Team-Work Pathology the mob operator administrator alliance 2017 by Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord) © The author, Dr. Kai Soerfjord (Sørfjord), asserts his right to be identified as the author of this work. It is a structurally corrupted Norwegian Ed-Sci we are looking at presently, a source of social abuse in schools that Ministers refuse to mention in their official speechevents to the cameras when they talk about "how to make schools better" for children without mentioning that I've been telling them for years that the problem they talk about continually springs forth from within teacher-training. Children's schools have peer-abuses in them that teachers learn as normal and acceptable abuses of individual teacher-candidates in their pedagogical training, abuses they therefore do not even see when they take place right under their noses against individual children, even your own, or with your own as perpetrators mobbing and mob type bullying allowed by teachers who have not learned better. After a UiO teacher-candidate in 2015 reveals the consensus-threatening facts of the real 1967 Piaget-quotes, proving a forgery, and the existence of administrationally encouraged mob-bullying type abuses in teacher-training as well as a pervasive lack of the "scientific" perspective mandated by law and which teachercandidates naturally cannot "promote" to children in adherence to §1-1 of the Law for teaching unless they practice it during all parts of their teacher-training the UiO institute (a team of internally and poorly educated consensus-watch-dogs) tell the student to shut up, in the middle of the full class dialogue and debate segments meant for it, segments that give scientific legitimacy to the activity as "Ed-Sci" in the first place. When the Ed-Sci-student refuses to shut up about essential quotes in learningtheory (Kant, Vygotsky and Piaget) and team-internal abuses of non-allied individuals by alliance-grabbers, and then refuses to be discriminated by the lecturer's "I do not allow you to speak, is there anyone else with something to say?" in segments meant for dialogue and explicitly invited the Ed-Sci-student with the unwanted evidence insisting on the need to practice a scientific perspective in all Ed-Scimatters intimidation, even physical assault, is the next phase: Male brutes hired by the institute's administrators stand by. The dark silhouette here is one, allegedly a Dr. Ped., like me, Øystein, employee of the UiO's alleged "Institute for Teachereducation and School-research" (Institutt for Laererutdannelse og Skoleforskning, ILS), waiting for an opportunity to silence the dissenting individual, myself as a teacher-candidate with a PhD in cognitive theory and social learning (dissenting in formal debates only and only when given the chance to speak in a formal manner); silencing him (me) for good in the context of the course program in pedagogy and English language didactics, as 200 of the 250 or so teacher-candidates exit for recess: while the discriminated teacher-candidate picks up his Sony-cam and narrates the event while filming a selfie-segment of himself (myself): "This is Helga Eng's building on UiO campus Blindern, auditorium 1, 11. November (2015), and I am now being discriminated by the lecturer." It is recess, but these teacher-candidates, about 50 of the 250 or so teacher-candidates attending the 90-minute-lecture, remain at their desks; and only a few of them by habit. A core of them remain for one particular reason, and remain only for the duration of that reason: a particular event they anticipate and assist, as participants in socially aggregated contempt towards evidence that threaten consensus, to aid the expulsion of messengers of such. It isn't just any dissent we're talking about here, but one particular kind, the kind that disproves consensus. It is a form of loyalty, but one that young adults are unable to distinguish from justified loyalty. The loyalty is here to the Institute they depend on for their diploma. The crime committed is by the hands and mind of the Institute's employees, largely unchecked and unrestrained by Parliament and the Ministry of Education, who allow the 'Institute' to 'follow its own rules', 'approve of itself' and write 'rules for methods of teaching' that the Ministry of Education never intended to be 'law' and actually legislated against, but did so in a mistaken principlelabel-limited legislation (§1-1 in the law for teaching) that the ratifying Parliament has not been clever enough to see for what it is: an invitation for consensus to be enforced as if it were 'the law in more detail' when all it is is an uninformed opinion. The problem of the real Piaget 1967 quotes which in fact contradict the learning-theory they teach when they refer to Piaget 1967, real quotes that dictate methods opposite of what they practice and teach in Ed-Sci being banned from campus, and any messenger of these quotes likewise, while the fake quotes, the pseudo-paraphrases they invented, are recited consistently, is a matter the Ministry of Education refuses to interfere with; likewise the way key methods of teaching violate key principles ordered by the mentioned §1-1; even methods in teacher-training, methods that condition teacher-candidates to accept mobbing type bullying among children, condition them to fail to recognize certain abusive behaviors as bullying/mobbing. The female lecturer who, without ever having met me or lectured with me in the audience before today, says "I do not let you speak (by the idiosyncrasy 'I do not give you the word'), anyone else have anything ?" in the full class dialogue she invites to (audiovideo-recorded): As teacher-candidates exit for recess, Dr. Øystein, the black silhouette, is ready for trouble: He is looking my way, and he is not liking what he sees. He already decided three months earlier, in Sep.2015, that he does not like what he hears when I tell him about, firstly: the need for explicit instruction in healthy and efficient team-dialogue and cooperation-behavior prior to any mandatory 'team-work'-dialogue among teacher-candidates; dialogues that, as I inform him of, are riddled with abuse of social power (censorship and exclusion-behaviors acted out by socially dominant individuals competing for, or, when no competition for that role exists, grabbing) the opportunity to control everyone else in the 'team': define them, allocate 'roles' to them, assign the tasks they want them to take on and threaten to exclude or actually exclude anyone who rejects the tyranny, anyone who sees it as the opposite of the core set of principles ordered by §1-1 of the law for teaching and which teacher-candidates must practice in order to learn, and must learn before they can teach; secondly: the need to use the real Piaget 1967-quotes instead of the fake ones (the pseudoparaphrases consistently read out loud to teacher-candidates in support of a model of learning that the real quotes contradict); and thirdly: the need to translate Vygotsky's key phrase "zone of proximal development" (ZPD) to its phrase-syntactic equivalent "sonen for umiddelbar utvikling" or "sonen for proksimal utvikling" or "sonen for naermeste utvikling", rather than "den naermeste utviklingssonen" ("the nearest zone of development"), the equivalent of "proximal zone of development" (PZD). The latter is precisely what Dr. Øystein's colleague Ivar Bråten (Dr. of Pedagogy lecturing at the UiO institute "IPED") and co-author Ba. Ped. Anne Cathrine Thurmann-Moe (not in UiO) actually did, believe it or not, which I shared in a scheduled presentation before 25 costudents of pedagogy in Oct. 2015, in a seminar-class of Ed-Scistudents on UiO campus Blindern, to the accompaniment of the same visible rage from Dr. Øystein (ø=oe) as we see in this photo-strip, which frightened everyone, turned them into 25 mutes. It was: a fear instilled by a fury that has no place in Ed-Sci; and neither has the arrogance that makes this particular female lecturer (photo above) say "I'm not letting you speak, is there anyone else who has something?" ("Jeg gir deg ikke ordet*, er det noen andre som har noe ? ", obviously having been informed by dept. head Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde in the UiO 'institute' (ILS) an hour before the lecture of my reply to her emailed accusation that my evidence and questions constitute "grave disturbance of the lectures". My replyemail refers to a well known fact: "I only speak when the lecturer lets me speak", expressed idiomatically "I only speak when given the word*, by the lecturer" ("Jeg snakker bare når jeg gis ordet*"), as the lecturer invites the whole audience to participate and hands go up. It occurs with regular intervals during each 45-minute segment of a lecture. So I only speak or ask a question by raising a hand and seeing the lecturer pointing at me, typically when the lecturer asks for it. Lecturers correctly see it as a duty to include everyone who has a hand up, when time permits. These are dialogue segments that are supposed to take place. It is the content of the evidence I bring forth, not the action of speaking the content of the evidence, this cancer-educated convert to leader of practical-pedagogical training, Mai Lill Suhr Lunde, from behind a veil calls "gravely disturbing" in an email to myself an hour earlier, threatening to ban me from the course, as if they are free to cook their Pedagogy-stew by evidence they select, then combine with forged quotes, and not be punished for it and I am aware it sounds a bit like a sociological analysis of some banana-republic ruled by emotionally disturbed heirs of an ill-gotten dynasty. Notice the way I use the phrase "Doctor of Pedagogy" or "Dr. Ped" about Ivar Bråten, analogous to the degree phrase "Dr. Polit" they apply to a PhD in the field of Political Science Eyvind Elstad and others whom they equip with the job-title "Professor of Pedagogy". The entity called 'University' prefers to disturb and hide the distinction between these two radically different competencies and qualifications, so that they can fill their "professor"-offices with just about any Dr. Goebbels-ish clown they wish. The distinction between the two fields of doctorate isn't absolute, but rather the partial restraint of a partial fluidity. For example, a Dr. Ped., or 'Doctor of Pedagogy', MAY be able to pass judgment on whether the use of the fake Piaget 1967-quotes in Ed-Sci is "important" or not, but that ability to judge is only possible if the Dr. of Pedagogy does the necessary research before blabbering his or her verdict. The Dr. Polit. is vastly more removed from the sphere of even wanting to look into what it is that needs to be researched about models of human awareness or perceptive capacity so far removed that I have yet to hear of one, read of one or even imagine what one such specimen would be like other than unemployed. What is required here is a radically different and scientifically dictated form of behavior than the way Dr.Polit. Eyvind Elstad blabbers "it isn't important" and did so in writing after the Ministry of Education ordered the UiO Institute (ILS) to respond properly to my letter about it dated August 2015, a letter I wrote after witnessing the nonsense that was being taught as ellegedly supported by Piaget 1967. What these lecturers, all of them (in all the study-programs of Norwegian Ed-Sci) build up is an alleged connection between Piaget and the model of learning they are implying: the 'self-reflect-andidentify your errors' model of learning which translates to 'be-toldwhat-your-errors-are whenever you don't see your own errors' and, which is even more harmful, becomes the "self-reflection"-imperative in teacher-training that has entire generations of newly educated teachers having been trained to 'confess-to-errors' or be 'judged-asnonreflexive'. So, teach-by-methods-you-are-told-to-teach by, and only these methods, is the way they teach Pedagogy: Use the specific methods you are told to use, and none other; specific methods dictated by Dr. Polits Dr. Goebbels-clones who focus on "methods of control"; Eyvind Elstad being one such joined by anyone among a pack of internally trained opinion-soldiers willing to 'serve'; like the quacktitle carrying "Didactitian" (Dr.Ped. like myself) Lisbet M. Brevik, institute-located quacks who bark things like "whole-class-readingexcercises, we don't do that anymore" direct quote audio-recorded directly from the waxed lips of the mentioned guard-dog herself, Miss Brevik as she 'corrects' me, meaning she's telling me not to do it where "we" means 'the guard dogs of consensus and everyone they control'. These guard-dogs have been selected as servants of consensus by not having been discarded when all who had other ideas than consensus were discarded by various unlawful means in Norwegian Ed-Sci-studies. These consensus-adhering puppet-soldiers and guarddog type PhDs of Pedagogy in the faculties of Ed-Sci are hugely incompetent in the proud scientific field called Ed-Sci, Educational Science. They have to compete in the game of jumping the highest for consensus, to reach for the bone they call "Professorship", a jobtitle all PhDs who teach should have from day one meaning I say they should all have some degree of an explicit "Professor"-title, but do not. Only the ones who jump the highest in the game of teaching consensus the strongest, get their "Professor"-title. Norwegian Ed-Sci-occupying Dr. Polit.s and other quack-doctors of consensus say "you must modify your pre-existing ideas in order to learn, according to Piaget" as they 'quote' Piaget's "cognitive accommodation" as being "defined by Piaget as modification", when all Piaget says is that accommodation is the mere unconditional 'letting in' of impressions, while the necessary opposite and neutralizing (equilibrating) functional tendency is actually 'modifywhat-we-hear-and-see to make it maximally similar to pre-existing ideas': assimilation. So what we MUST do in order to learn is actually 'modify-what-we-perceive', the opposite of what Universities TELL us we must modify in order to learn; and the two opposite tendencies are always simultaneously active in all phenomena, never separate phenomena that is, in Piaget's model, which is also Kant's model. Interesting ? If you think so, then offer me a well paid professorjob (I do not want the consensus-preacher-pack-defined jobs they create and have taxpayers finance). If you have any political pull whatsoever, then work to change the deceased consensus-internal breeding of PhDs in Norwegian higher education; and work to end the public funding of the clan that trains packs of guard-dogs that focus on their "methods of control in education" – direct quote from a description meant as an acknowledgment of Dr. Polit. Eyvind Elstad on the Internet. http://utdanningsforskning.no/kilderpersoner/personerforfattere/eyvind -elstad/ For a complete video-derived photo-strip record of the minutes before and after the assault-segment, "the Blindern photo-file" will be uploaded later – in the mean-time see "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary" for full length of key segments. What follows is an abbreviated representative selection: Marte finds herself a 'team' female from Kristiansand, the team's exclusion-operator, keeps shouting, and Dr. Øystein moves in, one seat-row above mine, in the right edge of the photo-frame; Enters Dr. Øystein: He has a plan. Red arrow: Female teacher-candidate (student of pedagogy) from Kristiansand keeps shouting from her forwardbent position, using her hand as a megaphone and a sharp penetrating voice that fills the auditorium. "Kai, you are filming now. You are filming, Kai. You are filming. Kai, you are filming. You are ..." (In Norwegian, the non-standard spelling indicates her dialect:) "Kai, nå filmår du. Du filmår, Kai. Du filmår. Kai, du filmår. Du filmår ..." (it is recess) To view the following photo-strips as motion-picture without flicker: 1.Download the pdf; 2.Select "Fit one full page to window" in the 'tools pane' (top-bar of the Adobe Reader's frame), or click the 'minus' to reduce the pdf-page to your screen's vertical limits; "Fit one full page to window" and 3.use the mouse to press and hold the on-screen scroll- button to view the photo-strips as a manual motion-picture. But do take a moment to study the facial expressions* 36 too, in the enlarged page mode, and the visual relations between the participants, as well as the embedded text. * 36 body movements and facial expressions, particularly on the sharp photos, speak a thousand words This, as far as I am aware of, is a new text format. Content-wise, I categorize this particular text as a documentary, but its format requires some reader-software interaction: a cycling between enlarged and screen-sized pdf-page presentation. The 511.99 MB size-limit of Word limits the photo-frequency of the strips. SCROLL the live photo-strip: If you have not registered as a user of academia.edu, you can only view the photo-strips in academia.edu's window, without the full set of viewing-modes available by Adobe, which is a condition for viewing it as a 'pdf-format video', though you can still study the photos one by one. So if you'd like to request a pdf on my list, email me: ksorfjord@yahoo.com or ksorfjord@gmail.com with "pdf-REQUEST" on the subject-line. Is it aggression or is it hate? And does it matter which? It is definitely aggression in defence of a consensus that claims to be built on Piaget 1967, in every lecture on learning-theory lectures that refer to Piaget 1967 but use fake quote-paraphrases, every time, and do so as they teach a model of learning that is actually opposite of the one formed by the real Piaget 1967-quotes, which I quoted in the lectures, each time after raising a hand, naturally, in response to the lecturer's request for the audience to participate. It is the content of these quotes that causes "grave disturbance", and rightfully so, not the behavior of bringing the evidence. We need to remove the 'cleaning-out'-agency currently hiding under the labels of 'administrators' ('dept.-heads', 'consultant', 'inspectors', 'advisors' etc.) at institute-level, an army of dead-weight that draws funds and takes stabs at science wherever science is opposed by the jealous and incompetent on campuses, some of which I expose in the left margin of this documentary. I suggest we need no institute-level 'administrators' in the first place, certainly not anyone with authority to threaten individual academics or teacher-candidates or any other students; the type that forms alliances with the incompetent among colleagues, essentially hate-operators, like we see on this photo. But an Institute should have a 'telephone-operator' and a 'room-allocator', and I'd say, that's all. An academic organizes himand herself, except when forming alliances against individual colleagues or 'evidence-bringers' among students, classify such individuals as 'opponents' and go to administrational war against the individual who knows more, is cleverer or better in some way. And that is how education is now what the church used to be in pre-renaissance days, essen- dominated by 'men of the dark' (Norw. mørkemenn; essentially preachers. The distressing element of it is this: it is teacher-education we are talking about, a sphere where I suggest these simply ought not be. aggressive clowns, under-educated clowns, and Dr. Polit.-clowns pretending to know about Ed-Sci when they are really Doctors of Political Science, like Dr. Eyvind Elstad at the UiO (Univ. of Oslo) and the two female pedagogytextbook-authors I revealed above, at the NTNU and the Northern University (Troendelag region), impostors in EdSci., with a straw through which they suck mouthfuls from public funds. doing harm to our culture; remaining harmful to our culture even when they smile at you. You know them by their suppression of evidence. This documentary shows you how they do it. the team's exclusion-operator (female teacher-candidate from Kristiansand) pauses her shouting and looks up to check its effect on Dr. Øystein, whose visible aggression (hate) elicits precisely such support as she is now providing; while Dr. Øystein, the hate-operator against consensus-threatening evidence, attempts to make his 'social reality' such that he and the female mob are victims of the discriminated and hated evidence-provider (one individual teacher-candidate) and, as of the last few minutes, Sonycam-operator with his recording-activity that now puts them visually and audibly on record as formal mobbers (cf. Kenneth Westhues: Academic Matters: the Journal of Higher Education, OCUFA, Fall 2006, pp. 18-19). the shouter pauses, raises her head to check for the effect; the female lecturer (red arrow), with the selective loveliness she sells for the price of acceptance of quote-fraud and deceit, is present during recess. It is recess. The female team choose to remain at their desk space of their own free will. It is an opportunity to express support for the lecturers' silencing of the dissident and his evidence. The female shouter from Kristiansand attempts to avoid being put on record as a main participant in and instigator of abuses that lasted throughout the semester. team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work team-work Witnesses of unlawful discrimination of scientific facts in Norwegian teacher-education; young adults largely unable to perform the truthchecks and the monitoring of national-policy-adherence of their own training vis-a-vis the principles for teaching they are required by law to adhere to after course-exam, truth-checks and policy-adherencemonitoring that the vagueness-level of §1-1 and its implied institutional 'self'-regulation ASSUMES that SOMEBODY does. The truth is: NO ONE DOES IT, AND NO ONE CAN DO IT, except the Ministry and the Parliament, through a more detailed legislation. Anyone who tries to form his or her "instruction" so that it adheres more closely to §1-1 is plucked away by the 'practice-venue & institute' liaison before the exams, or reported by colleagues and then persecuted by pseudoadministrators allowed by the Ministry to carry on like nazis on campus people like Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde ('dept. head' with cancer-research as her own field, being used as consensus-police in Ed-Sci but being totally incompetent in core Ed-Sci issues like cognitive science and the corresponding learning models); Miss Kirsti Lyngvaer Engelien, a 'leader of instruction' who stands by while 'Institute-Leader' Rita Hvistendahl delegates the matter of the fake Piaget 1967-quotes I reported to her, a matter of classical learning-theory, to Dr.Polit. Eyvind Elstad, a fake Dr.Ped. in UiO's faculty of Ed-Sci; all of which, naturally, constitutes fraudulent custodianship of state power, since the Dr.Polit. is obviously not qualified for that task. Rita Hvistendahl is also an 'Institute Leader' (of ILS) who tells the "Faculty Director": "You don't have to get involved in this" when he makes an inquiery about what this is all about. You see his photo in the left margin on page 110 above, hers on page 95. The good Rita cc'ed her email for him to me as well, by mistake, revealing the corrupt tradition she has made her own. Walking in the same corrupt footsteps is what they all do. They have made the Institute for Teacher-education and School-research (the ILS: "Institutt for Laererutdanning og Skoleforskning") their own club; have stolen it from the sphere of science educational science. And the whole country follows their example, seeing the obvious benefits to private economy and the maximization of career security for a minimum of knowledge input, maximizing instead the skill of un- scripted speech, by-heart chunks of speech, simple packs of rhetoric simplistic enough to easily remember; and they post them on power point slides in case they forget; among them inherited slogans about Piaget and Vygotsky most of it absurd but who cares? They combine it with methods of setting the team up against any individual who would otherwise venture into – precisely: the kind of thinking that §1-1 of the Law for teaching dictates for all of teacher education to enable teacher candidates to "promote among children": namely "a scientific way of thinking". Only the Ministry and Parliament can shake them out of it, and only by COMPLETE RESTRUCTURING. As new teachers, hence, the newly educated teachers depend on 'more experienced colleagues', in other words current tradition, the same 'current tradition' we see violating all good principles laid down for "all teaching", 1 st class to highschool ("all opplaering" i grunnog videregående skole), for all the work that each individual among these future teachers ever do among our children. Witnesses to a nationally corrupted teacher-training, they are, all the participants in the research-material displayed in this documentary; and mighty pissed off they are for having been put on record as witnesses to it. Parents: these mob-bullies you see in the photo-strip above and below, are the ones who become the teachers of your own 7-16year-olds, in a mob-bullying-infested public school near you. a)Lecturers being visibly annoyed, irritated, even furious, as Dr. Øystein Gisle, in class, over mere facts they want to suppress – scientifically relevant facts (1:the real Piaget 1967-quotes and the way the principles of scientific and critical thinking, diversity, inclusion, counter-discrimination etc. in §1-1 in the law for teaching dictate both form/method and content of teacher-training); and the b)lecturers' 'administrators threatening the messenger with reprisals if not shutting up (the institute's dept. head Mai Lill Suhr lunde calling the mere content of a message given after raising of hands in response to lecturer's explicit elicitation for audience participation by the phrase "you have gravely disturbed the lecture"; and the c)Nov.11.2015 lecturer explicitly asking for audience par- ticipation, and getting only two hands up besides mine among the 250 teacher-candidates, but still refusing me to ask my question, and explicitly refusing only me, while allowing all others, explicitly asking "Is there anyone else who has anything ?" meaning 'anyone other than me' ; the female lecturer threatening me, saying "You must be quiet or you must leave the lecture hall" when I repeat the obvious fact everyone is aware of: I too raised my hand, and we were only two who did, then a third when all others froze in awe over the open discrimination of myself. It all adds up to d)taught contempt towards another teacher-candidate, a contempt we see the teacher-candidates have now learned, after three months of it, and internalized, including taught contempt toward the scientific perspective ordered by §1-1 in the law for teaching, in the production of teachers; the perspective that brings the real quotes forth; which adds up to e)taught mobbing and taught undermining of §1-1 in the law for teaching. It is followed up by f)unlawfully expelling the teacher-candidate who refuses to be discriminated on account of the lecturers not liking the scientific facts laid on the table in an orderly manner. It is COVERED UP and SWEPT UNDER THE RUG as the "Do not videorecord inside the lecture-hall"-drama by the drama-queen mob-team as I put them on record as having witnessed the lecturer's discrimination. It is an outpouring of hate-emotions the female mob visually coordinates with the gestures of Dr. Øystein, the UiO employee, their teacher of Pedagogy, whose display of aggression in itself constitutes the teaching of such aggression, a teaching that is a grave violation and undermining of the Parliament-issued law for teaching, §1-1 of it, thereby producing teachers largely UNABLE TO OBEY §1-1. the brute now imagines the stage to be set so that it looks sufficiently as if there are ladies in distress, and he would like to see himself in the role of rescuing them from the threatening facts talked about by the teacher-candidate who refuses to be discriminated for having dug up the evidence they buried. To those who still imagine this to be 'Ed-Sci', or any kind of 'science', or imagine the minds of these cult-members to be tuned in to Ed-Sci-facts, think again. Together with the side to side upper-body sway, strategic step-sequence, backwards leaning and launching forward, it is a martial arts and boxing style attack mode we are seeing in this video segment. It is intimidation perpetrated by a man of violence, hardly the face of a healthy Ed-Sci. HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the expression of aggression increases in strength: HATE HATE HATE SOMETHING IS OUT OF CONTROL IN TEACHER-EDUCATION; something in the mind of the many 'agreeing' faithoperators in offices meant for Educational Science, and where pedagogic faith is at work, a road-block that needs to be lifted away by concrete central political force. HATE MORE THAN JUST A HOT TEMPER. eyes glazed with rage, his aggression intensifies to a peak: HATE THIS IS HATE. HATE AND THE BEHAVIOR IS WHAT I'D CALL A HATE-CRIME. HATE THE FEMALE TEAM OF SOCALLED 'ADMINISTRATORS' ARE IN ON IT. HATE His eyes glazed with rage rage over mere scientific facts, facts he enforces censorship against. The signaled aggression increases. Deliberate as it is, it is the expression of hate, before an audience of teacher-candidates; all on account of Dr. Øystein of the UiO not being able to win by debate. The problem with this behavior is manifold. It verifies emotions that clearly indicate the intent to discriminate the object of the behavior; in this case to silence the messenger of scientific evidence, a discrimination effort that lasted the entire semester. It constitutes unlawful self-appropriation of public discourse, the buying and selling of a commodity allocated for the purposes of science, educational science, activities that facts have direct bearing on. It constitutes the corruption of institute-situated custodianship of state-power. It constitutes violation of all the Parliament-imposed implications that follow from §1-1 of Norway's 'Law for teaching' – implications that dictate detailed strategies and didactic methods (concrete activities and combination of activities) for teacher-training, since no principle ordered by §1-1 for the pedagogy of children can possibly be put in effect by teachers who were not forced to practice the same principles during the pedagogy of themselves, in teachertraining; and the principles of "a scientific way of thinking" being one of essential importance, one that the course literature mentions specifically in clauses that emphasize its importance for teacher-candidates too. The same course literature also stresses the need to apply the same learningenvironment design principles in the pedagogy of teachercandidates that we want them to apply in the pedagogy of children. Enforcing the virtue of quote accuracy in teacher-education would be an obviously required element of any of the ways to "promote a scientific way of thinking" to teacher-candidates; the only way to enable them to adhere to §1-1's command to "promote" it in the schools they go to work in after these alleged "Ed-Sci"-studies. and the HATE continues; constitutes A THREAT; I MOVE TO THE SIDE I MOVE TO THE SIDE EYE-CONTACT WITH TARGET (MYSELF) I MOVE TO THE SIDE EYE-CONTACT WITH TARGET (MYSELF) eye-contact with target, myself, holding the Sony-cam shoulder high in my right hand EYE-CONTACT WITH TARGET (MYSELF) EYE-CONTACT WITH TARGET (MYSELF) foot planting He stretches his right leg forward, plants his foot where I am standing foot planting and launches forward, as if to topple me with the momentum of his torso when it arrives vertically over his right foot, where my torso is. the ram; eyes glazed with rage the ram; a dynamic claiming of space and demonstration of the emotion by which the 'establishment' assigns low value to the individual target. MOCK HEAD-BUTT I am moving my upper body slightly more towards my left MOCK HEAD-BUTT MOCK HEAD-BUTT He coordinates the blinking with the gaze-shift. He has practiced this: re-aiming his gaze in the middle of the blinking of his eyelashes. Dr. Øystein, the PhD in Pedagogy, is in the ATTACK-MODE. This is bullying with an audience, pure 'mobbing' (cf. Kenneth Westhues 2006), of the physical kind, involving gesticulated threats within the initiated and continued physical assault moving in my direction; the Sony-cam is by my side, off my right shoulder direct EYE-CONTACT WITH TARGET (MYSELF) combined with the emotional expression signaling that I am the target. Only in the last two moments does he make them a dual physical mock assault, first a mock rush-on with a mock head-but that claims space in order to avoid contact; and then a mock rush-on launched from the other foot, only changing direction in the last split of a second. It is an act of communicated hate, and the medium is a mock-assault; amounting to a 'minor' hate-crime on some people's scale, but a hate-crime nonetheless. Jon Arne Lund in the background is definitely worried, which means he perceives the enacted threat of physical violence as real, and his female counselling-partner turns her head a second time. Imagine what Dr. Øystein is willing to do if no camera is there; or with no witnesses ? HATE Together with the side to side upper-body sway, strategic step-sequence, backwards leaning and launching forward, it is a martial arts and boxing style attack mode we are seeing in this video segment. It is intimidation perpetrated by a man of violence, hardly the face of a healthy Ed-Sci. HATE HATE the expression of aggression increases in strength: HATE HATE HATE A THREAT a sustained facial communication of the intent to intimidate, a threat of a derogatory consequence in the immediate future. The dynamic direction of gaze and body movement makes the behavior a threat of a physical consequence, an initiated physical assault. A THREAT I MOVE TO THE SIDE EYE-CONTACT WITH TARGET (MYSELF) holding my Sony-cam shoulder high in my right hand foot planting and launches forward, as if to topple me with the momentum of his torso when it arrives vertically over his right foot, where my torso is. MOCK HEAD-BUTT: He coordinates the blinking with the gaze-shift. He has practiced this: re-aiming his gaze in the middle of the blinking of his eyelashes. Dr. Øystein is in the ATTACK-MODE. This is bullying with an audience, pure 'mobbing', of the physical kind, involving gesticulated threats of an already started violent assault; a continuation of the already launched assault moving in my direction; the Sony-cam is by my side, off my right shoulder direct EYE-CONTACT WITH TARGET (MYSELF) combined with the emotional expression signaling that I am the target. Only in the last two moments does he make them a dual physical mock assault, first a mock rush-on with a mock headbut that claims space in order to avoid contact; and then a mock rush-on launched from the other foot, only changing direction in the last split of a second. It is an act of communicated hate, and the medium is a mockassault; amounting to a 'minor' hate-crime on some people's scale, but a hate-crime nonetheless, I would say. Jon Arne Lund in the background is definitely worried, which means he perceives the enacted threat of physical violence as real, and his female counsellingpartner turns her head a second time. Imagine what Dr. Øystein is willing to do if no camera is there; or with no witnesses ? 2 seconds later: 1 /10 second later The laughing female teacher-candidate is damaged good already before the assault she is witnessing. She has observed the entire context except the aggressive facial expression of Dr. Øystein, and her behavior is an act of solidarity with the female mob leader sitting behind her, a teacher-candidate from Kristiansand who's been a chief hater of all debate throughout the semester, here seen shouting slurs to egg on the aggressive Dr. Øystein whom she spotted a minute ago standing by the wall looking angrily my way as I narrate to my own video-camera, pointing the lens at my own face to document the scene of the discrimination that took place during all of the full-class dialogic segments the preceding 45 minutes patently taught mobbing of a teacher-candidate, taught by the female lecturer and the band of co-lecturers sitting in the back, of whom Dr. Øystein here is the main aggressor, acting on behalf of a female administrative panel with highly doubtful academic qualifications in core Ed-Sci matters, classical learning theory being perhaps the most essential (cf. "Scared stiff - ..., a Documentary" or "Dr.Polit.s pretending to be Dr.Ped. in Norwegian Ed-Sci ..."). The UiO institute and its aggressors hide behind a Dr. Polit., Eyvind Elstad, whom they call "Professor of Pedagogy" even though he has NO ACADEMIC DEGREE in Ed-Sci, NONE; no degree in what Norwegians call "Pedagogy", only in Economics and Political Science, where his specialty is "control-methods", one he applies to education within Ed-Sci. In other words, it is a true Dr. Goebbels of Ed-Sci, one who talks official bullshit in cognitive science, and even puts it in writing (cf. the paper "Sitatog kildeforfalskning ved UiO", which I will translate into an English version and upload later). Here he is around the year 2006 or so in a snippet from: http://utdanningsforskning.no/kilderpersoner/personerforfattere/eyvind-elstad/ He does not want to have his photo on UiO's list of staff, for reasons I can understand, being an impostor acting as official spokesperson on behalf of the Institute in core Ed-Sci matters, and letting himself be used by UiO (the Institute for Teacher-education and School-research, ILS) to officially reject my evidence of consistent and systematic quote-forgery by all UiO-lecturers who mention learning-theory, rejecting its relevance by calling it "not important" in writing. I mean, how stupid can an "Institute" be? It is Piaget's 1967 quotes we are talking about, quotes that are indeed opposite of the fake ones they read out loud and show on their power-point slides every single lecture they mention early learning-theory. They are of course criminals, academic charlatans, appropriators of state resources. They have made the famous job-security in Scandinavian Universities into their privately controlled commodity, one they sell for the payment of agreeing with their so-called consensus – their cooked Piagetstew and Vygotsky-stew type defence of a Biblical cognitive model (cf. "the Incredible Scandinavian 'REPAIR by translation' of Vygotsky and Kant by Ivar Braaten and Lars Loevlie (UiO)"). Nothing is more annoying to a hater than one with a scientific perspective who brings up facts like a quote written on the wall being unequivocally wrong, in this case Piaget 1967; or UiO-professor Ivar Braaten's translation of Vygotsky's term "zone of proximal development" (ZPD) being equally wrong he thought himself fit to interfere with Vygotsky, and translated it into the Norwegian equivalent of "proximal zone of development" (PZD), then spends the first two pages of his book-chapter trying to put back the missing part by explaining it back into the term he diluted. I mentioned this in a scheduled presentation in a 25candidate class in Ed-Sci, on UiO campus Blindern, in October 2015. It was in Dr. Øystein's class, and his face turned as aggressive as the one he displays below here, in November 2015, exactly like that, for everyone to see and be scared into agreement, threatened into the fold of the consensus-mob, the simplistically thinking cult that has grabbed social ownership of and sell access to the public funds that pay the salaries on campus, turning it into a commodity. The payment they collect for a ticket to the money is agreement with whatever they say, no matter what the evidence says. So, take a look at UiO's Dr. Øystein here, then look at the female shouter from Kristiansand, pointed out by a red arrow: she is communicating to her pedagogy-teacher Dr. Øystein a solidarity with the aggression he has displayed facially, and she is communicating to her female peers sitting next to her the invitation to engage in the 'team-effort' that she has defined. team-work As a chief hater of selected individuals, mostly myself, the female shouter (red arrow) has attracted minds that find it beneficial and a contribution to their own safety to pledge allegiance with her. It is an environment where socially aggressive individuals are called 'leaders'. Individuals with this inclination are free to play these games in a Norwegian Ed-Sci that quite openly trade favors with these individuals, use them as references in documents they cook to get rid of anyone the administrators or lecturers do not 'like' and semi-truthfully can claim "isn't liked" by them and the students they teach not to 'like' them'. This is the quite unlawful but nonetheless quite real Special Exclusion Services Unit in Norwegian Ed-Sci. It is active against teacher-candidates and lecturers, essentially a fascist state-within-the-state hitherto unknown to the gullible world. Individuals not 'liked' are particularly teacher-candidates with a scientific view to Ed-Sci, particularly the kind who is willing to present evidence of quote errors regularly committed by the 'Institute' – and they remove these candidates before the latter even have a go at any of the official exams. It is an extra-judicial killing of dissenters' careers we are talking about. It is: the answer to the question "how does one produce consensus ?" (cf. "Seeking campus-universal didactic dominance and getting it, ...", Soerfjord, 2016) The show put on by the female mobber in dark grey wool sweater, the shouter from Kristiansand, recruits the female sitting two rows further down, a female who may be unaware of Dr. Øystein's acute aggression; but is aware of the evidence I talk about and the repression of it, and joins the team by habit. team-work team-work Witnesses of unlawful discrimination of scientific facts in Norwegian teacher-education; young adults largely unable to perform the truth-checks and the monitoring of nationalpolicy-adherence of their own training vis-a-vis the principles for teaching they are required by law to adhere to after course-exam, truth-checks and policy-adherence-monitoring that the 'vagueness-level' of §1-1 and its implied institutional 'self'-regulation ASSUMES that SOMEBODY does. These teacher-candidates, except for the shouter from Kristiansand, are all what I would deem 'redeemable', but it would take some serious counseling and extraordinary teaching-resources for that to happen. So it will not happen, though it would naturally happen if I were involved in the education of these teacher-candidates. But, for me to be willing to work in that environment, changes to the administrative staff would be a key demand, most of the staff being dismissed but not replaced, as part of a fundamental change of structure. Watch how the female shouter from Kristiansand turns away and walks off in the middle of the assault, suddenly in a hurry to get out, hoping to not be associated with the egging on of Dr. Øystein's confused aggression, an aggression she saw and played into action when invited audibly by the female lecturer and visually by Dr. Øystein in the recess. That's her in the dark grey wool sweater, in the top left corner of the next photo: right here, that's her, just below "here", trying to avoid being seen as a mob-instigator, which is exactly what she is. But my Sony-cam saw her. Her behavior needs to be displayed to the world along with the other processes involved, because the entity called "Institute" uses these social agents to their own private benefit. Now watch the way the recruited female senses the absence of the cheerleaders behind her, in spite of the action in front of her, and begins to turn her head to see where they went: and registers the back of the shouter from Kristiansand before turning her head back towards the action while my Sony-cam pans left, and spotting what to her looks like Dr. Øystein's oddly boxer-like quasi-martial-art steps and body sways having solidly intimidated a teacher-candidate who thinks he knows a thing or two about EdSci and solidly deserves to be intimidated: She bursts out in a big happy grin and a giggle, a mood that tells us she is fully aware of the grand scheme of things with respect to the discrimination of myself in all the allegedly full class dialogues explicitly invited to in the past 45 minutes of the lecture, and she has internalized the contempt taught taught by modeling, and by allowing abuses to go on unchecked, uncountered by the teaching of a scientific perspective and healthy and efficient team-work behavior; inclusion-behavior. a) to b) http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/vit/oystegi/index.html / my Sony-cam I believe I have identified the fingernail-biting male behind Dr. Øystein as 1st-Consultant Jon Arild Lund a semi-reluctant school-bully who found his purpose, as enforcer of order, still not understanding why he is a mobber selling himself to a fascist cult occupying sources of public funds meant for better purposes. Unlike Øystein he controls his rage, but like Øystein lacks understanding. He wants to do good, but needs a Parliament to tell him exactly how. http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/personer/adm/jonalu/ with such an uncontrollable rage I'd say it isn't even a question whether anyone ought to let such a mind influence their children; much less shape the future teachers of everyone's children. In the last moment Dr. Øystein's legs apply the side-ways push that makes his assault a mock assault and my reflex sends the Sony-cam in a sideways trajectory, before I bring it back towards Dr. Øystein: red arrow just below here: the female shouter from Kristiansand grinning and mocking on the way out. ELAPSED TIME 2:02 The main cheerleader and mob-operator before and during the assault (turning mock-assault at the moment of signaled impact), the female shouter from Kristiansand (red arrow on photos pp.14-54; 57; 75; 202-203) 8 seconds earlier seen turning away and starting to leave (pp.208-213) in the middle of the assault she egged on (pp.754) is already on her way up the stairs along the wall (red arrow), towards the exit of the lecture hall, giggling and mocking. We can safely assume she is now either teaching or applying for a teaching-job, maybe in a school near you, where we may assume she will teach children to team-bully, 'to mob' (Norw. mobbe). What else can we assume? These are all impressionable victims of MODELED CONTEMPT: Two of the aggressive females are now hiding their joyfulness, one female still displaying it. A faintly smiling male to the left is feeling it too. Conditioned acceptance of mobbing/bullying among children, in teacher-education of all places. We have learned contempt (three males in the top row to the left in the view) and learned fear (female in scarf, lowest of the rows in view). I'd say this is learned fear of the scientific perspective that brings evidence to its conslusion and gets somebody angry. These young adults are all victims of abuse, and need to be helped out of the grip of the cult that controls these courses. The public funds donated for Ed-Sci is meant for the cultivation of principles quite opposite of this: all the beautiful principles ordered by §1-1 in the Norwegian 'law for teaching', a law that implicitly dictates the content and form of all teacher-education too – it is a logical implication that Parliament needs to make explicit and actively enforce by directly interfering in Ed-Sci. The abuse is by modeled contempt, hate and aggression. red arrow just below here: the female shouter: The female shouter, a candidate from Kristiansand, giggling in contentment after egging on Dr. Øystein, having spotted the aggression on his gloomy face minutes before, an opportunity she then used to play lady in distress – attacked by an acute onset of a severe state of being annoyed. And a big happy smirk on the young female in white wool top and dark grey scarf, just below here too, in the right side of the view - while I tell Dr. Øystein: "It is discrimination. It is mobbing, institutionalized mobbing. And you are part of it." Norw.: "Det er diskriminering. Det er mobbing, institusjonalisert mobbing. Og du er en del av det." it is a female visibly delighted after the assault: a female who then points her index finger at the Sony-cam operator (myself) and 'points the camera away from her' with an annoyed look: mostly for being put on record as witness to the preceding discrimination of a candidate for bringing scientific evidence buried for decades the real Piaget 1967-quotes that justify dissent, as well as the evidence of team-internal abuses we may safely characterize as unlawful and extremely unhealthy by nature, in this very course program (and in all the other course-programs of Norwegian Ed-Sci too), both of them matters I spoke up against in plenum, the only place to make the abuses of such messengers of abuse visible to the masses of Ed-Sci students, here 250 of them. It is taught contempt internalized. Her being annoyed by my Sonycam is for being put on record as witness to the discrimination that took place. She stayed during recess to join in on the fun, and payed the penalty of now being a part of recorded evidence of a structurally corrupted Norwegian Ed-Sci. Marte (in her grey ski hat) passed by behind her 2 seconds earlier, going to recess now that the team-work product has been produced; and Marte was there when it happened, safely within the team she found, a team whose thinking, if we can call it that, in this case is formed by the shouter from Kristiansand, just like most teams I have observed have been dominated by an aggressive female who utters verbal explicit threats to any single individual who dare persist in attempts to contribute against persistent vetoes of all thoughts not thought by her in a most unhealthy and essentially unlawful Norwegian Ed-Sci. It is an Ed-Sci with processes in it that constitute the answer to the question "How do we get primary and secondary schools with as much peer-abuse in them as our schools in fact have?" and "How do we produce such bully-blind teachers as we indeed seem to have?". For more, see "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary" BEWARE ! these are the teacher-candidates that in the next phase are the teachers supposed to protect our children from bullying and mobbing (mob-bullying). View the photo-strip pp.14-93 and ask yourself if the shouting female in dark grey sweater will recognize her own behavior as teambullying or mobbing when she sees it among children? Naturally, she will not. I'd say the shouter demonstrated thoroughly a cemented incapacity to teach according to §1-1 in our law for teaching. And I'd say the rest of that 5 or 6-member female team are right behind her, as are many of the males we see (the three with folded arms in the top left corner of the lecture-hall in particular, but the green-jacketed male too). I'd say the 250 teachercandidates are more or less all damaged by the learned contempt towards dissent they were programmed with in that institute, throughout the semester. Add the other two institutes in the Faculty of alleged Ed-Sci in the UiO and that is the number of damaged candidates they produce every semester newly educated teachers largely incapable of teaching according to the beautiful principles of §1-1, until this is stopped politically. Not recognizing team-bullying abusive gang-behavior and not stopping it when it appears before one's face, are acts of allowing the perpetrators to harvest the benefits they gain by it, hence constitutes accommodation of the rewards they secure by it, hence the enforcing of it by passivity; hence constitutes the teaching of it. Needless to say, Ed-Sci is only Ed-Sci if it encourages, enables, explicitly promotes and materially rewards disagreement. And don't start lying now, Tor Tanggaard and the likes, by saying 'yes' to what I just said; because you actually say the opposite, do the opposite, and teach the opposite; have done so since 1967 or longer. You are liars, violators of the human rights that our law for higher education rests on, hence violators of the intention of the laws that rest on them. And you are thieves of the salaries we pay you; we, the tax-payers. You are the staff of the whorehouse, pardon my French. All that hate and aggression for being unable to defend consensus and old habits when I, in Sept. 2015* 37 , say 1)that principles for healthy and efficient team-work need to be taught to the teacher-candidates before placing them in the obligatory teamwork sphere, and team-work-rules need to be enforced to protect individuals from abuse; and when I say, in Oct. 2015, 2)that the UiOtranslation of Vygotsky's expression 'zone of proximal development' is wrong (they made it into 'proximal zone of development', believe it or not); and when I repeatedly throughout the semester say 3)that the principles ordered by the law for teaching §1-1 dictate content and methods in teacher-training, and in that sense have validity for the teaching of teaching-candidates: the order to teach and practice a scientific way of thinking (explicitly verified in the curriculum literature, and ordered for all instruction in basic schooling grunnskolen & videregående), and the order to let children "learn critical thinking" (which necessitates disagreement, and lots of it, because 'critical thinking' means analytical thinking); and, in the two lectures where the fake quotes were displayed and read out loud, say 4)that the real 1967 Piaget-quotes are opposite of what they say in all UiO-lectures that touch on learning-theory; quotes that therefore are fake, forged, as is the model of learning that needs fake quotes for support. * 37 When I bring up issue 1), I do so in a private face to face conversation with Dr. Øystein, outside on the campus grounds. His face turns dark with rage as I speak, like you see it in the photo-strip, making me acutely aware that something is very wrong. Issue 2) is what I share in a 25-teacher-candidate large 'seminarclass', a partial presentation I'm scheduled to give; one during which did you guess it? right: Dr. Øystein's face turns darkly aggressive, again, in front of everyone; with the tone of voice to go with it, and the staccato talk, the body-language; a boiling rage on his face, similar to what you see in the photo-strip. I bring up issues 3) and 4) on a handful of occasions in the plenum dialogues that the lecturers almost always invite to at least two or three times each 45-minute period of lecturing. So, only after I raise a hand when lecturers invite the audience to participate, do I talk. And it is a natural thing to do in this lecture too, if I have a related issue in mind when the female lecturer invites the plenum to participate with questions. And comments are accepted too, since they are usually implicit questions; matters to discuss. All this is, is the expected adhering to the criteria of scientific activity that hold anywhere in academia in all 'fields' of it, except here, apparently or allegedly, in the alleged 'Ed-Sci'. That is, Ed-Sci usually appears to be about science and evidencedictated behaviors, methods and conclusions. But the test is the appearance of consensus-damning evidence. When it surfaces, so does the true nature of the people who cling to publically financed academic offices. They are paid to do science; in this case literally paid to teach teacher-candidates how to behave in order to "promote a scientific way of thinking" and "critical thinking", and so on, in children's minds (§1-1 in the law for teaching). So, if they prove to really be doing politics and consensus-protection, then that would be the equivalent of embezzlement of public funds, theft of the salaries they collect. If fraudulently keeping the evidence-supported competing scientific view away from students' ears and eyes, then it is a double crime we have on our hands, one that affects all of us a flat-earthconcept that keeps us dumber than we need to be, for generations. How long are we going to allow our Parliament to allow this to go on? We have charlatans in the offices of teacher-education, quacks preventing the Ed-Sci we are paying for but withdrawing the funds for it. The lecturer on this particular day decides to deny one particular teacher-candidate's access to the full class dialogue she herself explicitly invites to; silence him before he has even uttered a word. Only 3 of the total 250 teacher-candidates have a hand up in the last of the invited plenum-dialogues during the first 45-minute segment, and I am one the rest are speechless, passive spectators to the unlawful discrimination and hate-expressions by which they are all taught the low value of the discriminated teacher-candidate. An hour before this particular lecture on 11. Nov. 2015, depthead Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde accuses me by email of having "gravely disturbed the lectures", to which I reply "I have only spoken after being given the access to speak by the lecturer" (Norw. idiosyncrasy: "... after being given the word...: "Jeg har bare snakket etter å ha blitt gitt ordet* 38 av foreleser"), the lecturer inviting the audience, and the raising of hands. Miss Mai Lill then evidently forms a strategy together with today's female lecturer: keep me silent in the 'open dialogue'-segments and threaten to have me removed if I refuse to be discriminated. And that is what they do and the three videosegments prove (on you-tube). So the female lecturer is actually quoting me* 38 quoting my email to dept. head Miss Mai Lill Suhr Lunde 60 minutes before the lecture, the recess of which is displayed in the photo-strips above and below when she says "You have not been given access to speak" and "I am not giving you access to speak" (uttered in Norwegian idiosyncrasy: "Du har ikke fått ordet"; "Jeg gir deg ikke ordet"* 38 ). How childishly evil isn't that, darkly laughable, evidence of a contempt that has no place in the context of bringing forth evidence that have direct bearing on the matter taught. The problem, naturally, is that the evidence brought proves the matter taught a hoax. The learning-model defended by the fake quotes is a hoax for being defended by a hoax. It is a model that isn't defended by anything scientific; not by any relevant quote other than the fake Piaget-quotes and the Bible. That learning-model is the 'self-reflect, admit errors and modify' type model consistently and systematically instilled in the minds of teacher-candidates and all students of Ed-Sci in Norway (I suspect in all of Scandinavia, perhaps even the whole Nordic group of nations, the Viking-lands). It is essentially the Medieval (pre-renaissance) 'admit-and-repent' type taught by THE MONKS in the old church-run higher-education; back in the times when all there was was the church-run. THAT is pretty freaking old. I'd say we ought to put it in the ground and leave it there, or burn it; and fire the ones whose brain cannot wrap itself around the simple facts of the matter. The 'open-dialogue'-segments are routine elements, offering the aura of debate, hence are what might give them scientific legitimacy; that is, the scientific legitimacy these dialogue segments offer when consensus-damaging evidence is not kept out of the open dialogue and no messenger of such evidence is being kept out, the way I am in this lecture on 11. Nov.2015. It is of course the consensus-damaging evidence that "gravely disturb" disturb consensus, not the lectures. Enhance the dialogue and the lectures is what that evidence does. The Faculty of Ed-Sci, naturally, should be grateful instead of lusting for revenge, which goes to show that the UiO is NOT participating in Ed-Sci. Rather, they are political activists, actively sabotaging Parliament-issued principles for all teaching: by undermining the ability of teacher-candidates to learn how to "promote a scientific way of thinking" and how to let all pupils "learn critical thinking" (I am quoting §1-1 of that law). On the fundamental level of the teaching of pedagogy, there is a gaping hole in the hull, and a main spar missing, the one meant to hold it all together: the insight into the validity of the 'law for teaching' in the sphere of teacher-education; pretending as they do that the principles ordered for the teaching of children need not be actively taught to all teacher-candidates - "a scientific way of thinking", "critical thinking", "equal rights", "democracy" etc. all of which must of course be PRACTICED by all teacher-candidates. Anyone who doesn't, will remain unable to TEACH and PROMOTE these principles to and among children. No one is going to pay me for teaching the institutes of Ed-Sci and their aggressive guard-dogs any of these things; and the ones who need to learn this, what do they think of me for saying these things (issues 1-4)? You see it in the contempt signaled by the eyes and facial muscles of the specimens whose abuse I put on display in these photo-strips. Not only is it an unhealthy contempt, it is directly harmful to every aspect of our civilization except perhaps the climate it is only indirectly harmful to the climate. That contempt is a numbing agent that dulls the minds and causes opposition to science to magnify and last to a degree that is radically disproportional to its merit, maybe even inversely proportional to it in many dulled minds. The more the consensus-defending population needs adjustment, the more contempt for it they mobilize. Again, Dr. Øystein aggressively signaling an attack, moving forward while signaling that aggression, moving in a martial-arts-specific attackpattern, the way boxers do too, and myself having to move twice to avoid contact as he launches forward and, in the last split of a second, applying the sideways force from his legs that makes it a mock-assault; maintaining eye-contact with the target (myself, holding the Sony-cam shoulder-high in my right hand) in the signaled moment of impact, which causes my reflex to pan the Sony-cam left, before I return it to the right, where its lens catches the delight visible on one of the females who cheered Dr. Øystein in the build-up phase of the mock-assault, by shouting or, rather, joining in on the shouting performed by the female 'shouter', a teacher-candidate from Kristiansand ('live' photo-strip p.122-204) who spurs the adult schoolbully (Dr. Øystein) into action. We have seen the female shouter, aware as she is of her manipulation of the group-hate, turns away at the moment of signaled impact (p.209) of Dr. Øystein's physical assault turning mock assault for intimidation, and sneaks away giggling as Dr. Øystein's mock assault is under way, her and the other two females' giggling confirming she consciously manipulated Dr. Øystein's aggression and perceived what followed to be a physical assault, the intent of which only became evident as late as the moment of signaled impact. Watch 1 st Consultant Jon Arild Lund nervously stick all his fingers between his teeth as they watch Dr. Øystein attacking a teachercandidate, unable to tell whether the signaled impact will be aborted or not. No one can tell, which is the whole point of a mock-attack meant to intimidate and threaten. This formal witness – on duty while present – is what we may realistically label a reluctant witness. He will not step forward on behalf of Ed-Sci and its duty to constitute sound teacher-education. He is, nonetheless, on video record as a witness to the mock assault on a teacher-candidate who spoke up while being discriminated, all of which is on video, the first segment of it only in audio mode, the next two in full audiovisual – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYqoY8QpRM0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUhNfT0nds0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNp5LhHOzt0&t=8s – now reformated to the photo-strips included in my articles. a visibly worried '1st Inspector' in the background, his female colleague turning her head a second time when she sees his 4finger nail-bite posture: the female pseudo-administrator-colleague of Jon Arild Lund turns her head, alerted by Jon Arild's tension. This is the assault 1 st Consultant Jon Arild Lund wants to erase from the memory-card he chases from this point on. – below, in the top let corner: the female shouter from Kristiansand in her dark grey wool sweater, leaving in the middle of the assault; trying to avoid being seen as the mob-instigator she was, and still is in a school near you.

In the last moment Dr. Øystein's legs apply the side-ways push that makes his assault a mock assault and my reflex sends the Sony-cam in a sideways trajectory, before I bring it back towards Dr. Øystein: Look at the face in the top left corner of the next photo (same as on p. 219): What might he be thinking? I know what he is learning, and it is probably irreparable in his life-time. ELAPSED TIME 2:02 Big happy giggle on the face of the recruited female two rows down from the core mob group, and we saw (pp.222-223) a similar level of happiness with the team-work product on the face of the female in white with dark grey scarf within the core group circled in red; while the shouter, the main cheerleader of Dr. Øystein's aggression and assault (turning mock-assault at the moment of signaled impact) is now on her way out, moving up the stairs along the wall (red arrow), with a big grin on her face, soon to appear in a school where your own children depend on her insight to get safely through the day. Until now you have assumed she has it. Not a very safe assumption, or what? in the front, internalized fear, based on her wish to never be the target of such an aggression and contempt; at the back, internalized contempt, taught by imitation of the modeled sample before their eyes; the young males moving directly from natural fear to ownership of the observed aggression. All of them are victims of unlawful abuses. Seeing UiO's Dr. Øystein's mock assault is in itself such abuse. It is LEARNED CONTEMPT towards the "scientific way of thinking" that Norway's Law for Teaching §1-1 ORDERS primary-, secondaryand highschool-teaching and instruction to "promote" – the taught contempt becoming learned contempt does damage to all these teacher-candidates, damage that I'd say will last a lifetime. Think about the damage this does to the children taught by teachercandidates who learn this type of contempt, hate and aggression; here expressed against a dissenter who reads out loud the REAL QUOTES that falsify the fake ones, and does it only after raising a hand in response to lecturer's invitation to the entire audience to participate, in the very segments of modern lectures that give scientific validity to them: the plenum dialogue. Only by manipulating that dialogue can consensus based on FAKE QUOTES, quote forgery, survive. Having internalized the fear, the most rapid learners of the taught contempt are eager to assist the abusers in the abuse of a dissenter. TAX-FINANCED abusers of Ed-Sci, alleged 'teachers of pedagogy', training NEW ABUSERS of Ed-Sci that by necessity learn to be blind to mob type bullying, hence are unable to fight bullying and mobbing against individual children, unable on account of having been taught to not see it. They have been systematically conditioned to be blind to it, a blindness that springs forth continuously from within a Norwegian teacher training that remains controlled by forgers of evidence, counterfeiters of validation-sources (Kant/Piaget); a dynasty that lies for the sake of self-preservation and control of the public funds that flow their way (view their faces in 'Scared stiff, a Documentary'). Sampled Pathological dialogues in the absence of taught team-ethics Dec.2016 unedited, sampled empirically Sep.2015, 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) Place: Flaatestad 7th to 10th grade school 20 km south of down-town Oslo, on the ridges along the eastern side of the Oslo Fjord. Day: Tuesday 15.Sept.2015 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 (Ann-Helen) 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 teammembers (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 5minute 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 aither 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, on Academia.edu) 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), 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 the live photo-strip p. 326: "Truthtelling shoulder-heaves of deception) (male, from western Norway:) John Ann-Helen (Female, from east of Oslo) (male, from Oslo:) Erik Aspaas 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 bl ienige 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 term 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 half-senteces are the aborted fetuces of a social construction that could be, but isn't. So, with reference to the 'live photo-strip' titled "When a teacher-candidate is afraid to talk" uploaded individually and included in "Scared stiff - ..., a Documentary" with the heading "truthtelling shoulder-heaves of deception" (Norw.: "Løgnens sannferdige skulderrykninger" 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 team-work 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 Ann-Helen 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:} 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." RUNE SURRENDERS TO ANN-HELEN'S ABUSE ("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 chooing 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 'team-work' 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 nasal-passage and narrowing of the mouth-flow, much like AnnHelen'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 teammembers 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 ...") 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 rached 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-half-circle 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 teachercandidates, 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 learningtheory ("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 observere !" "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 bulllying 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 Scool, 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 teachertraining 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 mobbing-type 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 shard 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, signaled their irritation to the audience, and then 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. It 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. (The same note, with the same number, 48, is in the larger work this is extracted from: "Scared Stiff - ..., a Documentary", available on academia.edu.) 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 Schoolresearch' (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 'teamwork', as well as 'team-work-ethics', abuses are left unchecked, even rewarded, usually never addressed, and when addressed resulting in unlawful exclusion of the person 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 socalled '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 Nazigenerals evading the Nuernberg-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 (photos), John (photos)*, 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. * photos in "Scared stiff - ..., a Documentary", Rune from page 322 (the photo-strip is included below) and John on page 492. Introducing Rune, who does what he must in order to survive as a teacher-candidate: he denies the existence of the abuses he was subjected to by Oda and Ann Helen (the above dialogue): In the HD-video-based photo-strip I can be heard commenting live on camera to Rune: "And Rune has been witness to it from the very beginning." ("Og Rune har vaert vitne til det helt fra begynnelsen.") (from "Scared stiff Church-authored pedagogic faith and faithful brutes for hire, a Documentary"; also uploaded separately, with the title "When a teacher-candidate is afraid to talk"). Download the pdf for smooth, no flicker, viewing of his reaction in the following photo-strip, use the "set to screen-size" mode (Adobe) and scroll the 'Live photo-strip' as a pdf-format video: This is what it looks like when Rune lies about the abuses rendered in the above transcript: (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 lying about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) " DA ? " ? 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is lying about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is lying about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) - - 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is lying about knowing what I am referring to, cf. dialogue transcript Appendix I) - - 3rd HEAVE, SUPERSHRUG DECEPTION (Rune is lying 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 by necessity not telling the truth reflected by the dialog-transcript. EYE-CONTACT THAT BURNS Rune in his own opinion deceptive by necessity. Contempt is aggression, and this is the fear-aggression connection. It all takes place in a learning-environment designed by a team I have reported as thoroughly incompetent, unfit for teacher-education, a scientifically rogue consensus-mob allowed to carry on as they wish, within an internally corrupt university-structure that enables corrupt individuals to rule by the alliances they form, violating laws, labor rights and core principles that hold for scientific activity. acknowledgement: This documentary - "Scared stiff Church-authored pedagogic faith and faithful brutes for hire" 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.