Dr. Polits pretending to be Dr.Ped in 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. (as p.98-101 and p.613-627 in "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary" authors who defend consensus but never checked the facts, PART I Introduction a few words about the real model, later forged into a tool: Piaget's "connaissance" in his 1967 book Biologie et Connaissance is "awareness" in the sense 'consciousness', which, according to Piaget, functions as a 'cognitive adaptation', driven by an internal balance within itself, just like all the biologically self-balanced processes. Piaget knew that life is essentially self-regulation, and supposes cognition to have an essential allegorical likeness to the biologically balanced organic processes. Piaget then hypothesizes we may treat the humanly held knowledge-structures the same way, or in a very similar way, the direction of its development being the outcome of a balance between two internal drives or tendencies. Piaget called them 'subfunctions' (1967:215) of the function he calls 'adaptation', cognitive adaptation. The mind assimilates the environment, molds it into its own internal forms. But that can only yield a self-sustaining adaptive effect, he hypothesizes, if the internal forms, like the biologic, are plastic and selfmalleable. Hence, there must be the opposite tendency at work at the same time, the opposite being the capacity to yield to the forms that impose on the structures of the mind. And this is precisely what Immanuel Kant said too. Piaget just says it in biological terms, while Kant said it in general physical and logical terms. And Piaget too uses the logically evident as stepping stones: Assimilation making the outer forms similar to the inner forms, to the concepts we are already familiar with, can only happen if we at the same time 'allow them to enter undisturbed', simply 'yield to their properties as they are', accommodate them; an absolutely "banal" model, says Piaget, so banal that it is necessarily correct. The model doesn't say anything beyond the obvious. It is essentially no more than a namecalling of the two halves of the sum of all the tendencies at work in acts of observing the world. It is ridiculously banal, obviously correct. Its scientific strength lies precisely in its simplicity. It invites for future science to fill in the blanks, and there is no need to call it 'wrong' no matter what science discovers in the future. Whatever Piaget saw in his own cognition of things, that is what he called 'equilibrium', 'neutralization', a principle that as far as I know all automated mechanical processes operate by, certainly all I have dealt with. But are these facts convincing in Norwegian Ed-sci, or is it really not so much about facts, but more about faith pedagogic faith? (the impatient reader might wish to jump straight to page 7 or 8) This is the final moment of the mock-assault on Nov.11.2015 in the lecture hall on UiO-campus Blindern in Oslo, by lecturer Øystein Gilje (cf. "Group product physical assault", or the pdf-format scroll-video beginning on page 130 in "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary". After deflecting the direction of the assault exactly at the moment of inferred impact, the expression changes gradually. It is what I evaluate to be a less than pedagogically fit mind, in teachereducation of all places. And the two administrative colleagues in the back are almost worse for taking part in it; passively at first, the male among the two, Jon Arild Lund, then desperately seeking to confiscate my Sony-cam. Mr. Jon Arild Lund departs and returns together with a semi-restrained bully in uniform who pursues me on foot an entire 1 km or so down the road from the UiO campus Blindern, while trying to get the police on his mobile in order to have them confiscate it. This is an Institute with lots of things to hide, secrets not protected by any of the codes-ofsilence-paragraphs of the law. All they have to protect themselves with is aggression. Anyone willing to fence off that aggression is useful in this important work: disrobing them of the veils that hide their abuses of people and scientific facts; and eventually disposing of them as a whole in teacher education. Only a radically new form of competition, between a radically new Institute and the old, will do it. But that will do it; and by radically I mean funding-wise, hiringwise, promotion-wise, job-title-wise, tuition-fee-wise and so on. It takes a political program to deal with these particular officeholding obstructors of Parliament-authored democratic will. This is what happens when consensus is proven wrong in Norwegian Ed-Sci: an upper-body rush-on, a mock head-butt and almost 2 seconds later: See the whole segment in "Team-work product: physical assault" or "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary" Eye-contact. Gilje moving towards the face of the camera-holder, who holds the Sony-cam 90 degr. off the right shoulder, the eyes of the cameraholder aiming almost parallel to the aim of the lens, not along its aim. This is a physical assault, a gesticulated threat of physical injury: At the moment of deflected direction which makes the assault a 'mock assault' the expression changes: his black-out-rage begins to clear up, but the rage still lingers mechanically in his detached eyes. He has done this before. He has obviously been doing it all his life. And as long as tax-payers pay him for it, there will be more of it. It will not be punished, which is why it needs to be ridiculed until Parliament modifies these people by force, removing those among them that refuse to be modified or are unable to be modified. So what role do the Dr.Polits pretending to be Dr.Ped play in this? Marit Rismark and Kitt Lyngsnes are two political-science-graduates who ventured into the teaching of pedagogy, where they have cemented the fraudulent Piaget-quotes and paraphrases in the minds of all Norwegian teachercandidates since 1999, young adult minds forced to memorize details from this textbook just because it is on the curriculum or reading-list for their course program. The excuse that "these authors are only two among many" is just noise we need to ignore. Can we repair the structure that allows this? There is no valid excuse for letting non-scientifically minded authors rule Ed-Sci, even if they merely rule by their membership in the ruling consensus. As authors in science checking all their facts is their duty. The problem is, they check their facts merely against other books that claim the same facts without checking the facts themselves, in this case the real 1967 Piagetquotes. These are the ways of the non-science minded. A major uprooting of connections, fundings, as well as the use of 'consensus-internal peer-panel' type screening of manuscripts for publishing is called for; where we just root it all up, level it, and begin from scratch, finding a more incorruptible structure to govern university-institutes. Interestingly, to 'govern' means to 'steer'. A government that does not steer these institutes from the driver's seat or from the 'wheel-house' which is the Ministry and Parliament is not 'steering' them but is letting them steer themselves, 'self-steer' meaning no one steers them because they are 'selfsteering'. The Ministry actually say they let the Rector 'steer', who says he lets the faculty 'steer', who says it lets the Institute 'steer'. In fact, nobody 'steers' this except the recipients of the money and the glory themselves. They are let loose, and loose they are, scientifically loose from all facts, allowed to chain all human beings within 'their' territory to articles of pedagogic faith that stem from the pre-rennaissance; and loose from the law of the land, allowed to exclude whomever they do not 'like' and can say peers don't 'like'. Government does not 'steer' by merely 'telling someone to steer'. I suggest it's time we connect this scientifically rogue domain to the steeringwheel, and doubly connect the steering-wheel to the wheel-house. It's been going on much too long. The aggression in the left-margin photo-strip of "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary" proves the domain's belief in itself, hence its incapacity for self-modification, the very slogan they preach to everyone else. The quote-error teaching-method connection The fact that teachers of pedagogy so persistently claim that Jean Piaget defined 'accommodation' as 'modification of existing knowledge', or 'faultcorrection' and such, is connected to the same teachers' preferred form of "Socratic dialogue"; or, more precisely, their pseudo-Socratic dialogue, in which the teacher of pedagogy evaluates how hard it is to make the teacher candidate 'realize how wrong he or she is' and 'adjust to authority or to one's own peer group', which again is a criterion for getting a passing grade when the teacher of pedagogy evaluates the 'personality of the candidate' during his or her practical training, and labels that activity "an overall assessment", which is a patently unlawful method of evaluating teachercandidates, but standard totalitarian practise in Norway. The thing about 'accommodation' allegedly being non-existent whenever the child misconceives something is a formidable error of logical conclusion, a pedagogical smoke-screening of a very simple, even banal, cognitive model. Consensus has in fact in part mixed up the essence of 'accommodation' and the essence of 'adaptation' where the latter consists of the two abstract subfunctions 'accommodation' and 'assimilation'; so 'adaptation' (which is 'adjustment'), according to Piaget (and Kant), is to 'make {whatever one grants access} similar to {the things already represented as concepts}, make whatever one allows to enter similar to what entered previously, the model itself making it absurd to think of a single moment with only one of the two operating (the red or the blue), which is why Piaget adds that they are of course both constant, simultaneously active (1967:9-50 and 200-215 in French / translated to English 1971:1-37 and 171-185) in a model I then trace directly back to Immanuel Kant (1781:50-52), who said the same thing. Piaget himself commented: "The hypothesis which we propose is at the same time very simple and completely banal" ("...a complete banality") (1967:37 / translated 1971:26). It is such a simple model that it is actually correct by logical necessity, just like Kant's formulation of the same banal essence (1781:50-51). They are two verbal versions of the same banal basic thought. And it is precisely the banal simplicity of the model that gives it the scientific elegance needed for it to last, and which makes it the cornerstone that it is in all modern learning theory and research. The internal opposition within the model is simply this: 'assimilation' being 'to form the impressions so that they appear similar to earlier impressions', while 'accommodation' is 'to not form them at all but merely letting them enter as they are'; and the result is always a 'building onto' but not always a 'fault-finding' or the euphemism 'identification of what one may improve', the way ignorant tyrants within pedagogical studies want to have it; decidedly tyrannical and equally ignorant, in the case of Norway. It is the {'building onto' without necessarily having to 'tear down anything' or 'modify anything', without having to identify anything at all that isn't useful, as it is, as a building-block}, Piaget is talking about in the whole book, which the mentioned tyrants have hardly read at all and do not care reading at all when I point at their fraudulent quote. The mathematician and physicist Immanuel Kant saw the same as the biologist Jean Piaget; and he saw it 186 years before Piaget, who, naturally, saw it with the help of the former. Kant said the human mind "constructs" the objects of the mind's sensewise perception within the roomwise quality of reality, and this is then the basis of Piaget's "structuralism". Kant, furthermore, saw the possibility of the 'group' abusing its power over the individual, and he saw the need for the pedagogue to interfere immediately and with a firm hand, interfere both with physical strength and firm intent (1803: On Pedagogy §95). But Kant does not seem to have seen the problem of the medieval prayerhouse style version of the Socratic pedagogical dialogue: the command to 'find your fault and repent' the abuse of power that lies in the pedagogue's (and, naturally, in the metapedagogue's) pseudo-Socratic demolition dialogue the 'tearing-down-talk' style pedagogy. Piaget saw it.*45 * 45 One who also saw it was Basil Bernstein (1924-2000). There is a bit of the forged Piaget and a bit of the misunderstood Vygotsky in the true story Basil Bernstein told of teachers who inspect the children's drawings and let praise be followed by comments on what's missing in the drawings, comments like "But where is the chimney?" aso (Basil Bernstein 1990, ch.2 / 1996, ch.3), which paints this in a bit of a darkly humoristic shade. The 'tear-down-talk' style dialogue is of course as old as the phenomenon 'instruction'. The real 'Socratic' dialogue, namely the type that Sokrates, according to Platon, himself engaged in, incidentally, is not at all of the 'designed self-falsification' type but a 'designed self-discovery' type leading towards the point where the pupil 'gives birth to his or her own knowledge' and the pupil realizes that the knowledge proceeded from within and this, naturally, holds for meta-pedagogical dialogues as well, in teacher education. Structuralism (the idea of the mind's internally structured building process) implies that 'self-falsification' as a dialogic element is destructive. Both structuralism and constructivism (the idea that we do in fact build 'the idea of reality', or 'reality' as 'an idea', together) dictate it is in fact the opposite that one ought to elevate and advocate: 'compounding'. And structuralism is precisely about the discovery of the human mind's natural and constantly ongoing idea-wise compounding, or 'building onto', the 'building on top of and around what is already there, without having to tear down any of it'. It is 'continuous compounding' continuously building on the good parts, without necessarily having to tear down anything at all (Piaget 1967:13, 200-201 / 1971:4, 171). That is what Piaget's 'structuralism' is; itself based on Kant's 'structured cognition' (cf. Kant 1781/ 87). In 'social learning' this would imply the putting together of what each and every individual member has to contribute, all of the contributions; 'putting them all together', rather than 'voting on' what to include or exclude and inevitably voting on who to include or exclude. This is how we unpack postmodernity's idea of 'cooperation', the 'group work'/'team-work' paradigm we get from 'unregulated group-mediated regulation of the self' the oxymoron 'unregulated group-regulation of self-regulated learning' and expose it as the giant postmodern hoax it is. It is in fact the mere opposite of 'cooperation', built on the opposite of what both Piaget and Vygotsky taught us, not to mention what Ann Brown taught us about how social structures can function as externalized collaborative organizingprocesses (the 'Fostering a Community of Learners' movement, FCL, of Ann Brown in the early 1990's). In these times of collectivistic endeavors, individual knowledge is incorporated into the domain of collective cybernetics (a collective controlspace for metacognition and synthesizing, with collective metacognition, expertise-sharing exercise) the application of locally networked computers and concepts like 'opportunistic collaboration' (Toronto Institute of Child Study, 2009) being a further development of the collective learning environment. The collective production of electronically presented structures of knowledge artifacts, where the focus is on individual metacognitive awareness and hyper-individual metacognitive tracingcapability (the CSILE/KF medium and the Moodle), where the theoretically conceptualized collective cognitive responsibility leaves transparent traces, seem to provide the possibility of a safer environment for the individual, compared to having students of pedagogy working together but in seclusion, in separate rooms, necessarily away from the responsible teacher, or any teacher, because the teachers are fewer than the groups. The University of Hong Kong (HKU) uses these resources, and remarkable structural qualities exist in Hong Kong's teacher-training. Viking-land seems to lag behind in this regard, clinging to venues of abuse in a way that might have the world raise an eyebrow or two, or ought to anyway. Cognitive 'crisis' a popular abusive fad Just like with the 'leading-the-learner-into-self-contradiction' fad, there is NO NEED, in Piaget's model, to experience cognitive CRISIS in order to learn efficiently. That whole fad, hence, is a pedagogical farce; built on lies, nonsense and incompetence throughout the field of the Learning-Sciences and teacher-training, which therefore has suffered immensely. I'd say it has suffered too much. We need to put an end to this. Piaget's model dictates healthy, productive development of previous ideas as they are, into their future states, the building of structure upon structure, ideally without replacing any of the previous ideas, but certainly adding to them. It is not primarily the subject but the object we need to instantly 'modify' change into the internal forms we already have as we perceive it, according to this model. The presently held forms are 'previous' and 'preexisting', but not innate in their specified form; they develop from an inherited structure, in both Kant and Piaget's texts emerge gradually (in stages, says Piaget) into the overlapping updated, specific schemas of the present. The modification Piaget talks of: The modification Piaget talks of isn't the crisis-induced modification of failed preexisting ideas, but "intermittently occurring reactions between previous elements of ideas and new elements that we have already accommodated, analogous to Piaget's algebra-ish formulated example of "organic" assimilation (cf.p.4, 171, 172, 173, 177, 180 of his Biology and Knowledge – a translation tainted, regretfully, by Beatrix Walsh the translator, who evidently saw it as her duty to 'help' Jean Piaget. Piaget, it seems, died fully aware that the world didn't understand his model, but he hardly understood that Beatrix was partly the cause of it. The rest of the cause was the ruling pedagogical faith, church-invented, the same faith that today rules on campuses. The OPPOSITE of this 'faith-opinion' shines through when we look at the research-based meaning of "accommodate". What, then, is the meaning of "accommodate" in Piaget's cognitive theory? Here's a key segment from Piaget's launching of that model, in 1967 (Biologie et Connaissance, Essai sur les régulations organiques et les processus cognitifs, Éditions Gallimard). See what it means in English right after the two paragraphs of French text: (p.70) Depuis Kant, au contraire, la connaissance a pu être considéré comme une incorporation ou intégration de l'objet à des formes intérieures au sujet (ou « formes » a priori), de telle sorte que, à conserver le vocabulaire précédent, tout en retenant ce déplacement des formes de l'objet au sujet, on pourrait dire aussi bien que l'objet « devient » le sujet ou s'identifie à un secteur de son activité connaissante. ... (p.71) Nous dirons donc que la première fonction de la connaissance est d'être une assimilation, au sense précisément d'une interaction entre le sujet et l'objet, telle qu'il y a tout à la fois accommodation aussi possée que possible aux caractères de l'objet, mais incorporation tout aussi essentielle à des structures antérieures (quel que soit le mode de construction de celles-ci). En cette assimilation le sujet devient l'objet tant que l'on voudra, puisqu'il lui accommode ses schèmes, mais, pour devenir tel, il ne sort pas de lui-même ni ne change de nature: il le « comprend », le « saisit » ou le « connaît », autant de termes qui étymologiquement déjà impliquent à la fois une prise de possession et une collaboration. (1967 p.70-71) which in English means something very close to this where text in parenthesis, (...), is original but text in brackets, [...], is inserted by me: (p.70) "Since Kant, on the contrary, it's been possible to think of knowledge as an incorporation or integration of the object in the interior forms of the subject (or a priori « forms »), in such a way that in order to preserve the presently existing vocabulary, and fully maintain 'the displacement of the object's forms into the subject' one could equally well say that the object becomes the subject or identifies itself as a sector of the subject's awarenessproducing activity." ... (p.71) "We shall therefore say {in our model} that the primary function of the awareness is that it is assimilation, in the specific sense of interaction between the subject and its object, so that one at the same time has [1] as much accommodation as possible of the object's characteristics and [2] full incorporation into the essential earlier structures (whatever construction may result within these). In this assimilation the subject becomes its object, if you like, inasmuch as it accommodates its schemas for the object; but, in order to arrive at that, the subject never leaves itself or changes its nature: it «includes» the object, «catches» it or «knows» it, as far as the terms that etymologically already imply the capturing of ownership and cooperation." (1967, s.70-71) To adapt means to assimilate impressions into structures that "either continue as they were or modify themselves after the accommodation of a new element", (1967:200; cf. p. 203-204 / 1971:171; cf. p. 174); and these two shall we call them 'pressures'?: accommodation and assimilation constantly push in opposite directions, continuously re-establishing the point of balance between the two "constant" and functionally opposite "conditions" of {corresponding premise-requirements for}* adaptation, the two "abstract" extremes, "two opposite poles". {*an essential ellipsis; easily misunderstood when translating "condition" from French or English} This note serves to illustrate the fact that Kant's Critique of pure reason (1781) in its entirety, in addition to the brief segment pp.50-51 (1781)/pp.74-75 (1787) speaks the very cognitive model that Jean Piaget made known to a wider audience in 1967, a model that the audience then went to work on with a pick axe before they glued some of its broken pieces to a political poster and made it into the slogan and the ppt-banners that have indoctrinated teacher candidates ever since, worldwide. Not only is there no need for 'cognitive crisis' in order to have efficient learning, it is counter-productive to consciously design teaching so as to induce cognitive crisis, partly because it causes teachers to 'go fishing' for the 'necessary present confusion', looking for students to impersonate the holder of that 'necessary present confusion', or worse: interpret students dialogically with a bias towards that 'necessary present confusion'. That whole fishing-expedition type of pedagogy is contrary to the imperative to interpret according to the 'principle of charity'. The 'fishing for a necessary present confusion' is a pedagogical charade I have witnessed too many times for too long to not speak up about it. It is patently detrimental to efficient learning, patently contrary to both Piaget and Kant. The 'cognitive crisis' fad is religious in its origin, produced by men of the dark. It isn't Piaget's recommendation. It is a 'confess-and-repent'imperative. It is abusive, based on a lie, and it isn't very intelligent at all as learning-environment-design. We need 'intelligent design', if I may steal a phrase often applied about the idea of a cosmologically manipulated evolution unto the present world we need intelligent design of learning environments. To get that, we must strike down on the abusers of social power in the institutions of teacher education, and strike hard. Rock the boat, is what we need to do, rock it so hard that the water pours in through the gaping holes in its side and sinks it. That is when a new boat takes form, with another structure altogether. The self-deluded consensus-population imagines Piaget's 'balance' – his 'equilibration', which is 'neutralization' – to be between incident types; a neutralization between incidents of type 1:assimilation and those of its opposition, the first central notion then being coined as something that phenomenologically would be akin to 'stubbornness', 'making the perceived similar to what was perceived by adherence to old peceptual habits'. However true it indeed is that unwilling minds tend to resist changing a habit, and institutes of Ed-Sci would be good exampels of that, Piaget actually descibed awareness radically opposite, saying a sub-element cannot in itself be an event or a moment of awareness, a phenomenon, not without its constant counterpart. He said one constant sub-element of awareness is 1:making-similar, as in 'making the observed similar to present knowledge schemas' – cognitive assimilation, where 'cognitive' is Latin for "grasping-wise", meaning 'with respect to the mind's grasping' (1967). Jean Piaget said it is a constant functional particle with a constant opposite we are dealing with, each and every conscious moment and event constantly enacting both functional particles simultaneously, by definition; by Piaget's definition of consciousness (1967), which is Immanuel Kant's definition of consciousness too (1781). The core basis of Piaget's science of learning rests on Kant's idea of a perceptionwise structuring-process that is a)constant, b)active and c)based on perception-structures the rudimental core of which is innate, 'a priori' (Kant 1781). Piaget largely uttered details that Kant left implicit in the model, and the model is one restrained to the mere patent, the obvious compound functional quality of the natural phenomenon we call 'awareness'. The same dominant population in its delusion imagines the other side of the balance to be incident type 2:modifying oneself (implicitly the opposite of stubbornness) so as to be formed by the objects we come across in the environment; the second central notion, then, being coined as 'modify yourself', which in their obligatory team-work practice becomes 'modify yourself in the team', that is 'under the threat of being excluded by the domineering alliance-controller and censorship-operator within the team'. It is a 'self-modification' under threat, one that all lecturers implicitly, in the context of lectures given, say is Piaget's 'accommodation'; because, all these lectures series say (all lecturers who touch on corner-stones in learning-theory say it), "Piaget said learning must involve accommodation" and "defined accommodation as modification", that is 'self-modification'. Norwegian political-science-educated, "Dr.Polit.-academic-title-equipped with donated "Professor-of-Ed-Sci"-JOB-titles, pseudo-teachers of learningtheory, as we shall see in Part II below, even remove an 'm' from it and talk about 'akkomodasjon' and 'akkomodere', which looks very much as if derived from a Latin 'modification'-concept, deceptively so. However, what is patently obvious when reading Piaget's research is that Piaget did not define 'accommodation' as 'modification'; quite on the contrary, he defined it as 'not at all necessarily involving any modification of previous ideastructures' (1967, pp. 9-50 and 200-215; in Beatrix Walsh's partly successful 1971 attempt to translate it, on pp.1-37 and 171-185). The same lecturers then proceed to give everyday examples of the human mind doing only one and not also the other, examples of how we get confused when we only do one of them. The way they explain it, by setting two equally non-constructive incident types up as examples, has the benefit of promoting 'willingness-to-selfmodify under threat'. This in mind, better equipped to grasp the way abuses can and actuallly do develop within this formal instituionalized framework, we continue where we left, in the exclusion-threat-environment designed in teachertraining: The rest of the gossip needed to formally mob dissenting candidates away from these courses before the exam stage, elaborate slurs beyond the 'disliked'-claim, are added to solidify the eviction, whereas such gossip and slurs in a more properly structured and politically controlled environment whould INSTEAD lead to administrators and whoever write these slurs getting dismissed from their jobs. The defenders of the 'admit-and-repent'-type pedagogy are promoters of an ancient church-authored pedagogic faith, originating in a church-run higher education in Europe. As I have formally proven, in my 2013 PhD thesis, they defend their faith through forgery of quotes (Piaget 1967) and selected violations of the human right of equal access to the exam-stage, in the sense that it is a human right to be allowed to take the exam regardless of faith, in this case 'pedagogic faith'. The facts that in fact have bearing on it are supposed to dictate that faith, it isn't supposed to be done by the use of bullies-for-hire, thugs who 'merely follow order' all in all a ruling campus-party that evidently cannot be left to 'its own self-regulation', because it refuses to let scientific evidence regulate them, refuses to adapt to the evidence (as I have proved), but nonetheless it regulates all the selves within its reach. The political way to lead them out of their monopoly is by the political measures I have indicated above, for all the reasons I have indicated above, all related to public health and the quality of primary-, secondaryand higher education; lately in all the 'fields' of higher-education (cf. p.621-627 in "Scared Stiff -..., a Documentary", Soerfjord 2016). PART II 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: Kitt Margaret Lyngsnes, employed by Northern Troendelag College (Norw.: hoeyskole, written høyskole), and Marit Rismark, two females employed by "Norwegian University of Technicaland Natural Sciences" (NTNU), a polytechnical university (cf. photos in the left margin of "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary", as well as 'live-photo-strips': pdf-formated scroll-video segments). 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 churchauthored gospel-compatible 'admit-and-repent'-style cognitive model. So they enter a new domain, learn a convenient theory of learning conveniently imputed to Piaget. The theory is TOLD them by domain-local players. Based on that, the two females proceed to put it in their book, unscrupulously attaching a model to Piaget's name without verifying the authenticity of the model they hear about; and proceed to teach that model by making or re-telling an absurdly quaint little story of a three-yearold 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 'no-brainer', such an idiotically unintelligent mistake; so much so that it isn't even a 'mistake' but rather what we may expect from the bad attitude and respectless mind that regularly and predictably produces such. Another mistake or, rather, another trace of their bad attitude is the damage they have done to Lev Vygotsky's learning-theoretical work. Like the UiO-based lecturer of pedagogy (in the Faculty of Ed-Sci) Mr. Ivar Braaten (Bråten) and his female co-author bachelor of pedagogy Anne Cathrine Thurmann-Moe, Kitt Lyngsnes and Marit Rismark, 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 productlabel, "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 research-projects type learning in other subjects, with no test beyond selftests. The whole point with 'team-work', 'group-work', is to 'learn together', as 'social learning'. In social learning among children the purpose is to experience inclusion and have no emphasis on distinction in value imputed to individual members within the learning-environment. There can be no individual 'test' or 'assessment', and no 'talk of individual test' or '-assessment' in the social learning of children and youths. Social learning must remain unpolluted by such elements, and kept separate from evaluated performances separated from them either in time, place, or topic; never combined. Nor can there be, in social learning, any contribution-criteria applied to the individual. I can hear the nay-sayers now go What? Can that be right? Yes, it can, because: In social learning the act of 'listening while a team-member speaks' is a 'contribution'; 'agreeing with it' is a contribution, 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 censorshipoperator's demand or arranged vote', is right: a 'contribution', and a highly valuable such. Rational debate and fact-based argumentation aka 'disagreeing' is prime 'contribution'. Merely 'listening and nodding in silence' is 'contribution' too but 'listening and nodding under threat of pending exclusion' is NOT, which is of particular importance in teachertraining, where I have seen harmful social abuses allowed to go on, even encouraged and taken advantage of as a toxic administrational tool. 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" and "we now have majority" uttered by a teacher-candidate (Ann-Helen Strøm) during her teachingpractice, as she threatens a co-candidate who merely tries to contribute during the mandatory team-work (in this case in a practice venue school 20 km south of down-town Oslo (Flaatestad) in September 2015 (cf. Appendix I of "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary", Dialogie 1) - is a widespread social pathology in Norwegian alleged team-work, a sign of mis-use of the notion 'team-work', distortion of it, 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 teachereducating institutions; taught by being the standard operating-procedure (I suspect throughout Scandinavia). It is an old habit that no one has yet addressed formally in parliament and no one in leadership has vowed to root out. It is a form of abuse that depends on a level of insightlessness I suspect we only find in collectively stupefied sealed sub-society pockets, where consensus-threatening thinking carry consequences that obstruct reason. I was appalled at the error of doing the exact opposite of my 'rules for the social learning of the young', consistently and almost continuously, at the practice-venue-school in which I sampled an empirically reluctant sphere within Norwegian teacher-education during 4 weeks in the autumn of 2015: Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school 20km south of downtown Oslo (photo of the female leader of teaching exercise at that school, May Britt Esse Berge, on p.92 of "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary"). That particular teaching-exercise guidance teacher, an English-teacher (Maria Sofie Olsson) educated in journalism and not as an English teacher, consistently parroting before her pupils used every threatening and intimidating word in the vocabulary of the official regulations that apply to assessment, explicitly using the Ministry of Education as source for her own language of intimidation and scare-tactics, increasing anxiety levels rather than counteracting anxiety. I reported that English-teacher for incompetence after only a week under her supervision, but for another reason: her refusal to interfere with and prevent abuses in the obligatory team-work among teacher-candidates, even when I reported it to her while it was ongoing (which means she is blind to mobbing among children too); and, more seriously still: I reported her superior's May Britt Esse Berge's strategy (consistently used method) of attacking the messenger of abuses among teacher-candidates; and, pre- "informed", according to herself, by the UiO "institute", in sharing-sessions telling the messenger to "make it short" when no one ever spoke shorter than him and telling no one else to 'make it short', marking him as a target of her contempt, early on sticking a derogatory label on him. It's part of the strategy of leaving the team to itself, let the team 'work out its own differences', a stone-age principle that only corrupt administrators and micro-team bullies benefit from, bullies who form alliances they use to threaten individuals (cf. "Pathological Dialogues") all in Ed-'Pol', not Ed-Sci. It is a strategy the non-English educated pseudo-English-teacher and her superior agree on; and, even worse: it is a strategy the UiO Institute of Teacher-education and School-research (Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning, ILS) agree on. They too here Øystein Gilje, Mai Lill Suhr Lunde (cancer-educated leader of practical-pedagogical training) and Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien (leader of instruction), aided by Lisbeth M. Brevik and Dr.Polit. Eyvind Elstad, none of whom ever read a chapter of original learning-theory in their life attack the messenger of in-team abuses; as do the other institutes of the UiO (IPED and SPED) and the rest of this domain within Norway and the local region: all of Scandinavia; maybe even the whole Nordic region. It is a strategy they all express agreement on. It's like that law that once said the earth is flat and in the center of the solar system, which made it 'the earth system': everyone but a few soon-to-be-dead heretics said it when they spoke of it, hence at least had consensus on their side, if not god. It wasn't 'humanity' that discovered the evidence of how wrong they were, it was one of them. (as p.98-101 and p.613-627 in "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary"; part of it as p.20-23 of "The Special Exclusion-Services Unit ...") Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord) PhD in pedagogy (and in logic) ksorfjord@yahoo.com ksorfjord@gmail.com ksoerfjord@gmail.com Oslo, August-Nov.2015, edited Jan.-June