Scared stiff Church-authored pedagogic faith and faithful brutes for hire 2016 PART TWO – with a brief review and a 6 page overlap of part one by Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord) © The author, Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord), asserts his right to be identified as the author of this work. Part Two begins on page 9, with "Truthtelling shoulder-heaves of deception", as I confront Rune live on camera about what we both experienced together, and Rune finds it necessary to be deceptive: The main cheerleader of the bully's assault (turning mockassault at the moment of signaled impact), the female shouter from Kristiansand, is now on her way up the stairs along the wall, towards the exit of the lecture hall (red arrow; photostrip pp.125-209* in Part One or the main pdf file). We can safely assume she is now either teaching or applying for a teachingjob, maybe in a school near you, where we may assume she will teach children to team-bully, 'to mob' (Norw. mobbe). {*page numbers generally apply to the main file if not specified} What else can we assume? View the photo-strip and ask yourself if the shouting female in dark grey sweater will recognize her own behavior as teambullying or mobbing when she sees it among children? Below: taught contempt internalized, visibly delighted after the assault. Her being annoyed by my Sony-cam is for being put on record as witness to the discrimination that took place. The ones who learn the contempt taught are the ones who are opposed to the use of a Sony-cam in the recess. But there is no opposition against other students' filming with their webcams and smart-phones. I nonetheless intend to put them on record as witnesses to the discrimination that took place before recess and which is about to accelerate in the next 45-minute-segment (cf. to be uploaded: the Blindern photo-strips). Rune: left photo, in foreground: Rune. Rune, John and I had to escape from the abusive dialogue in the 12member team on the 2nd day of the 1st week at the practice-venue-school. After I brought it up with the responsible teachers and the Institute, Rune has seen the aggression mounted in defence of the status quo message: improve nothing in the course and have no instruction in scientifically and ethically sound team-work-dialogue – which is what allows the socially aggressive to form an alliance with the passive and use the alliance to abuse anyone with better ideas. Having scared the passive into acquiescing to her will, the aggressive moves on to threaten anyone with different or better ideas into silence, anyone with insights not understood by the aggressive. Everyone must quickly stop contributing and let the aggressive suggest, debate and conclude; or else the aggressive and her alliance voices a rapid veto. Rune's 'scared stiff' turned to the angry mode he is in here. He has decided to not discuss any of the abuses he was a victim of himself (dialogue transcript Appendix I), and he absolutely hates being put on record, by myself, as one with first hand knowledge of the truth of what I report. It appears the female finds this whole situation somewhat darkly laughable, Rune here mostly seeing the dark. This is later in the recess, and I comment audibly to Rune, with reference to the span of the entire semester up to and including today's discrimination: Myself, medium loud, towards Rune: "And Rune has witnessed the whole thing from the very beginning." He signals that he didn't hear what I said, so I say it again, after which, Rune: "Witness to what exactly?" Norw. – jeg, hørbart til Rune: "Og Rune har vaert vitne til det helt i fra begynnelsen." (gjentas) Rune: "Vitne til hva da?" The teacher candidate holding the Sony-cam addresses Rune, a peer: "And Rune has witnessed the whole thing from the very beginning." (Norw.: "Og Rune har vaert vitne til det helt ifra begynnelsen.") Rune: "Hm?" Candidate behind the camera: "You have been witness to the whole thing from the very beginning." Norw.: "Du har vaert vitne til det helt ifra begynnelsen." The peer (Rune): " Witness - " Norw.: " Vitne - " SPOKEN WORD CAPTION SYNCRONIZED WITH VISUAL SNIPPETS: " to - " Norw.: " til - " The first of four rapidly succeeding shoulder-jerks, raises shoulders spastically. Many have expressed the insight that these shoulder-spasms are nerve-expressions that speak of deceit. Rune is being deceptive, and he knows it so well that his nervous-system reacts against it, producing strong and rapid micro shoulder-jerks that are clearly visible on the video as he denies knowing what I am referring to: the team-work in which he was bullied into silence by two females who sabotaged the entire team-work, both demanding to be the sole speaker, the 'Dominator', their idea of 'team-leader', both incessantly interrupting everyone except each other, uttering "No, I think ..." as the speaker inhales to continue the point they were trying to make, and doing it every time Rune opened his mouth (cf. Appendix I), 15-20 times being a modest estimate, until he gave up, as did the rest of the 12-member large team on the second day of the 'team-work'. On the first day John, Erik and I had to escape from these two females and work in our own subteam. The two females (Ann-Helen and Oda) aspiring for the role as censorship-operator produced 4 female mutes and 3 male mutes, and attempted to count them as 'votes' each for the veto she had uttered against a suggestion contributed by a team-member; veto after veto, against anyone who said something myself included. I had resorted to note-taking on the second day, for the purpose of sharing the pathology with the world. " what? " Norw.: " hva? " The peer's "Witness to what?" (Norw.: "Vitne til hva?") is an implicit lie cf. Appendix I, Dialogue 2. Myself to Rune: "And Rune has been witness to it from the very beginning." ("Og Rune har vaert vitne til det helt fra begynnelsen.") Rune knows all about the in-team abuses cf. Appendix I, Dialogue 2. Download pdf and set to screen-size for smooth viewing, then SCROLL the 'Live photo-strip' - Truthtelling shoulder-heaves of deception This is what it looks like when Rune, a teacher-candidate, is afraid to talk about what he knows: (a "cf. LIE TO ME, the series"-reference here wouldn't serve to justify my own deduction of deceitfulness, inasmuch as I know Rune is deceitful and Rune knows that I know but tries to keep up a face for the camera; so reminding the reader of the "Lie to me"-series only serves the purpose of amusingly clarifying to the reader what I say we are about to see:) DISGUST AND CONTEMPT 1 st HEAVE shoulders and arms rise 1 st HEAVE shoulders and arms rise 1 st HEAVE shoulders and arms rise 1 st HEAVE shoulders and arms rise 1 st HEAVE SPEECH PREPARATION, SILENT SPEECH PREPARATION, SILENT " V " " VAERT " Been " VAERT " Been " VAERT " Been " V " " VITNE " WITNESS 2nd. HEAVE, SHOULDER SHRUG " VITNE " WITNESS 2nd. HEAVE, SHOULDER SHRUG " VITNE " WITNESS 2nd. HEAVE, SUPER-TENSION THAT ENDS IN A SUPERSHRUG DROP " VITNE " WITNESS 2nd. HEAVE, SUPER-TENSION THAT ENDS IN A SUPERSHRUG DROP " VITNE " WITNESS 2nd. HEAVE, SUPER-TENSION THAT ENDS IN A SUPERSHRUG DROP - - SUPER-TENSION " T " SUPER-TENSION " TIL " TO SUPER-TENSION " TIL " TO SUPER-TENSION " TIL " TO SUPER-TENSION " HV " SUPER-TENSION SUPERSHRUG DROP: " HVA " WHAT SUPERSHRUG DROP " DA ? " ? SUPERSHRUG DROP " DA ? " ? " DA ? " ? " DA ? " ? 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG 1st HEAVE SHOULDERS AND ARMS UP 1st HEAVE SHOULDERS AND ARMS UP 1st HEAVE SHOULDERS AND ARMS UP 1st HEAVE SHOULDERS AND ARMS UP 1st HEAVE SHOULDERS AND ARMS UP 1st HEAVE SHOULDERS AND ARMS UP CONSCIOUS DISGUST CONSCIOUS DISGUST CONSCIOUS DISGUST CONSCIOUS DISGUST CONSCIOUS DISGUST CONSCIOUS DISGUST THROUGHOUT THE SPEECH ACT FACE: CONTEMPT SHOULDER HEAVES AND SUPERSHRUGS: DECEPTION SPEECH PREPARATION, SILENT SPEECH PREPARATION, SILENT " V " " VAERT " Been " VAERT " Been " VAERT " Been " V " " VITNE " witness 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " VITNE " witness 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " VITNE " witness 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " VITNE " witness 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " VITNE " witness " VITNE " witness 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG - - 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " T " 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " TIL " to 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " TIL " to 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " TIL " to 2nd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG " HV " " HVA " what " HVA " what " DA ? " ? " DA ? " ? " DA ? " ? 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is deceptive about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) " DA ? " ? 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is deceptive about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is deceptive about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) - - 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is deceptive about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) - - 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is deceptive about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) - - 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION 4th HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION DECEPTION The two teacher-candidates to the left do not know that Rune is hiding something. They spent their practical exercise period in another practice-venue. Now they are just observing the aggression and contempt and learning that without agreeing with it they too can become targets of it. It frightens them. It is a rational fear, as is Rune's. CONTEMPT AND FURY throughout the continuation: CONTEMPT AND FURY throughout the continuation: CONTEMPT AND FURY throughout the continuation: CONTEMPT AND FURY throughout the continuation: CONTEMPT AND FURY throughout the continuation: Rune in his own opinion deceptive by necessity EYE-CONTACT THAT BURNS Rune in his own opinion deceptive by necessity. Contempt is aggression, and this is the fear-aggression connection. It is recess the female lecturer was informed within 30 minutes of the lecture's beginning that I replied "I have only spoken when given my turn to speak by the lecturer, after raising my hand when the lecturer invited the audience to participate" when Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde accused me by email 77 minutes before this very lecture that I would be sanctioned if I disturbed the lectures again, after starting her email by saying my participation has been "gravely disturbing to the lectures". Both Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde and this particular lecturer on the photo are visually anonymous on the UiO staff-list, interestingly, Mai Lill Suhr Lunde by way of a 20-30 year-old photo from the 80s by the looks of it. She looks vastly different today, and the photo only serves as a disguise. I verified Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde's present appearance when she played the role she called "protocol-writer" in the interrogation-meeting she herself "called in" for, in spite of (according to a letter from two clerks in the Ministry of Education) having no such authority to demand candidates let her and her commander Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien have their way when they 'call in for questioning' a teacher-candidate who discovers scientific facts and shares them in plenum – even, as here, to the detriment of consensus. She looked nothing like this young and 'hopefully looking for a leadership-career but maybe not in cancerresearch where I am now' type of female that she was in the 1980s: http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/adm/mailills/index.html (quoted 23.Sep.2016) It is, in OFFICIAL governmental terms, UNHEARD of, what they are doing administration-wise in the UiO's Faculty of Ed-Sci (undervisningsvitenskapelig fakultet (uv-fak) and all of its 'Institutes', the "ILS" being the one I have investigated (ILS being "Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning", which means "Institute for Teacher-education and School-research"); and they DO IT TO ALL who dare prove today's consensus the big pile of baloney it objectively by all evidence there is – in fact is. The alleged quotes and paraphrases they use consistently and systematically are HOME MADE, a FORGERY (the slogan that Piaget's 'accommodation is defined as modification' is central cf. Quoteand citation-fraud at the UiO, Soerfjord 2015); which makes the cognitive model they base on the alleged quotes and paraphrases and impute to Piaget, a lie; which makes the theory of learning and teaching they talk about when they let the lie back them up, a scientific hoax I'm referring to what we might derogatorily represent by the image I call the 'you must admit your faults and self-modify in order to learn' type explicit set of mantras and methods, very harmful when combined with the 'let the team of young adults in obligatory team-work loose against the individual human beings in the team and see what happens' Lord-of-the-Flies* 39 type abuse (* 39 the book, William Golding 1954 read it if you do not understand). It is actually faith, this whole thing they are doing to teacher-candidates in Scandinavia and most of the modern world, so some might say we should respect their pedagogic faith. I would disagree and say they should open up a church and stop messing with the minds of teacher-candidates. Besides, we have better things to spend our (in Scandinavia) tax-money on than pedagogic faith-based quotefraud-operated manipulation. I proved the fraud to the Institute, who engage Dr. Eyvind Elstad to write a child-like little letter that says "Piaget's theory isn't relevant unless one is a sciencehistorian", quite a laughable way of shouting nonsense across the street to the neighbor and slam the window shut when done (cf Soerfjord 2015). The administrators of the Institute all females enclose a copy of Dr. Elstad's letter when they write the official letter to me that says "it isn't relevant because Dr.Elstad says it isn't", and "Elstad doesn't refer to Piaget" while ALL of his colleagues in the UiO who touch on learning-theory, IN ALL faculties and institutes and academies, do refer to Piaget; do it consistently and systematically; do repeat the inherited lie, every time they can; do benefit by having that lie 'back them up' in their contorted theory of learning, church-authored such, hundreds of years old made by men of the dark-ages. It is the 'admit and modify thyself' rule of a church-run higher education of the middle ages revitalized by adding Piaget's name to it, against his will. Jean Piaget understood that the Ed-Sci-people didn't understand his cognitive model and only tried to use it as reference for their own benefit. But Piaget doesn't seem to have discovered what the details of their motive was. I have. – Dr. Eyvind Elstad, by the way, is a lecturing PhD with the benefit of 'being called professor', not merely 'BEING professor with a servant's job-title (amanuensis)' like most of the professors without the professor-title who are being inbread for selective promotion to 'being called professor' as well as 'being it'. It is the 'team-as-one-mind-only' mode, a ridiculous way Scandinavia has of pushing down the individual in order to 1:make him and her a 'team-player' server of consensus and 2:save wage-expenses. The first of them, the 'one-mind-only type team' motive, kept the earth officially flat for over a thousand years while Latin men of books understood better but were killed for it (that's right, the telescope-dude wasn't the first). the holder of the camera, as most of the crowd exits auditorium No.1 of the Helga Eng's building on UiO campus Blindern. It is 15 minutes recess between two 45-minute-periods of a lecture, 11.Nov.2015; and that is Dr. Øystein ..... standing guard along the wall, watching me, getting ready but looking for the excuse he needs to make it look ok. many remain, aware of something they do not understand: here "first-inspector" (they actually call it that) Jon Arild Lund is discussing with Dr. Øystein ..... how to proceed to get rid of me a scientific threat to their consensus. The holder of the Sony-cam, myself, narrating the discrimination by the female lecturer the preceding 45-minute-period, consistently throughout the dialogsegments (in which the lecturer asks the whole audience to participate). Two, only, other than myself, raised a hand, and the lecturer cut the dialog short because no one else had anything to ask or share, bewildered or in awe as they were from the onset of this lecturer's demonstrative exclusion of myself from the 'open dialogue' segment (an essential set of brief dialogues that on account of being 'open' are viewed as "scientifically" oriented and thereby legitimize the activity as 'science', the very aim of 'Ed-Sci', allegedly. She did not want to 'give me my turn to speak' at all and demonstrated that intent openly before the 250 teacher candidates when I openly addressed verbally what everyone were seeing each time she looked straight at my raised hand and my face only to move her eyes away and across the audience to look for others willing to participate cf. the above reference to the email I sent Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde before the lecture began, in reply of her accusation and threat of being excluded if I "interrupt", hence the intention to make me have to "interrupt" in order to participate in the learning-experience, which always includes the raising of hands and openly participating in the supposedly pedagogic dialogue. It is my reply email to Miss Mai Lill the 20-30 years older, more sinister and less scientifically oriented version of her saying "I have only spoken when being given my turn to speak" we are seeing the result of here – in the female lecturer/administrator's refusal to point at me when I raise my hand, after SHE EXPLICITLY INVITES AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION and only I and two more among 250 raise a hand, and then verbally refuses when I address that discrimination verbally, in real time, with 249 witnesses, roughly. This continues in the second 45 minute period. What is being taught, in other words, is 'how to handle a scientifically dissenting and verbally annoying person who refuses to shut up about it when told in writing that his discovery is irrelevant'. What Dr. Øystein ..... does next is teach the 249 or so how to handle the dissident when he refuses to be discriminated in the dialogue segments of the learning experience in the course he is officially enrolled in. Naturally, it is basically unlawful, both parts of it. The female lecturer basically quotes me repeatedly, throughout, each time saying "No, I have not given you your turn to speak" (Norw. idiom: "Nei, Jeg har ikke gitt deg ordet"). This is FEAR in a publically financed room where SCIENCE should reign and educational SCIENTISTS should lecture administrate too, if you ask me. There is an essential wrong in the core of each of the administrators that fill these buildings of so-called 'Ed-Sci', and it spreads to the lecturers that hope for promotion or merely hope to keep their jobs. Which political party is going to pick up this gauntlet and terminate the monster ? Opening up a radically different institution able to compete economically, and cutting off all competition-disturbing funding for the present, would be the way to do it. The scientifically best institution wins in an open society. 28 Seconds to the assault: (1:27 into video 2, p. 56: 12 seconds to the mock-assault) the red arrow, in right side of the photo, points at a female teachercandidate from Kristiansand who, from her forward-bent position, keeps shouting (emotional more than evil) slurs at me; the same female that operated her topic-censorship all semester, both in seminar-room-plenum (20-25 candidate-large) and team-work dialogs at the teaching-practicevenue (Flaatestad 7 to 10 grade school 20 km south of down-town Oslo); operating it with slurs and the expression of extreme mood-swings triggered by details of various kinds and working herself up into a frightening hatefulness that one had to somehow escape from by being silent or leaving the room. It may have natural causes that we may have to understand her recently having become parent, for example; and I think we all assumed that to be the case. Her behaviour was nonetheless gravely abusive and a typical example of serious mobbing in the work environment, consistently so but targeted against certain types of topic-analysis, which means she targeted individuals who tend to bring up problematic detail individuals like myself, all semester. That is why I am putting her and her mob on video-record as having witnessed the Institute-operated discrimination aimed to get rid of me 1:on behalf of themselves as recipients of my annoying theoretical proof of Piaget's real quotes, hence the real cognitive model of his and, even more importantly, its relevance to a modern theory of learning and teaching; and 2:on behalf of fellow candidates who report me to the Institute (To Dr. Øystein ..... here and his colleagues) for bringing up these and other interesting and annoying facts when lecturers invite the whole class or lecture-room-audience to participate. 2 or 3 of the 250 teacher-candidates this semester have, at various times, acting alone, engaged in medium to loud shouting of slurs at me aggressive such from their seats in the audience while I have been in dialog with a lecturer who invited the audience to participate. Lecturers always invite the audience at regular intervals; and the ones who have something to ask or share, which usually is an implicit question or some dilemma to consider simply raise a hand, and the lecturer then points at the person whose turn it is now to speak. Posing the question takes anywhere from 5 seconds to about a minute; and often the response isn't a single speechevent but a brief dialog back and forth, maybe to raise the specificity of the question or bring an inevitable follow-up question and pursue a consequence that necessarily is so from the given answer. This is what "a scientific perspective" amounts to – like it or not. Some do not like it, but that is just tough luck. It is a perspective that Parliament has ORDERED – in §1-1 of Norway's Law for teaching, which necessarily dictates principles that hold for teacher-education as well. How can teacher-candidates teach those principles if they don't learn them in their teacher-training? They must of course be made to LIVE those very principles on campus, and in the lecture hall, and in the seminar room, and in the so-called 'team-work', and in the practice-venues during their teaching-exercise, the entire semester, each semester. a female teacher-candidate from Kristiansand, at the end of the red arrow, keeps shouting from her forward-bent position, while disguising her mouth. Three of her allies sit next to her, and others join in as the spectacle develops, a stage show taking place in a learning-environment designed for abuse. Andy: Andy in the top left corner always (throughout the semester) willingly entertaining the female topic-censorship, here smiling while the female from Kristiansand, at the tip of the red arrow, is shouting her discontentment with my video-recording, well aware of the good reason I have for doing it. It is recess, but these females want to watch the conclusion and help bring about the desired outcome of taught contempt: aggression. Andy learned the phrases used by this particular southern female in whole class dialogue to counter my "facts must dictate faith" and "the best argument must win" (in Ed-Sci as elsewhere) claims. The answer Andy learned from this particular female is: "But then you and I cannot communicate" or "cannot debate". He used it when I, a month later, met him in the UiO coffee shop on campus he was sitting together with a friend. He smiled as he inserted it into my sentence where my "facts dictate faith" was an introductory adverbial subclause closing the door on that rational dialogue with the judgmental slogan and a rapid-speech-mode that seems to make him feel socially victorious, capable of inserting objecting clauses in the middle of people's sentences, like "but then you and I cannot communicate" before he even hears what it is that is in the process of being spoken. Lacking a science-compatible guidance in Ed-Sci, these young adults have to make their own principles, tentatively so; and they are decidedly more aggressive, these principles, than the ones they will negotiate for themselves later in life. It is a decidedly aggressive learning-environment they find themselves in, and they end up making a decidedly aggressive social construction among themselves. This is mobbing in Ed-Sci. It is the core of the pressure towards alikethinking that the Minister of Education was confronted with in the 17. March 2016 symposium on education in Oslo, first by myself and then by all the succeeding four or five contributors in the audience-questions-round at the end of it. The Minister of Education seemed undeterred, naturally so, because he seemed to also positively not understand it. He seems to genuinely think he is 'doing something about it' by 'telling others to think about it and do something'. That seems to be either 1:his intellectual limitation or 2:his mysteriously applied genius and with everything relevant falling in an unspoken 'collateral damage'-category. In other words, he either doesn't get any of this or he wants it all to be just like this in which case we are all really screwed. And I really think we are truly screwed, but mostly because he does not want to be 'the doer', but rather wants to be the 'sayer', the one who says 'do'. He wants to 'say' the 'do' without the 'how' and then move on to another 'say'-sphere of what he imagines to be his job. It leaves higher education in general, Educational Science in particular, in the hands of the church-authored teaching-paradigm that falsified Piaget's 1967definition of 'learning' to serve their organized perpetuation of the same old set of practical methods taught to junior academics who must obey or loose all hope to ever be promoted. I have proved the forgery of Piaget's cognitive model. I have also proved the 'peer-exclusion-threat' pedagogy to be a systematic and consistent tool in teacher-education. Finally, I have proved analytically that it is contrary to human rights, hence contrary to the law anywhere in western Europe and the British Commonwealth (Soerfjord 2015); in all human-rights-founded democratic nations on our planet. The 'warped-theory-for-continuity of praxis' pathology appears to be more of a problem in countries with fully state-sponsored higher education, hence virtually free university-courses. If that is true, then it is so in part because where government funds roll in, a mob forms, and it fights for itself; works to secure its economic position and the rank-system that allows them to dominate and secures their profit. No consensus-opposing new thinking is allowed in the mind of people they employ. Hence they employ them from within, thereby giving continuously birth to itself, an aggressive eternal pedagogic faith. the female from Kristiansand keeps shouting, while using her hand to disguise her mouth. Eliciting support of her aggression is what she is doing. She has done it the entire semester, each time I have brought up some theoretical or practical pedagogical detail in class. the female from Kristiansand (red arrow) keeps shouting while hiding her mouth behind her hand. I know her dialect well and recognize her voice, as do all the others present in the auditorium. She has continuously opposed me with slurs in all open dialogues from August up to this morning, on 11.Nov.2015. The rest of the seated group attached themselves one by one to her, forming a gradually growing mob against rational debate about anything relevant to current consensus in Ed-Sci. It is a lecturer-initiated (Dr. Oeystein ..... through the entire semester) male-student-assisted, pre-ponderously female driven, aggressive demand for 'pleasant harmony'; one they will obtain by social cruelty, if needed. ! The parallel with more primitive animal predator flock-culture is striking. This is hate-behaviour that Parliament has attempted to regulate against in other domains of hate-expressions, regulation that may even have transferable validity and be used or expanded to curb this particular kind. Taught escape from dissidence young adults seeking safety from what Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) ..... has taught them is a danger to them all: dissidence; Dr. Øystein ..... here trying to be the model of properly aggressive behaviour towards such dissenters as I am. This is so-called 'learning through modelling'. The aggression being modelled is quickly internalized by the domineering among the teacher-candidates, who express it and then have their followers join them. It is taught group-behavior on the most primitive level – a pre-ice-age type unaffected by annoying principles of ethics, and it is taking place in rooms financed by tax-payers, where educational science, Ed-Sci, is what should be going on. The forward-bent female teacher-candidate from Kristiansand keeps shouting, partly hidden, but she misjudges the rate of change of the camera's angle, so her manipulation, gang-bullying (mobbing) and her lack of the integrity and sense of ethics that in my view is required for all teachers is thereby on the record. the female from Kristiansand keeps shouting her discontentment at me (below): all seeking safety from dissidence; as taught by Dr. Øystein ..... here, who elicits the will of the female student-mob, whose will in this case is dominated by the forward-bent female from Kristiansand, who continuously shouts while disgusing her mouth with her hand; a behavior she has expressed repeatedly in similar manners, all through the semester, with lecturers enforcing her behavior by allowing her censorship to rule. It is a chief female mobber in action. As Dr. Øystein ..... crosses her direct line of sight to my Sony-cam, the female candidate from Kristiansand looks up to see what effect her shouting might be having: Ole: Ole, the bearded in black coat, behind in the middle, is in the social sciences instruction- ("didactics-") course (Norw.: samfunnsfag didaktikkurs; didaktikk=instruksjon). Ole used to study psychology, and started off showing respect for my insights in the theory-practice-connections of learning and teaching; but quickly learned how the Institute and its lecturers all, with one coordinated voice, teach contempt towards insights of that calibre and express that contempt as hate and institutional threats - 'calling-in' such individuals to reprimand them if they do not shut up about it; then thwart their teaching-exercise at the practice-venue by feeding negative information to the practice-venue about the candidate in advance,* 40 which functions as a request for the practice-venue to look for reasons to send the Institute a 'doubt-incandidate' report, which allows the Institute to make the teachingexercise of that particular candidate into a never-ending series of ipso facto extra -exams aka 'listening-in' by aka 'specialists' sent by the Institute; then in each case discriminate the singled-out candidate openly in open class dialogue all of it documented empirically by myself, and all of it happening in a coordinated fashion patently unlawfully so, in broad 'daylight', with everyone in government shutting their eyes to it. So Ole early learned to stay away from me, keep his distance, scared stiff. * 40 the negative information sent causes the receiver of such "information" to react and evaluate emotionally and with a bias, expressed as discrimination of various sorts. In this case the 'information' is a message given by Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) ..... before the practiceperiod even began, naming one particular teacher-candidate that "can be domineering" (me), given to the receiver at Flaatestad school 20 km south of down-town Oslo: Miss May Britt Esse Berge, who then consistently uttered her "but make it short"-order – in a sharp tone that seemed to come out of the blue, but did no such thing, inasmuch as it came from the darkened mood we see in the photo-strip, directly or indirectly from that very person, Dr. Øystein ..... – Miss May Britt Esse Berge using it to operate her bias in front of everybody each time it was my turn in plenum (and only when it was my turn) to share a reflection in the 20-candidate meetings she hosted for us candidates, most of whom spoke for 10-20 minutes as they shared a 'personal-victory' or 'admit-and-repent' type story, compared to the 3 to 4 1⁄2 minutes I needed to share one of my own somewhat more unusual insights or reflections. The explicitly uttered bias by Miss May Britt Esse Berge is of course in itself social bully-behavior, so-called mobbing, in a work environment she controls by social means. That specific mobbing is at the same time the teaching of how to mob; teaching teacher-candidates how to be mobbers, candidates that are supposed to be working against mobbing but for decades have been distinctly blind towards it. This is HOW to produce teachers with that very blindness. What we have here, in Miss May Britt Esse Berge, is a person who functions as a key instrument in the sifting out of personalities 'not liked' by those who dominate the work-environment in public schools, a person who herself proves to be a mobber; one who as I demonstrate by quoting a report originating in Miss May Britt Esse Berge's hands (cf. Simultaneous Chatter Style Pedagogy, Soerfjord 2016) doctors the report (fixes it) and adds hate-language to it, as if to make her rumor-based unlawful exclusion look evidence-based. Too far-fetched to seem credible? That is what they are counting on, the alike-thinker-'teams' that operate this particular corner of the personality-sifting-process; and Miss May Britt Esse Berge is a corner stone in her particular local region of that nationally operated unlawful sifting-process, counting on credibility by her chuckles, jokes, alliance-forming and unlawful mobbing; including unlawful exclusion of dissenters. Miss May Britt Esse Berge and the school she serves are themselves consistently in violation of §1-1 of Norway's Law for teaching, which orders them to teach and practice principles of behavior that are the exact opposite of the bias-and-rumour-based personality-sifting that Miss May Britt Esse Berge plays a leading part within, a pseudospokesperson-type role, within the local environment she dominates, taming Ed-Sci into complying with her will laughing, joking, chuckling, threatening and getting ready to scream if opposed. May Britt Esse Berge visual quote from: https://www.facebook.com/maybritt.eb on 18.Sep.2016. Listen to a sample of the light-headed nature of her judgmental sifting of personalities (unlawfully so) in her work environment on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m6vsrCNvE4&feature=youtu.be (part 1) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAl5UcOtCOE&feature=youtu.be (part 2) (visual quote from 18.Sep.2016) Miss May Britt Esse Berge explicitly quoted "the ILS" (the Institute for Teacher-education and School-research) – saying "ILS informed me that you can be domineering" – and did so in the very instant I was telling her 1:of the abuses that went on in the around-the-table-dialogue of the socalled team-work we were told to do at that practice-venue-school, and 2:the refusal of her colleague ,'guidance-teacher' Miss Maria Sofie Olsson, to come and assist us when I walked the 20 meters to where she was sitting – three times in that 'around-the-table-dialog' as the abuse was ongoing – and Miss Maria Sofie Olsson was too busy chewing her mouthfuls of food, refusing to be 'disturbed'. I guess I really taught her how annoying I am and how important it was for her to get rid of me. partially Undercover application of the "scientific" perspective ordered by law: Within the scope of my research on not in, beware of the difference – teacher education, is the goal of 1)actually passing the courseprogram, but doing so with one's investigative and scientifically critical perspective in full operation, as well as 2)actually applying for a job as an English-teacher after the course, and extend the empirical sample as far as possible, being 'a researcher of pedagogy who teaches', in the ideal case of Ed-Sci and the work-environment functioning as it should, the way it was intended to function. That last segment of the scope, applying for a job, is crucial, as it will give information on whether the inquisitive candidate who waits until after passing his teaching-exercise (his 'practice-period') before he expresses his scientifically critical potential then still becomes the victim of being black-listed from job-interviews in public schools, or from the proper treatment in those job-interviews. One must keep in mind here that the interviewers in this case are identical to the 'practice-guidanceteachers' and their 'leaders' (people like May Britt Esse Berge). Darkened mood-operated biases in personality sifting by law-violating 'Sifters' The effect of the message from Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) ..... to May Britt Esse Berge is the mentioned "but make it short" bias she uttered consistently and exclusively at me, usually the 10th or 11th speaker among 20 or so candidates gathered in scheduled 'reflection-in-plenum'meetings; candidates who all elaborated extensively, up to 20 minutes, compared with my always measly 4 minute long sharing of the insight I had in mind. It was my insights that annoyed Dr. Oeystein .....; and the insights I developed at Flaatestad school, through my own thinking, were positively annoying to Miss May Britt Esse Berge. Her special mistreatment of the 'to her, annoying evictee' seemed to come out of the blue, but had its origin in the darkened mood visible on Dr. Øystein .....'s face, just like in the video-based photo-strip, specifically in his act of taking revenge for my critique, by "informing" the practice-venue about his internally felt 'knowledge' of myself being "domineering" in spite of the very essence of my critique being the way their 'team-work' ("groupwork") enables precisely the domineering to dominate socially. It is one such socially domineering and light-headed judgmental people-sifting Social Selector of WHO to grant access to an essential part of higher education we have in Miss May Britt Esse Berge – and it is an unlawful activity that does great harm to Norway's teacher-education. It is: the answer to the "how is it possible?"-question on everybody's mind or lips as they react to the latest tragic news on mobbing and teacherblindness to it. 12 Seconds to the assault – some of the witnesses to what took place in the first 45-minute-period, young adult victims of taught contempt against dissenters learning-experiences, taught mobbing, the learning of the very gang-bullying that our present schools are fighting an increasingly steep uphill battle against: above the young male seated in the middle, three rows up, appears to understand the harm in what is going on. below left side four rows up: Rune, bearded, in a hoodie, seated; and John next to him, also bearded, getting up from his seat (cf. references made to them in the article); at the back in the middle, Cyril with his little pony-tale, a native French teachercandidate who remembers me from the video-recorded micro-teaching exercise we all did. He remembers I was the only candidate who left the 'negative comments' box blank in the evaluation form I had to fill out as I evaluated his performance, and he remembers the reason I gave. top photo: In the lower right corner: Dr. Oeystein ..... exiting the row in order to enter the row that I'm in. John's comment to Rune (in the hoodie) amuses Rune slightly. in the centre of the photos: John (installing his shoulder bag over his head) and Rune have agreed not to talk about what they know about this. John goes to recess and Rune stays to watch the show. the male sitting in the bottom left of the photo has a continuous benevolent smile, which tells me he seems to understand much of the essence of what I am doing. Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) is now walking in from the right side of the camera; and the female teacher-candidate from Kristiansand, almost at the far right side on this photo, near the end of the third row up from me, who's been shouting at me while hiding forward-bent behind her desk, now looks up and shouts visibly my way as Dr. Oeystein ..... indicates he is willing to enforce her will. She then stands up while shouting her way of requesting somebody (Dr. Øystein .....) to stop me with force. She has been trying the whole semester, by hate-speech and derogatory comments, to stop me from talking about the real Piaget-quotes and their significance in the context of the consistently used (in these courses) forged Piaget-quotes and their role as alibi for the teaching-paradigm I say is church-authored, centuries old, and a political tool blocking the will of the Parliament as expressed in §1-1 of our 'Law for teaching'. the three females stand up one after the other, the shouter keeping her face disguised for as long as possible, shouting; and her emotional shouting is all the encouragement her two followers to her right need. The peripheral two females, Marte from Rogaland near the left edge of the photo and the female in the right lower corner (from the larger Oslo region somewhere) quickly join them, and soon also a third female off the left margin of the photo. The shouter is identical with the female who has enforced a veritable topic-censorship all semester, in all allegedly open dialog, whether invited in lectures, imposed on the lecturer in the so-called 'seminar' classrooms or explicitly mandated in so-called 'team-work' by around-table-dialog, continuously and emotionally making sure the multi-mind thinking-unit reduces its thoughts to those of one; the thoughts coming from or screaned and approved by the socially domineering backed by alliance partners. The alliance-dominator's will and iq, One person's experience and competency limits the output of the 'unregulated team as one', making it a team with the power output of ONE BRAIN ! the brainpower of one instead of three or five The 'team as one' is 'the team limited to one brain', or at least a team that shuts up as if it is only one brain -whose brain? The alliance-dominator's. Its product is mainly ONE BRAIN's product. A team-member who's idea isn't understood by the alliance-dominator must be TAUGHT TO the alliance-dominator; and there is never enough time for one person's insight to be taught to – veritably braintransplanted into the mind of – the alliance-elicitor who raises a veto or a 'pending veto'; and all of the team-members' contributions thereby run through a lesser mind's filter before some of it ma Y trickle into [the cell-culture-dish] (petri dish) of this monster-lab. What results is NOT THE TEAM-PRODUCT, but ONE MEMBER's product, whereas the compilation-product is the TEAM's product, the compiling of all the team's overlapping and contrasting perspective. It is infinitely better to regulate the 'obligatory team'-sphere; make it: a mandatory quest for the group-integral, the total capacity within the team, rather than the socially screened sap from it where the 'it' is a fictitious, collectively thought-into-existence '5-person-team-as-1-person'. In its properly surreal light it almost sounds as ludicrous as it is. The reality of the 'obligatory quest for the group-integral' is infinitely better, in part because the 'team-as-one'-based 'majority-vote collective brain' is an infinitely stupid imagined brain that reduces the multitude and the varied to the intellectual povertY

[of the domineering] reduces it by censorship, which must be regulated against, rather than 'believed' into non-existence. We see what we see, and it's been like this for too long. There is an infinitely better way. Some (a few) other cultures use 'the principle of compounding' as the norm for team-work. Scandinavia is evidently different. Perhaps more than anywhere in the world, regulation against the pseudoteamleader's censorship is required right here, in the multination-land of the Vikings. The Viking-culture needs to be TAMED into the 'shackles' of SCIENCE; the science of academic team-work apparently requiring a different principle, not included in the warfare team-work-scheme of the 'rules-of-the-viking' handbook; the how to CUT off, CUT down, CUT away the opponent, or repent and silently join; be a trunk or the roots that feed, by observing, nodding, applauding the one brain on top who won't stop babbling until you surrender to all her ideas. Letting her interrupt, and letting her refuse to be interrupted or contradicted by facts, that is the only way to ease her aggression in a rule-free obligatory presence. The unregulated and socially free 'quest-for-leadership' of an obligatory team REMOVES GOOD ideas 'un-liked' by the domineering on the way to the tin Y opening where sap squirts, dribbles, drivels and babbles forth from team-pseudo leaders who can't stop talking, can't refrain from censorship, can't modify themselves from exclusion-minded to inclusion-minded not by their own internal drive. We must regulate the obligatory team-work-sphere; and if they refuse changes, remove the small-group structure and say 'the class is the team' ! the whole class, and always the whole class. That is the REAL 'team-spirit'. The full-class-debate sphere must still have healthy rules for everyone to be guided by. Pedagogy has none. We see the evidence of that in the UiO's refusal to answer when I submit my evidence the real Piaget-quotes; in the female UiO-lecturer's discrimination coordinated with Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde in the institute-administration; in Dr. Øystein .....'s aggression before 250 teacher-candidates as they exit the auditorium, and the 50 or so candidates who remained for the main event of the recess Dr. Øystein .....'s mock physical assault. This photo-documentary merely submits the obvious. In addition to this there is the written claim from the Institute's academic spokesperson Dr. Eyvind Elstad, saying the real Piaget-quotes are 'irrelevant', 'verified' in writing on Sep.15.2015 by Institute Leader Rita Hvistendahl and co-signer for the scientifically bancrupt loan guarantor Mai Lill Suhr Lunde the 25-year-older-than-her-staff-photo-for-securitypurposes version of her all ample evidence that these people are aware of the security risks involved by their behavior but know not what they are talking about academically, inasmuch as ALL modern theories of learning rest on the shoulders of Jean Piaget (1896-1980) explicitly so, explicit even on their own power-point slide series on learning-theory used in the initial lectures of all courses in pedagogy, in all course-programs, by ALL involved lecturers (in the Practical pedagogical course of 2015-2016, the two involved lecturers were Miss Brit Oda Fosse and Kirsti Klette, both of whom escaped every debate I initiated about this). And it is the tax-payers who pay the salaries of these people, pay them to 'be science-minded', pay them to engage in a debate whenever new evidence is put on the table, pay them to let the best argument win, pay them to let their faith be dictated by facts and changed by new facts, all of them state-financed academics who turn out to not even be education scientists. It is simply too ridiculous to fathom for the average citizen. Hence the information campaign. Politicians are fairly average citizens. They need to be informed and taught the nature of this particular case of distributed government corruption, 'campus-institute' situated. It needs to end, but it must be ended by blunt top-down government-legislated force; will not be ended by the emission of more 'principles'. §1-1 of our 'Law for teaching' is full of them, none obeyed. UiO's institutes within their Faculty of Ed-sci do not even see that paragraph as having any validity for the activity they are in charge of. I say that very paragraph explicitly and directly dictates the very principles to be taught by every lecturer in every lecture and every class in every course they teach in teacher-education, in every institute of it anywhere in Norway. And Denmark and Sweden have their paragraph equivalent to it. Teacher candidates MUST be drilled continuously in all the principles listed in §1-1 in that 'law for teaching', written for all primary and secondary schools in order to be able to teach them to children in these school. These specifically stated principles are 'tolerance, democracy, liberal view, variety of thought and culture, a scientific way of thinking, even critical thinking; and more unmentioned none of which contradict or place any limitation on the validity of the ones I have mentioned. The left margin photo-strip, hence, is a veritable hall of shame strip. Yet, that photo-strip is but a tiny fraction of what I could show had I filmed it all. Just imagine all the images that precede the decision to finally bring my friend, the Sony-cam, into it. The simple relation is this: §1-1 of that Law written for primary and secondary schools is automatically also valid for all activities engaged in during the education of the candidates who will become the teachers expected to teach according to that §1-1; and for all the institutions involved in these activities; hence for all administrators employed to function within these institutions all the people assisting the lecturer (on camera and behind the vaulted wall of the offices of the Institute and the Faculty, the female administrators who coordinated the discrimination with the female lecturer) in her openly demonstrated discrimination of myself, before 250 teachercandidates, in the supposedly open class-debate segment of that supposed to be 'Educational Science' lecture on 11.Nov. 2015. It is precisely through the supposedly open nature of these segments and other parts of their structure they collect their approval as a "scientific" activity rather than a "faith"-thing that puts up camp on campus and usurps the public funding that comes their way, the reverse of cases we could mention of money-aggregation-endeavours masking themselves as "religion" and collecting the public funding arising from that particular lie. So this is one specific failure of all of Norwegian teacher-educating institutions, across the board, all of them a judicial interpretation-failure, and one so basic that it is wilful negligence of public duty, public-office-situated civil disobedience, just like I told the Minister of Education in person, but in public, in the 17.March 2016 symposium on education here in Oslo. The interpretation-error involves a longlasting consistent failure of our judicial system to catch the ongoing error in institute-situated law-interpretation by people who are uneducated in law, and who do not understand that §1-1 applies to them, directly to them, by the lawinternal logic of that law itself. That is one big serious screw-up. Respected Law firms, even, based in Oslo, do not understand that §1-1 of that law applies to teacher education, and that 'obligatory team-work under threat of exclusion by peers' is unlawful by the same law-internal logic. Why Norwegian lawyers are so weak in 'law-internal logic' and so enslaved by 'precedence' remains to be investigated. Of the two ruling factors in law internal logic and precedence internal logic wins. 'Internal logic' has precedence over 'precedence', so to speak, and literally so. It is 'law-internal logic' that, as it engages premises of social nature, trumps 'past precedence' and sets 'new precedence'. The sad state of logic in the minds of young lawyers in Norway is one troubling sign of the need for structural changes to be made in higher education. In order for 'change' to last the change must be of a 'structural' nature. Otherwise they are superficial 'wounds that heal' and the status qua once defeated bounces back. §1-1 of that law applies, and the mentioned 'obligatory' nature under the mentioned threat unlawful. The key cause of the latter is 'the notion obligatory'. Each teacher candidate MUST be in such a 'team', at least as long as they are 'obligatory teams'. That is WHY we must protect each candidate in the team; in the situation we force them into. The 'leave the team to itself' and 'let it structure itself and its own dialogue without regulating the process'METHOD will not do when their presence 'in the team' is mandatory. Yet, 'leaving the team alone' and 'letting it structure its own dialogue without regulating it' is precisely what the people represented in the left margin photo-strip above ALWAYS do, their MAIN method; what they INSIST on doing regardless of what other changes you may manage to talk them into by negotiating; but that is the ONLY detail we CANNOT allow to continue. Why? Because it is the method that secures their domination by exclusion-threatoperated censorship of dissidents. My advice: GET RID OF that method by whatever force is needed to get it done, and do it fast, like yesterday; as it is by far the most stupid thing ongoing in higher education, literally anywhere in the otherwise deemed to be democratically oriented world I promise. Participation in 'obligatory team-work', the way the 'right' to be in it follows the 'duty' to be in it, and its dialogic method, all need to be properly explicitly and in detail regulated, from Parliament, that's all. But Parliament MUST END its 'principles-limited paragraph-law-making habit writing laws about principles and letting local kingpins MAKE UP THE DETAILS OF THE LAW 'in office' (the MEANING of "proper", "good", "qualified control", "liberal", "scientific way of thinking"* 41 , "critical thinking"* 41 etc.) as they go about 'their' business. No. Make a properly detailed law, in Parliament. That'll take care of it, but only if the Parliament itself makes the rules, without interference from the 'self-appointed victims' of the regulation, the ones in the above photo-strip and the likes. They will come crying to the Parliament when they see what's happening, but their tears will be faked, as faked as the Piaget-quotes they market per power-point-slides to prop up the Bible-compatible Dark-Ages-originating 'admit-and-repent' model phrased as "accommodation is defined as modification, according to Piaget", whose model is really nothing even close to that (cf. The Kant-Piaget-connection nobody wants to talk about, Soerfjord 2016, new edition). * 41 Spelling out these things what the law means by "promote a scientific way of thinking" to our school-children and let them "learn critical thinking"; HOW we are to do that, and WHAT we must do in teacher-education IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO do that, legislating a mandatory assistance from the field of Philosophy to Pedagogy! these are details we need to open the Parliament's eyes to. We need to force them to acknowledge the need for them to deal with it. They obviously do not deal with it voluntarily, and they need to be ridiculed for that, mercilessly. The ignorance makes it clear how badly teacher-education needs Philosophy: Logic and Ethics in particular logic for the birth of the topic 'class-debate'. There should absolutely be NO 'obligatory group-work' (team-work) without prior study and practice of 'class-debate' the drilling of the habit-schema of 'surrendering to facts' forcing the facts of the premises to their logically necessitated (deductively valid) conclusion and being forced to accept that conclusion, being forbidden to interrupt these arguments, forbidden to VETO them. That will spell the end of the tyranny of the incompetent tyrants I now put on display in the left margin above. 'Pedagogy' will not do this by their own internal drive, and Parliament is responsible for what is being done to each individual; hence regulation must be Parliament-authored. Parliament must author explicit REGULATION, NOT let it be substituted by Parliament-authored PRINCIPLES handed down to the 'Institute', because the 'Institute' always finds a way to continue as before with that crucial habitual METHOD intact, to them a holy method of weakening the individual, the dissenter. That method keeps them strong, and Pedagogy's main 'drive' is to continue the METHOD that keeps the consensus strong. The 'drive' they have is the one we see demonstrated in the left margin photo-strip above; not a pretty sight, and its result isn't pretty either. We should stop lying about it. It is the Parliament's drive that is needed here. And guess what? Like it or not: all my empirically verified cases of the pseudo-leader censorship-operator type (2008-2015) have been a young adult female, an alliance-seeker securing the alliance that gives her: majority vote in the 3-5-member class minority micro-sphere designed for her abuse which allows her to utter her veto each time she thinks she must understand every-thing any of the team-members talk about right away in order to allow the team-member to express it in the group-product, as if it is up to her or up to a majority will to allow or disallow anything (cf. the dialogic samples transcript in Appendix I). It is a logically failing idea, the notion that the 'team as one' a team in agreement about the 'message' suggested, decided upon and spoken by its 'spokesperson' brings forth 'the best'. The product of a team that eventually gathers around a consensus, as if 'consensus' were not in it-self suspicious - 'consensus' as a cosy camp-fire in the wild, wild world, of science is: the scrap from a vetoed away team-diversity, a NET LOSS of material diversity, by immaterial criteria SOCIAL criteria. The old Viking-way must be regulated away from 'obligatory team-work'. The entire set of methods of that office-occupying campus-mob in Pedagogy systematically BREEDS the LOSS of a team-integral. The 'majority' of a micro-group is one person's will. That person can only have her will if she is 'free to do as she wishes', and 'free to talk as she wishes', unburdened by: dialogic regulation in obligatory 'team-work'. Today's 'majority-enforced team-work-product method' in teacher-training imputes meaningfulness to the notion 'team-majority'. But the notion 'majority' can only MEAN something in a sufficiently large population. In micro-team type contexts the notion is a perversion means nothing other than dictatorship, unless consciously made into the opposite by everyone at the same time, to the same degree. Without a conscious shared effort to include ALL individual contributions, dictatorship forms. The problem with that is that all who silently acquiesce or internalize it and explicitly acquiesce, are victims of it too; and all the victims of it PAY THE PRICE. The lecturers of pedagogy are themselves the only ones who benefit from it. And they always benefit from it. They are the only ones who benefit from the method of 'unregulated majority-defined and 'majority-voted into reduction' micro-team-product-aimed cooperation', no matter what the conditions within the team are. That is in itself a violation of Educational science so large that it is a scandal, one the world has grown numb to. Doing something about it seems impossible only because it seems to be similar to a simultaneous rule-change world-wide, which it really isn't. It is the aggression from the domain-hostage-takers of teacher-education that takes away the courage of many who understand some of this. That is why I have tried to understand it well enough to form a theoretical, practical and empirical basis of reference for anyone in the near or distant future who can take this farther, make it serve a political drive towards some-thing infinitely better. That drive must in any case happen in spite of what official Ed-Sci says. Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) ..... is now walking in from the right side of the camera; and the female from Kristiansand, almost at the far right side on this photo, near the end of the third row up from me, who's been shouting at me while hiding forward-bent behind her desk, now looks up and shouts visibly my way as Dr. Oeystein ..... indicates he is willing to enforce her will. She then stands up while shouting her way of requesting somebody (Øystein) to stop me with force. She has been trying the whole semester, by hate-speech and derogatory comments, to stop me from talking about the real Piaget-quotes and their significance in the context of the consistently used (in these courses) forged Piaget-quotes and their role as alibi for the teaching-paradigm I say is church-authored, centuries old, and a political tool blocking the will of the Parliament as expressed in §1-1 of our 'Law for teaching'. Marte in her grey wool skihat here (extreme left) is trying to hide; and I intentionally put her on video record as one of the witnesses of the discrimination that took place in the 45-minuteperiod before recess. What justifies the video-recording in recess is the fact that Marte was present throughout the many instances of abuses in the team during the teamwork, which I brought up with Dr. Oeystein ..... first and then with Miss May Britt Esse Berge, which triggered Dr. Øystein .....'s first case of visibly darkened mood (in early September) and made him "warn" Miss May Britt Esse Berge of a candidate that "can be domineering" (Miss Berge's words exactly as she quoted Dr. Øystein ..... to my face mid.Sep.2015) – all team-internal abuse that Marte here is preten-ding not to know anything about, as are Rune and John. Miss Berge is Dr. Øystein .....'s and the Institute's extension in the 7th to 10th grade practice-venue-school named Flaatestad, 20 km south of downtown Oslo. She will sing her lament until the bully she sees standing by the sideline rushes to her 'rescue': , followed by ; and during Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) .....'s assault, which becomes a mock-assault (equally illegal): both of these females and their four co-mobbers smiling and giggling in contentment during and after the mock-attack they encouraged in the already developed target-specific dark mood (I just defined 'hate-ful discrimination', basically unlawful in education) inside Dr. Oeystein (Øystein) .....'s head; a support ..... has taught them to offer throughout the semester each time Dr. Øystein .....'s face, voice and demeanor grew darkly aggressive; each of the three times in one semester when I shared a surprising (surprising to him) scientific fact with him. The female team of mobbers then exit the auditorium, laughing and smiling, to join the rest and have their delayed and abbreviated recess. The show they put on is also explicitly invited in real time, by Dr. Øystein .....'s body-language and the female lecturer/administrator on the podium making the visually signaled contempt officially taught by action that constitute a conscious and planned method. The young adult candidates have just winessed discrimination taking place in each of the 'full class dialog' segments of the preceding 45 minute period of the lecture, and they therefore know well that I am videorecording to put them on record as witnesses to it. The female shouter, from Kristiansand, gets up from the position that has allowed her to shout without being seen as shouting. In front of her she sees Dr. Øystein ..... as he moves in towards me. team-work the one-brain-operated five-brain unit (left side, Marte in her grey skihat) a byte-limited large to full frame excerpt of the High Definition video record, with partial framing of selected details: a regular expression of the team's will in a modern unregulated female aggression-terrorized censorshipmob-manipulated Ed-Sci, as if in a stage play set in an amazonic hell – female bullies clustered in a mob that rules, angered by being now put on video record as witnesses to what took place the preceding 45 minutes. Their hysteria is manipulated into high gear by the grey-wool-sweater dressed female from Kristiansand (the red arrow), who's been behaving like this all semester, showing hostile aggression each time I debated a relevant theoretical detail – she each time reading the signs on the lecturer's face that speak of annoyance, then making herself a spokesperson for what the lecturer hopes for, left side, Marte in her grey skihat, unable to hide. and eliciting back-up from her co-mobbers. A cute gang it is, one that is now already doing harm wherever they observe children with the blindness to mobbing that comes with their own mob behavior, unchecked by Ed-Sci-administrators who are like them, the opposite of science-minded in very essential ways. The assault: (partial to full frame) Dr. Øystein ..... has been preparing the crowd for this outpouring of discriminatory behaviour throughout the semester. Humiliated for losing the debate on the forged Piaget-quotes, he has displayed the same visual anger, one on one with me and in class, over purely scientific revelations I shared with him: the abusive phenomena in team-work; and shared with the class: the translation of Vygotsky's term 'zone of proximal development', which the UiO professor/author Ivar Bråten has wrong (cf. details above), and that anger made him try his best to get rid of me since early Sep.2015, nine weeks earlier, by being involved in "informing" the practice-venue in advance that one of the candidates about to begin there "can be domineering" when it is really Dr. Øystein ..... who is domineering, without the scientific facts to back him up. Dr. Øystein ..... dominates over the facts I informed him of – just like the rest of them, Dr. Øystein .....'s colleagues, when I shared the real Piaget-quotes with them. They do not want to make facts dictate faith, but have instead their faith dominating the facts, calling them 'irrelevant' to it ! That is the depth of the contempt we can all read from Dr. Øystein .....'s face and the faces he has taught his contempt to from August to November. the female mob is cheering Dr. Øystein ..... on direct eyecontact Dr. Øystein ..... – myself. I am holding the Sony-cam slightly off to the right and slightly below my line of line of sight. direct eye-contact Dr. Øystein ..... myself Pure and ignorant hate, eyes glazed with rage. below: the female administrator along the wall (colleague of Jon Arild Lund) begins to turn her head towards Dr. Øystein ..... and I. the female administrator turns her head fully towards Øystein ..... and I. again, Dr. Øystein ..... has direct eye-contact with me as I hold the Sony-cam off my right shoulder, looking parallel to its aim. Dr. Øystein ..... is keeping his front foot in sight as he places it under my torso, as if to topple me as his body launches forward. This and the whole step-sequence is a standard martial arts technique, one that Dr. Øystein ..... is not allowed to use for provocation of non-violent people like myself. Dr. Øystein ..... knows this, and he knows he is in violation of the regulation of whoever taught him this. MOCK HEAD BUTT In the left side of the next photos: The female Shouter from Kristiansand, in her dark grey wool sweater – top left corner – attempts to avoid being viewed as a mobber and crowd manipulator, and sneaks away towards the right in the picture without even looking at what appears to be the moment of impact. The female she recruited into her mobbing-scheme senses the sudden absence of the female team behind her and turns her head to her right to see where they went. She gets a glimpse of the female Shouter's back and then turns her head to the left again towards the action in front of her, spotting what to her appears to be a fellow teachercandidate being thoroughly intimidated, getting what he deserves. She is about to burst out in a happy smile and a giggle: Dr. Øystein ..... moves his eyes to a new direction in the middle of his blinking, preparing the new angle of the eye-sockets before the lids open. He is in attack-mode, restrained only by his awareness of having witnesses present. The recruited mobber senses the sudden absense behind her, turns her head to see where they went and sees the lead mobber (female from Kristiansand, in dark grey wool sweater) sneaking away. 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. Continued in Part Three 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