More peace, in this discussion
Sandra Dodd
There have been a couple of instances lately where a new member posted too much too soon, and didn't like the response.
I don't suppose there is any magical way to get every new member to actually read the introductory material, but moderators have been discussing what might be done. We do that periodically. :-)
Another list that was very busy for many years was the UnschoolingDiscussion list. It was owned by Joyce Fetteroll, Pam Sorooshian and me (still is, but it's usually quiet).
This is the FAQ from that discussion. I thought some people who are interested in this problem or in how discussions are set up and managed in general might be interested.
http://sandradodd.com/lists/faq
I might adopt some of that for a faq for this discussion.
Any opinions about using the "read for two weeks" policy from that other discussion here? I didn't want to be so strict here, about how much to read. Right now it says (somewhere) to read a few dozen posts, before jumping in. Two weeks seems like a long time.
I don't want perfect, quiet peace all the time here, but jangly anger is too much. Defensive disagreements can be illuminating for bystanders and quieter newcomers, but I don't want to make new members unnecessarily unhappy.
The think people seem not to read is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/
Sandra
I don't suppose there is any magical way to get every new member to actually read the introductory material, but moderators have been discussing what might be done. We do that periodically. :-)
Another list that was very busy for many years was the UnschoolingDiscussion list. It was owned by Joyce Fetteroll, Pam Sorooshian and me (still is, but it's usually quiet).
This is the FAQ from that discussion. I thought some people who are interested in this problem or in how discussions are set up and managed in general might be interested.
http://sandradodd.com/lists/faq
I might adopt some of that for a faq for this discussion.
Any opinions about using the "read for two weeks" policy from that other discussion here? I didn't want to be so strict here, about how much to read. Right now it says (somewhere) to read a few dozen posts, before jumping in. Two weeks seems like a long time.
I don't want perfect, quiet peace all the time here, but jangly anger is too much. Defensive disagreements can be illuminating for bystanders and quieter newcomers, but I don't want to make new members unnecessarily unhappy.
The think people seem not to read is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/
Sandra
Alyson
Sandra,
I've been reading AlwaysLearning since April 2012. Not too long after first joining AL, I had become frustrated by something posted here (can't remember the specifics now) and had the urge to jump into the discussion. But I was a newbie, and didn't want to give in to the urge to jump in quite yet, plus I was frustrated by the thread, and that wouldn't have been helpful for the discussion. So not too long after first joining the list, I chose to click "Leave This Group"... but Yahoo continued to send the daily digests to my inbox. I simply kept reading those daily digests (without the easy-click ability to join any discussion.) So I continued to read along with the daily digests, and I read your Big Book of Unschooling, and I added Just Add Light to my inbox as well (I also found that to be a helpful/gentle reminder to be sweeter/be their partner.)
I officially "rejoined" your list tonight, so I could post this response. Nothing is different for me, except I now have activated full access to post as an active member again. If I'm not mistaken, this the first time I've ever posted here. However, probably just like many hundreds/thousands of your other not-so-new list members, it isn't the first time I've been *tempted* to post.
Your welcome message and guidelines for the group seem very clear and acceptable. And they make sense, especially given the nature of what this list is about. Your reminder to "read a little, try a little, wait a while, watch" is what kept me from falling into the old pattern of being over-reactionary when I was a new member. You clearly state that this is not a social network, unfortunately I agree that many new members simply don't read the guidelines. (There is so much to learn... take some time, take a breath.)
For months now, I spend careful time each day reading this AL digest. I'm hooked, I look forward to it with my coffee, and it's working for me. But I must say, I can often sniff out the newbies who probably didn't read those guidelines. And with their posts, I smile, and sigh, and say "here we go...!"
-- So in that light, no I don't think a week or two is a long time to adhere to the moderators' request of not posting. I think your FAQ link was helpful to read. Read, read, read! -- There is so much in your archives that can answer so very much if the time is taken to dig, to listen, to read for a while. I still fall down the rabbit hole of your website, reading old threads and following links that answer tons of questions.
With that said, as mildly annoying as I find some of the repeated/offended remarks, and there does seem to be quite a bit lately, it all serves as a reminder of how very much there is to learn about clear communication and about clarifying one's understanding of unschooling.
During my first few months of reading here, it was those same kind of defensive/confused remarks and disagreements that were actually helpful to observe. At the very least, I learned what was acceptable on this list. The occasional hurt/confused/push-back discussion can actually serve as a learning tool and another way to help clarify how all of this works. It is just when it happens over and over that it makes me want to gloss over those discussions (even though I know I may miss some golden nugget of wisdom in there somewhere.)
I've been reading AlwaysLearning since April 2012. Not too long after first joining AL, I had become frustrated by something posted here (can't remember the specifics now) and had the urge to jump into the discussion. But I was a newbie, and didn't want to give in to the urge to jump in quite yet, plus I was frustrated by the thread, and that wouldn't have been helpful for the discussion. So not too long after first joining the list, I chose to click "Leave This Group"... but Yahoo continued to send the daily digests to my inbox. I simply kept reading those daily digests (without the easy-click ability to join any discussion.) So I continued to read along with the daily digests, and I read your Big Book of Unschooling, and I added Just Add Light to my inbox as well (I also found that to be a helpful/gentle reminder to be sweeter/be their partner.)
I officially "rejoined" your list tonight, so I could post this response. Nothing is different for me, except I now have activated full access to post as an active member again. If I'm not mistaken, this the first time I've ever posted here. However, probably just like many hundreds/thousands of your other not-so-new list members, it isn't the first time I've been *tempted* to post.
Your welcome message and guidelines for the group seem very clear and acceptable. And they make sense, especially given the nature of what this list is about. Your reminder to "read a little, try a little, wait a while, watch" is what kept me from falling into the old pattern of being over-reactionary when I was a new member. You clearly state that this is not a social network, unfortunately I agree that many new members simply don't read the guidelines. (There is so much to learn... take some time, take a breath.)
For months now, I spend careful time each day reading this AL digest. I'm hooked, I look forward to it with my coffee, and it's working for me. But I must say, I can often sniff out the newbies who probably didn't read those guidelines. And with their posts, I smile, and sigh, and say "here we go...!"
-- So in that light, no I don't think a week or two is a long time to adhere to the moderators' request of not posting. I think your FAQ link was helpful to read. Read, read, read! -- There is so much in your archives that can answer so very much if the time is taken to dig, to listen, to read for a while. I still fall down the rabbit hole of your website, reading old threads and following links that answer tons of questions.
With that said, as mildly annoying as I find some of the repeated/offended remarks, and there does seem to be quite a bit lately, it all serves as a reminder of how very much there is to learn about clear communication and about clarifying one's understanding of unschooling.
During my first few months of reading here, it was those same kind of defensive/confused remarks and disagreements that were actually helpful to observe. At the very least, I learned what was acceptable on this list. The occasional hurt/confused/push-back discussion can actually serve as a learning tool and another way to help clarify how all of this works. It is just when it happens over and over that it makes me want to gloss over those discussions (even though I know I may miss some golden nugget of wisdom in there somewhere.)
Sandra Dodd
-=-I still fall down the rabbit hole of your website, reading old threads and following links that answer tons of questions.-=-
I do too. Sometimes I start to look for something in the archives and end up finding something else and thinking "This stuff is GOLDEN!" There are some really good writers here, and I'm deeply grateful for the time people take to help others here.
While I'm sorry yahoo didn't stop sending you digests when you wanted them to stop, I'm glad you came to enjoy them!
Thanks for sharing your story. It's interesting. :-)
Sandra
I do too. Sometimes I start to look for something in the archives and end up finding something else and thinking "This stuff is GOLDEN!" There are some really good writers here, and I'm deeply grateful for the time people take to help others here.
While I'm sorry yahoo didn't stop sending you digests when you wanted them to stop, I'm glad you came to enjoy them!
Thanks for sharing your story. It's interesting. :-)
Sandra
Virginia Warren
Sandra wrote:
-=-
Any opinions about using the "read for two weeks" policy from that other
discussion here? I didn't want to be so strict here, about how much to
read. Right now it says (somewhere) to read a few dozen posts, before
jumping in. Two weeks seems like a long time.
I don't want perfect, quiet peace all the time here, but jangly anger is
too much. Defensive disagreements can be illuminating for bystanders and
quieter newcomers, but I don't want to make new members unnecessarily
unhappy.
-=-
I think people bring their own meanness to the list. Being full of meanness
is a terrible way to live. When you're angry, anything that passes through
your consciousness can be misidentified as the �cause� of your anger. Then
Sandra, or Joyce, or Pam or anyone points out you're being mean to your
child, or your partner, or even yourself, and you feel bad, and you
incorrectly identify the source of your bad feeling as someone being �mean�
to you...by pointing out that you are being mean.
The full cup metaphor is mentioned often here. It is a really useful tool.
When somebody comes here with their cup full of poison, they sometimes get
it slapped out of their hand. The list leaders assume, since you came here
of your own free will, that you want to, y'know, stop drinking poison. This
is the opposite of mean. If someone pushes you out of the path of a
speeding truck, do you get up and harangue them about your scuffed shoe?
Turns out, yeah, some people do. Hopefully, next time, we do better.
I have posted some super-weak stuff on this list. I'm so embarrassed I
can't even stand to re-read it yet. I'd like to invite my husband to join
the list but I'm mortified to have him read what I wrote. Whoops. I learned
a lot anyway. I felt bad and sad and mean after reading what was written in
response to me. It helped me tremendously. Not feeling bad in itself, but
the bad feeling is the information that tells you where you're going wrong,
like the pain that tells you to get the sand out of your eye, or your hand
out of the fire. I've been able to make my life much better since Sandra
was �mean� to me, and when I can explain why, I'll be able to give advice
on the list.
I don't see how any of this can be changed by changing the rules of the
list. Whatever amount of time you ask people to wait before posting, some
people will decide it doesn't apply to them. I think anyone who comes to
the list so panicky that two weeks seems like too long to wait before
posting is going to post anger and fear. I can certainly understand if the
list leaders are weary of it, but watching someone sort out their anger in
public can be highly instructive. Maybe the newbie required reading could
include some of the �best of the worst� of people freaking out in public
here on the list. And a warning like, if you're about to post something
like this, don't.
Virginia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-=-
Any opinions about using the "read for two weeks" policy from that other
discussion here? I didn't want to be so strict here, about how much to
read. Right now it says (somewhere) to read a few dozen posts, before
jumping in. Two weeks seems like a long time.
I don't want perfect, quiet peace all the time here, but jangly anger is
too much. Defensive disagreements can be illuminating for bystanders and
quieter newcomers, but I don't want to make new members unnecessarily
unhappy.
-=-
I think people bring their own meanness to the list. Being full of meanness
is a terrible way to live. When you're angry, anything that passes through
your consciousness can be misidentified as the �cause� of your anger. Then
Sandra, or Joyce, or Pam or anyone points out you're being mean to your
child, or your partner, or even yourself, and you feel bad, and you
incorrectly identify the source of your bad feeling as someone being �mean�
to you...by pointing out that you are being mean.
The full cup metaphor is mentioned often here. It is a really useful tool.
When somebody comes here with their cup full of poison, they sometimes get
it slapped out of their hand. The list leaders assume, since you came here
of your own free will, that you want to, y'know, stop drinking poison. This
is the opposite of mean. If someone pushes you out of the path of a
speeding truck, do you get up and harangue them about your scuffed shoe?
Turns out, yeah, some people do. Hopefully, next time, we do better.
I have posted some super-weak stuff on this list. I'm so embarrassed I
can't even stand to re-read it yet. I'd like to invite my husband to join
the list but I'm mortified to have him read what I wrote. Whoops. I learned
a lot anyway. I felt bad and sad and mean after reading what was written in
response to me. It helped me tremendously. Not feeling bad in itself, but
the bad feeling is the information that tells you where you're going wrong,
like the pain that tells you to get the sand out of your eye, or your hand
out of the fire. I've been able to make my life much better since Sandra
was �mean� to me, and when I can explain why, I'll be able to give advice
on the list.
I don't see how any of this can be changed by changing the rules of the
list. Whatever amount of time you ask people to wait before posting, some
people will decide it doesn't apply to them. I think anyone who comes to
the list so panicky that two weeks seems like too long to wait before
posting is going to post anger and fear. I can certainly understand if the
list leaders are weary of it, but watching someone sort out their anger in
public can be highly instructive. Maybe the newbie required reading could
include some of the �best of the worst� of people freaking out in public
here on the list. And a warning like, if you're about to post something
like this, don't.
Virginia
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=- The list leaders assume, since you came here
of your own free will, that you want to, y'know, stop drinking poison. This
is the opposite of mean.-=-
That made me laugh, and that was fun. :-)
-=I don't see how any of this can be changed by changing the rules of the
list. Whatever amount of time you ask people to wait before posting, some
people will decide it doesn't apply to them.-=-
I think you're right! There's a fable about a walled orchard, and the farmer sees that the birds just barely skim the wall when they come in to eat fruit, so he calculates that if he builds the wall a foot higher, the birds will run right into it. They don't.
I think no matter how many more rules we make, the people who ignore them will skim the wall and get on in.
-=-Maybe the newbie required reading could
include some of the ‰best of the worst‰ of people freaking out in public
here on the list. And a warning like, if you're about to post something
like this, don't.-=-
I will certainly consider that. :-)
Thanks!
Sandra
of your own free will, that you want to, y'know, stop drinking poison. This
is the opposite of mean.-=-
That made me laugh, and that was fun. :-)
-=I don't see how any of this can be changed by changing the rules of the
list. Whatever amount of time you ask people to wait before posting, some
people will decide it doesn't apply to them.-=-
I think you're right! There's a fable about a walled orchard, and the farmer sees that the birds just barely skim the wall when they come in to eat fruit, so he calculates that if he builds the wall a foot higher, the birds will run right into it. They don't.
I think no matter how many more rules we make, the people who ignore them will skim the wall and get on in.
-=-Maybe the newbie required reading could
include some of the ‰best of the worst‰ of people freaking out in public
here on the list. And a warning like, if you're about to post something
like this, don't.-=-
I will certainly consider that. :-)
Thanks!
Sandra
Irena Quitzau
Sandra: -=-
Any opinions about using the "read for two weeks" policy from that other
discussion here? I didn't want to be so strict here, about how much to
read. Right now it says (somewhere) to read a few dozen posts, before
jumping in. Two weeks seems like a long time.
I don't want perfect, quiet peace all the time here, but jangly anger is too
much...-=-
In some ways I think that two weeks would be a long time especially if
it is a situation that requires immediate feedback.
As a newbie I have benefited tremendously from the back and forth that
happens when something is posted that requires more clarification... I
feel like I have a greater appreciation for what unschooling is and
is-not and I am grateful for the opportunity to listen to the voices
of wisdom and experience.
I am still not prepared to call myself a radical unschooler (that is
what I aspire to) because it would be an insult to those that have
been doing it with such intentionality and purpose for so long. I am
getting closer, though, and that is a good thing: for my children, for
my marriage (and also for myself).
Irena MQ
Any opinions about using the "read for two weeks" policy from that other
discussion here? I didn't want to be so strict here, about how much to
read. Right now it says (somewhere) to read a few dozen posts, before
jumping in. Two weeks seems like a long time.
I don't want perfect, quiet peace all the time here, but jangly anger is too
much...-=-
In some ways I think that two weeks would be a long time especially if
it is a situation that requires immediate feedback.
As a newbie I have benefited tremendously from the back and forth that
happens when something is posted that requires more clarification... I
feel like I have a greater appreciation for what unschooling is and
is-not and I am grateful for the opportunity to listen to the voices
of wisdom and experience.
I am still not prepared to call myself a radical unschooler (that is
what I aspire to) because it would be an insult to those that have
been doing it with such intentionality and purpose for so long. I am
getting closer, though, and that is a good thing: for my children, for
my marriage (and also for myself).
Irena MQ
Sandra Dodd
-=-In some ways I think that two weeks would be a long time especially if
it is a situation that requires immediate feedback.-=-
"Requires" is a strong word to use.
If someone is wholly unfamiliar with radical unschooling, radical unschooling advice sounds wrong and crazy, and the people argue with it.
Situations don't "require" anything.
No one here is "required" to respond to questions.
"Require" is "have to" with a report to make at the end.
"Require" is the word Marty used when he was young and whining about food and I asked him to say it without whining. He stood up like a marine and said in his marine-est voice "Mother, I ReQuire Food NOW."
"Require" is an if/then. If the state requires a report, they're saying "It's okay with us that you fulfill the state's compulsory attendance law by having school at home." If a hotel requires a credit card and license plate number, they're saying "If you want to stay here and leave your car outside, we want this information."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
it is a situation that requires immediate feedback.-=-
"Requires" is a strong word to use.
If someone is wholly unfamiliar with radical unschooling, radical unschooling advice sounds wrong and crazy, and the people argue with it.
Situations don't "require" anything.
No one here is "required" to respond to questions.
"Require" is "have to" with a report to make at the end.
"Require" is the word Marty used when he was young and whining about food and I asked him to say it without whining. He stood up like a marine and said in his marine-est voice "Mother, I ReQuire Food NOW."
"Require" is an if/then. If the state requires a report, they're saying "It's okay with us that you fulfill the state's compulsory attendance law by having school at home." If a hotel requires a credit card and license plate number, they're saying "If you want to stay here and leave your car outside, we want this information."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Irena Quitzau
-=-"Requires" is a strong word to use...-=-
Yes it is! Thank you for pointing that out. It is part of the old
paradigm along with: need to, have to, never, always, no choice,...
that I am learning to replace...
Irena MQ
Yes it is! Thank you for pointing that out. It is part of the old
paradigm along with: need to, have to, never, always, no choice,...
that I am learning to replace...
Irena MQ
Jenny Cyphers
***In some ways I think that two weeks would be a long time especially if
it is a situation that requires immediate feedback.***
If you have a situation that requires feedback, it's very likely it's been discussed before and can be found in an archive search! This is one of the reasons for a 2 week waiting period. It's twofold, you get to read and discover the flavor of the group and see that most questions have been answered many times in the past. It's not that people don't like to re-answer questions, because they do, otherwise they wouldn't be here to answer them, it's just more useful to answer questions when the questioner has done a bit of research as well.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
it is a situation that requires immediate feedback.***
If you have a situation that requires feedback, it's very likely it's been discussed before and can be found in an archive search! This is one of the reasons for a 2 week waiting period. It's twofold, you get to read and discover the flavor of the group and see that most questions have been answered many times in the past. It's not that people don't like to re-answer questions, because they do, otherwise they wouldn't be here to answer them, it's just more useful to answer questions when the questioner has done a bit of research as well.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-It's not that people don't like to re-answer questions, because they do, otherwise they wouldn't be here to answer them, it's just more useful to answer questions when the questioner has done a bit of research as well.-=-
Right. I'm sure in a discussion of artists making their own paint, they would much rather answer questions about lapis lazuli and cobalt than "So is there more than one kind of blue?" or "Is all blue made of ground stone?" Or at least those questions should be answered by furnishing a link, which the questioner should be willing (eager, grateful) to go and read.
One person, when I sent her a link, said that if she wanted to just read, she would have bought a book. There wasn't a book in the world in those days that had this kind of information, but it was really rude. And even here, people are "just reading." I think what she meant was that she wanted to be heard. She wanted to express herself in detail, and have others really care, and respond just to her, individually, as though she were the only new unschooler there ever had been.
Someone might feel the need to be heard, but it's unlikely there will be many others with the need to read what they've read twenty or two hundred times before. So those asking the questions have even more reason (whether they know it or not) to be polite when they come asking for free and priceless assistance.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Right. I'm sure in a discussion of artists making their own paint, they would much rather answer questions about lapis lazuli and cobalt than "So is there more than one kind of blue?" or "Is all blue made of ground stone?" Or at least those questions should be answered by furnishing a link, which the questioner should be willing (eager, grateful) to go and read.
One person, when I sent her a link, said that if she wanted to just read, she would have bought a book. There wasn't a book in the world in those days that had this kind of information, but it was really rude. And even here, people are "just reading." I think what she meant was that she wanted to be heard. She wanted to express herself in detail, and have others really care, and respond just to her, individually, as though she were the only new unschooler there ever had been.
Someone might feel the need to be heard, but it's unlikely there will be many others with the need to read what they've read twenty or two hundred times before. So those asking the questions have even more reason (whether they know it or not) to be polite when they come asking for free and priceless assistance.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Virginia Warren
On Jan 17, 2013 1:43 PM, "Sandra Dodd" <Sandra@...> wrote:
-=-
> That made me laugh, and that was fun. :-)
-=-
*PREEN* Uh oh, gotta go deschool.
-=-
> I think no matter how many more rules we make, the people who ignore them
will skim the wall and get on in.
-=-
Not only that, there are people who honestly believe they are following the
rules. They pass their eyeballs over the text, and they've �read� it. I
think it's deschooling again. It could be a learning styles thing. Some
people can't just read it and know it. It has to happen to them.
Furthermore, anybody joining the list is probably developing some
idiosyncratic ideas about rules, in general, already.
Perhaps a change in the focus of the rule would make a stronger impression
than another identical "wait two weeks" rule as seen on any other list. One
idea: "work on your first post for two weeks before submitting it." If your
post is no longer relevant in two weeks, do you want it preserved in
writing, in public? Even two *hours* of contemplation could save a lot of
regret. I think that is what you are trying to get at that with your "ALL
posts should be: honest, proofread, sincere, clear". I think it is likely
that even people who write dreadful, embarassing posts *still* really
believe they are doing all these things.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Meredith
> Not only that, there are people who honestly believe they are following theI think it's a kind of introvert/extravert thing, but with a twist for online behavior. In face to face situations, introverts will often observe for a while before joining in while extraverts will jump into the middle of things and learn about people and situation from the middle, as it were. Even though I'm mostly an introvert irl, online I tend to want to jump into the middle - which can "work" in that I can get a sense of how well I fit into a group, but doesn't work nearly as well if I do something gauche right away. Then all I get is a sense of how the group responds to a troll. Woops.
> rules. They pass their eyeballs over the text, and they've "read" it. I
> think it's deschooling again. It could be a learning styles thing. Some
> people can't just read it and know it. It has to happen to them.
> > I think no matter how many more rules we make, the people who ignore themAnother factor is that by the time some people learn about unschooling, they've been fighting for a long time - fighting their own parents, schools, and other authorities as a child and teen, fighting schools and authorities over their own child's needs, maybe fighting friends and families who are telling them they're crazy and irresponsible for wanting to homeschool. So they come to the group with a chip on their shoulders, ready to fight against anything which seems to be another rule.
> will skim the wall and get on in.
---Meredith
Sandra Dodd
-=-Another factor is that by the time some people learn about unschooling, they've been fighting for a long time - fighting their own parents, schools, and other authorities as a child and teen, fighting schools and authorities over their own child's needs, maybe fighting friends and families who are telling them they're crazy and irresponsible for wanting to homeschool. So they come to the group with a chip on their shoulders, ready to fight against anything which seems to be another rule. -=-
Good point.
And some subset of the people who take their kids out of school do so because they don't play well with others and haven't figured out how to help their kids to do so.
And some who usually do have good social skills are afraid, exhausted or near tears by the time they find us.
It's not that I don't sympathize with the exhaustion and apprehension, it's just that the discussion isn't about each family's details. It's about unschooling's details.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Good point.
And some subset of the people who take their kids out of school do so because they don't play well with others and haven't figured out how to help their kids to do so.
And some who usually do have good social skills are afraid, exhausted or near tears by the time they find us.
It's not that I don't sympathize with the exhaustion and apprehension, it's just that the discussion isn't about each family's details. It's about unschooling's details.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]