervants thrust forth and fill her slot, if she is ready. This is a faulty STRUCTURE, one that operates and protects an unlawful liason. 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 here there is no union equivalent to the 'ServicemenAssociation (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 schoolbullies invade after their school-years 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 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/personer forfattere/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 extra-exams, 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 two pages down) 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. 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 mobber's the team-/gang-operator type's bully-qualities, and rewards them. 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/Monstad (UiA) or Lunde/Engelien (UiO), allied with Doctors of Political Science who know very little Ed-Sci, threaten and accuse the student who presented the scientific evidence 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 evidencebringer'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 ..... (cf. photo-strip below and in "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary") 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, Seniorråd-giver), 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 heads of these mobs seek to terminate. The ESU-operator 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 ExclusionServices-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. 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. He is 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 EdSci' to dismiss consensus-falsifying evidence in cognitive science where he isn't qualified by stating "Piaget is not important" in the letter the Ministry told the institute to write after I complained; 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 Piaget-quotes 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 and lecture halls of Educational Science, ARE NOT QUALIFIED ! Is anyone in the Parliament listening? 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 workenvironment, unlawful such, at which point 3:the officiating ESUoperator 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 who 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: http://folk.uio.no/eyvindel/ Eyvind Elstad is 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/-paraphrases/-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 ! 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-62015/Unlawful-Norwegian-Methods-in-Teacher-Training.pdf 39. (Summation 39 of "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary") 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 mob-tyranny 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 idea-monopoly 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 - The website http: {educationalresearch...} (http://utdanningsforskning.no/kilderpersoner/ personerforfattere/eyvind-elstad/) says this on their home-page, 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, Univer-sity 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/i ndex.html " a Dr. Polit. posing as qualified in the core Ed-Sci-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 just aren't intelligent enough to understand the harm in this. 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 only 2.5 km north of the King's castle. The King is here the garantor of delegated fascism, and he couldn't care less. He obviously doesn't understand it. Dr. Øystein ..... was sent on such a one-person-target extra-examination-mission a week before that, with the same task: DO NOT inspect the practical teaching-exercise of anyone else, ONLY inspect the one student they have internally felt official "doubt" in, for reasons that naturally have to do with the consensus-damning evidence they want no discussion of, and no talk of. But Øystein (see photo strip), in spite of his visible latent aggression, failed to find anything wrong worthwhile telling me about in the 1⁄2 minute dialogue we had right after he was suspiciously much in a hurry to get away, though, and I did teach a quite successful lesson, if I may say so. The mini-dialogue was audiorecorded by me, naturally, since I obviously could not trust this particular team of academics. Dr. Øystein .....'s (Oeystein's) only direct comment a minute after ended lesson, "Vel blåst", is an idiosyncratic synonym to "Well done", where the particles of the metaphoric compound actually 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 'nongoverning' of local office-situated, tax-payer-financed, science-hostile fascists. We simply cannot build much of a tolerant multi-minded 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. Dr. Øystein ..... modeling how to get rid of dissenters. In his mind "agreement" is the first commandment agreement with the 'leader'. Summation 40 ("Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary") 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 audio-recorded 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 school-bullies and mob-operators I saw in 4th to 9th grade has damaged its 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 Ser-vices 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 'nonassistant-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 1:the notion gets too complicated when its size entertains the allusion to the popular fiction genre called conspiration-theory, or 2: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, 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. May Britt Esse Berge (the practice-venue) Dr. Øystein ..... (the UiO Institute, ILS) -Depatment Head ("Avdelingsleder") Mai Lill Suhr Lunde's 20-30 year old youth-photo, her official staff photo on the UiO staff list in 2015, 2016 and well into 2017 (unknown since when), now removed. Unrecognizable she hid behind it while performing unlawful exclusion-services based on the 'being liked'criterion for the UiO's Ed-Sci Institute "ILS"; and just like their "Dr. Polit." Eyvind Elstad, she has NO academic DEGREE in Ed-Sci. They will rule as long as government passivity towards it keeps allowing it. 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 Sonycam 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, Øystein in the case 4) incident, on Nov.11. 2015. He was openly involved in cases 2, 3 and 4, and behind the scenes in case 1, which he brought to the practice-venue – and I do hold it for a rather grave degree of stupidity to behave with such blatant aggression, indeed hate, written in one's face as this alleged colleague of mine, Dr. Øystein ....., does, as he finds himself having a student like myself who informs him of, case 2), abusive relations in teamdialogues unguided by ethics untaught; and, case 3), of mere quote evidence of the exact form of essential quotes. It is evidence of serious and unlawful abuse of 250 teacher-candidates we are seeing in the case 4) photographic evidence; and cases 2) and 3) are even worse in some ways. explicitly initiated by the lecturer (Aug.2015), 1:) the matter of the real Piaget quotes (in classes taught by Kirsti Klette and Britt Oda Fosse); then with Dr. Øystein ..... in private (Sep.2015), 2:) the matter of team-work being about inclusion, and the actual circumstances necessitating rules against censorship against peers in obligatory team-dialogues among teacher-candidates, as well as instruction in healthy, ethical and efficient teamwork-dialogue, with 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 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, now removed from the stafff list - (http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/adm/mailills/index.html) are occupiers of tax-financed 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-candi-dates, and a 'being liked'-criterion the 'extraexaminated' cannot pass. This is the unlawful sifting away of the ones the consensus-defenders select for exclusion-services on account Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, 'Leader of Instruction' at the Institute (ILS), in the Faculty of Ed-Sci http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/kirstien/index.html (the high figure of the note's number refers to their sequence in "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentaty") * 34 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 'examsphere' for the ones they do not like ONLY the selected candidates. The 'test-andthrow-away' is the method 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 extra-exam-series that target the 'internally-felt-doubt'-causing individual teacher-candidates – already sifted by securityand law-officials but now removed before the exam stage ! of not 'liking' them. But do not think it is an 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 special 'ad-hoc-test' 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 '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 Special 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. The General is Miss Rita Hvistendahl (photo below), 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* 34 for the practical-exercise (regular teachers) and Coordinator/Department Head for the teaching-exercise (Mai Lill Suhr lunde, in the ILS-case) 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". 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 LearningSciences 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 campus-populations 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 "Servant"-titled academic who wants his promotion. 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 mis-management by Jon Arild Lund (top left; staff photo p. 26) and his Miss visually-incognito-on-staff-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 jobtitles 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 Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, alleged 'Leader of Instruction' at the Institute (ILS), Faculty of Ed-Sci. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/kirst ien/index.html 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. 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 jobtitle. It describes a PhD doing what he does: RESEARCH and the sharing of it. We are all "Professors", not all "University-appointed" 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 ..... here, in the left margin of the previous page 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 a mind that shapes the teachers that 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 of "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary" – 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 Laerer-utdanning og Skoleforskning, ILS). She is the one department head Mai Lill Suhr Lunde reports to and acts on behalf of. Look closely at 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 the back of the cover of their book Didactic Work, published in Norwegian: Didaktisk Arbeid it a faked 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 scientifically 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 domain-political, 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), a polytechnical university photos left margin. 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 'admit-andrepent'-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', mis-conceived 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 'nobrainer', 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 learningtheoretical work. Like the UiO-based lecturer of pedagogy (in the Faculty of Ed-Sci) Mr. Ivar Braaten (Bråten) and his female coauthor 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 'lowerperforming' 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 reading-skills. 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, in 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 Nancy: 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, merely allowing it is accommodating it, also a contribution; 'bringing forth and insisting on the relevance of facts that imply otherwise or another part to add or that another team-member will add to that, even contrary to a censorship-operator'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 Strøm, sample 1, Flaatestad school, Sep.2015, cf. Appendix I of "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary") is a widespread pathology of Norwegian alleged 'team-work', a sign of its mis-use and distortion in teacher-education. The use of mandatory 'team-work' with 'battle-for-leadership' is grave abuse. Nonetheless, it is the standard version taught in Norway's teacher-educating institutions, and its standard operating-procedure (I suspect throughout Scandi-navia). 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 English-teacher consistently as a parrot before her pupils, used every threatening and intimidating word in the syllabus of the official regulations that apply to assessment, explicitly using the Ministry of Education as source for her own language of intimidation and scare-tactics, increasing anxiety levels rather than counteracting anxiety. 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 Nancy's shellshock: as English teacher. What might that be? an insight into Lev Vygotsky's "zone of proximal development" could be useful. Lev 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. 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 in the form of a particular kind of 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 Ivar Bråten & Cathrine Thurmann-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 teachereducating 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 I think I have identified the male as 1st-Consultant 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 Øystein ..... he controls his rage, but like Øystein lacks understanding. He wants to do good, but needs a Parliament to tell him exactly how. 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 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 folk-lore we are looking at in this section of the Norwegian textbook 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 courseprograms, 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 'self-modify 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 pseudo-leader-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-situated fascism, tax-payer-financed, 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 so-called "cases" at the alleged 'Ed-Sci'. They remain at a distance, benefiting 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, who probably fails to even understand what this is about, stays away, scared shitless, it seems. 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. But this is a nonimmediate-cash type corruption, so she may lack experience; and courage may be hard to find too, now that she too has a job she is afraid of loosing; so she may remain mute, aware as she is that anyone who goes against a Norwegian fascist consensus-majority will be unlawfully sabotaged at work, by pranks and hatefulness on the level of kindergarten mentality passively allowed by the government, the coward majority. The 'uncle Magne's office 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 by external pressure' 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 Jean 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 Immanuel 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 good-will, 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 in a scientific perspective idiots 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 (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 confusion 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-andrepent'-pathology expressed as the '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 self-contradicting 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 destruc-tive 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 what a school-bully looks like when serving the largely 'female' issue of 'censorship-operation'. Summation 41 & 42. 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 potential dissenter in such a micro-group left to its own dialogic design, uncontrolled self-design; and secondly the unhealthy ramifi-cations 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 metapedagogy) is in itself the teaching of 'mobbing', mobtype abuses, which necessarily affects the children who in the next phase are being taught by the same teacher-candidates. 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 'groups-left-to-their-own-regulation of "their" members'-type pseudo-'teamwork', with groups allowed to threaten individuals with exclusion if they oppose the censor-ship-operator and the alliancepartners 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. This is the rogue pseudo-lead- Bård Kjos, The Faculty Director, Faculty of Ed-Sci, UiO, Oslo, Norway http://www.uv.uio.no/personer/adm/fak/l edelsen/baardkjo/index.html er 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) have been females (cf. Appendix I of "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary") 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 troika in the UiO-case called "ILS" Institute for Teacher-Education and School-research (Norw.: "Insti-tutt 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 studyprograms 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 researchacquired 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" - Summation 44. "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/ resilience-new-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 campus-situated state-institution that no one in the official '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 laugh-able 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 2015-2016). 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 idiots 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 self-serving sim- so angry he cannot control himself. 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. plistically 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 forming a 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 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 neces-sary and constant subfunctions of consciousness itself, of awareness and self-awareness; and when one of the two subfunctions of cons-cious 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 course-programs have lecturers pre-programmed to 'share' power-point-slides 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 'professortitled 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 practical-pedagogical course I attended at the UiO in the autumn of 2015. All course-programs have their own Piagetalibi-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-a-stick-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 consensusfalsifying 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 body-language spoke of an extreme annoyance, one that aggressive fellowcandidates 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 of "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary" (Sørfjord 2016). The romantic notion of a 'free' higher education leads to a mob taking control of the public funds meant 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 lipservice 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 pincode-operated 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. 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. 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 ....., 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 costudents of pedagogy in Oct. 2015 – to the accompaniment of the same visible rage from Dr. Øystein ..... (ø=oe) as we see in this photostrip, 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 clown 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 the mock assault segment and its immediate prior visual context, with inserted caption: Marte finds herself a 'team' female from Kristiansand, the team's exclusion-operator, keeps shouting, and Dr. Øystein ..... 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 this photo-strip go to: "Team work artifact: physical assault", or "Scared Stiff ..., a Documentary", To view it as a 'Live photo-strip', a pdf-formated video, download the pdf and play it in the "fit page to screen-size" mode, simply by keeping the scroll-down-button pushed in. . In this segment, you'll see the physical assault by Øystein ..... on myself, an assault in which he facially signals aggressive intent while his body moves as in a boxer's swaying approach and faints a body impact and a head-butt designed to trigger fear and evasive action, all caught by my Sony-cam on Nov.11.2015. It was the same rage he displayed a month before, in the socalled 'seminar'-class, where his rage throughout the remaining hour or so of it, in October 2015, was printed in his emotionally inflamed face, almost precisely like the visible rage a month later, on 11.Nov.2015, seen here, from the video - 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 Dr. Øystein .....'s 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 the evidence and not being able to win by debate. HATE A THREAT hard to believe until you see it. 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 Norw-egian (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 perversion-allegory. 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/oystegi/index.html / my Sonycam 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 consensus-mob. 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 Bible-compatible model of human learning (the 'admit-andrepent'-command-ment dictated) from the Middle-Ages one that translates to the 'error-removal' type negative pedagogy that creates academic loosers among children to the institute-level pseudoadministrators 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 audio-recorded 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 consensus-oversensitive 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 socalled 'open' nation-defined 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 consensusenforcers 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-policyauthor 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 207-257) and, then, a physical assault, turning mock-assault in the last split of a second: Notice how the female administrator in the background becoming aware of her colleague's (Jon Arild Lund) worried face and turning her head to look, then: her male colleague's (Jon Arild Lund's) single finger to the lower lip becoming a 4-finger nail-bite: 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 Being now in a FIGHT-MODE (for intimidation-purposes, as a boxer who jabs in order to create an opportunity) – Dr. Øystein ..... coordinates the blinking of his eye-lids 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 physical 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, like the rest of the 6-girl mob team, is damaged goods already before the assault she is witnessing. She takes part in the cheering on of Dr. Øystein ....., having already seen his facially and posture-wise expressed anger 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 Tanggaard 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-candidate 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, liars 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 fool 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. 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: Dr. 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-renaisance) '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. 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 ? with such an uncontrollable rage I'd say it isn't even a question whether anyone ought to let such a mind influence their children; much less shape the future teachers of their 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; photo-strips p. 122-203). 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 team-bully, 'to mob' (Norw. mobbe). What else can we assume? See the photo-strip and ask yourself if she will recognize this as team-bullying or mobbing when she sees it among children? Naturally, she will not. I'd say she demonstrated thoroughly an 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 teacher-candidates 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, 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, constitutes the enforcing of it by passivity towards it; 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 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: 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 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," Norw.: "Det er mobbing," great joy at the tip of the red arrow myself: " institutional 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/oystegi/index.html 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. 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 EdSci 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. 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 (cf. transcript snippets below), 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. See the pdf-format 'live photo-strip' type SCROLL VIDEO "Witness to what? when a teacher-candidate is afraid to talk". 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) This is unlawful trade of exclusion services in what is supposed to be a 'higher' education. (cf. "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary") 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 Øystein ..... who is domineering, without the scientific facts to back him up. Dr. Øystein ..... dominates over the facts offered by another Dr. Ped (myself) – as do the rest of them, Dr. Øystein .....'s colleagues, when I share 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 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 Dr. 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. 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 (next to the light blue plastic 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 teacher-candidate being thoroughly intimidated and getting what he deserves. She is about to burst out in a happy smile and a giggle: Dr. Øystein ..... performs a foot-planting and torso rush-on boxer-style assault and a mock head-butt, coordinating his blinking by rotating 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 the attack-mode, restrained (if we may call it that) only by his awareness of having witnesses present, including the camera. visible to everyone. Dr. Øystein ..... and his colleagues try to confiscate it the following minutes, along with the evidence of the discrimination demonstrated in the full class dialogue invited by the lecturer. 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. 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. kinetically deformed in his contours as he demolishes reason within the domain he sees as 'his'. Point of aborted impact 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 Big laugh, damaged goods (cf. p. 129-130) (2:04) 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 firm position my proposition that Dr. Øystein ..... and the likeminded are a danger to our young adults and to our children; 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 occupy into what it is meant to be: Ed-Sci. The place to build Ed-Sci, hence, will have to be: within a radically different university. (2:22, cf. p. 151-153) great joy at the tip of the red arrow and in the red circle, after seeing the following while the distinctly more evil chief manipulator, the female shouter in dark grey wool sweater (just under here) from Kristiansand, hurries away and out in the middle of the assault, happy with her 'team-work'. She did her best to trigger Øystein .....'s already confused aggression. But my Sony-cam saw her, and she is now doing similar deeds in a pedagogic workenvironment near you. direct eye-contact with target, holding the Sony-cam off his right shoulder, then launching towards a body-impact, re-directing the assault just before impact. 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. ksoerfjord@gmail.com https://www.facebook.com/KaiSoerfjord Dr. Kai Soerfjord