[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0115.1350)]
Bruce Nevin (2001.0115 12:19 EST)
Seems to me that mode of discourse is disfunctional here. What do you think?
Am I correct in inferring that you do not approve of my duct tape proposal?
If so, a simple direct statement to that effect would suffice.
BG
[From Bruce Nevin (2001.0115 12:19 EST)]
Bruce Gregory (2001.0115.1019)--
>>At the time (Bruce Gregory (991217.1051 EST)), you asked how
>>"gently removing" would be accomplished, what they would do
>>if a student just said "no", and how teachers would avoid c
>>ounter-control once students realized they were controlling
>>for "gentle". Is this what you meant by your reference
>>to duct tape?
>
>That's exactly what I had in mind.
>
>[This is h]ardly ridiculing. Simply suggesting a way to
>facilitate the process.
>
>I thought that binding the obstreperous students with duct
>tape might make them more amenable to engaging, even unwittingly,
>in MOL. Perish the thought that anyone would endeavor to teach
>the kids the rules or how to be responsible.
Irony, and in general with things that are not intended to be read literally, is difficult to get across in email. As soon as the reader realizes that it can't be interpreted literally, he or she realizes "Ah, this must mean something other than what it literally says." However, it doesn't specify what exactly is meant (it can't, because that would be a use of literal meanings). That is left to the imagination of the reader. One consequence is that it can easily be read as ridicule. Another is that the sender can be convinced of having communicated something and of having been witty, and be wrong on both counts, depending entirely upon the reader--whose interpretation is beyond the control of the writer to more than the usual extent because the writer has made the literal meaning useless.
Seems to me that mode of discourse is disfunctional here. What do you think?
Bruce Nevin
At 10:19 AM 01/15/2001 -0500, Bruce Gregory wrote:
[From Ray (01.01.16 930 CST Aust.)]
Rick Marken wrote:
[From Rick Marken (01.01.14.1500)]
Ray (01:01:14 730 CST Aust.)
The focus is on disruptive students in the writing here. Teachers
also consider the other students.
That’s great to hear. And I figured as much. What I said was not
meant to impugn teachers.
I didn’t take it that way. I just took the opportunity
to make some statements about teachers that often go unsaid.
It just made me realize that the kids
who disrupt are the lucky ones, in a way; they are the squeeky
wheels that get the extra care. I actually remember feeling this
as a kid because my brother was the squeeky wheel; I was just as
troubled as he was (maybe) but I (believe it or not) suffered in
silence: the model child;-)
This is very interesting. As teachers we
talk and think about all of our students and it may appear that the disruptive
students get extra care and are lucky, however this may not be the case.
A number of disruptive students in my class last year would not be considered
lucky by any of the other students. They would have got more attention
but it was not the kind of attention sought by the rest of the students.
What trounled you as a
child and possibly troubled your brother? What kind of care was it that
you wanted?Teachers on the whole are a hard working, caring and resilient
group.
And a group I respect (and even love on an individual level: mywonderful son is planning to start work as a high school math
teacher this year). Teachers are the most important people in our
society, in my view, and they should be paid twice what lawyers
are paid (and lawyers should be paid 1/2 what teachers are currently
paid).
My initial response to this is to counter it
by saying that I respect lawyers as my son is a lawyer etc. I wasn’t making
a comparitive remark, that teachers are better than others etc… I was
trying to clarify an aspect of teachers’ work and make some general statements
about them. They try to consider all students. They are a caring group
(generally speaking). Hopefully by seeing behaviour through the PCT lens
they( and in particular those in this group) will be better able to do
this.
Regards,
Ray
[From Stefan Balke (01.01.15)]
Rick Marken (01.01.15.0850)
my RTP is described as a conflict
reduction program rather than as a program that teaches kids
to think responsibly
Rick, thank's a lot for saying this. It gives me the missing new headline.
The RTP should be somehow renamed (are there any suggestions?) The change in
the perspective makes everything clearer to me. I always puzzled around with
Ed Fords idea of "getting children to think" by asking the right questions.
This idea is seductive, because it enables the illusion that one person can
guide and influence another person with the help of questions. But this is
not sure in all cases, especially in the case of `frequent flyers´, who
probably control for "not thinking about what the teachers say". What can be
achieved by the RTP is a more respectful way to ask students to follow the
necessary rules and to protect the learning students.
Best regards,
Stefan
[From Bruce Nevin (2001.0115 17:25 EST)]
Bruce Gregory (2001.0115.1350)--
Bruce Nevin (2001.0115 12:19 EST)
Seems to me that mode of discourse is dysfunctional here. What do you think?Am I correct in inferring that you do not approve of my duct tape proposal?
If so, a simple direct statement to that effect would suffice.
Your words have one meaning, their non-meaning has another.
This is not a koan. It is merely an observation.
This is a koan. It is merely an observation.
If your question refers to the former, my question refers to the latter.
If your question refers to the latter, my question refers to the latter.
Does my question refer to the latter? How ironic!
Duct tape is not a koan.
Duct tape is duct tape.
Unless duct tape is not duct tape.
Wobble!
At 01:50 PM 01/15/2001 -0500, Bruce Gregory wrote:
[From Rick Marken (01.01.15.2220)]
Me:
my RTP is described as a conflict reduction program rather
than as a program that teaches kids to think responsibly
Stefan Balke (01.01.15)--
Rick, thank's a lot for saying this.
Thank _you_ for saying that. And thank you especially for being here!
What can be achieved by the RTP is a more respectful way to ask
students to follow the necessary rules and to protect the learning
students.
That's the way it seems to me, too. It's not world peace but it's
a very wonderful achievement nevertheless.
Best regards
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (01.01.16.1420)]
Ray (01.01.16 930 CST Aust.)
What troubled you as a child and possibly troubled your brother?
Actually, very little troubled me. I had a wonderful childhood
but I was kinda shy. My brother, on the other hand, was (and still
is) quite a character. His main problems, I think, were the result
of my parents' constant efforts to turn him into what he really
didn't want to be: a good student.
What kind of care was it that you wanted?
In their efforts to help him learn to think responsibly, my
parents put my brother into one fancy private school after another.
These schools were filled with girls whose thinking was just as
irresponsible as was my brother's. So the care my squeaky wheel
brother got (that shy little well adjusted me didn't get) was exactly
the care I craved as an adolescent; to be surrounded by the loosest,
best looking and most irresponsible girls in La La Land;-)
My initial response to this is to counter it by saying that I
respect lawyers as my son is a lawyer etc.
Oops. Sorry. Congratulations!
Best regards
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com