On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

> > Interestingly, I only recall you ever being polite and helpful.
>=20
> Thank you, but I have been gritting my teeth on numerous occasions when=20
> someone asked a question and expected each of the answerers to spend=20
> much more time in answering than he did in asking (and got away with=20
> it!!). In nearly all cases the asker got 'Olinized' before I could=20
> answer. My tone would probably have been somewhat milder than Olin's,=20
> but the basic attitude would be the same: if you expect help, then I am=20
> entitled to expect some basic work from your side. If not, I am entitled=
=20
> to say so.
>=20
> Maybe I am a bit less eager to respond to such questions because I get=20
> them on a daily basis (and I am payed to answer them - if I see fit even=
=20
> in a 'rude' way).
>=20
> > I'd presume that even in your classroom discipline sessions you aim at
> > something a bit less than purposeful maximum-humiliation
>=20
> I think everyone agrees that 'optimal humiliation' is the goal. But our=20
>   estimates of that optimum seem to differ widely.
>=20
> > don't seek to actively drive people off your courses, and that you
> > don't consider it a sign of success to have done so? No?
>=20
> That's a long story. We (the teachers) are expected (by our superiors)=20
> to reach a 80% (first year) or 85% (next years) 'pass' on each course.=20
> If not, we must 'improve' our lessons. As a consequence very few=20
> teachers dare to give low marks to the students who deserve them. But=20
> those teachers do the other teachers (and the other students) a big=20
> favor, because they help to eliminate the students who should not be in=20
> our school. I try to be hard on the students when needed, and use some=20
> creative bookkeeping to keep the management happy. There is some=20
> parallel with the list's situation.
>=20

Wouter, I've watched your interactions with other people and I have had=20
dealings with you myself and I'm sorry to say this but you do seem to be a=
=20
nice guy on the whole (sorry for the insult :-)

I can understand how constantly dealing with someone who doesn't actually=20
want to learn (maybe he's lazy or he is taking a course that he was pushed=
=20
into or he thought the course would actually be something other than it=20
actually is) would wear you down (even a saint probably). But the fact is=20
you don't just kick that guy the first time he opens his mouth and says=20
the wrong thing just because you have experience of other a*holes. You=20
give him the benefit of the doubt the first time. Maybe even the second=20
and third time while you try to assess whether there is a misunderstanding=
=20
between what you've said and what he has asked or produced in response to=20
what you have said. This seems to be the normal way things are done by=20
normal people. I would certainly not jump down 'jacks' throat because he=20
has produced a question which was coincidently produced by 'john' in=20
isolation in another class in another town some time ago.

Yes you might want to slightly humiliate someone as a form of punishment=20
because he has persistantly been late handing in his homework or because=20
he is constantly talking in class when you tell him to stop. But seriously=
=20
do you try to humiliate someone if you can see they are trying but just=20
not getting 'it'. I don't think you do, I think you're the kind of guy=20
that tries to understand where you are failing to connect and tries to put=
=20
things in a different way.

Regards
Sergio Masci
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.