Education of Heloise Methods, Content, and Purpose of Learning in the Twelfth Century Book

Some of his descriptions of dysfunctional children reminded me of me or members of my family. That said this work seems largely based on anecdote and assertion. Even when a conclusion is based on the self assessment or a slip of the tongue from a subject, how do we know that this was explanatory, and not just some self justification? If you have experience with someone who lies, you'll recognize that they often seem as self deluded as they attempt to influence those around them. On a lesser scale, there is interesting research which speaks to our own self delusion. He did makes points I tend to agree with, such as being wary of running a classroom as a constant contest for first place, as there can only be one best student, and my own experience as student, and later an educator speaks to those who know they will never be first so won't engage. I wasn't clear if the author had a good enough understanding of "organic issues" to be able to separate lazy from those with processing issues or other cognitive deficits. I see Adlering ideas in my own teacher education, and I'm thinking I needed to challenge those assumptions. The best criticism of the work seems to be a lack of the ability to falsify the claims. Each claim seems to have an out, so it's not predictive to say "pampering" (whatever that really means, or can it even be defined with any precision?) will cause this or that issue. I do believe it important for a teacher to understand a student. I also question the assertion that personality is in any way unitary or consistent. It seems the very most human of qualities is our inconsistencies. How we can know how to do something, be committed, and still not do it, despite talk therapy, and all kinds of things is what makes the study of the mind interesting.