We have to enable every person to see himself from absolutely every angle, to come out of himself, to evaluate himself objectively and agree with the fact that he can be in completely different guises. One has to learn to accept all people: Yesterday he was that way and today he is different. It\u2019s very important to internalize that the perception of the world depends on me, on my mood, on the level of my development, and that it could change entirely. Whatever I am permitted, others are permitted, too. But all of this requires very serious study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Incidentally, children\u2019s perception is much more pliant than that of adults. We should simply inculcate within them a soft, \u201cflowing\u201d point of view of things, and they will use it correctly. Everything depends on their views of themselves, the world, and others that we can instill within them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 Getting back to the question of tests, when we deal with results of tests, there is a problem of confidentiality. We said that in a small group of children, nothing should be concealed. So should test results be put on the table for open discussion?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 I don\u2019t think the question should be put that way at all. If we approach the problem integrally, then all the children in all the schools in the world spend several hours a day working on self-analysis, self-discussion, and self-attainment. \u201cSelf-attainment\u201d is the best word because through yourself you perceive the world, discern who you are, and accordingly, how you see the world. In such a state there is no question of whether you should disclose these tests or not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are not tests, but only a discussion. They can be displayed completely freely anywhere, even on TV. What is there to conceal? This is how children act and this is how they think.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I think that today the programs adults like most are programs about themselves. They\u2019re called \u201creality shows.\u201d People sit in a studio and talk about all sorts of problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I don\u2019t think the analysis should be turned into something that\u2019s concealed. Why do that? What could be secret about it? In fact, what could be secret about a person in general!? Don\u2019t psychologists understand this?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A person has animalistic as well as social urges inside of him, and they shouldn\u2019t be concealed. On the contrary, they should be revealed and discussed. A person has to understand how productive these urges can be for him in relation to others and to himself, so he can evaluate himself correctly and be comfortable with himself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instead of concealing things, everything should be exposed for everyone to learn from. It\u2019s not a discussion about someone, but a general learning process so every person will turn into his own therapist, and then he won\u2019t have to see therapists later on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 Which don\u2019t help anyone at all, by the way\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We are talking about the notion of group processes. But what if something suddenly happens to someone and the educator takes a child aside and starts individually figuring out what happened to him, and having a \u201cheart to heart\u201d conversation with him? Is this also something that doesn\u2019t belong in this system?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 Absolutely not! Everything has to be brought out of the realm of the child\u2019s individuality, or even be specific to the group. Everything should be treated as a phenomenon. Perhaps it shouldn\u2019t even be treated or addressed on the same day. However, the approach should depend on the group\u2019s level of preparation and on its level of perception, on the children\u2019s ability to perceive themselves in different ways and to understand that \u201call that is happening reflects who we are.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 There are two conceptual approaches: One approach is to act according to a scenario that was planned ahead of time, and the other is to act according to how the process unfolds. For example, the second approach is when something has just happened to a child and we discuss precisely what is relevant right now. Is it better to act this way or to go according to a scenario that was planned ahead of time?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Incidentally, pedagogy and psychology radically disagree on this. Psychology prefers the process, \u201cIf a person is going through this right now, then this is what we\u2019ll talk about.\u201d And pedagogues say, \u201cNo, everything is planned out. Let\u2019s study according to plan.\u201d What\u2019s the right way to arrange this process?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 I think that all situations should be filmed. Today there are cameras everywhere\u2014in cities, in the streets, and in parks. We, too, should put them everywhere, at all the venues where children go, including schools and school playgrounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We have to try to sort out their relationships and behaviors, or let the children suggest a topic for discussion, such as, \u201cI have a certain relationship with one person or another. I think this way and others think differently, they don\u2019t agree with me. Let\u2019s talk about it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Each child should be asked to play opposite roles, to be in the right, left, and neutral role, \u201cI am right\u201d and then \u201cI am wrong,\u201d meaning I \u201cmove\u201d into another person and from there I observe myself and discuss or condemn him. Or I am a \u201cneutral person,\u201d like a jury in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I think these discussions are the most important factor for a person\u2019s formation because they let him develop on the inside. They expand his understanding of himself. He learns that \u201cI can be one way, and the world can be completely different depending on how I look at it, and other people are like that too.\u201d Everything becomes very multi-faceted, flowing, and relative. And that\u2019s how the world really is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 Can we talk about this more specifically? For example, suppose we have a meeting where we planned to discuss some phenomenon in the world, but one of the children comes to the meeting with a black eye. What do we do? Do we continue the discussion as planned, say about butterflies, or do we relate to his bruise and talk about it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2013 Should we immediately discuss what happened together with him? But we don\u2019t know whether he will be able to come out of his state and reason about it. Maybe it should be handled differently: We don\u2019t pay any attention to his bruise, and have a \u201cso what\u201d attitude toward it. Meaning, we accept him the way he is, \u201cThis is your business. Sort it out yourself. To us you are a regular person. Right now we\u2019re talking about butterflies. Can you talk normally after you had a fight, or are you completely wound up and agitated?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this way we will still pay attention to what is happening to him, but from the opposite side. Here everything depends on the educator; I cannot give you any formulas. But this has to be viewed from the point of view of pedagogy: To what extent can this influence one\u2019s analysis of oneself and the world? Maybe he should talk to us about butterflies now, after this fight he had on the street? Or perhaps it\u2019s to the contrary: to stir him away from his thoughts, which distracted the group and prevented him from joining it, we should give him some special task or role and make him a hero, thus manipulating him into a completely different state. Or, using his example, we can show how one incident has distracted all of us from our topic. Meaning, he has practically disrupted all of our plans. An educator should see all of this and decide.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
We have to enable every person to see himself from absolutely every angle, to come out of himself, to evaluate […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"parent":15997,"menu_order":0,"template":"","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}}},"topic":[27],"class_list":["post-15998","book","type-book","status-publish","hentry","topic-michael-laitman"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n