Woah I noticed I had a nebolous feeling that “backseat gaming” is very evil and spending time on it made it clear why.
I find that I am in a position to believe at certain dojo levels the teacher can not do anything “spoilery”, they will provide exactly 0 passwords. Which makes it challenging on whether they are teachers any more as they will not hand out knowledge.
I am imagining as the teacher that the proper reaction to recognising a student is about to / is making a mistake is to assign them a task that will require a skill that will rectify that mistake. The teachers check with reality is whether learning occurs and this is kind of stealth revelation, the teacher is predicitng the learning will happen while the student is clueless. If the setting is established then the student will know that the teachers advice will be information neutral. In order for the student to take heed of such a suggestion it needs to make sense at their current level of understanding ie they could have thought about itself and verify it as it is handed to them. The process can’t rely on the advice being true, yet it nudges the learning process. But would all nudges to a learning process be spoilers? No, they don’t need to be. A successfull nudge is a insignficant thing that turns out to have a signficant impact. Trolling without spoiling is fine.
An environment where you have succeeded against multiple challenges all under your own power will probably feel very empowering. Thus nothing can be done “for you”. Arranging that growth happens is to make the challenges and the right environments come about. Challenges can be technology delivery vectors and they can be value and aquirement proofs. Instead of getting a certifcate of wood breaking you break the wood and that is your growth milestone.
Woah I noticed I had a nebolous feeling that “backseat gaming” is very evil and spending time on it made it clear why.
I find that I am in a position to believe at certain dojo levels the teacher can not do anything “spoilery”, they will provide exactly 0 passwords. Which makes it challenging on whether they are teachers any more as they will not hand out knowledge.
I am imagining as the teacher that the proper reaction to recognising a student is about to / is making a mistake is to assign them a task that will require a skill that will rectify that mistake. The teachers check with reality is whether learning occurs and this is kind of stealth revelation, the teacher is predicitng the learning will happen while the student is clueless. If the setting is established then the student will know that the teachers advice will be information neutral. In order for the student to take heed of such a suggestion it needs to make sense at their current level of understanding ie they could have thought about itself and verify it as it is handed to them. The process can’t rely on the advice being true, yet it nudges the learning process. But would all nudges to a learning process be spoilers? No, they don’t need to be. A successfull nudge is a insignficant thing that turns out to have a signficant impact. Trolling without spoiling is fine.
An environment where you have succeeded against multiple challenges all under your own power will probably feel very empowering. Thus nothing can be done “for you”. Arranging that growth happens is to make the challenges and the right environments come about. Challenges can be technology delivery vectors and they can be value and aquirement proofs. Instead of getting a certifcate of wood breaking you break the wood and that is your growth milestone.