I think you're conflating the fancy words put on it by the article-writer with the concepts as expressed by the children. On the conceptual level, all of that is entirely reasonable to see emerge from a group of broadly well-mannered kids.
That, and a few other things that would prime them to a decision like that:
* This came after the "points" game. Deciding to be collectivist makes sense, after a game that's designed to result in obviously unfair distribution of ownership. These kids are probably used to these kinds of object lessons: it sounds like this is the program's preferred method of teaching.
* They still wanted to make one huge LEGO Town. Thus, they need to come up with a plan for resolving conflicts, and it can't just be "I own it."
I don't think so. In my experience, kids are more collectivist than the average adult.
Collectivist in the totalitarian sense - the need to join, persecute outsiders, self-actualize by identifying what they aren't. In my experience kids are savage. Lord of the Flies isn't considered literature just because it's an action story.
> From our conversations, several themes emerged.
> Collectivity is a good thing:
> Personal expression matters:
> Shared power is a valued goal:
> Moderation and equal access to resources are things to strive for
> As teachers, we were excited by these comments. The children gave voice to the value that collectivity is a solid, energizing way to organize a community — and that it requires power-sharing, equal access to resources, and trust in the other participants. They expressed the need, within collectivity, for personal expression, for being acknowledged as an individual within the group.
These were 8 year olds. The writers definitely steered the children into the results they wanted.