To Daniel
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:12 pm
Subject: To Daniel
Daniel if you don't mind I'd like to redirect
your attention to some questions I asked you before we began
the now-aborted discussion of how I form my opinions. (Listen
closely now, `cus Peter Staudenmaier isn't here, and I've never
had a discussion with him about left- handedness, so please don't
change the subject to Peter again.)
I wrote previously and am still curious whether
you have knowledge or opinions on these topics:
It would be a
lot more interesting to me if you had any actual information,
Daniel, or even suggestions, on why Steiner may have spoken "against
science" on the treatment of the left-handed. Is there any
evidence, anywhere, of any sort, to your knowledge, that Steiner
knew anything about handedness, causes of, effects of,
indications or contra-indications for remediation, methods of
remediation, psychological effects on children thereof, etc.?
(For instance, for a long time it was thought that switching
left-handers might cause stuttering. This theory also has now
been discredited.) Did Steiner have anything to contribute
on this topic? Did Steiner have any qualifications to contribute
to a discussion of handedness? Where did he get his degree in
neuropsychology or even teacher training? (Did he ever say anything
else on handedness, laterality, brain hemispheric dominance,
etc., that is now taken seriously by scientists? not to my knowledge)
How many left-handed children did Steiner observe? How many right-handed
children did Steiner observe, and how did he reach his conclusion
that they differed spiritually from left-handed children? Did
he ever, even once, work with a child personally to switch their
hands? What reason is there to believe that he did not just shoot
his mouth off when some Waldorf teacher asked him his opinion
about left-handed children?
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:36 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Daniel
Diana,
The question of the pedagogical treatment
of left-handed children is one on which I do not feel qualified
to offer an expert opinion. I have noted that you've examined
the issue in quite some depth, and certainly do not feel called
upon to criticize your opinions from any sort of expert background.
Since you have asked for my opinions I will offer them such as
they are.
For clarity's sake I find helpful to separate
the argument to parts:
1. What indications did Rudolf Steiner give
concerning left-handed children?
2. How has this been taken up subsequently
in Waldorf education?
3. Do subsequent advances in the neuroscience
contradict either Steiner or subsequent Waldorf educators?
To the first point, it should be noted that,
in as far as I have been able to determine, what Steiner said
at that point in time when he said it did not contradict the
science of his day. So in the narrower sense it is not accurate
to say that Steiner spoke "against science" in his
indications. At best to it can be said that further advances
in scientific understanding have subsequently corrected Steiner's
indications. If this were true, Steiner would still stand in
the quite illustrious company, as the contributions of many leading
thinkers have subsequently been amended as new research adds
to the sum of human knowledge. And for the record, I am not among
those who subscribe to the theory of the infallibility of Steiner.
What indications did Rudolf Steiner give
concerning left-handed children?
As far as I have been able to determine, the
entire statements of Rudolf Steiner on left-handedness come from
three sources: the two volumes (in English, four volumes in the
original German) of Faculty Conferences, and the lecture cycle
The Renewal of Education. All are currently available from www.anthropress.com. (As
a side note, the source sited for the quote on the PLANS website
identifies the wrong volume - the quote is from Faculty Conferences,
and is not the book The Renewal of Education. This appears to
be due to a careless cut-and-paste from a page that was previously
available at www.bobandnancy.com).
I will quote these statements of Steiner below:
Conferences with Waldorf
School Teachers (GA 300a,b,c)
Translated by Robert F. Lathe and Nancy Parsons Whittaker
June 14, 1920
A teacher asks about left-handed
writing.
Dr. Steiner: In general, you will find that those
children who have spiritual tendencies can write with either
the left or right hand without trouble, but those children with
materialistic tendencies will become addled if they are allowed
to write with both hands. Right-handedness occurs for a reason.
In this materialistic age, left-handed children will become addled
if they use both hands alternately. Under certain circumstances,
that is something very questionable to do, particularly in things
related to reasoning but it is not a problem in drawing. You
can allow the children to draw with both hands.
May 10, 1922
A music teacher asks about
working with both hands in the beginning piano class.
Dr. Steiner: That is a very good question. Left-handedness
is easily corrected through piano practice. We need to keep that
in mind. Left-handedness should always be corrected. However,
we should pay attention to the temperament of the child. Thus,
we should give preference to the right hand with melancholics.
You will easily find they have a tendency to play with the left
hand. With cholerics, you should give preference to the left
hand. With phlegmatics, you should see that they use both hands
in balance, and the same is the case for sanguine children. That
is what is important and should be the goal.
It is also advantageous, if
you attempt as far as possible to see that the children do not
have a mere mechanical feeling about piano playing, but that
they also learn to "feel" the keys. They should learn
for themselves the different positions on the piano, above and
below, right and left. It is also good, at least at the beginning,
to have the children play without written music.
May 25, 1923
A teacher: Should the children be broken of
left-handedness?
Dr. Steiner: In general, yes. At the younger ages,
approximately before the age of nine, you can accustom left-handed
children to right-handedness at school. You should not do that
only if it would have a damaging effect, which is very seldom
the case. Children are not a sum of things, but exponentially
complicated. If you attempt to create symmetry between the right
and left with the children, and you exercise both hands in balance,
that can lead to weak mindedness later in life.
The phenomenon of left-handedness
is clearly karmic, and, in connection with karma, it is one of
karmic weakness. Allow me to give an example: A person who was
overworked in their previous life, so that they did too much,
not only physically or intellectually, but, in general, spiritually,
within their soul or feeling, will enter the succeeding life
with an intense weakness. That person will be incapable of overcoming
the karmic weakness located in the lower human being. (The part
of the human being that results from the life between death and
a new birth is particularly concentrated in the lower human being,
whereas the part that comes from the previous Earthly life is
concentrated more in the head.) Thus, what would otherwise be
strongly developed becomes weak, and the left leg and left hand
are particularly relied upon as a crutch. The preference for
the left hand results in a situation where, instead of the left,
the right side of thebrain is used in speech.
If you give into that too
much, then that weakness may perhaps remain for a later, that
is, a third Earthly life. If you do not give in, then the weakness
is brought into balance.
If you make a child do everything
equally well with the right and left hand, writing, drawing,
work and so forth, then the inner human being will be neutralized.
Then the I and the astral body are so far removed that the person
becomes quite lethargic later in life. Without any intervention,
the etheric body is stronger toward the left than the right,
and the astral body is more developed toward the right than the
left. That is something you may not ignore; you should pay attention
to that. However, we may not attempt a simple mechanical balance.
The most naive thing you can do is to have as a goal that the
children should work with both hands equally well. A desire for
a balanced development of both hands arises from today's complete
misunderstanding of the nature of the human being.
The Renewal of Education
(GA 301)
Translated by Robert F. Lathe
and Nancy Parsons Whittaker
May 7, 1920
[The following remarks were
made by Rudolf Steiner during a series of lectures to an audience
of public school teachers in Basel, Switzerland. The remarks
deal primarily with the question of ambidexterity.]
Now I come to a question I
have often been asked and that has some significance, namely,
the question of left-handedness or ambidexterity.
Right-handedness has become
general human habit that we use for writing and other tasks.
It is certainly appropriate to extend that by making the left
hand, in a sense, more dexterous. That has a certain justification.
When we discuss such things, however, our discussion will bear
fruit only if we have some deeper insight into the conditions
of human life. When we move into a period in which the entire
human being should be awakened, when we move into a period in
which, in addition to the capacities for abstraction that are
so well developed today, the feeling for culture and a capacity
to feel as well as act would play a role, we will be able to
speak quite differently about many questions than we can now.
If education continues as it is today, so that people are always
stuck in abstractions (materialism is precisely what is stuck
in abstractions) and education does not help us to understand
the material through the spiritual then, after a time, you will
become convinced that teaching people to use both hands for writing
will trap them in a kind of mental weakness. That results in
part from how we are today as human beings, and how we presently
use the right hand to a much greater extent than the left. The
fact that the whole human being is not completely symmetrically
formed also plays a part, particularly in regard to certain organs.
When we use both hands to write, for example, this has a deep
effect upon the entire human organism.
I would not speak about such
things had I not done considerable research in this area and
had I not tried, for example, to understand what it means to
use the left hand. When people develop a capacity for observing
the human being, they will be able to determine through experimenting
what it means to use the left hand. When human beings reach a
certain level of independence of the spirit and soul from the
physical body, it is good to use the left hand; but the dependence
of modern people upon the physical body causes a tremendous revolution
in the physical body itself when the left hand is used in the
same manner, for example, in writing, as the right. One of the
most important points in this regard is that this would stress
the right side of the body, the right side of the brain, beyond
what modern people can normally tolerate. When people have been
taught according to the methods and educational principles we
have discussed here, then they may also be ambidextrous. In modern
society, we may not simply go on to using both hands. These are
things I can say from experience. Statistics would certainly
support what I have said today.
First I should note that anyone who considers
the spirit to be invented by wishful thinkers and karma to be
a silly joke will of course give no weight at all to any of the
reasons Steiner gave for his views of left handedness.
To focus only on the practical recommendations,
Steiner recommended:
1. Under certain circumstances it may be permissible
to allow children to draw with both hands.
2. Piano practice can "easily correct"
left-handedness. (It becomes clear in the subsequent paragraph
that what Steiner means by this is that it is not possible to
play the piano properly with a clear dominance of one hand, and
he does not appear to be addressing writing at all; he is addressing
lateral dominance issues.)
3. If it would not have a damaging effect,
he strongly recommends that children under the age of nine should
be encouraged to write and draw with their right hand, a.k.a.
"cured" of left-handedness.
4. Any thought of forcing all children to
be ambidextrous is dangerous. Likewise, leaving a child naturally
ambidextrous is also not good. The dominance of one side, preferably
the right, is important.
So it is fair to say that Steiner recommended
attempting to switch the writing hand of left-hand dominant children
with the following qualifications: the child had to be under
nine years of age, and the attempt could be made only if it would
not cause any harm (note the adherence to the physicians Hippocratic
oath: First, do no harm).
How has this been taken up subsequently
in Waldorf education?
It is not really possible to answer this question
completely. Waldorf education is a movement of independent entities
that exists on five continents. There is considerable variation
even between schools in the same city, to say nothing of different
continents. Further, attitudes and understandings change over
time, due to personal and cultural biases, as well as - yes,
even advances in scientific and pedagogical understanding. While
not in the majority, there are quite a few people with advanced
degrees in Education within the Waldorf movement, and contemporary
research and techniques are widely discussed and integrated (for
example, Dwyer's Self-Theories, Goleman's emotional intelligence,
Gardner's multiple intelligences, Piaget and Vygotsky's stages
of child development, Montessori, Dewey and Ericson, are all
taught in at least one teacher training institute). So there
will be no single answer to how left-handed children are viewed
in all Waldorf schools.
It is certainly true that a narrow reading
of a few sentences of Steiner's opinions above has caused more
than one Waldorf educator over the years to force switching.
A more responsible position has been elaborate by Sonia Setzer,
an MD working with anthroposophical methods as school doctor
at the Escola Rudolf Steiner de São Paulo, Brazil. As
reported by Valdemar Setzer:
Steiner says that left-handedness
has karmic reasons and recommends that one stimulate the child
to become right-handed, up to age 9, but only for automatic activities
- writing and eating - nothing else.
In Sonia's opinion, followed
by our school, when there is no consensus of all the people who
take care of the child (teachers, parents, doctors (school and
private), and therapists) nothing should be done to correct left-handedness.
If the child is less than
nine years old, and there a consensus of all those people, our
school tries to stimulate the child to write (and only to write)
with his or her right hand. If a laterality test shows that the
child is totally left-sided (eyes, ears, hands and feet), he
or she should do all other activities (aside from writing) with
the left hand. If the child has a cross-laterality (some organs
are right-sided, others are left), exercises and eventually therapy
is recommended, so he or she may acquire a brain-dominance. There
are curative Eurythmy exercises that may help in this issue.
Setzer's opinion is shared by all the anthroposophical
MD's (including Michaela Glockler, MD) that I have ever talked
with, as well as virtually every leading proponent of Waldorf
education. The dominant (pardon the pun) understanding in the
movement today is that Waldorf education is a partnership between
parents and teachers. (This is not to say that you will never
find teachers who think they know everything better, nor is this
to say that his has always been the case everywhere). As such,
any pedagogical or therapeutic treatment of any child for any
reason should be discussed with the parents, and only undertaken
with the parents understanding and consent. Do no harm is the
guiding principle. If any Waldorf parent feels that they are
not being taken into consideration by their child's teacher,
I encourage them to discuss this with that teacher and possibly
other representatives of the school. And if they feel that the
school is a harmful influence on their children, I would encourage
them to take their child out of the school.
Do subsequent advances in neuroscience
contradict either Steiner or subsequent Waldorf educators?
Here I feel least qualified to form an opinion,
as my grasp of modern neuroscience is that of an interested layman
without a comprehensive background in the area.
I am not really sure that neuroscience as
a whole has a unified opinion on brain-dominance issues. If you
feel that you know more about this than I, please elaborate on
my attempts to describe things here.
Left-handedness is an aspect of laterality
(From the 2002 Encyclopedia Britannica: Laterality: in physiological
psychology, the development of specialized functioning in each
hemisphere of the brain or in the side of the body which each
controls. The most obvious example of laterality is handedness,
the tendency to use one hand or the other to perform activities.
It is the usual practice to classify persons as right-handed,
left-handed, or ambidextrous (two-handed). People differ considerably
in the range of activities for which they prefer a given hand
as well as in the degree of disparity in skill between their
two hands. Probably no one favours his right or left hand exclusively.)
No one is purely right-handed or left-handed.
But one side is dominant, and this has some relation to the hemisphere
of the brain involved. Further, the causes of left-handedness
are not known. This web page http://duke.usask.ca/~elias/left/causes.htm
discusses a number of possible theories (somehow karma is not
listed <GG>). Nor is there an agreement on the significance
of laterality. Paul Broca (1824-80) "localized the brain
centre for articulate speech in the third convolution of the
left frontal lobe. He referred to this area as the "convolution
of Broca" (mainly known as Broca's area)." (2002 Encyclopedia
Britannica). However, there is no one-to-one correspondence between
handedness and lateralization of higher cortical functions in
the brain. Despite the absence of a strong form of correspondence,
a weak form is evident, in that "close to 99 percent of
right-handed people. [and] at least 60 percent of left-handed
and ambidextrous people. have left-hemisphere language"
localization of higher cortical functions (2002 Encyclopedia
Britannica). The significance of this is not understood.
Although the origin, purpose and significance
of laterality is not completely understood by modern science,
anthroposophists would probably see much of the research as confirming
Steiner's model. For example, Steiner's statement above: "Without
any intervention, the etheric body is stronger toward the left
than the right, and the astral body is more developed toward
the right than the left" appears to be confirmed by research
into laterality such as: "The left hemisphere also appears
to be more involved than the right in the programming of complex
sequences of movement and in some aspects of awareness of one's
own body" (2002 Encyclopedia Britannica), these being largely
functions of the etheric body, while "The right hemisphere,
then, appears to be specialized for some aspects of higher-level
visual perception, spatial orientation, and route finding (sense
of direction)." (2002 Encyclopedia Britannica), indicating
aspects more often identified with the astral body.
Steiner seemed to be indicating that in issues
of laterality, a left-hand dominance for writing would have an
influence on characteristics of thinking. While I am not aware
of much scientific research on this issue specifically, I do
not feel that the neurological research to date rules this out.
If you are aware of studies to the contrary, please let me know.
An interesting area of inquiry is the relationship
between environmental influences and brain development. Among
the environmental influences on neurological development would
be included the use of the left or right hand for writing. The
following study brought to light an interesting point:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(From http://www.napa.ufl.edu/98news/reading.htm
):
UF STUDY: BRAIN STRUCTURE
MAY PLAY ROLE IN CHILDREN'S ABILITY TO LEARN TO READ
Nov. 2, 1998
By Paul E. Ramey
GAINESVILLE---Brain structure
and hand preference may be as important as environment in influencing
a child's ability to learn to read, according to a University
of Florida Brain Institute study.
The seven-year study of 39
Alachua County students from kindergarten to sixth grade indicates
that while children from a lower socioeconomic class may be at
risk for reading failure, the detrimental effects of environment
are greatly increased in children with unusual brain asymmetry.
"This is the first study
of students with a broad range of reading ability which shows
that both brain structure and environment are related to the
acquisition of skills critical for learning to read," said
Mark Eckert, the UF psychobiology graduate student who designed
the study. "It also is the first study to show that brain
structure is related to the rate of reading skill development."
Eckert will present the preliminary
research findings at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience
in Los Angeles on Nov. 9, and at the International Dyslexia Association
meeting in San Francisco on Nov. 13. Christiana Leonard, a professor
of neuroscience in UF's College of Medicine, and Linda Lombardino,
a professor of communication sciences and disorders in the College
of Liberal Arts and Sciences, are collaborators on the project.
All three are members of the UF Brain Institute.
Students in the study were
tested in kindergarten and first grade for tasks that are known
predictors of reading success, including the ability to rhyme,
spell and reverse the order of speech sounds. Hand preference
was tested with a questionnaire asking how often each hand is
used to perform tasks such as throwing a ball or brushing teeth.
If a child performed two or more tasks with either hand, they
were classified as nonright-handed, meaning they were left-handed
or didn't have a hand preference.
In sixth grade, students were
given the same reading tests they took in first grade. They also
received a magnetic resonance imaging scan of their head to measure
brain structures. Those measurements then were compared to reading
skills performance.
Using the MRI scans, researchers
measured the size of the temporal plane on both sides of the
brain, an area believed to play a role in language development.
Results indicate reading skill performance is dependent on the
relationship between hand preference and the direction of brain
asymmetry.
Right-handed students whose
left temporal plane was larger than the right demonstrated superior
reading skills when they came from an average or high socioeconomic
environment. Right-handed children with reversed asymmetry were
at risk for reading failure, especially if they came from a poor
family.
Socioeconomic status was determined
by whether students received free or reduced-price school lunch.
Students receive this subsidy if their family's yearly income
is below a federally defined level. Researchers in the UF study
found poverty was related to parental reports of fewer hours
of homework help each week, fewer books in the home and a lower
parental education level.
"A child who doesn't
have the preferred brain symmetry-hand dominance relationship
and who comes from a family that provides minimal literacy stimulation
is at greater risk for a reading disorder than a child with a
similar brain-hand dominance relationship who has had more exposure
to literacy stimulation in the home," said Lombardino, who
collected data from the kindergartners in 1992.
Most people are right-handed
and have a larger temporal plane in the left hemisphere of the
brain, called left asymmetry. Studies show that left-handed people
are more likely to have a larger temporal plane in the right
hemisphere of the brain.
In this study, researchers
found leftward brain asymmetry was related to strong recognition
of speech sounds and rightward asymmetry was related to poor
recognition of speech sounds in right-handed children. Leftward
brain asymmetry was not an advantage in children who did not
have a strong right-hand preference. Left-handed children with
left asymmetry were at risk for reading failure.
The only children in this
study who demonstrated above-average reading skills came from
an average or above-average environment and had asymmetry appropriate
for their hand preference, meaning a larger structure in the
hemisphere opposite to the preferred hand.
"This is a new concept
for people, that learning ability could depend on brain structure,"
Leonard said. "I think it's important to note that there
were no anatomical differences in children from different socioeconomic
environments. But if a child has reversed asymmetry, improving
the literacy environment becomes especially important."
Funding for the study came
from the National Institutes of Health and the International
Dyslexia Association.
While this study is far too small to be conclusive,
its conclusions do raise the question whether neurological development
can be influence by pedagogical treatment, and specifically just
the type of treatment that Steiner indicated by telling teachers
to encourage left dominant children to write with their right
hand. There are doubtless other studies that would seem to prove
such an attempt pointless. I raise this point only to show that
science is far from having made up his mind on the issue.
In summary, science, and by this I mean neuroscientific
research specifically, and not the general opinions about handedness
that you seem to like calling "scientific", does not
provide a definitive answer to either support or refute Rudolf
Steiner's recommendations. If there are studies that I am unaware
of that would seem to indicate otherwise, please bring them to
my attention.
As to subsequent Waldorf educators, inasmuch
as they adhere to Steiner's important qualification, first, do
no harm, I do not feel that most of them to have gone against
advances in neuroscientific research. To this point I should
note the distinction I have drawn between mainstream Waldorf
and the rather narrow-minded straw man of a Waldorf-teacher-from-hell
that says on the first day of school: "Alright all you lefties,
from now on I forbid you to touch a pencil with your left hand."
Several such caricatures may even exist in reality, but they
are certainly not typical of the movement. Were they typical
there would hardly be any Waldorf schools today, and rightly
so.
Was Steiner wrong to strongly encourage
switching?
Ultimately, I feel the jury is still out on
this question. As far as I have been able to determine, neuroscience
does not have a comprehensive understanding of the subject. The
mechanisms and implications are largely unknown, and there is
no scientific basis to say one way or the other whether switching
is helpful or not. Steiner encouraged switching (so long as it
would cause no harm) as a pedagogical tool to influence subsequent
cognitive development. He may have arrived at this by intuition,
as he did most of his pedagogical indications. The science of
his day did not provide very much information on the issue. On
the balance most of his intuitions in the area of pedagogy have
found validation and subsequent advances in scientific understanding,
so the possibility must be held open that in this area subsequent
science understanding may also provide validation. Or not.
In keeping an open mind, or even a critical
one, to these questions, I feel it's important to first properly
understand and acknowledge Steiner's actual indications. He was
careful with his qualifications: the switching should do the
child no harm. Has every Waldorf educator followed this advice?
Unfortunately, it would seem that a few, perhaps even quite a
few, have not. And this is really something that the Waldorf
movement should acknowledge, if it hasn't already.
Almost all of what I have said has been said
by proponents of Anthroposophy on the web and in discussions
for years, so none of it should be new.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Daniel
Wow, thanks, Daniel! This is all new to me!
Nice work and great post!
Makes you wonder, is Paul McCartney a choleric?
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 9:42 pm
Subject: Re: To Daniel
Whew, Daniel, well here I am an hour later.
I appreciate the work you put into this. But! Here goes. Gotta
be done, especially with Bradford cheering and telling you to
"watch your back." What an attitude, Bradford.
it should be noted that, in as far as I
have been able to determine, what Steiner said at that point
in time when he said it did not contradict the science of his
day.
What science is that? Are you suggesting there
was science in Steiner's day supporting the switching
of left-handers? I do not know of such. If "science"
supported this switching and Steiner made his recommendations
based on this science – that would be quite different from
Steiner merely echoing the prejudices and unexamined practices
of his day. If there is evidence of the former please explain.
So in the narrower sense it is not accurate
to say that Steiner spoke "against science" in his
indications. At best to it can be said that further advances
in scientific understanding have subsequently corrected Steiner's
indications.
Again, Daniel, this would imply Steiner's
"indications" were based on something and to
my knowledge there is no evidence of that. Nowhere in your post
do you provide evidence that anyone, in Steiner's day or ours,
has ever shown a scientific reason left-handed children should
be switched.
Any one of us can speak about things we aren't
informed about, merely repeating what we hear in the newspaper
for instance, and when later advances correct the earlier mistakes
we could claim "further advances corrected our indications."
None of which makes us experts if we weren't experts in the first
place. I could go around proclaiming that my research shows there
might have been water on Mars once, for instance. Later maybe
they find out no, it turns out there was no water. Gosh, my "indications"
have been corrected . . . Does this somehow convince you I ever
knew anything about water on Mars? I hope not.
If this were true, Steiner would still
stand in the quite illustrious company, as the contributions
of many leading thinkers have subsequently been amended as new
research adds to the sum of human knowledge.
See above. Am I in illustrious company any
time I make ignorant proclamations about topics I know nothing
about, just because people who really were illustrious
are sometimes wrong too, just like me? Strange reasoning.
Dr. Steiner: In general, you will find that those
children who have spiritual tendencies can write with either
the left or right hand without trouble, but those children with
materialistic tendencies will become addled if they are allowed
to write with both hands. Right-handedness occurs for a reason.
I have snipped most of this, Daniel, because
it adds up to precisely nothing. Unless one accepts on faith
that Rudolf Steiner had spiritual insights into these children,
it is all hogwash. Sorry. To me, to say that what hand a child
uses tells you about their "spiritual tendencies" is
ignorant, and reprehensible, a recipe for abuse.
I'd like to think plenty of other spiritual
people would also find this very offensive. This should raise
a HUGE red flag with a parent. I think the issue rattles me personally
because so many times I have asked myself why I didn't see, going
in, how bad an idea this esoteric junk was as the basis for a
school. There were so many things I didn't see. I had no idea
they would try to force a left- handed child to switch. If anyone
had told me about this, I would have NEVER in a century enrolled
my child there. So many things in Waldorf are difficult to fathom
and this is not. This is child abuse. I have rarely heard such
ignorance packaged up as "wisdom" and "spiritual
insight."
But thanks very much for providing these quotes,
I was not aware of all of these and they will be very useful.
Left-handedness is easily
corrected through piano practice.
That's totally ridiculous. Evidence?
I would not speak about
such things had I not done considerable research in this area
and had I not tried, for example, to understand what it means
to use the left hand.
I snip this because I think this is what you
are referring to below when you say Steiner "researched"
this matter. (Or maybe it's the other post.) What was this "research"
Steiner did?
Statistics would certainly
support what I have said today.
And what statistics would those be? Anyone?
2. Piano practice can "easily correct"
left-handedness. (It becomes clear in the subsequent paragraph
that what Steiner means by this is that it is not possible to
play the piano properly with a clear dominance of one hand,
Huh? Where'd you get that idea? I used to
be a fairly decent piano player, and I am strongly right-handed.
Maybe I didn't play properly, I dunno. I took lessons for more
than 10 years and I don't remember my teacher ever mentioning
that I had a problem due to right-handedness.
So it is fair to say that Steiner recommended
attempting to switch the writing hand of left-hand dominant children
with the following qualifications: the child had to be under
nine years of age, and the attempt could be made only if it would
not cause any harm (note the adherence to the physicians Hippocratic
oath: First, do no harm).
I am ambivalent about replying point by point,
and appearing to give any credibility to theories that, in any
event, have no basis in actual research. But perhaps it's worth
nothing that the caveat "if it would not cause any harm"
is not exactly reassuring. How would it be determined if it it
would cause harm? If the child doesn't complain? Compliant children
often don't, children are often very interested in pleasing their
parents and teachers. Some will complain and resist and others
will suffer in silence.
contemporary research and techniques are
widely discussed and integrated (for example, Dwyer's Self-Theories,
Goleman's emotional intelligence, Gardner's multiple intelligences,
Piaget and Vygotsky's stages of child development, Montessori,
Dewey and Ericson, are all taught in at least one teacher training
institute).
Which teacher training institute is this?
So there will be no single answer to how
left-handed children are viewed in all Waldorf schools.
No, there is not. It would be very interesting
research. I remember a Waldorf teacher who was on the critics
list some time back saying he was researching the matter, I think
for a master's degree. He said he would report back but he never
has.
Steiner says that left-handedness
has karmic reasons and recommends that one stimulate the child
to become right-handed, up to age 9, but only for automatic activities
- writing and eating - nothing else.
This would make me laugh if it didn't make
me so angry. What else is there besides "automatic activities,"
writing and eating, where it would really matter? Tossing a ball
I guess. Writing and eating being fairly central to the life
of a school child . . .
In Sonia's opinion, followed
by our school, when there is no consensus of all the people who
take care of the child (teachers, parents, doctors (school and
private), and therapists) nothing should be done to correct left-handedness.
Well that's just great. This puts the burden
on parents to go in bellowing that nobody better be trying to
switch their child. I do advise Waldorf parents to do this; however,
these days, it would never even OCCUR to most parents that the
school might be trying this!
If the child is less than
nine years old, and there a consensus of all those people, our
school tries to stimulate the child to write (and only to write)
with his or her right hand. If a laterality test shows that the
child is totally left-sided (eyes, ears, hands and feet), he
or she should do all other activities (aside from writing) with
the left hand. If the child has a cross-laterality (some organs
are right-sided, others are left), exercises and eventually therapy
is recommended, so he or she may acquire a brain-dominance. There
are curative Eurythmy exercises that may help in this issue.
Where is the evidence that curative eurythmy
"helps" in this issue? Helps what? Can anyone tell
me if any controlled research has EVER been done on "curative
eurythmy," to show that it helps anybody with anything?
Setzer's opinion is shared by all the anthroposophical
MD's (including Michaela Glockler, MD) that I have ever talked
with, as well as virtually every leading proponent of Waldorf
education.
I'm a little lost here Daniel, is this still
Valdemar Setzer talking, or you? Have you discussed this with
leading proponents of Waldorf education?
I'll keep your quotes from the Encyclopedia
Britannica in for reference.
Left-handedness is an aspect of laterality
(From the 2002 Encyclopedia Britannica: Laterality: in physiological
psychology, the development of specialized functioning in each
hemisphere of the brain or in the side of the body which each
controls. The most obvious example of laterality is handedness,
the tendency to use one hand or the other to perform activities.
It is the usual practice to classify persons as right-handed,
left-handed, or ambidextrous (two-handed). People differ considerably
in the range of activities for which they prefer a given hand
as well as in the degree of disparity in skill between their
two hands. Probably no one favours his right or left hand exclusively.)
No one is purely right-handed or left-handed.
But one side is dominant, and this has some relation to the hemisphere
of the brain involved. Further, the causes of left-handedness
are not known. This web page http://duke.usask.ca/~elias/left/causes.htm
discusses a number of possible theories (somehow karma is not
listed <GG>). Nor is there an agreement on the significance
of laterality. Paul Broca (1824-80) "localized the brain
centre for articulate speech in the third convolution of the
left frontal lobe. He referred to this area as the "convolution
of Broca" (mainly known as Broca's area)." (2002 Encyclopedia
Britannica). However, there is no one-to-one correspondence between
handedness and lateralization of higher cortical functions in
the brain. Despite the absence of a strong form of correspondence,
a weak form is evident, in that "close to 99 percent of
right-handed people. [and] at least 60 percent of left-handed
and ambidextrous people. have left-hemisphere language"
localization of higher cortical functions (2002 Encyclopedia
Britannica). The significance of this is not understood.
(Daniel again) Although the origin, purpose
and significance of laterality is not completely understood by
modern science, anthroposophists would probably see much of the
research as confirming Steiner's model.
WHAT???? How so? You'll have to get explicit
here, Daniel, because I am utterly lost, if you read anything
in the above passage suggesting a left-handed child should be
forced to use the right hand. Utterl . . . lost.
For example, Steiner's statement above:
"Without any intervention, the etheric body is stronger
toward the left than the right, and the astral body is more developed
toward the right than the left" appears to be confirmed
by research into laterality such as: "The left hemisphere
also appears to be more involved than the right in the programming
of complex sequences of movement and in some aspects of awareness
of one's own body" (2002 Encyclopedia Britannica), these
being largely functions of the etheric body, while "The
right hemisphere, then, appears to be specialized for some aspects
of higher-level visual perception, spatial orientation, and route
finding (sense of direction)." (2002 Encyclopedia Britannica),
indicating aspects more often identified with the astral body.
We just got little to go on here Daniel, very
little, if you honestly believe Steiner's "etheric and astral
bodies" somehow were what the Encyclopedia Britannica really
means by "left hemisphere" and "right hemisphere."
Steiner seemed to be indicating that in
issues of laterality, a left-hand dominance for writing would
have an influence on characteristics of thinking. While I am
not aware of much scientific research on this issue specifically,
I do not feel that the neurological research to date rules this
out. If you are aware of studies to the contrary, please let
me know.
There is no reason to suggest neurologists
should be either trying to support OR rule out nonsense like
"the etheric body is stronger toward the left than the right."
No – obviously neurological research doesn't "rule
out" Steiner's babblings on any number of topics. They were
never worth ruling out. There is nothing there worthy of study.
I kept in the full text of the study you inserted
here, since I am so confused by your conclusions, and perhaps
others will want to review it as well and someone can explain
how you reached your conclusions.
UF STUDY: BRAIN STRUCTURE
MAY PLAY ROLE IN CHILDREN'S ABILITY TO LEARN TO READ
Nov. 2, 1998
By Paul E. Ramey
GAINESVILLE---Brain structure
and hand preference may be as important as environment in influencing
a child's ability to learn to read, according to a University
of Florida Brain Institute study.
The seven-year study of
39 Alachua County students from kindergarten to sixth grade indicates
that while children from a lower socioeconomic class may be at
risk for reading failure, the detrimental effects of environment
are greatly increased in children with unusual brain asymmetry.
"This is the first
study of students with a broad range of reading ability which
shows that both brain structure and environment are related to
the acquisition of skills critical for learning to read,"
said Mark Eckert, the UF psychobiology graduate student who designed
the study. "It also is the first study to show that brain
structure is related to the rate of reading skill development."
Eckert will present the
preliminary research findings at the annual meeting of the Society
for Neuroscience in Los Angeles on Nov. 9, and at the International
Dyslexia Association meeting in San Francisco on Nov. 13. Christiana
Leonard, a professor of neuroscience in UF's College of Medicine,
and Linda Lombardino, a professor of communication sciences and
disorders in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, are collaborators
on the project. All three are members of the UF Brain Institute.
Students in the study were
tested in kindergarten and first grade for tasks that are known
predictors of reading success, including the ability to rhyme,
spell and reverse the order of speech sounds. Hand preference
was tested with a questionnaire asking how often each hand is
used to perform tasks such as throwing a ball or brushing teeth.
If a child performed two or more tasks with either hand, they
were classified as nonright-handed, meaning they were left-handed
or didn't have a hand preference.
In sixth grade, students
were given the same reading tests they took in first grade. They
also received a magnetic resonance imaging scan of their head
to measure brain structures. Those measurements then were compared
to reading skills performance.
Using the MRI scans, researchers
measured the size of the temporal plane on both sides of the
brain, an area believed to play a role in language development.
Results indicate reading skill performance is dependent on the
relationship between hand preference and the direction of brain
asymmetry.
Right-handed students whose
left temporal plane was larger than the right demonstrated superior
reading skills when they came from an average or high socioeconomic
environment. Right-handed children with reversed asymmetry were
at risk for reading failure, especially if they came from a poor
family.
Socioeconomic status was
determined by whether students received free or reduced-price
school lunch. Students receive this subsidy if their family's
yearly income is below a federally defined level. Researchers
in the UF study found poverty was related to parental reports
of fewer hours of homework help each week, fewer books in the
home and a lower parental education level.
"A child who doesn't
have the preferred brain symmetry-hand dominance relationship
and who comes from a family that provides minimal literacy stimulation
is at greater risk for a reading disorder than a child with a
similar brain-hand dominance relationship who has had more exposure
to literacy stimulation in the home," said Lombardino, who
collected data from the kindergartners in 1992.
Most people are right-handed
and have a larger temporal plane in the left hemisphere of the
brain, called left asymmetry. Studies show that left-handed people
are more likely to have a larger temporal plane in the right
hemisphere of the brain.
In this study, researchers
found leftward brain asymmetry was related to strong recognition
of speech sounds and rightward asymmetry was related to poor
recognition of speech sounds in right-handed children. Leftward
brain asymmetry was not an advantage in children who did not
have a strong right-hand preference. Left-handed children with
left asymmetry were at risk for reading failure.
The only children in this
study who demonstrated above-average reading skills came from
an average or above-average environment and had asymmetry appropriate
for their hand preference, meaning a larger structure in the
hemisphere opposite to the preferred hand.
"This is a new concept
for people, that learning ability could depend on brain structure,"
Leonard said. "I think it's important to note that there
were no anatomical differences in children from different socioeconomic
environments. But if a child has reversed asymmetry, improving
the literacy environment becomes especially important."
While this study is far too small to be
conclusive, its conclusions do raise the question whether neurological
development can be influence by pedagogical treatment, and specifically
just the type of treatment that Steiner indicated by telling
teachers to encourage left dominant children to write with their
right hand.
I have no idea how you could possibly have
concluded that from reading that study. There is absolutely no
suggestion in the study that handedness can or should be affected
by a parent or teacher attempting to change it in the first place,
thus your suggestion for this "pedagogical treatment"
is totally off base. If you do know of anyone else who has drawn
this conclusion from this study, or implemented a "pedagogical
treatment" based on this study, please cite it.
There are doubtless other studies that
would seem to prove such an attempt pointless. I raise this point
only to show that science is far from having made up his mind
on the issue.
If there is no research supporting
what you propose, it seems a stretch to claim sicence hasn't
"made up its mind." Some things science doesn't even
consider, or stops considering when there's no further reason
to consider them. This falls in that category. No one outside
a Waldorf school today is working on "pedagogical treatments"
for handedness. You seem to think the fact that you can't find
studies speaking against it means the issue is undecided!
The fact is the issue is long since decided.
In other words, there probably are not
other studies proving such an attempt pointless, because no one
is even considering such an attempt!
In summary, science, and by this I mean
neuroscientific research specifically, and not the general opinions
about handedness that you seem to like calling "scientific",
does not provide a definitive answer to either support or refute
Rudolf Steiner's recommendations. If there are studies that I
am unaware of that would seem to indicate otherwise, please bring
them to my attention.
See above. The burden is on you to show me
a study – ONE SINGLE STUDY will do it, please, Daniel –
suggesting that anyone today outside Waldorf pedagogy supports
switching left-handed children.
Anyone got one?
As to subsequent
Waldorf educators, inasmuch as they adhere to Steiner's important
qualification, first, do no harm, I do not feel that most of
them to have gone against advances in neuroscientific research.
To this point I should note the distinction I have drawn between
mainstream Waldorf and the rather narrow-minded straw man of
a Waldorf-teacher-from-hell that says on the first day of school:
"Alright all you lefties, from now on I forbid you to touch
a pencil with your left hand." Several such caricatures
may even exist in reality,
Actually, the article that Dan cited in his
1997 post on critics described such a teacher. I'd agree, however,
that such an extreme approach is probably very rare now in Waldorf.
Ultimately, I feel the jury is still out
on this question. As far as I have been able to determine, neuroscience
does not have a comprehensive understanding of the subject. The
mechanisms and implications are largely unknown,
Daniel, even if this position were supportable
(this "We still don't know" stance; and the case is
more accurately characterized as "The issue is no longer
even under consideration") . . . but even if it were
under consideration . . . when "mechanisms and implications
are unknown," then only humane course is to not cause a
child pain, discomfort and confusion, would you not agree? Based
on nothing but one man's supposed clairvoyant inspirations?
Hey . . . teacher, leave them kids alone.
and there is no scientific basis to say
one way or the other whether switching is helpful or not.
Daniel – it is hard to believe you can
be making such a basic error in reasoning. I could as easily
say, there is no scientific basis to say one way or the other
whether making children sing "Oh Susanna" while eating
blueberry pancakes and standing on their heads every morning
is helpful (helpful to what?) or not . . . after all, I can't
find any studies in the recent literature refuting the usefulness
of this specific ritual. I could then proceed to tell you about
some mystagogue's musings about the beneficial nature of upside-down-
pancake-eating-and-folksong-singing and insist that neuroscience
has not disproven its effectiveness . . . I would have just about
as strong a leg to stand on as what you proclaim here.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 1:16 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Daniel
Diana:
It would be a lot more interesting to me
if you had any actual information, Daniel, or even suggestions,
on why Steiner may have spoken "against science" on
the treatment of the left-handed.
I don't feel that he spoke against science.
When he spoke, there was nothing in science to in any way contradict
his indications. I don't feel that subsequent scientific understanding
in the area of neuroscience provides sufficint information to
settle the issue definitively. If you can point me to such research,
preferrably published in a peer-reviewed journal, I will be happy
to read up on the subject.
Is there any evidence, anywhere, of any
sort, to your knowledge, that Steiner knew anything about
handedness, causes of, effects of, indications or contra-indications
for remediation, methods of remediation, psychological effects
on children thereof, etc.?
"I would not speak about
such things had I not done considerable research in this area
and had I not tried, for example, to understand what it means
to use the left hand." Rudolf Steiner,
May 7th, 1920.
Beyond his statement that he had studied the
issue in depth? I don't think anyone in his day knew the answer
to the question: "What causes handedness?". In fact,
I don't think anyone today does either. The consensus today not
to attempt any remediation appeaers to me to be more of a cultural
consensus than a conclusion based specifically on scientific
understanding. The two pages or so that Steiner spoke on the
subject of handedness seem to show more than a superficial understanding.
(For instance, for a long time it was thought
that switching left-handers might cause stuttering. This theory
also has now been discredited.)
This is an interesting fact. I don't believe
that Steiner ever addressed this one way or another.
Did Steiner have anything to contribute
on this topic?
Of switching causing stuttering? No, not to
my knowledge.
Did Steiner have any qualifications to
contribute to a discussion of handedness?
No, but neither do you, from that point of
view.
Where did he get his degree in neuropsychology
or even teacher training?
I don't believe that degrees in neuropsychology
were offered back then. His teacher training was informal; he
spent a decade supporting himself by tutoring. While not formal
training, it is a significant body of experience to draw on.
He also read broadly in the area of pedagogy, and demonstrated
a comprehensive grasp of the history of education and pedoagogical
theories of his day.
(Did he ever say anything else on
handedness, laterality, brain hemispheric dominance, etc., that
is now taken seriously by scientists? not to my knowledge)
That is really two questions: Did he have
anything else to say? Is it taken seriously?
Did he have anything more to say? Well, if
you look up laterality you won't find anything.
Now which scientists do you want to have judge
Steiner's theories? If you are an anthroposophist and happen
to also have a Ph.D. in a scientific field, this would that disqualify
you?
If I may ask you another question, what scientists
have expressed their views on Steiner's pedagogical recommendations?
Steiner is referrenced very infrequently outside of anthroposophical
circles, so I am curious on this point.
I have addressed the question of what he said
and its relationship to current understandings in my other reply.
How many left-handed children did Steiner
observe? How many right-handed children did Steiner observe,
and how did he reach his conclusion that they differed spiritually
from left-handed children?
I don't have exact numbers. The first Waldorf
school had grown to about 1000 pupils when he made his statement
of switching. If we assume that the school population was 10%
lefties, that would be about 100 left-handed children that he
could have observed. I doubt we will ever establish exactly how
many he did observe, but he did spend hours in the various classrooms
over many visits to the school.
Did he ever, even once, work with a child
personally to switch their hands?
I don't know the answer to that one.
What reason is there to believe that he
did not just shoot his mouth off when some Waldorf teacher asked
him his opinion about left-handed children?
You'll have to read his statements and judge
for yourself whether you feel he knew what he was talking about
or not.
Daniel "ruffled feathers" Hindes
aka The Angry One
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 9:58 pm
Subject: Re: To Daniel
sigh. continuing.
I don't feel that he spoke against science.
When he spoke, there was nothing in science to in any way contradict
his indications.
There was probably nothing in science to refute
claims such as our planet having future "incarnations"
called Venus and Jupiter and Vulcan, then, either. In fact, I
bet there's still no research contradicting this! No one
believes it, Daniel, outside anthroposophists!
I don't feel that subsequent scientific
understanding in the area of neuroscience provides sufficint
information to settle the issue definitively. If you can point
me to such research, preferrably published in a peer-reviewed
journal, I will be happy to read up on the subject.
You are still a little mixed up. See previous
blueberry pancake example. It will be a tad silly for either
of us to go hunting down this research, Daniel. If you want to
defend the continuation of this practice, you are going to have
to show me peer-reviewed research explaining its purpose
and usefulness.
You're a laugh a minute telling me I
should provide peer-reviewed research! Where is Steiner's peer-reviewed
research? Down below, you seem to set a considerably different
standard, taking Steiner's word about his "research"
into left-handedness:
"I would not speak
about such things had I not done considerable research in this
area and had I not tried, for example, to understand what it
means to use the left hand." Rudolf Steiner, May 7th, 1920.
Diana says: !!!!
What is this resarch exactly Daniel?
Beyond his statement that he had studied
the issue in depth? I don't think anyone in his day knew the
answer to the question: "What causes handedness?".
In fact, I don't think anyone today does either. The consensus
today not to attempt any remediation appeaers to me to be more
of a cultural consensus than a conclusion based specifically
on scientific understanding.
I will grant this possibility. However, if
so it is a very good, an extremely darn good, cultural
consensus. MAJOR PROGRESS not to torment children for no reason.
yes?
Did Steiner have any qualifications to
contribute to a discussion of handedness?
No, but neither do you, from that point
of view.
True. But I make no pronouncements on it other
than LEAVE THEM ALONE if you don't know what you're doing!
he spent a decade supporting himself by
tutoring.
Correct me if I am wrong. I believe it was
4 children in one family. Were there others? I am also somewhat
suspicious of the claim that this is how he supported himself
for a decade, but I'm not sure.
While not formal training, it is a significant
body of experience to draw on.
See above. Convince me it was more than four
children. Tell me if any of them were left-handed, and if so
did he try to switch them. Where does he report the results of
his attempts to switch the left-handed child/ren in this family
and where is the follow-up describing possible effects on these
children later. Where is the control group of right-handed children,
or of left-handed children who were not switched.
If I may ask you another question, what
scientists have expressed their views on Steiner's pedagogical
recommendations? Steiner is referrenced very infrequently outside
of anthroposophical circles, so I am curious on this point.
Daniel . . . if you don't know what conclusions
to draw from the fact that no one else even comments on these
recommendations, or cites Steiner outside anthroposophical circles
. . . what do you think I am trying to tell you?
How many left-handed children did Steiner
observe?
I don't have exact numbers. The first Waldorf
school had grown to about 1000 pupils when he made his statement
of switching. If we assume that the school population was 10%
lefties, that would be about 100 left-handed children that he
could have observed.
"Could have." Is there evidence
that he did? And I mean "observe" as in scientifically
observe. It would take awhile, observing even one child to determine
whether their handedness had any particular significance to their
learning, never mind their spirituality!
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:58 pm
Subject: Applause
A Standing Ovation to Daniel for some really
good research work.
This kind of work gets questions to rise above
all "lower ego" issues. It is something that many of
us do strive to accomplish, but don't always have the time and
perserverance to follow through on. Myself very much included.
So much of what Steiner taught in 1919 (until
his death in 1925) in the field of education specifically, must
have seemed really bizarre to the thinking of the times. In my
opinion, it wasn't until the "revolutionary" period
of the 1960's and 70's that more original and "organic"
thinking began to appear in the mainstream and more value was
placed in general on the creative and emotional sides of learning
as adjunct to the purely intellectual, abstract and/or rote methodology
of the earlier part of the century. Wholistic learning, or Whole
Language methods achieved a fair amount of popularity with concepts
like writing before reading and the integration of "subjects"
under the heading of a "theme" such as a time period
or culture. More emphasis was placed on developing methodologies
appropriate to the individual makeup of the child and his or
her "neurolinguistic" orientation (sight, sound, kinesthetics).
What has been amazing to me over the past
thirty years is how much that has come out in the realm of "mainstream"
educational psychology has been practiced in Waldorf Education
for more than twice that long. Perhaps not all Waldorf Teachers
have studied what they are doing in such a way that they could
write a Masters Thesis on every aspect of their day to day experience,
but in my experience, many Waldorf Teachers certainly could do
that if they were required to. And most Waldorf Teachers have
done enough in depth research on various aspects of the educational
philosophy and "methods" taught by Dr. Steiner to have
some trust in those indications that they have yet to "work
through" in their own thinking lives.
Waldorf Teachers THINK!! They think BEFORE
bringing new content to the children who are their responsibility.
They think WHILE bringing new content and while
interacting with their children on a daily basis. And they think
AFTER every day's work, going over (often many times) everything
that they did and what their children gave them in response.
This is what we mean by Meditation. It is a grueling, agonising
process most of the time with a few highlights of achievement.
It requires sometimes devastating amounts of self-honesty as
we examine our constant failures and "sins of omission."
It requires that each one of us stand ready at the drop of a
hat to abandon our well-planned and heartfelt lesson of the day
in the face of need more pressing brought by the children themselves.
It requires that we get up in the morning and try once more to
be, not a perfect vessel for the spiritual world, but a very
imperfect one that (nevertheless) the spiritual world can work
with to correct our faults in the souls of the children.
Sometimes we do fail. Many times we do succeed.
But NEVER do we have the following feeling:
Late 1970s. Patterson, New Jersey.
My first husband and I are at a party given at the home of a
couple who were in college with my husband. (He being about seven
years older than I was.)
The husband of the couple was a public school
teacher. It was the end of summer and he was talking about going
back to the classroom in a few weeks.
"Every year, it's the same thing."
he said to us. "It's always the same group of kids, year
after year. There is always the "clown", "the
deliquent", "the brain." Different kids, but they
just fit into the same slots. I just teach those slots. It's
just a job."
Waldorf Teachers do not think their children
"fit into slots." And neither do the teachers!
Gracias, Daniel - muchas gracias!
Christine
"News tid-bit the other
day from Compuserve"
Juggling Has Bizarre Effect
On the Brain
And you thought juggling was
just a great party trick! Turns out that adults who learn to
juggle actually cause significant increases in the amount of
gray matter in the area of their brains that process and store
visual information. This proves what was not previously thought
possible--that new stimuli can alter the adult brain's structure,
reports Reuters. Gray matter is that part of the brain and spinal
cord that contains the tightly packed nuclei of nerve cells.
It's found on the outer layers of the brain's cerebrum and is
responsible for advanced mental functions.
Researchers from the University
of Regensburg in Germany determined all this by taking a brain-imaging
scan of non-jugglers before they learned how to juggle and then
comparing that scan with one taken three months later after they learned
the new skill. There was increased gray matter after they learned
to juggle, but the amount of gray matter actually decreased within
three months after they stopped juggling. "Our results challenge
our view of the human central nervous system," lead researcher
Arne May explained in the journal Nature where the research was
published. "Human brains probably must be viewed as dynamic,
changing with development and normal learning."
The moral of the story: Develop
your brain. Learn to juggle.
Compuserve 01.23.04
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 7:46 am
Subject: Re: To Daniel/rabid fundamentalism
--- In [email protected],
winters_diana wrote:
There is no reason to suggest neurologists
should be either trying to support OR rule out nonsense like
"the etheric body is stronger toward the left than the right."
No – obviously neurological research doesn't "rule
out" Steiner's babblings on any number of topics. They were
never worth ruling out. There is nothing there worthy of study.
Bradford comments;
Well Daniel, so much for fair and balanced.
All things are fair in love and war. On one side of the intellect
stand those who, strongly feel and think Steiner is hallucinating.
Of course this would mean that St. Paul was a liar and hallucinating
and the NT we might as well flush down the toilet. Because what
proof do we have to go on? Zilch!
There are good reasons to flush mental disease
down the toilet. If someone has a NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE and they
report a live Tableau or a tunnel experience..their inner certainty
is considered a chemical hallucination. So it is important to
keep in mind the difference between a Christian Scientist and
a Spiritual Scientist. This difference is really the subjective
content of what is at core a very tricky argument. There have
been many examples of Christian Scientists parents who wouldn't
allow their children to be treated in hospitals because out of
faith, they denied their children medical care. A few, rare examples
died because of the parents illogic. But this illogical dogmatism
is really the source of the projected antipathy applied to Steinerism.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/holyshit/faith.html
What should not happen is
that children are forced, before the age that they can reasonably
think about, to shun medical knowledge due their parents inhibitions.
Anyway, any normal person knows this is true, but out of the
billions of people in the world some beliefs are life endangoring.
This is fine, as people are free to do dangerous things as long
as it harms no other undeserving people. Examples: Extreme sports,
autoeroticasphysiation, holding-your-breath-for-as-long-possible.
But if a parent, due to their
irrational beliefs, denies a child medical attention or education
because of the *parents* beliefs and not the childs own interests,
then this is immoral.
Bizarre magazine, a month
or two ago, printed several accounts of religious fanaticism
that resulted in death (in all cases it was the killing of their
own possessed, evil or 'wrong' child), in recent events. Two
further examples follow at the end of this page.
The psychology that leads
to this type of behaviour is far beyond me, but it is safe to
say that certain systems of thought promote it, and these systems
should be changed.
"The second child pictured
above* is Amy Hermanson from Sarasota, Florida. She had diabetes.
She also had Christian Science parents. The two don't mix and
Amy lost. Amy was visibly sick for a period of four weeks. As
many people do who believe in the hocus pocus of faith-healing,
Amy's mother was pretending everything was alright. She took
Amy to visit a neighbor who encouraged her to take Amy to a doctor.
She refused. A few minutes latter Amy crawled into the room begging
her mother to take her home. Amy died a few days latter.
Bradford responds;
Since this is the first time I recognized
the over reaction to anything that is taken on "Faith",
such as what appears to be testified by every Waldorf Teacher
and the whole of Anthroposophy, which takes all that Dr. Steiner
said on Faith, such an over reaction to illogical Faith based,
phony Science is at best, a chronic and massive subjective reactionary,
psychological push back - Spring Back really. Because the spring
back is a real knee jerk response.
But now my sympathy is up. I see where this
is coming from. Shouting the dangers that anyone who would believe
that we can transpose the name Christian Science and Spiritual
Science over each other, means that we enter the ground where
in the rejection of such dogmatic "Christian Science"
beliefs must apply also to anything Steiner indicated. This is
fair, because, in all fairness we are looking at a 180 degree
turn around and a full fledged rejection, of how Fundamentalist
beliefs mingled with false ideas of Materialistic Science have
given a movement like Christian Science a surface appearance
to be the same as that of Spiritual Science. The Knee Jerk is
in place, but the subjective dynamics of the knee jerk are the
real issue and the issue being played down deep in the soul life.
Therefore, here we see the results when in
childhood the illogical aspects of Christian Science were stuffed
into a child. Why don't these same horrible abuses and child
crimes apply to Waldorf Education? You can see the case that
is being made and, it stands to reason that the rejection has
to be with ALL strange practice. Any and all of them must be
wrong. Knee Jerk! If it appears strange to those from the outside,
it appears as strange and as abnormal because just like Christian
Science- Spiritual Science is strange and abnormal. It must be
the same confused billowing nonsense, therefore knee jerk!
The inner rejection, the force of antipathy
here, rules out anyone who should follow or adhere to Spiritual
Science. What right do those who Adhere to Spiritual Science
have to claim that their virtues are better than fundamentalist-dogmatic
Christian Science beliefs? This is a very psychologically subjective
argument. Using Materialistic Science healthily, such as there
is an atomic table and Christ did conquer the atomic table, etc...
is not faith, it is Science that meets with Spriritual Science.
We could add hundreds of basic equations in medicine and homeopathy/aleopathy-
astronomy and biodynamic calendars geocentric and heliocentric
and basic tests made on food grown biodynamically. All these
tests, whether logical, grounded in science or not, are knee
jerked into rejection. This is highly interesting moral technique
that we should face very clearly and see the pathological rational
being used here a judo of the soul.
We could add history, studies of mammals in
Schad and study of the human form with Popplebaum.. Spiritual
Science, unlike Christian Science, deals with comparisons and
verifications of science. But also with Christ, not merely as
a faith based idea, but as a Saturn, Sun, Moon and Earth evolution
unfolding... Which is the only way to explain the layers of mineral,
plant, animal and human consciousness. That being said, to someone
outside, it is jealousy that Waldorf or Steiner people can get
away with it in their thinking, but someone in Christian Science
cannot. This is a ragin-cajun issue. This creates a deep down
knee jerk reaction. It is totally subjective and it is the result
of unworked through psychological failures of choices that parents
made and now meet us again in untransformed Trailor Park Opinions.
The difference is vast but subtle. The hatred
or even illogical disagreements all stem from how do we think
we can get away with it, being Steinerites, when it is all based
on crass racism, Nazi black magic and gobbly gook? Because here
the complex rejection in the soul life meets an entrained fundamentalist
illogic that, in a sense, has come to roost at WC and entails
the entire Fundamental Right Wing of a Sweeping... and excuse
me for coming down to this, much hated observation.. but an Ahrimanic
Wall of denial that has its roots in a dynamic rejection and
a false mirror image of the difference between Spiritual Science
and Christ and Ahriman's fundamentalism and Christ. This is a
great, great tool and is a really landmine in the psychology
that can escalate to intellectual character assassination and
the Ahrimanic edifice of George and Co.
The problem is that Karl Rove knows these
things and others are merely dynamically turning and springing
out of knee jerk Fundamentalism to rabid materialism.
As I see it, this is the issue and it lands
here, PLOP! Clear as a bell.
Bradford
...................................................................................................................................
From: Sophia
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:07 am
Subject: Re: To Daniel/rabid fundamentalism
For some strange reason, Diana's post below
was sent to my mailbox instead of the group. It arrived as an
attached text-file that Spamguard interpreted as spam! (I have
sent the entire message as it arrived to Diana privately. I encourage
you all to avoid mentioning email addresses in the body text
of messages, because they can easily be picked up by spam engines
that way.)
When you post to the group, write to [email protected].
You may contact the moderator any time by writing to [email protected]
or to the return address of this message.
Faithfully,
Sophia (moderator)
Diana's post:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:27:03 -0000
From: winters_diana
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: To Daniel/rabid fundamentalism
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradford I assume this was simply an attempt
to pull my chain, since I told you I was raised Christian Scientist.
Yes - there are parallels. But I am not confusing "Christian
Science" with "spiritual science." I find it amusing
when sects point at each other and say - those guys are weird,
fundamentalist and dogmatic, strange and abnormal, but we're
not. Gosh they even hurt children! But we "love" children.
I don't think the switching of left-handers
rises to the level of sadism of the parents who refuse medical
care for their children in extreme circumstances - no. (And I
am well read on such cases, in fact my father has been asked
to testify in court in several. He refuses because he doesn't
have any sympathy for the parents.)
just my trailer park opinions this morning
:)
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:27 am
Subject: Re: To Daniel/rabid fundamentalism
For some strange reason, Diana's post below
was sent to my mailbox instead of the group. It arrived as an
attached text-file that Spamguard interpreted as spam! (I have
sent the entire message as it arrived to Diana privately. I encourage
you all to avoid mentioning email addresses in the body text
of messages, because they can easily be picked up by spam engines
that way.)
Thank you, Sophia. I wondered if I only imagined
I replied to that post. I still don't understand what happened,
because it didn't have an email address in the body I don't think?
and you say you replied to me privately but I don't have anything
in my in-box. I think that post was the first time I posted here
simply by clicking "post" from the web site, that is,
not in reply to another post.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:53 pm
Subject: Re: To Daniel/rabid fundamentalism
--- In [email protected],
holderlin66 wrote:
But now my sympathy is up. I see where
this is coming from.
As Christ rightly put to Paul - "It is
hard to kick against the Pricks". It would seem a fitting
punishment to place Paul, or something like Paul, to have to
prove over and over again that indeed Christ was my private hallucination.
That Saul to Paul is a confessed Schizo and clinically nobody
cares if he was right handed or left handed, he was and still
is a clinical Schizo and would sound like Dr. Steiner, so they
are both Schizo's.
Let us see, Vulcan evolution?
Venus Evolution?
Etheric body linked to the Lympahtic system?
Astral body linked to the Nervous system?
Reincarnation?
Creationism vs. Saturn-Sun-Moon-Earth evolution?
The Christ Event?
Near Death Experiences?
What about those tales where the Sailor drowns
far out to sea but returns at the foot of the bed to tell his
wife good bye, and she sees him? Humbug, Chemistry, hallucination.
Lucifer? Jagger's or Milton's? Ahriman? Sir
Walter Scott or Zarathustra?
Decayed Light? Magnetism-Electricity and ?
Lower organic will forces of the Etheric or
brain aspects of the Astral body...left handed or right handed.
Will and etheric lymphatic conditions?
What is my point? Well no matter what angle
you want to walk this dawg it is still a dawg that won't hunt
for people who refuse to have dogs. Intuition is a fine thing
and can be schooled very carefully to be a good hunting dawg.
It is wonderful exercise in sleep therapy to read a page of Stephen
Hawkings and a page of Occult Science and try for yourselves
to bring the yawning differences into agreement. Stereo.
But you have to have a navigation organ of
perception that has not been numbed in by the horrific conflict
that full blown materialistic science creates, the mayhem in
the soul, when it looks at the Christ Event or Paul from the
numbed standpoint of Faith. As you can see, you will never find
a balance between left and right handed neuro science camps.
Facts right or wrong could come up and bite people in the a--
but without discernment and a sense of truth..it is mere unqualifed
Data. Thank you Daniel you are dismissed. Brain Scans or to put
us in a Goethean closet, Steiner might have experienced and read
the effect in the direction from nervous system to lymphatic
switching of hands on his own objectified Self observation? Stupid,
Steiner's only teaching experience was what, one handicapped
kid. STupid.
Well folks, you know this is utter nonsense.
If a person tells me that the fur on peaches makes them itch
or the smell of lake reminds one of their childhood..we must
assume that any objective observation of soul conditions are
simply a trick, an illusion. There couldn't have been an advanced
Christ Being who was part of the family of Man? Nor could St.
Paul have experienced what he experienced. Kant and the subjective
imprisoning of the I AM has now affected millions and millions
of souls. But there is a reflexive psychological reality behind
this that is being used clearly in Ahrimanic Political handbooks.
At square one, in Ahriman's/Karl Rove's handbook,
one must face miracles as only miracles and not science but materialism,
such as if the galactic cloud is expanding or contracting or
how many millions of light years it takes for certain star light
to arrive here, whole galaxies may have died since then... All
of Stephen Hawkings is mass theory and so is physics. Ahriman
says forget your sense of truth, your organ for the perception
of truth, believe the A-Bomb and the devastating results, but
believe with all the lip service of your puny heart the Christ
Event and its healing results. One you can see and feel the other
may or may not be true.. nobody knows. Therefore vote for Ahrimanic
Bush platform. He likes Jesus but like you he couldn't think
his way out of milk carton.
The argument is reflexive. Faith the Church,
all the Churches pile on a great divide between "we can
never understand what happened at Golgotha" and long winded
love of materialism. "Nobody can know what happened either
at the Saturn Evolution or what was going on in Jesus mind when
he strolled over to the river to be baptized by John the Baptist".
There can't be any "REAL" record in the Akasha and
there could never have been an Atlantis. Well kids, we just dumped
out 3/4 of Spiritual Science and we still have that nutball Steiner,
the Schizo.
This is a religious reflexive response that
is counted on by Karl Rove. It is a proven fact that GW and Colin
Powell, the whole crew and Condolici are liars. Rush Limbaugh
is the hypocrite of hypocrites. But all that doesn't matter.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, just look at
how we can play with facts, fantasy, lie and truth and spin it
in any reflexive way we want. Why, because we're Christians and
they're not. I'm Chevy Chase...and
Humanism and the Subjective corruption of
the Core of INtution are at odds. The subjective corruption of
the core of intuition has become Christian Reflexive Spin to
support George Bush - a nest of Ahrimanic liars. I hope people
have had an opportunity to watch the film, "Conspiracy"
about the Corporate Meeting of the Nazis to eliminate the Jews
off the face of the Earth. The planning, in the film, is done
with all the Corporate cleanliness on how Enron could get around
the Laws of Nurenberg. It is an Enron meeting or a typical cabinet
meeting supervised by Lon Cheney the V.P.
George Bush and Blair are certifiable war
criminals. A Nut Job like the Bush administration should not
have been given the ability to start war, let alone nuclear war,
as HE..sees fit. When He sees fit. This is MAD and the code name
is MAD. We are in the center of a not so pretty world Kantian
argument that needs to be flushed with a shot of the Philosophy
of Freedom. But as we know, we can't reach for that because Steiner
was a bloodthirsty racist.
In the reflexive soul, you think you can go
over to the WC or the Right Wing and selectively choose which
of STeiner's nut brained ideas is good, solid and true and which
are obviously luny? No. No you can't. It is reflexive millions,
upon millions of thoughtless Americans. Where comes this reflexive
soul gesture? It comes as an outgrowth, where Materialistic Christianity,
and raping Altar Boys have reached a limit. Faith popped a cork,
blew a piston and now its who the heck cares of it lies, if bleeds
it leads. People just want to believe in Christ and that God
is on the side of the Right Wing. It ain't because Christ has
a more profound vision of Love than any of the squeezed out right
wing lemons could ever hope to understand. No it is because they
can't go in there and resolve their reflexive response to the
complex issues. Therefore we will be in reeducation camps if
we hold onto Steiner.
Ah, but I digress. It is a Reflexive Ahrimanic
gesture. Listen very carefully to the film, "Conspiracy"
with Kenneth Branagh.
http://www.historytelevision.ca/film/conspiracy/
The crisp, cold setting of
Conspiracy necessarily equals the crisp, cold subject matter
at the heart of the film: the Wansee conference of January 20,
1942. Based on the sole surviving copy of the Wansee Protocol,
a group of high-ranking Nazi party officials gathered together
to iron out the plans for Hitler's Final Solution, the process
by which he planned to exterminate the entire European Jewish
population.
The film opens with Adolf
Eichmann (Stanley Tucci) carefully supervising the preparations
for the day. His vigilant and deliberate actions parallel the
busy nature of the staff attempting to perfect the environment
as per Eichmann's obvious instructions. As the invited guests
begin to arrive, the film changes its focus, but only slightly,
from observing preparations to keenly reporting the scene, almost
as if it's a documentary and not a dramatization.
Bradford concludes;
Ahriman was in this mix. I know, Ahriman doesn't
exist and Steiner merely thought up something so that we can
be kept boot licking the Christ Event. Well we know how Ahriman
plays the race card. He played the Race card with Richard Wagner
and he broadcast it far and wide, in neon "God is Friggin
Dead" when he stepped into Nietzsche's brain. I don't know
if it was the right side of his brain or the left. Nietzsche
just hated hypocrisy. Now this is pivotal to the action of Ahriman
and understanding the numb nerve where the organ of truth disappeared
out of a million people like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
What we need to watch is the current Reflexive
Psycho response, that has arisen from half baked Christians,
(uneducated TRAILER PARK, wanna be Christians) who have had their
own 'intuition' snuffed out through heavy heeled, boot pounding
Faith. Something inside them has died and that is where my sympathy
for the problem that I see now centers on. I understand it. I
see it. And if you have met Christ either right after Death,
an Epiphany a NDE event is gonna help you from becoming a numbed,
intellectually cunning- Wansee conference monster. Or just continue
to work for the betrayal of life that the Bush group has launched
out of the back seat of Ahriman's VOLKSWAGON.
Faith, and constant hammering that no one
can think through these great enormous cosmic miracles, offered
by the Christ event, has numbed the organ of intution and truth
location in souls. The Reflex, the Knee Jerk response from the
Right is that George is Right anyways and it doesn't matter to
truth or heaven why we did anything, because it is a matter of
OIL and the EURO stupid. Ah excuse me, no matter how many times
we frame this issue it comes back at us as reflexive zombies
who now occupy the GOP and allow us to call them NEOCONS. But
it is also the PS and WC hardening up of their antipathy. They
have my sympathy, they do.
I have traced all this Ahrimanic Race Card,
cyanide human catastrophe back to Weimar and Leo STrass and Goethe
and Steiner and Nietzsche. I mean we all have a hand in it. Lincoln
is used as a martial law example for Bush and John Ashcroft.
Woodrow Wilson was infected severely by his double, until his
brain circuits gave out but nobody told the public. Hitler for
gods sake. We are all to blame.
But the real horror here, is the numbed, snipped,
neutered, sterilized organ of intuition and the perception of
Truth. Christ may be a Truth, but the soul has to do back flips
to integrate Science with Christ or St. Paul. Therefore a numbed
region of psycho-Politica has joyfully fixed, neutered and even
brought hatred to goodness so that goodness is now unpatriotic
badness and Orwell is all over us and it is as obvious to anyone
with common sense as it isn't to the Rush Limbaugh Right monsters
in Ahriman's friendly stable.
When next you bust brains with knotted soul
configurations and find a nice balance and reckoning together
and you find that souls still go right back to the Ahrimanic
trough...you might consider the Reflexive and neutered sense
of Truth. Happily there is at least half of humanity still hanging
in there in humanistic common sense and dignity. The Christian
Right has succeeded in neutering and sterilizing the sense of
truth in millions. The Church has helped.
Now at this point a long lecture by Joel on
the Philosophy of Freedom and a new form of 12 Step program to
recover the numbed, neutered, sterilized sense of truth, should
be distrubuted as a brochure. Have at it.
Bradford
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:37 am
Subject: Re: To Daniel
So I don't want to rush you or anything, Daniel,
but if anyone else has info. on the following, feel free to jump
in here:
"I would not speak
about such things had I not done considerable research in this
area and had I not tried, for example, to understand what it
means to use the left hand." Rudolf
Steiner, May 7th, 1920.
Does anyone know of any other writings by
Steiner, or anyone else, explicating what this "research"
was that Steiner did on use of the left hand?
he spent a decade supporting himself by
tutoring.
Can someone show me evidence that Steiner
supported himself for a decade tutoring? The implication is solely
by tutoring.
Correct me if I am wrong. I believe it
was 4 children in one family. Were there others?
Again anyone know of other children Steiner
ever tutored? Does anyone know if any of the four Specht children
were left-handed?
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:45 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Daniel
Daniel:
it should be noted that, in as far as I
have been able to determine, what Steiner said at that point
in time when he said it did not contradict the science of his
day.
Diana:
What science is that? Are you suggesting
there was science in Steiner's day supporting the switching
of left-handers? I do not know of such. If "science"
supported this switching and Steiner made his recommendations
based on this science – that would be quite different from
Steiner merely echoing the prejudices and unexamined practices
of his day. If there is evidence of the former please explain.
Daniel:
No, my point is that neither the science of
his day nor the science of today says anything scientific about
the switching of left handers. If you have evidence to the contrary,
please let me know.
Daniel:
So in the narrower sense it is not accurate
to say that Steiner spoke "against science" in his
indications. At best to it can be said that further advances
in scientific understanding have subsequently corrected Steiner's
indications.
Diana:
Again, Daniel, this would imply Steiner's
"indications" were based on something and to
my knowledge there is no evidence of that. Nowhere in your post
do you provide evidence that anyone, in Steiner's day or ours,
has ever shown a scientific reason left-handed children should
be switched.
Daniel:
If you read carefully, I have never claimed
Steiner's indications were scientific. At one point I even called
them intuitions. I have only pointed out that they have not,
either then or now, gone against any real "science".
Again, if you are aware of any scientific evidence to the contrary,
please let me know.
Diana:
Any one of us can speak about things we
aren't informed about, merely repeating what we hear in the newspaper
for instance, and when later advances correct the earlier mistakes
we could claim "further advances corrected our indications."
None of which makes us experts if we weren't experts in the first
place. I could go around proclaiming that my research shows there
might have been water on Mars once, for instance. Later maybe
they find out no, it turns out there was no water. Gosh, my "indications"
have been corrected . . . Does this somehow convince you I ever
knew anything about water on Mars? I hope not.
Daniel:
Indeed. Now let us see whether science actually
contradicts or supports what we say. Or what Steiner says. If
you are aware of any scientific studies on the subject at hand,
please inform me of them.
Daniel:
If this were true, Steiner would still
stand in the quite illustrious company, as the contributions
of many leading thinkers have subsequently been amended as new
research adds to the sum of human knowledge.
See above. Am I in illustrious company
any time I make ignorant proclamations about topics I know nothing
about, just because people who really were illustrious
are sometimes wrong too, just like me? Strange reasoning.
Daniel:
You are showing a strong bias here. I want to know about the
science that backs up your opinion. Do you have any?
Daniel (quoting Steiner):
Dr. Steiner: In general, you will find that those
children who have spiritual tendencies can write with either
the left or right hand without trouble, but those children with
materialistic tendencies will become addled if they are allowed
to write with both hands. Right-handedness occurs for a reason.
Diana:
I have snipped most of this, Daniel, because
it adds up to precisely nothing. Unless one accepts on faith
that Rudolf Steiner had spiritual insights into these children,
it is all hogwash. Sorry. To me, to say that what hand a child
uses tells you about their "spiritual tendencies" is
ignorant, and reprehensible, a recipe for abuse.
Daniel:
I find it interesting that you have so little
interest in what Steiner actually said, in demonstrating that
you have really read and understood it, and have specific objections.
Instead you dismiss two or three pages as "adding up to
nothing." It is hard to take such scholarship seriously.
Diana:
I'd like to think plenty of other spiritual
people would also find this very offensive. This should raise
a HUGE red flag with a parent. I think the issue rattles me personally
because so many times I have asked myself why I didn't see, going
in, how bad an idea this esoteric junk was as the basis for a
school. There were so many things I didn't see.
Daniel:
That is an opinion, and as such really adds
nothing to the discussion. It is clear that you feel strongly
about this.
Diana:
I had no idea they would try to force a
left-handed child to switch.
Daniel:
If you read what I wrote, you would perhaps
have come across the idea that children are not forced to switch
without a discussion with the parents and the agreement of the
same. Why do I feel that I am talking and not being heard? Do
you only hear what supports your preexisting prejudices?
Diana:
If anyone had told me about this, I would
have NEVER in a century enrolled my child there. So many things
in Waldorf are difficult to fathom and this is not. This is child
abuse. I have rarely heard such ignorance packaged up as "wisdom"
and "spiritual insight."
Daniel:
Thank you for sharing how you feel about this.
If I may point this out, you objections so far have all been
from your feelings. I am curious if there is any scientific research
on the issue.
Diana:
But thanks very much for providing these
quotes, I was not aware of all of these and they will be very
useful.
Daniel:
You're welcome. I hope you will read them
in their entirety, and avoid the common tendency among critics
to read only what they want to hear and then quote selectively.
Daniel:
Left-handedness is easily
corrected through piano practice.
Diana:
That's totally ridiculous. Evidence?
Daniel:
Here we go with selective quoting and not
reading the actual quotes. In the snipped portion I wrote: (It
becomes clear in the subsequent paragraph that what Steiner means
by this is that it is not possible to play the piano properly
with a clear dominance of one hand, and he does not appear to
be addressing writing at all; he is addressing lateral dominance
issues.) The evidence is in piano playing. If the player
plays well using both hands, they are no longer laterally dominant
in one or the other. In the future please be more careful reading
both what I wrote and what I am writing about. I feel that you
are not really treating things fairly.
Daniel (quoting Steiner):
I would not speak about
such things had I not done considerable research in this area
and had I not tried, for example, to understand what it means
to use the left hand.
Diana:
I snip this because I think this is what
you are referring to below when you say Steiner "researched"
this matter. (Or maybe it's the other post.) What was this "research"
Steiner did?
Daniel:
I don't know. He didn't say.
Steiner:
Statistics would certainly
support what I have said today.
Diana:
And what statistics would those be? Anyone?
Daniel:
I too would be interested in hearing an answer.
Daniel:
2. Piano practice can "easily correct"
left-handedness. (It becomes clear in the subsequent paragraph
that what Steiner means by this is that it is not possible to
play the piano properly with a clear dominance of one hand,
Diana:
Huh? Where'd you get that idea? I used
to be a fairly decent piano player, and I am strongly right-handed.
Maybe I didn't play properly, I dunno. I took lessons for more
than 10 years and I don't remember my teacher ever mentioning
that I had a problem due to right-handedness.
Daniel:
Perhaps you should read up on laterality.
If you played piano well, then you learned to use both hands.
This would be an example of countering dominance. It will obviously
not eliminate or even switch the dominant writing hand, but Stenier,
if I have understood him correctly, feels it have a beneficial
effect on cognitive development.
Daniel:
So it is fair to say that Steiner recommended
attempting to switch the writing hand of left-hand dominant children
with the following qualifications: the child had to be under
nine years of age, and the attempt could be made only if it would
not cause any harm (note the adherence to the physicians Hippocratic
oath: First, do no harm).
Diana:
I am ambivalent about replying point by
point, and appearing to give any credibility to theories that,
in any event, have no basis in actual research. But perhaps it's
worth nothing that the caveat "if it would not cause any
harm" is not exactly reassuring. How would it be determined
if it it would cause harm? If the child doesn't complain? Compliant
children often don't, children are often very interested in pleasing
their parents and teachers. Some will complain and resist and
others will suffer in silence.
Daniel:
These are very important points, and I would
encourage everyone (parents and teachers) to think about them.
Daniel:
contemporary research and techniques are
widely discussed and integrated (for example, Dwyer's Self-Theories,
Goleman's emotional intelligence, Gardner's multiple intelligences,
Piaget and Vygotsky's stages of child development, Montessori,
Dewey and Ericson, are all taught in at least one teacher training
institute).
Diana:
Which teacher training institute is this?
Daniel:
Sunbridge College in Chestnut Ridge, NY (www.sunbridge.edu)
Daniel:
So there will be no single answer to how
left-handed children are viewed in all Waldorf schools.
Diana:
No, there is not. It would be very interesting
research. I remember a Waldorf teacher who was on the critics
list some time back saying he was researching the matter, I think
for a master's degree. He said he would report back but he never
has.
Daniel:
It would be interesting to know.
Setzer, quoted by Daniel:
Steiner says that left-handedness
has karmic reasons and recommends that one stimulate the child
to become right-handed, up to age 9, but only for automatic activities
- writing and eating - nothing else.
Diana:
This would make me laugh if it didn't make
me so angry. What else is there besides "automatic activities,"
writing and eating, where it would really matter? Tossing a ball
I guess. Writing and eating being fairly central to the life
of a school child . . .
Daniel:
Thank you for sharing your opinions on the
matter. The quote above was from a practicing MD. If you have
research to indicate this is harmful, there are quite a few people
who would like to hear of it.
Setzer, quoted by Daniel:
In Sonia's opinion, followed
by our school, when there is no consensus of all the people who
take care of the child (teachers, parents, doctors (school and
private), and therapists) nothing should be done to correct left-handedness.
Diana:
Well that's just great. This puts the burden
on parents to go in bellowing that nobody better be trying to
switch their child. I do advise Waldorf parents to do this; however,
these days, it would never even OCCUR to most parents that the
school might be trying this!
Daniel:
The burden is in making the decision. Before
anything is done the school should be contacting the parents.
I would strongly disagree with any school that acts without contacting
the parents first.
Setzer, quoted
by Daniel:
If the child is less than
nine years old, and there a consensus of all those people, our
school tries to stimulate the child to write (and only to write)
with his or her right hand. If a laterality test shows that the
child is totally left-sided (eyes, ears, hands and feet), he
or she should do all other activities (aside from writing) with
the left hand. If the child has a cross-laterality (some organs
are right-sided, others are left), exercises and eventually therapy
is recommended, so he or she may acquire a brain-dominance. There
are curative Eurythmy exercises that may help in this issue.
Diana:
Where is the evidence that curative eurythmy
"helps" in this issue? Helps what? Can anyone tell
me if any controlled research has EVER been done on "curative
eurythmy," to show that it helps anybody with anything?
Daniel:
The experience of dozens of practicing MD's
over decades has shown the efficacy of such treatments for many
conditions. Oh, but they are anthroposophists, so their opinion
is not to be trusted. "Curative eurythmy" (as opposed
to performance eurythmy) is by prescription only, and can only
be initiated by an MD. I don't know of any trained curative eurythmists
that would work with someone who did not have such a prescription.
Would have to look into the question of scientific research into
the efficay of curative eurythmy. I am not aware of any one way
or the other. But why do I have to do all the work? Perhaps you
could find out for us here.
Daniel:
Setzer's opinion is shared by all the anthroposophical
MD's (including Michaela Glockler, MD) that I have ever talked
with, as well as virtually every leading proponent of Waldorf
education.
Diana:
I'm a little lost here Daniel, is this
still Valdemar Setzer talking, or you? Have you discussed this
with leading proponents of Waldorf education?
Daniel:
Sorry about that. I'll try to be clearer in
the future. Those are my words. (And if I could request that
you be clearer with your snipped quotes, it would be helpful.
A number of Steiner quotes above are indestinguishable from my
own writing)
Daniel:
(Daniel again) Although the origin, purpose
and significance of laterality is not completely understood by
modern science, anthroposophists would probably see much of the
research as confirming Steiner's model.
Diana:
WHAT???? How so?
Daniel:
It seems to me that you are very surprised
to hear that science can and does support Anthroposophy. I hope
you won't be too biased to actually consider the possibility.
Diana:
You'll have to get explicit here, Daniel,
because I am utterly lost, if you read anything in the above
passage suggesting a left-handed child should be forced to use
the right hand. Utterl . . . lost.
Daniel:
Um, it's in the next paragraph. Keep reading.
Daniel:
For example, Steiner's statement above:
"Without any intervention, the etheric body is stronger
toward the left than the right, and the astral body is more developed
toward the right than the left" appears to be confirmed
by research into laterality such as: "The left hemisphere
also appears to be more involved than the right in the programming
of complex sequences of movement and in some aspects of awareness
of one's own body" (2002 Encyclopedia Britannica), these
being largely functions of the etheric body, while "The
right hemisphere, then, appears to be specialized for some aspects
of higher-level visual perception, spatial orientation, and route
finding (sense of direction)." (2002 Encyclopedia Britannica),
indicating aspects more often identified with the astral body.
Diana:
We just got little to go on here Daniel,
very little, if you honestly believe Steiner's "etheric
and astral bodies" somehow were what the Encyclopedia Britannica
really means by "left hemisphere" and "right hemisphere."
Daniel:
You're not reading very closely. Try again.
Daniel:
Steiner seemed to be indicating that in
issues of laterality, a left-hand dominance for writing would
have an influence on characteristics of thinking. While I am
not aware of much scientific research on this issue specifically,
I do not feel that the neurological research to date rules this
out. If you are aware of studies to the contrary, please let
me know.
Diana:
There is no reason to suggest neurologists
should be either trying to support OR rule out nonsense like
"the etheric body is stronger toward the left than the right."
No – obviously neurological research doesn't "rule
out" Steiner's babblings on any number of topics. They were
never worth ruling out. There is nothing there worthy of study.
Daniel:
You are not reading closely. You bias has
closed your mind. You can't even read what is directly above
your own paragraph and repeat it. I was talking about scientific
studies into the influence of laterality on cognitive development,
not the possible correspondence of etheric and astral characteristics
to hemispheric localizations. I left that subject the previous
paragraph.
Diana:
I kept in the full text of the study you
inserted here, since I am so confused by your conclusions, and
perhaps others will want to review it as well and someone can
explain how you reached your conclusions.
The Study (conclusion, snipped):
"This is a new concept
for people, that learning ability could depend on brain structure,"
Leonard said. "I think it's important to note that there
were no anatomical differences in children from different socioeconomic
environments. But if a child has reversed asymmetry, improving
the literacy environment becomes especially important."
Daniel:
While this study is far too small to be
conclusive, its conclusions do raise the question whether neurological
development can be influence by pedagogical treatment, and specifically
just the type of treatment that Steiner indicated by telling
teachers to encourage left dominant children to write with their
right hand.
Diana:
I have no idea how you could possibly have
concluded that from reading that study. There is absolutely no
suggestion in the study that handedness can or should be affected
by a parent or teacher attempting to change it in the first place,
thus your suggestion for this "pedagogical treatment"
is totally off base. If you do know of anyone else who has drawn
this conclusion from this study, or implemented a "pedagogical
treatment" based on this study, please cite it.
Daniel:
And I can't possibly believe that you can
read what I wrote and conclude what you do. I wrote that the
implications of the study raised questions. I did not write the
the study conclued anything. Read my paragraph again. I'll break
it down for you:
1. Study shows that brain characteristics influence cognitive
development, specifically reading ability.
2. Environment influences brain development (not stated in study)
3. Environmental influences can incluede which hand is used to
write
4. Ergo, which hand to write with could influence brain development
5. If brain development influences cognitive development, then
which hand a child writes with could influence brain development.
6. Ergo, which hand a child writes with could influence cognitive
development.
Point six is precicely Steiner's position.
If we accept point six, there is a basis for considering switching.
Finally, science neither says switching is helpful or that it
is harmful.
Daniel:
There are doubtless other studies that
would seem to prove such an attempt pointless. I raise this point
only to show that science is far from having made up his mind
on the issue.
Diana:
If there is no research supporting
what you propose, it seems a stretch to claim sicence hasn't
"made up its mind." Some things science doesn't even
consider, or stops considering when there's no further reason
to consider them. This falls in that category. No one outside
a Waldorf school today is working on "pedagogical treatments"
for handedness. You seem to think the fact that you can't find
studies speaking against it means the issue is undecided!
The fact is the issue is long since decided.
Daniel:
I have yet to see the research that "decides"
the issue. If you find it, please bring it to my attention. I
am sorry that you cannot find scientific evidence to back up
your position. Claiming that because no research exists, the
issue is therefor "decided" is not scientific, or even
logical, for that matter. The fact that "no one outside
of Waldorf is working on "pedagogical treatments" for
handedness" in itself tells us nothing about the usefulness
of such treatments. And finally, I base my statement "science
is far from having made up his mind on the issue" not only
on the absence of studies showing harm, but also on the presence
of studies such as the one I cited above that show that such
treatment can have effects, even if the area has not been researched.
Diana:
In other words, there probably are not
other studies proving such an attempt pointless, because no one
is even considering such an attempt!
Daniel:
Neither science nor logic would agree with
you that this settles the issue.
Daniel:
In summary, science, and by this I mean
neuroscientific research specifically, and not the general opinions
about handedness that you seem to like calling "scientific",
does not provide a definitive answer to either support or refute
Rudolf Steiner's recommendations. If there are studies that I
am unaware of that would seem to indicate otherwise, please bring
them to my attention.
Diana:
See above. The burden is on you to show
me a study – ONE SINGLE STUDY will do it, please, Daniel
– suggesting that anyone today outside Waldorf pedagogy
supports switching left-handed children.
Anyone got one?
Daniel:
No, the burden is on you. We have dozens of
MD's that speak to the effectiveness from out of their practice.
You claim that they are all ignorant. You further claim that
they are not "scientific". Now you admit that there
is actually no science on your side, but suddenly it is our problem
that you can't prove harm.
Daniel:
Ultimately, I feel the jury is still out
on this question. As far as I have been able to determine, neuroscience
does not have a comprehensive understanding of the subject. The
mechanisms and implications are largely unknown,
Diana:
Daniel, even if this position were supportable
(this "We still don't know" stance; and the case is
more accurately characterized as "The issue is no longer
even under consideration") . . . but even if it were
under consideration . . . when "mechanisms and implications
are unknown," then only humane course is to not cause a
child pain, discomfort and confusion, would you not agree? Based
on nothing but one man's supposed clairvoyant inspirations?
Hey . . . teacher, leave them kids alone.
Daniel:
Ok. So we agree that science cannot settle
the issue. We disagree about why. Children's "pain, discomfort
and confusion" can be in reaction to many things - new social
situations when they go to school, for example. Do we therfore
conclude that they should therefore not go to school? No, we
generally feel that school is good for them and that they need
to go through this "pain, discomfort and confusion"
to learn new social skills. This is true of math as well.
Daniel:
and there is no scientific basis to say
one way or the other whether switching is helpful or not.
Diana:
Daniel – it is hard to believe you
can be making such a basic error in reasoning. I could as easily
say, there is no scientific basis to say one way or the other
whether making children sing "Oh Susanna" while eating
blueberry pancakes and standing on their heads every morning
is helpful (helpful to what?) or not . . . after all, I can't
find any studies in the recent literature refuting the usefulness
of this specific ritual. I could then proceed to tell you about
some mystagogue's musings about the beneficial nature of upside-down-
pancake-eating-and-folksong-singing and insist that neuroscience
has not disproven its effectiveness . . . I would have just about
as strong a leg to stand on as what you proclaim here.
Daniel:
So you agree. I have an opinion, you have
an opinion. Science supports neither. Does this mean that you
will stop calling the switching of left handed children "unscientific"?
Daniel
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:32 am
Subject: Re: To Daniel
Daniel:
neither the science of his day nor the
science of today says anything scientific about the switching
of left handers. If you have evidence to the contrary, please
let me know.
Good morning Daniel, I've no more time to
reply to the same points over and over again. There is no science
to back up your claims – if there were, you'd have provided
the citations. A counter-retort to me that I should provide
citations does not prove a point. The person making the claims
needs to show the studies supporting the claims. There's lots
of things there isn't evidence for and we don't go around
asking each other for evidence there is no evidence. :)
There's no scientific studies showing Martha
Stewart is or isn't the Easter bunny, either, but we don't therefore
conclude that "the jury is still out" on whether Martha
is really a giant rabbit do we? Hm – bad example, maybe
she is a giant rabbit.
Furthermore you're asking me to find you research
supporting the need to stop an abusive practice. Ethical
considerations generally prohibit such research, except retrospectively.
I don't know if there are studies of long-term effects of forced
switching; I'll try to research this.
The "left hemisphere" and the "right
hemisphere" of the brain are not the etheric and astral
bodies, Daniel.
The study you copied suggests "improving
the literacy environment," and does not suggest a benefit
to forced switching of laterality. In fact it doesn't even mention
the possibility of switching laterality. It treats laterality
as a given of the "environment." Perhaps you read "environment"
in a social sense – as in the child's caretakers, who might
force a change – but it refers to the neurological "environment,"
i.e. the dominance of one or other hemisphere.
Settled issues are sometimes reopened in science,
of course. If this some day happens, I assure you I'll be happy
to discuss these new studies with you.
Just a note, not planning to reply to another
post asserting that I am dishonest, got these opinions from Peter
Staudenmaier or Dan Dugan, whether I am interested in the quotes
or actually read the quotes, or informing me that I have strong
feelings about switching left-handers. No shit Sherlock! I so
appreciate the great trouble and time you've taken with the subject,
Daniel.
Diana
P.S. The suggestion that this is never done
without the parents' consent is belied by many reports from Waldorf
parents.
One more point – you wrote about anthroposophical
doctors (MD's) – sarcastically -
Oh, but they are anthroposophists, so their
opinion is not to be trusted.
That is correct. Trust is to be earned. If
they feel their "indications" are above the scrutiny
of their peers outside anthroposophy, that may be why their opinions
are not even acknowledged outside of anthroposophy.
About eurythmy:
I am not aware of any [evidence] one way or the other.
If there is no evidence of it one way or another,
an MD who prescribes it is a quack.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Daniel
Diana,
Sorry for the delay, I was away from my computer for almost two
days...
Daniel:
I don't feel that he spoke against science.
When he spoke, there was nothing in science to in any way contradict
his indications.
Diana:
There was probably nothing in science to
refute claims such as our planet having future "incarnations"
called Venus and Jupiter and Vulcan, then, either. In fact, I
bet there's still no research contradicting this! No one
believes it, Daniel, outside anthroposophists!
Daniel:
Whether or not anyone believes it is one point. Whether or not
science contradicts it is another. If you agree that nothing
in science contradicts it, then you will perhaps consider not
calling it "unscientific."
Daniel:
I don't feel that subsequent scientific
understanding in the area of neuroscience provides sufficint
information to settle the issue definitively. If you can point
me to such research, preferrably published in a peer-reviewed
journal, I will be happy to read up on the subject.
Diana:
You are still a little mixed up. See previous
blueberry pancake example. It will be a tad silly for either
of us to go hunting down this research, Daniel. If you want to
defend the continuation of this practice, you are going to have
to show me peer-reviewed research explaining its purpose
and usefulness.
Daniel:
Thanks for telling me what I am. Perhaps I
am not writing clearly enough for you, but I don't feel in the
least bit mixed up. I must say that I find it strange that you
say we don't need to find any research to better understand the
matter.
You agree you have not basis for calling it
"unscientific"?
Diana:
You're a laugh a minute telling me I
should provide peer-reviewed research! Where is Steiner's peer-reviewed
research? Down below, you seem to set a considerably different
standard, taking Steiner's word about his "research"
into left-handedness:
Daniel:
I only attack you because you claim the mantle
of science for your opinions. If you want to call your opinions
science then you will have to back them up with science - of
the high standards type. Research and science are not always
the same thing. For example, I did quite a bit of research to
formulate my opinions for this article. But I did no science.
I only read the works of others, judged it on the basis of my
own experience using logic, and presented it. This is research,
but it is not scientific research. Nor have I claimed it as such.
When Steiner says that he did research into "what it means
to use the left hand" he did not specify whether this was
scientific research or not. I only brought it up because you
asked what research Steiner did. Back to the science issue. I
don't think anyone has claimed that Steiner's indications on
the treatment of left-haded children is "scientific".
However, to call it "unscientific" you must demonstrate
that it contradicts science. You made the accusation. The burden
of proof rests with you. And if I ever accuse you of something,
you may rightfully request that I demonstarate proof of it.
Diana:
"I would not speak
about such things had I not done considerable research in this
area and had I not tried, for example, to understand what it
means to use the left hand." Rudolf Steiner, May 7th, 1920.
Diana says: !!!!
What is this resarch exactly Daniel?
Daniel:
I don't know, and I'm afraid we can't ask
Steiner, so we may never know.
Daniel:
Beyond his statement that he had studied
the issue in depth? I don't think anyone in his day knew the
answer to the question: "What causes handedness?".
In fact, I don't think anyone today does either. The consensus
today not to attempt any remediation appeaers to me to be more
of a cultural consensus than a conclusion based specifically
on scientific understanding.
Diana:
I will grant this possibility. However,
if so it is a very good, an extremely darn good, cultural
consensus. MAJOR PROGRESS not to torment children for no reason.
yes?
Daniel:
And maybe one day you will understand the
difference between cultural prejudice and science.
Diana:
Did Steiner have any qualifications to
contribute to a discussion of handedness?
Daniel:
No, but neither do you, from that point
of view.
Diana:
True. But I make no pronouncements on it
other than LEAVE THEM ALONE if you don't know what you're doing!
Daniel:
And if you know what you're doing? Then what?
Do we have your permission to try it (with parental consent,
of course)?
Daniel:
he spent a decade supporting himself by
tutoring.
Diana:
Correct me if I am wrong. I believe it
was 4 children in one family. Were there others? I am also somewhat
suspicious of the claim that this is how he supported himself
for a decade, but I'm not sure.
Daniel:
This is where I have a real problem with so
many critics. You seem to think you know so much about Steiner,
but you never bother to find out if what you "know"
is factual or not. From over here it does not look very "scientific."
Now if you really want to learn (as the statement "convice
me" seems to imply) and want to ask me rather than looking
it up, you might consider another tone. But I am happy to share
what little I know, but your hostility seems to indicate that
you might not hear things when I say them.
Steiner started tutoring at age 14 (that would
be 1875) and continued this activity for about 15 years, until
he moved to Weimar to work at the Goethe archives in 1890 (his
first "real" job). From:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA028/TSoML/GA028_c13.html
From "The Course of My
Life" by Rudolf Steiner, Chapter 13:
"When I was fourteen years old I had to begin tutoring;
for fifteen years, up to the beginning of the second phase of
my life, that spent at Weimar, my destiny kept me engaged in
this work."
Daniel:
He tutored the Specht boys from 1884 to 1890,
but they were not the only ones. From the same chapter: "In
the family of these children I found for a number of years a
sort of home, from which I went out to other families as tutor
or instructor." His experience was extensive, as a separate
post will show. His skill as an educator is demonstrated by the
fact that through his efforts of these boys, who was considered
retarded got into medical school and became a doctor. The process
was labourious, and Steiner describes it: " I frequently
had to spend two hours in preparing for half an hour of instruction
in order to get the material for instruction in such a form that
in the least time, and with the least strain upon the mental
and physical powers of the child, I might reach his highest capacity
for achievement. The order of the subjects of instruction had
to be carefully considered; the division of the entire day into
periods had to be properly determined." You can read the
whole story here: http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA028/TSoML/GA028_c06.html
While this doesn't have any direct bearing
on left handed children, it does show that Steiner was far from
inexperienced or ignorant in the theory or practice of pedagogy,
for all ages of children, at all levels of skill (and presumably
with left and right dominant hands).
While not formal training, it is a significant
body of experience to draw on.
See above. Convince me it was more than
four children.
Daniel:
I hope the above has done just that.
Diana:
Tell me if any of them were left-handed,
and if so did he try to switch them.
Daniel:
I don't believe this is known.
Diana:
Where does he report the results of his
attempts to switch the left-handed child/ren in this family and
where is the follow-up describing possible effects on these children
later. Where is the control group of right-handed children, or
of left-handed children who were not switched.
Daniel:
I never claimed it was science. YOU said it
was "unscientific". I have asked you to back up this
assertion.
Daniel:
If I may ask you another question, what
scientists have expressed their views on Steiner's pedagogical
recommendations? Steiner is referrenced very infrequently outside
of anthroposophical circles, so I am curious on this point.
Diana:
Daniel . . . if you don't know what conclusions
to draw from the fact that no one else even comments on these
recommendations, or cites Steiner outside anthroposophical circles
. . . what do you think I am trying to tell you?
Daniel:
You did not answer my question. You stated
that scientists have objected to Steiner's pedagogy. I said that
would be atypical and asked you to give examples. Can you?
Diana:
How many left-handed children did Steiner
observe?
Daniel:
I don't have exact numbers. The first Waldorf
school had grown to about 1000 pupils when he made his statement
of switching. If we assume that the school population was 10%
lefties, that would be about 100 left-handed children that he
could have observed.
Diana:
"Could have." Is there evidence
that he did? And I mean "observe" as in scientifically
observe. It would take awhile, observing even one child to determine
whether their handedness had any particular significance to their
learning, never mind their spirituality!
Daniel:
What constitutes "evidence"? What
do you mean by "observe scientifically"? You are obviously
asking questions that in all probability cannot be answered.
However, just because they cannot be answered does not in itself
prove your point.
Daniel:
You claim that Steiner's pedagogical indications,
specificall on the treatment of left handed childred is "unscientific".
You have further questioned his intelligence, knowledge and experience
in the entire field of pedagogy. To demonstrate his experience
in pedagogy I have compiled a separate post on the subject. While
I cannot prove that his methods are "scientific" by
providing proper research into the question, that alone does
not prove that they are "unscientific". To prove that
they are "unscientific" you must demonstrate that they
contradict science. Finally, because you made the acusation,
the burden of proof lies with you.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Daniel
Diana:
Good morning Daniel, I've no more time
to reply to the same points over and over again.
Daniel:
Would you consider replying to different points
then? Or perhaps actually reading what I take so much time to
write for you?
Diana:
The person making the claims needs to show
the studies supporting the claims. There's lots of things there
isn't evidence for and we don't go around asking each
other for evidence there is no evidence. :)
Daniel:
My point exactly. However, YOU have made the
initial claim, not I. I have not called Steiner's pedagogy "science".
Rather, YOU called it "unscientific". Now when I ask
you to prove your claim, you cannot. But somehow that is my problem?
Diana:
Furthermore you're asking me to find you
research supporting the need to stop an abusive practice.
Ethical considerations generally prohibit such research, except
retrospectively. I don't know if there are studies of long-term
effects of forced switching; I'll try to research this.
Daniel:
I am asking you to put up or shut up. It appears
I will get neither. This may be a bit blunt, but some people
can acknowledge when their statements have overstepped their
ability to substantiate them. Others can't, which I find a pity.
Diana:
The "left hemisphere" and the
"right hemisphere" of the brain are not the etheric
and astral bodies, Daniel.
Daniel:
First, if you would attempt to read carefully,
you would find that I said no such thing. And second, I must
ask you when you became an expert on etheric and astral bodies.
Diana:
The study you copied suggests "improving
the literacy environment," and does not suggest a benefit
to forced switching of laterality. In fact it doesn't even mention
the possibility of switching laterality. It treats laterality
as a given of the "environment." Perhaps you read "environment"
in a social sense – as in the child's caretakers, who might
force a change – but it refers to the neurological "environment,"
i.e. the dominance of one or other hemisphere.
Daniel:
For the third time, my logic is as follows:
1. Study shows that brain characteristics influence cognitive
development, specifically reading ability.
2. Environment influences brain development (not stated in study)
3. Environmental influences can incluede which hand is used to
write
4. Ergo, which hand to write with could influence brain development
5. If brain development influences cognitive development, then
which hand a child writes with could influence brain development.
6. Ergo, which hand a child writes with could influence cognitive
development.
If you feel that there is a flaw in this logic,
please, let's discuss that. I am perfectly aware that the study
in no way directly addresses laterality.
Diana:
Settled issues are sometimes reopened in
science, of course. If this some day happens, I assure you I'll
be happy to discuss these new studies with you.
Daniel:
I'm sorry, I missed something. What issue
is it that is is "settled" by science that you would
be happy to discuss with me? It is certainly not the issue of
the influence of handedness on cognitive development, one that
I would suggest hasn't even been opend by science.
Diana:
Just a note, not planning to reply to another
post asserting that I am dishonest, got these opinions from Peter
Staudenmaier or Dan Dugan, whether I am interested in the quotes
or actually read the quotes, or informing me that I have strong
feelings about switching left-handers. No shit Sherlock! I so
appreciate the great trouble and time you've taken with the subject,
Daniel.
Diana
Daniel:
So this is how it is when you can't win an
argument on facts or logic. And the critics accuse the Anthroposophists
of being close-minded?
Diana:
P.S. The suggestion that this is never
done without the parents' consent is belied by many reports from
Waldorf parents.
Daniel:
Earlier you said that you agreed that the
current practice of informing parents seemed to be the more common
one. Do you have new information that caused you to change your
mind? If so, please share it.
Diana:
One more point – you wrote about anthroposophical
doctors (MD's) – sarcastically -
Quoting Daniel:
Oh, but they are anthroposophists, so their
opinion is not to be trusted.
Diana:
That is correct. Trust is to be earned.
If they feel their "indications" are above the scrutiny
of their peers outside anthroposophy, that may be why their opinions
are not even acknowledged outside of anthroposophy.
Daniel:
Now here you are again fighting a straw man.
I was being scrupulous in differentiating case studies from double-blind
placebo-controled "scientific" (in the narrowest sense)
studies. I stated that the first existed, but the second did
not. From this you somehow managed to accuse the entire field
of anthroposophically extended medicine of not WANTING any scrutiny.
I know for a fact that on the contrary, they are dying to have
these things studied in proper depth. Now if you have the aproximately
$2 million dollars that a properly sized double-blind placebo-controled
study on the efficacy of curative eurhythmy would cost and feel
that this would be a good place to spend it, I can put you in
touch with some people to work with on this. And if you know
anyone at the NIH, preferably in the department responsible for
funding studies into alternative medicine, perhaps they can arrange
a grant. The issue hasn't been studied because no one has the
funds, not because the anthroposophically MD's don't want the
exposure. But you, with almost no knowledge of the field at all,
somehow feel yourself qualified to pass judgement on the intentions
of dozens of individuals whom you have never met. A true trait
of a first class mind.
Diana: About
eurythmy:
(Mis)quoting Daniel:
I am not aware of any [evidence] one way or the other.
Diana:
If there is no evidence of it one way or
another, an MD who prescribes it is a quack.
Daniel:
Nice twist on my words. I said that ther wasn't
any scientific evidence (meaning in the placebo-controlled, double
blind sense). Of the other, non-scientific evidence, called "case
studies" there are volumes. I was being precice in differentiating
the two types. Much medicine is based on case studies. Because
of the prohibitive costs, many areas are not on double-blind
placebo-controled studies. If this is your criteria, most practicing
doctors are "quacks." Glad to see you have closed your
mind and stooped to dirty tricks of misquotation for cheap points.
How very Staudenmaier.
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Diana
(re: To Daniel - Steiner and the pedagogical treatment of left-handed
children)
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
January/February
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy