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