My take on the effects on teaching because of Covid-19

And now we're all right in the middle of the “Teaching in a digitized world” project, a project that Covid-19 forced on , and: in contrast to what most people have planned, a bit suddenly, with the entire college as an incredibly large “project group”, and maybe sometimes unprepared or involuntarily, but the current situation leaves us with not many options.

A lot will change as a result of this crisis. A global realignment will not only take place in learning - comparable to a "reset" of one computer system, in which the computer stands for our world. A lot has to reinvent itself and a lot won't be the same as before. It could be compared to online trade versus local trade. This change and increasing competition will also find their way into the education sector. For example, the discussion about making everyday life easier, such as the introduction of an electronic class book, must not last for years, but will surely be set aside for eventual upcoming similar circumstances.

In my opinion, the handling of individual and collective performance data, to optimize the personal learning portfolio, will in the future will be a competitive factor in educational mediation. A school of the future must not sit out the international changes here, but must look for the best way to follow its requirements, even under the worse conditions. There will always be alternatives everywhere. Not everyone will be able to go the same way anymore. Each school will have to reposition itself under the conditions on site and find appropriate, tailored offers, which must then be agreed upon under participants from the school teachers, politics, science and with the technology available. The challenge here is that the existence of these agreements will very likely be short lived due to constant new developments, but will surely stay as a “drawer option” to pull when needed.

Specifically, this means that the digital / personal school will continue to develop, but not only in a digital direction, but the “future” face-to-face mediation or things that we don't even know yet will point direction. So, we also have to be awake in the educational sector and watch and act attentively in all directions. Incidentally, this is also the principle of success of viruses if it wants to survive; we as humans need to be just one step ahead.

So, what can we say about the stated “new normal”? The “new normal” is a condition that becomes main stream, and that hasn’t been thought about before; maybe by philosophers, but surely not by any active thought to implement. When the TV was invented, it was the “new normal” to sit in front of it, for every evening, to watch the news, documentaries or movies. When the plane was invented, and became ripe for commercial use, it was our “new normal” to travel to far destinations, we would before take days or weeks to reach. As our world is becoming more global, not only good, bur specially people are moving faster around the earth. Next to all positive aspects, the downside is the rapid spread of diseases, that would have before stayed geographically local, and in the end, die out there.

The new digital world yet reverses our global movement as a downside, as people become stationary again, yet with one difference; they don’t have to wait for a letter to arrive 6 weeks later, but can receive electronic letters within a split second. Yet so many jobs also depend on mobility, and not just hundreds, but millions.

Maybe this crisis will make us think of combining the new with the old, hence finding a moderation, or a balance that keeps us as humans, the economy and the field of teaching healthy. We humans are herd animals, we depend on social contacts, the touch of another human, the non-verbal understanding and communication when standing or sitting face to face to each other.  Digital classes are an ideal trigger for all that schools and teachers want to avoid most; dishonesty, cheating and non-attendance.

Every crisis gives us new insights, new inspiration and solutions. As long as we think we can change and adapt. I am sure that all we do today will favor tomorrow.

By Thomas Fleckner

The Original 25th of December Celebrations

Before the onset of the New Year, people around the world would annually celebrate a festivity called Christmas.  And those folks who commemorate this event always think that this revelry was religious in nature, specifically a Christian one.  A lot of those Christians would adorn their homes and churches with decorations showing the diorama of Jesus’ birth, the man god whom the Christians worship.  And in some cases, people would even go as far as attend nine consecutive early morning religious masses in their churches in preparation for this spectacle.  But little did those people know that the December 25 celebrations did not start that way.  It was not even called Christmas in the first place.   So why and how did this event transform into what it is today?

According to the book 1001 Days That Shaped the World which was edited by Peter Furtado, the very first Christmas was celebrated on the 25th of December during the year 336.  If we follow the tradition that Jesus was born on 1 B.C.E., it would indicate that the Christians waited 336 years before they decided that Jesus was born on the 25th of December.  According to the book 1001 Days, a calendar compiled in the year 354 by one Furius Dionysius Filocalus, who was a leading Christian scribe and calligrapher, contains the following entry for the year 336: “VIII kal. Lan. Natus Christus in Betleem ludeae” (Eight days before the kalends of January, Birth of Christ in Bethlehem in Judea).  This is the very first definite indication that the Christians had fixed December 25 as the date of Jesus’ birth by the mid fourth century.  The Gospel writers of the bible make no mention of the time of year that Jesus was born.

So why would the fourth century Christians decide to choose December 25 as the birth of their man god?  What is so special about this date?  According again to the book 1001 Days, there are a number of probable explanations for the choice of December 25.  It was the date of the winter solstice and was already being celebrated in Rome as Sol Invictus (Unconquered Sun), a popular pagan holiday which is being celebrated during the Roman Era.  According to Wikipedia’s entry about Sol Invictus, the idea that Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Jesus on the 25th of December because this was the date of an already existing festival of the Sol Invictus was expressed in an annotation to a manuscript of a work by 12th-century Syrian bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi. The scribe who added it wrote: "It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25th of December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day."

So the next time you celebrate the 25th of December festivities, don’t be bothered by the claim that you are celebrating a Christian jubilee, because it was originally not.  It was the Sun’s birthday that the pagans celebrate because it was during December 22, 23 and 24 that the sun is at its farthest to the south, making the days darker and making the nights longer in the northern hemisphere, and after 3 days of being “dead”, the sun rises back again to the north on the 25th of December, bringing light and life again with its “crown of thorns”.  It was a pagan festivity that dates back even before the birth of Jesus, a festivity that celebrates life during the harsh winter times, which the Christians borrowed and eventually took as their own.

So for everyone out there, Happy Sol Invictus or Happy Winter Solstice!!!

By Roderick Tubil

Nudging - The 'other' way of mass manipulation

"Nudge or nudging is a concept in behavioural science, political theory and economics which argues that positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions to try to achieve non-forced compliance can influence the motives, incentives and decision making of groups and individuals, at least as effectively than direct instruction, legislation, or enforcement."

A non harmful example of nudging is the "fly" image placed into the urinal. Men tend to aim towards that fly, and therefore the result is that the user will leave the toilet clean. No punishment needs to be enforced, as it works with the human, in this case male instincts.

The more critical up to dangerous method is using it in politics. History has taught humans, that political regimes that stay in power through force, punishments and violence wont prosper. People can no longer be "fooled" with that method. So the new political main stream establishment is using the opposite method to succeed. "Here nudging is an aspect of the choice architecture that alters people's behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid. Nudges are not mandates. Putting fruit at eye level counts as a nudge. Banning junk food does not."

Let me put it in casual words: "Do it, because everybody does it, and because what few others do is not right, and if you follow that you will find yourself isolated and excluded from society! You don't want that right?"

The question is, that isn't this the real popularism, compared to the claimed popularism or the right opposition? Aren't in reality they the ones who declare what must or should be popular?

This method applies to the human basic needs, survival modes, emotions and fears. The danger of political nudging is, that it deludes people and projects away from facts.

The European example: "Imagine you were forced to leave your country and have the status of a refugee."

Sounds plausible at first sight. It triggers fear, emotions and sympathy, even the sudden identification with the situation. This "popular" stance now makes no difference between real refugees, asylum seekers, economical migrants or migrants with destructive intentions, like a religious coup d'etat. It even blends out the out of proportion and illogical showing of welcoming teddy bear and toy distribution towards 80 or more percent of the so called migrants being adult men, and by majority didn't even come from the Syrian war zone, or at least have passed through already safe countries they could have stayed in.

Although nudging holds no direct threat for punishment, it triggers the same fear by leaving an eventual consequence of punishment, even just imaginary; hence just enough to make people comply.

One of the first politicians to speak out on this phenomena was AfD Leader Frauke Petry. On the congress "Europe of nations and freedom" in Koblenz (Germany), where parties of similar nature met she said:"The present brain washing - Nudging - is much smarter than the former socialist propaganda." Mrs Petry was once citizen of the former GDR.

In reaction to the congress and Mrs Petry, Luxembourg's foreign minister Jean Asselborn said, he would go against a "Braun" Europe. Again we can see a typical form of nudging. Non of the new growing freedom parties are "brown" (Brown is used in regards to Nazi or fascist parties). The Dutch PVV, the German AfD and others are clear differentiated, and speak against totalitarianism, naziism or fascism, racism or homophobia. False labelling is a form of nudging, as there is no punishment in voting for freedom parties, but the same trigger mechanism on the human brain applied in the warning of voting for them. More subtle; the warning is not even direct, but indirect, but saying the following:

"We are turning away from a Braun Europe."

This triggers a fear as if it were already like that or near to be.

"We stand for a colourful, open and social engaged Europe of the 21st century."

This triggers a special value with exclusive couleur. It is yet not. Non of the freedom parties have ever said not to want a colourful, open and social engaged Europe of the 21st century.

By Thomas Fleckner

The human psychology on ones position - Radicalism

Radicalism is a result of oppression, suppression or isolation. It is the call for attention in regards to something misaligned or simply wrong. It is yet concerning to observe, that radicalism is too often set align with 'having a stance', opposing the mainstream, or being against something, politics or media has branded 'good. The labels are often irrational, or even invented.

Children are our best samples of applied psychology:

If a group of other children push or squeeze a fellow child into a corner, it may decide to use violent means, like scratch, bite or just scream. The same applies to children left alone or unattended; just to attract attention, it may also start to shout or cry, and in worse cases even start to attack others, just to be seen or heard. It sounds extreme and radical right? But in reality its not. Its just a reaction to an active or passive action.

In the adult world, we have more possibilities to show our position, frustration, opinion or stance. But compared to children, adults too often misuse this. During the process of learning, what is better or beneficiary for them, they project a position of themselves or others to fit their goals or 'politically correct' stance.  Rationality is only applied to the personal or community satisfaction of the mind set, rather than to the real life situation. Out of the sample of a child it would be as followed: A child scratches or bites because it is attacked. The attackers attack for a reason they declare valid among themselves. Projecting an adult mainstream mind into a child, this attack would look different. The attacker strikes, because he or she wants to show that the attacked scratches or bites. Provoking that reaction, enables them to point a finger at the attacked, declaring him or her violent or wrongly positioned.

Words have an extreme non-physical violent power. Lets look at some examples of aggressive and abusive language:

"You whore" or "you slut", are frequently used, even by society accepted, insults. These labels are given to people who may live an uncommitted life, have a very active sex life, are simply not liked due to the way of dressing, or even just having a certain opinion about certain things. Basically we can call this misogynistic behaviour, as men having an unsettle life are hardly called such way. A whore, or better a 'prostitute', can also be seen as an honourable job; a vulnerable service job, where you literally have to let your pants down. In many countries, this officially registered job, as reduced rape, sex based crimes, STD's; and on the other side increased tax income, business registrations, protection of the sex worker or employee and ensured health care through mandatory insurance.

So, this is an example, of where a certain group of people, degrade an honourable job to an insult.

People also use negative designated terms from the field of fantasy, myth or fairy tales.

"You're a devil" or "Go to hell", are frequently used condemnations or wished relocations. Again, it sounds radical on first sight, but once again, it is not. As the devil doesn't exist, the slur has no more meaning than telling someone "you're Darth Vader"; and in regards to 'hell', its as counter-offensive and irrelevant as telling someone to go to 'The Mushroom Kingdom' (From the Nintendo's Super Mario series).

"Your a far-right" or "your Islamophobic", are frequently used terms in the main stream media or in politics. These labels all sound more catching and makes people not want to be seen as such. As 'far-right' is happily used as a negative term, 'far-left' is either hard to be found, or ignored totally; left is basically portrayed as 'good' and 'right' as bad. In regards to Islamophobia, this is again an eye catching term, but completely false and non existing, as a phobia is a fear of something non threatening, or even irrational fear.

The final positioning to mention here is the self centred one. This placement hardly affects others, but is in denial of the self betraying destructive outcome. These stances are with psychological and even biological consequence.

By Thomas Fleckner