Education System Update?

[EndogenousRebel]

I Feel like schools are very slow to adopt changes that are in their interests. I think that it takes about 10 years for them to "step it up" a notch in the proper direction.

If we could institute changes tomorrow at a large scale, what would be the metrics that teachers should maximize?

 

[sushi]

most teachers are terrible at their jobs, hope ai take over their jobs soon.

less grading and failing would help alot. Being more student centric.

if you are teacher, sorry if this offends you.

 

[Black Rose]

The industrial revolution was what the system was designed for. But it seems that we do not have anything today that is relevant to teaching all kids what to do to prepare for the way society is.

The main thing in society today is technology or STEM

So is this what we should be teaching?

Some say we should have more art sports health and social English history studies.

I think it is complicated because of consumerism, we need people to work at jobs but those jobs are diverse and we can't know what kids are good at based on paper tests any longer.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Explaining to plebs why schools are dumb, is like explaining to a sparrow why flying is dumb. Sparrow dreams of being the Eagle.
So shitting on schools, is the same as telling a sparrow that being an Eagle is dumb.
Most plebs grew up illiterate and now they are overcompensating for it, but throwing themselves in to books.

The trouble is by the time a mere pleb is 25 and has college degree they have exactly 0 exp in real life.

This means most educated people have no clue how anything in real life works.

 

[Black Rose]

The trouble is by the time a mere pleb is 25 and has college degree they have exactly 0 exp in real life.

This means most educated people have no clue how anything in real life works.

What are experience points in real life though?

Fixing a broken electrical socket?

going to parties?

hag out with friends?

I did none of this and still had no degree

and even if I did, why do most people need to do this?

from what I know the only things you need to do is get a house and have kids.

most people do this and I might find a girlfriend soon but do people actually need to do most of what we view as "life experience".

point is: I don't like to dance meaning my experience is limited somewhat, is this a problem?

 

[ZenRaiden]

and even if I did, why do most people need to do this?

I can tell you all the theory in the world about swimming, yet you can drown.
You can only learn by swimming.
However giving you the theory you will have the edge above those who never had the theory of swimming, and never did any swimming.

Some of the best swimmers in this world the ones that live next to sea, but never had any theory lessons. They just swam a lot.

When it comes to math its the same thing. I can tell you all the theory of math in the world and stuff it into your head, but unless you actually DO math you will never get anything done. Even arithmetic have rules, but please give me someone who knows the rules of arithmetic and actually knows how to do arithmetic.

So theory is y axis, and doing is x axis. NO matter how high you go on y axis, if you never go into x axis nothing gets done, then your education knowledge means nothing.

Why do you learn something anyway???

This is a question that should be answered by teachers, but when you ask teachers why we learning something most of them will not tell you.

Is it not bit odd, that you learning something, but those who teach it will not tell you why?

And there is simple answer why we learn certain things.

most people do this and I might find a girlfriend soon but do people actually need to do most of what we view as "life experience".

Well street smarts is experience, and street smarts will get you far along the x axis, but not very high on Y axis thus the area across the function will be tiny if you never grow on y axis, but just chug along x axis.

Life experience is whatever it is, but experience is not just "experience" its the real thing, its what defines how your life is. Its the ultimate thing.
It defines whether or not you have life.
IN other words at some point something has to happen in order for life to happen.
Its tautological.

We compound experience though. So what most people don't get is that going along x axis, makes your y axis grow too, simply, because experiences compound.
SO if you learn well along Y axis, you are likely to learn well along X axis.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Overeducated-ness is definitely a thing.

Every piece of knowledge that you will never apply contributes to this. I would say that even some people who never went to school are overeducated, being as the internet is the ultimate addictive substance of our time, and that it also is the most information rich source of our time.

Like you could look at content regarding subjects for hours, but unless that information is actually applicable, it's just an excess of things your brain has to process.

Overstimulation is a thing. Media literacy and "diet" are terms that aren't popular when they should be, as they separate someone who is illiterate, literacy being something most people can achieve, and then applying critical thinking in contextual situation online, something I'm not sure most people are comfortable talking about.

 

[Black Rose]

When it comes to math its the same thing. I can tell you all the theory of math in the world and stuff it into your head, but unless you actually DO math you will never get anything done.

I like to do math sometimes but it is in the context of solving a problem.

I find the relationship between solving a problem and deciding what problem to solve a bit tricky.

Real-life problems might have a bit of math to them but also there are some problems that are abstract in that we do not see practically of them immediately so it becomes a daunting task to say we need more people on this or that problem other people can't see. You would need to go to a math professor to ask them what application it has or maybe it was solved already or maybe you are paid to solve problems you do not find fun to do.

To widle it all down: you would need to be paid to do research if you need resources for your project and that requires people to see you have good ideas or they would think you are wasting time.

Life experience is whatever it is, but experience is not just "experience" its the real thing, its what defines how your life is. Its the ultimate thing.
It defines whether or not you have life.
IN other words at some point something has to happen in order for life to happen.
Its tautological.

So what could a person 15 to 25 be doing instead of school to get experience?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Some of the best swimmers in this world the ones that live next to sea, but never had any theory lessons. They just swam a lot.

Samurai Champloo kinda played with this idea. It's like 26 episodes and has beautiful animation if you ever want to watch it.


The point being that there is a vagabond vagrant who was just intuitively skilled in sword play, and that his foil is a well mannered noble blooded samurai who was formally trained. Interesting show.

 

[ZenRaiden]

So what could a person 15 to 25 be doing instead of school to get experience?

Anything, but school.
Reading a book to write a bookreport from cliff notes is not going to make you Darwinian mega star even in school curriculum, or real life.

Most of what people do is highly lacking in application in real life.
Sure we can rationalize things to a degree, learn xyz to do xyz, but reality is set in stone, vs our brains and learning is not.
Our learning has to follow reality, not the other way around, although one could argue that learning is in sense shaping what we can do with reality.

This however also explains how learning things can lead to blind spots in reality.

Good example is how a dude used a math formula and physics to figure out how much energy it takes to get an object to the orbit, and then people getting there in practice.
We could not get to Earth orbit without the calculus of orbital velocities.
However the engineering required to get us there, required a lot more work and lot of effort on part of engineering, metallurgy, psychology, medical knowledge, electronics etc.

So theory is surprisingly easy for humans, but meeting that theory with something in the x axis is way harder.
Its the same with Theory of relativity and finding ways to use it in GPS or GLONASS or other things.

The reality is that we cracked the atom, but getting atomic reactor and the A bomb took time.

In same way we can think of stuff in real life.

A theory might be good and sound, but getting there requires a lot of effort.

Most of what makes the world go round is the x axis. So getting the whys (y) work for x axis, is hard.

But with higher Y you get more bang for buck in x axis.

So if you say devoted Y effort more than regular normie with zero x axis, then translating things to x axis you will get more yield from Y in X axis.

This is why we like to promote education.

However without knowing how to translate the Y to X and that requires X axis motion forward you are just going to struggle in life, because knowing how to get a bigger bang for buck requires you to understand X axis first.

 

[Puffy]

When it comes to math its the same thing. I can tell you all the theory of math in the world and stuff it into your head, but unless you actually DO math you will never get anything done.

I like to do math sometimes but it is in the context of solving a problem.

I find the relationship between solving a problem and deciding what problem to solve a bit tricky.

Real-life problems might have a bit of math to them but also there are some problems that are abstract in that we do not see practically of them immediately so it becomes a daunting task to say we need more people on this or that problem other people can't see. You would need to go to a math professor to ask them what application it has or maybe it was solved already or maybe you are paid to solve problems you do not find fun to do.

To widle it all down: you would need to be paid to do research if you need resources for your project and that requires people to see you have good ideas or they would think you are wasting time.

Life experience is whatever it is, but experience is not just "experience" its the real thing, its what defines how your life is. Its the ultimate thing.
It defines whether or not you have life.
IN other words at some point something has to happen in order for life to happen.
Its tautological.

So what could a person 15 to 25 be doing instead of school to get experience?

Pursue something they care and are passionate about. Seek opportunities to work with people who are really skilled in that area and learn from them. Put in 10,000 hours of effort to master that area. Continue to learn and practice related disciplines that they care about.

I went to university but I agree with zenraiden if I was re-doing it I’d be straight out of school at 16 and into an apprenticeship. Practice is more important than theory or book learning.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

If it helps there could be a complete reimagination of education system. I don't see why you would take funding away from teaching people things they should know.

If we are being honest, school is what sets the tone of what is normal in society a lot of times, especially before the internet.

If you show up at school with a black eye for example, that is not normal, yet if you were not present in school, no one would know you got a black eye. I'd hate to know how much abuse would be perpetrated if school wasn't required for every child.

School is the public social welfare represented by the government.

I suppose the problem is "indoctrination" but that happens because of incompetent parents if you ask me.

There are so many houselholds where the children are left to their own devices, and school comes and takes 7-9 hours of that for five days a week.

The individual parent could never hope to imagine to provide a high value environment for the children to learn, but maybe someone or multiple someones (teachers) can have it be their full time job to do that.

This is my understanding of the education system. Sure, these teachers are often micromanaged by administration, but again, I don't think the presence of government in your life is defacto scam/waste of time.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I suppose the problem is "indoctrination"

It is not the problem. It is THE MOST MASSIVE problem.
By that I mean , you cannot veer out into some self propelled learning or thinking.
There are schools with self direct learning as well.
Homeschooling has shown to be effective too.
Virtually all versions of school have been shown to be better.

The issue here is that most of school life is passive back seat, 45 minute speed run into testing.
You can have a form like that and call it learning, but that is not have most humans learn.
I am adult and I could still not do what children do in schools.
I would simply fail school again.
My brain works differently form what schools require.
I cannot circumvent that.
I also think the massive problem here is that most of what schools do, is strained and stretched beyond its limits.
Schools were meant to be places to spend some time out of the day for learning some basics, so a hay pleb could be literate pleb.
This eventually became being literate pleb to being skilled pleb, and know how pleb.
Eventually becoming a ready made packaged commodity, that can be inserted in any place on job market.
Reality is people look at effort and success, but very few people reflect on what counts as effort and success and how it shapes their life.

For ordinary people where school is actually fun and good for them and being a certain way counts for them, this obviously is non issue.

But even those types would benefit more form other things.

The defense of school seems to be "it works" clause.
Which to be frank all things work on some level in society, but we don't need to defend things in society just cause they work.
We can do much better.
The problem is if we do much better, it possess a real problem for people at the top.
Its hard keeping people down if they are smart and think critical.

 

[Black Rose]

I went to university but I agree with zenraiden if I was re-doing it I’d be straight out of school at 16 and into an apprenticeship. Practice is more important than theory or book learning.

Its hard keeping people down if they are smart and think critical.

This is a contradiction.

If you are 16 and you are forced into something you do not want to do, be it more school or you have a master telling you this is what you must learn given you are not deciding who that master is but the state is then you have no choice. People do not just get to decide oh look I want to do computers I will go with the best computer master, only the best students get to be apprenticed to the best masters. If you are mediocre which sets the standards then maybe if we had a system where people get to go with people like themselves then we could say we find the best matches but that would require knowing what kids can do and that brings us back to testing for what kids can do again.

So finding who gets to go where requires knowing what kids can do and then getting them to the appropriate master for apprenticeship. but because in the books of some people they only want the best and smartest persons, we have elite schools in the first place to sort them out from the rest of the "plebs". The system is not for them in any case but for those at the top. Those at the top do not care if you work at McDonalds as long as they get the best people working for them which means you need to separate all the rest.

We here are in the middle between the average and the advanced people. We had no way of getting to the top and we are above average intelligence. That makes us kinda mute in what we do. Are we the ones who should be the masters teaching people what to do? Because we would suck at it so maybe instead we should get our kids to become better than us so they reach the top. What are we really trying to teach the kids? How do we know who should be apprenticed to the plumber or the quantum physicists?

 

[Black Rose]

If the system does change I suspect this is how it happens:

Person x is 16 and they get a specialized IQ test.

This automatically decides the university they go to.

Those universities have specialized degrees based on what level of IQ goes with each degree.

The person then goes to a guild where those people do those degrees.

 

[ZenRaiden]

If you are mediocre which sets the standards

There is no such thing as mediocre, its a standard the emerges from the school desks and testing standards.
Many people know for fact testing is unrealistic.
That said you are getting ahead of yourself which is the reason why this topic is hard to talk about with people.

See first try not think of yourself as person who is in the school system, who passed the test and got education. Try to look back objectively on your school days, and try to look at it from pragmatic point of view? Did school increase my chances? If so how?
Did school teach me something that is marketable and if so how? How much effort did the skill cost me in time and focus etc. These are questions outside of opinion.
They are questions directly linked to you, and only you can objectively answer them.
I did this analysis with myself. Don't look at what others tell you, simply analyses your direct experiences, and where you learned the most and where you learned nothing, and where you got benefits and where you lost time. Your experiences is unique to you.

to testing for what kids can do again.

Like you never knew that guy who winged the testing and did well, but was dumb as bag of bricks, yet you studied and knew it and still got a bad grade. Testing does not reflect the sum of your intellect or knowledge. I could run circles around my teacher in biology, but she still found a way to give me an F grade simply, because I was too dense to repeat some five words in some order on a test.

Those at the top do not care if you work at McDonalds as long as they get the best people working for them which means you need to separate all the rest.

I did not mind working at McDonalds, but it sucked balls at certain point. I don't think I can blame my schooling for working at McDonalds. It was my choice.
See I don't have a problem either way.
See I don't try to insert my ego in to every analysis.
Ego is full of emotions that try to paint things unrealistically.
Yes when I was in school my ego was in the game, but I am too old and too smart to let ego tell me how to analysis something. That does not mean that my ego has no pertinent information. My ego is part of the equation, because my ego is part of education I got.
Many people assume when I complain about school system think that I complain because I got bad grades or that I never applied myself.
The problem is that is ego analysis.

Retrospective analysis can be done without ego, simply using questions like : How many habits I learned and how much did I get out of education, and what know how in school has actually benefited me in real life.
It would probably be different for you and me.
Because you have a very different and unique psychological profile from me.
I also differentiate between learning something of my volition on my own time and learning something in school.
I for example don't count homework as school work.
That is because I think homework is just school failing at its job.
I do not however count homework as part of learning of my volition, but many things I learned of my volition were many fold more effective than actual homework.

So you see I did actually think about this thoroughly.
The reasons I did so is because I wanted to figure out how to learn more effectively in real life outside of school, and how to benefit from what I learned in school.

My personal analysis was that I suck at learning in school environment, due to the way I think and pay attention to, but my experience in learning also taught me that I am capable of learning faster than most people in some areas, where non conventional means exist. I learned to write at home, I learned to count at home, and I learned to read at home, I learned most of what I know today by my own volition and at home. Now I don't blame school system for it. I simply took this objective fact of life. 90 percent of things that I know now do not come from school, but I spent most of my early life learning in school.
There are reasons for this like not paying attention, or being to dense to listen to or being undisciplined etc. That does not however change my conclusion that school sucks. It just so happens to be true for me. Its lot easier for me to pick up things now and learn them many times faster alone than in school.
I don't judge this as bad or good, I judge it as fact of life.

Whether someone goes to college and spends 5 years learning or goes to say trade school and does handy work either way that is career choice that is almost predefined by circumstances rather than actual analysis.

What is important to ask is where can one capitalize now?

 

[Puffy]

I went to university but I agree with zenraiden if I was re-doing it I’d be straight out of school at 16 and into an apprenticeship. Practice is more important than theory or book learning.

Its hard keeping people down if they are smart and think critical.

This is a contradiction.

If you are 16 and you are forced into something you do not want to do, be it more school or you have a master telling you this is what you must learn given you are not deciding who that master is but the state is then you have no choice. People do not just get to decide oh look I want to do computers I will go with the best computer master, only the best students get to be apprenticed to the best masters. If you are mediocre which sets the standards then maybe if we had a system where people get to go with people like themselves then we could say we find the best matches but that would require knowing what kids can do and that brings us back to testing for what kids can do again.

So finding who gets to go where requires knowing what kids can do and then getting them to the appropriate master for apprenticeship. but because in the books of some people they only want the best and smartest persons, we have elite schools in the first place to sort them out from the rest of the "plebs". The system is not for them in any case but for those at the top. Those at the top do not care if you work at McDonalds as long as they get the best people working for them which means you need to separate all the rest.

We here are in the middle between the average and the advanced people. We had no way of getting to the top and we are above average intelligence. That makes us kinda mute in what we do. Are we the ones who should be the masters teaching people what to do? Because we would suck at it so maybe instead we should get our kids to become better than us so they reach the top. What are we really trying to teach the kids? How do we know who should be apprenticed to the plumber or the quantum physicists?

I'm not sure what it's like in the USA so I cannot comment. But in the UK you don't need to go to university to pursue computer science and can pursue it through apprenticeship. I got into web development through apprenticeship in my 20s and I know people in the industry who didn't go to university and did the same.

Also, at least in London, while I'm sure it's not an even playing field there are opportunities for people from a mix of backgrounds to enter software development and technology, not just the best from elite schools, as the reality is there is a lot of demand for that skillset on the job market here.

 

[Black Rose]

My personal analysis was that I suck at learning in school environment, due to the way I think and pay attention to, but my experience in learning also taught me that I am capable of learning faster than most people in some areas, where non conventional means exist.

I'm not sure what it's like in the USA so I cannot comment. But in the UK you don't need to go to university to pursue computer science and can pursue it through apprenticeship.

So people are different and learn differently.

That makes it 100 times harder to change the system.

Because how do you make things work for people who think differently?

I suppose that you can't change the system and that means no one will determine success but those who have money and skills.

Meaning it is a capitalistic system so screw you if you don't fit in.

Obviously, you two do not know how to help people 16 to 25 do it differently.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I'm not sure what it's like in the USA so I cannot comment. But in the UK you don't need to go to university to pursue computer science and can pursue it through apprenticeship. I got into web development through apprenticeship in my 20s and I know people in the industry who didn't go to university and did the same.

Also, at least in London, while I'm sure it's not an even playing field there are opportunities for people from a mix of backgrounds to enter software development and technology, not just the best from elite schools, as the reality is there is a lot of demand for that skillset on the job market here.

I grew up in generation where knowing anything about computers made you an expert on computers. Generally just knowing how to turn it on and off was enough, and knowing how to click and double click was wizard level shit. Bonus points if you actually knew anything on the computer, then you were bonafide nerd.

Today with similar knowledge I am a dummy.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Because how do you make things work for people who think differently?

Loser standards, eliminate passive learning methods, don't teach to rote, but teach to understanding, reduce grading to once yearly instead of every fucking time you breath and move, don't berate or criticse kids just cause they don't get an A.

Tell kids about the job market, industries, application forms before they leaves school, give kids time of the year to apply for apprentice ships to actually work for companies,
improve school curriculum to fit modern requirements,
Redefine the importance of grammar and discipline.
We don't need begrudging slaves, we need enthusiastic kids.
Introduce concepts of games and play in learning curriculum.
Improve the importance of Arts, and reduce the time drilling kids on things they forget and never use in real life.

Give time for kids to be self learning and self directed, instead of just dragging them through the system without any choice.

Reduce the amount of hours of learning, its inefficient for kids to spend all their mental efforts on school and have nothing left for life outside of school.
Reduce homework to long term projects, and make learning from day to day exclusively to schools.

Introduce social skills class, sex education that is not just about putting a condom on a banana, introduce financial and life skills classes, introduce law classes ergo constitutional law and laws pertaining to human rights and your citizen rights.
Every citizen should understand the concept of state they inhabit.
Most voters don't even know when their own party tramples the constitution.
Legal rights etc.

Then introduce issues of life happiness in relationships, ergo basics how to live a decent life in relation to other people.

Learning basic life skill includes : Listening, Talking, Reading, Writing, with COMPREHENSION. There are people with PhDrs that don't know this!!!

Then introduce class where people learn to work alone, work in coop groups, creativity activities, outdoors activities, manual labor activities, physical labor activities, etc.
Kids do not benefit psychologically or physically sitting at a desk all day.
Its detrimental.
Teach kids how to plant trees, how to identify vegetables and fruits.
I could fucking go all day about this stuff.

Teach how to do research, and how to review books, and pick literature according to your needs, how to file and keep documentation etc.

 

[Puffy]

My personal analysis was that I suck at learning in school environment, due to the way I think and pay attention to, but my experience in learning also taught me that I am capable of learning faster than most people in some areas, where non conventional means exist.

I'm not sure what it's like in the USA so I cannot comment. But in the UK you don't need to go to university to pursue computer science and can pursue it through apprenticeship.

So people are different and learn differently.

That makes it 100 times harder to change the system.

Because how do you make things work for people who think differently?

I suppose that you can't change the system and that means no one will determine success but those who have money and skills.

Meaning it is a capitalistic system so screw you if you don't fit in.

Obviously, you two do not know how to help people 16 to 25 do it differently.

I might need you to clarify as I'm not sure what your contention is.

In the UK university is very expensive and it's unlikely that anyone will ever pay off the debt accumulated. It's not an accessible option for a lot of people and as a result isn't the most inclusive route into a STEM career. Also, a lot of what is studied isn't directly applicable to the skills that employers are looking for. It's an archaic education system imo.

I worked for a training provider for apprenticeships in software engineering and our focus was on getting people from disadvantaged backgrounds into tech careers. We regularly trained people from a mix of economic and diverse backgrounds. This included neurodiversity, a few of our students were diagnosed with schizophrenia and autism and are now working as software developers.

On a personal level I went from 0 coding experience to receiving my first payment for a coding job within a year following this approach.

So it's a model I've seen works in making technology a more even playing field. You focus on practicing the skills you need. It's also more economic as the person is able to get into paid work faster and learn the role on the job, developing and practicing the skills that are directly applicable to the job market and likely to get them further work.

 

[Black Rose]

I might need you to clarify as I'm not sure what your contention is.

The education system should be changed is how I understood the purpose of this thread to be. So if it should be changed then it is not working and I was trying to see what that means and what should be done to make it better.

This is not my thread but I do not know if you know what would be done given education is capitalist-based and cannot cater to every child's needs.

 

[ZenRaiden]

ChatGPT will change education whether we like it or not.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The issue here is that most of school life is passive back seat, 45 minute speed run into testing.
You can have a form like that and call it learning, but that is not have most humans learn.
I am adult and I could still not do what children do in schools.
I would simply fail school again.
My brain works differently form what schools require.
I cannot circumvent that.

And we cannot circumvent that most government legally require you to have some form of formal education.

I think it's unavoidable, and despite how barebones it is and arguably misguided, there are positives to it, among all the substantial negative things that come along with it.

I also think the massive problem here is that most of what schools do, is strained and stretched beyond its limits.
Schools were meant to be places to spend some time out of the day for learning some basics, so a hay pleb could be literate pleb.
This eventually became being literate pleb to being skilled pleb, and know how pleb.
Eventually becoming a ready made packaged commodity, that can be inserted in any place on job market.
Reality is people look at effort and success, but very few people reflect on what counts as effort and success and how it shapes their life.

I think it's different to argue that school as it is now is ineffective at the scope of it's goals, vs it is impossible to have an institution that effectively executes the scope of its goals.

For ordinary people where school is actually fun and good for them and being a certain way counts for them, this obviously is non issue.

I believe that with the right push, we can easily make school a more "habitable" place for all people.

The idea of school comes from a time where we didn't really have a formalized theory for what framework of political and social policies will generate the best educational mechanism to the masses.

I think that for me the big problem was that school was so boring and mundane, and that the amount of people that can make anything seem interesting (a good teacher), is very low.

Boredom is the most disgusting of human emotions, it almost spits in the face of reality itself.

But even those types would benefit more form other things.

The defense of school seems to be "it works" clause.
Which to be frank all things work on some level in society, but we don't need to defend things in society just cause they work.
We can do much better.
The problem is if we do much better, it possess a real problem for people at the top.
Its hard keeping people down if they are smart and think critical.

This is cynical I feel. I myself wouldn't go as far suggesting that leaders of countries are in kahoots with each other. Fact is that power is distributed among populations of people, and that the more skilled labor force you have, the more likely it is that your society will outpace others.

The next 100 years may look very different, but the biggest concern is that US is going to lose it's GDP advantage because somehow, the other countries, like India are going to figure out a better system for mass education, while appeasing the upper class by only marginally challenging the status quo.

Its hard keeping people down if they are smart and think critical.

This is a contradiction.

It's a valid concern.

I grew up in generation where knowing anything about computers made you an expert on computers. Generally just knowing how to turn it on and off was enough, and knowing how to click and double click was wizard level shit. Bonus points if you actually knew anything on the computer, then you were bonafide nerd.

Today with similar knowledge I am a dummy.

Familiarity with something is valuable based on context. If there's no one around to do the job better than you, you become the guy that's going to do the job.

That was the only positive thing about Trump for example. He was trying to bring hard labor work back to America, which is totally fine if the pay matches the value of the work.

I think the best place to start is creating metrics that have to kept high or low. A quota for certain things. Start with a theme and abstract, and create concrete concepts.

When it comes to military, we have all sorts of research programs, we are looking at intervening into people's brain states to enhance learning and retention.

It's really unfortunate that the public sector will suffer until leaders are desperate enough to utilize it to their fullest potential, but hey, taking about topics like this make people realize how incompetent a lot of leaders are.

 

[Black Rose]

It's a valid concern.

You believe kids should be forced into apprenticeships?

That is the conclusion of not knowing what kids are good at.

 

[Black Rose]

the amount of people that can make anything seem interesting (a good teacher), is very low.

we are looking at intervening into people's brain states to enhance learning and retention.

The first may be about simulations in virtual reality.

Video games have lots of potential.

and retention could be from those brainwave things you talk about.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

It's a valid concern.

You believe kids should be forced into apprenticeships?

That is the conclusion of not knowing what kids are good at.

We should look at what Cuba is doing in cases like this.

Has it worked well for them? You tell me? Would you rather have a doctor who has training to be a doctor since they entered school? Or a doctor that's been learning to be a doctor since they took out a student loan they were never going to pay off?

I'm not actually proposing we start doing that, but do you know the statistics on things like that I guess is what I am getting to?

 

[ZenRaiden]

It's really unfortunate that the public sector will suffer until leaders are desperate enough to utilize it to their fullest potential, but hey, taking about topics like this make people realize how incompetent a lot of leaders are.

I kind of think you are right and at the same time wrong.

Let me explain. First of all when people are pessimistic about reforming education due to limitations we have now, that is legit concern.

Problem here is we cannot afford to NOT alter education.

Or to put simply the idea of labor has changed so much from the past that the entire fabric of society no longer benefits from or does thing inline with common sense.

A person can do little labor and make more money.

People are no longer payed what worth they have to society.

In fact the game is rigged so much that I could make a career doing half the work and make more money.

QED bullshit jobs as one of many examples.

The world is no longer the world where you had clear cut hierarchy of labor.

Work is no longer measured by common sense metrics.

 

[Black Rose]

@EndogenousRebel

cannot say for sure but left vs right brained people;

that difference may be key to knowing what people can do.

I am too uncertain I can be good at most things even with training on one side or the other side.

Left and Right Brain Hemispheres

On the left side of the brain, we have sequential language logic. On the right side of the brain, we have visual-spatial motion. This is because language takes over the left side with symbols understanding and speech production/understanding. The right side has to take over much of the load...

www.intpforum.com

 

[Black Rose]

It's a valid concern.

You believe kids should be forced into apprenticeships?

That is the conclusion of not knowing what kids are good at.

We should look at what Cuba is doing in cases like this.

Has it worked well for them? You tell me? Would you rather have a doctor who has training to be a doctor since they entered school? Or a doctor that's been learning to be a doctor since they took out a student loan they were never going to pay off?

I'm not actually proposing we start doing that, but do you know the statistics on things like that I guess is what I am getting to?

It seems you would need to create a very specific kind of class system for it to work.

So I think it could work but then you would need to ask about how to transition to such a system, especially since such a system may leave civilization stagnant for hundreds or thousands of years. What jobs would stay and what jobs would leave?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Problem here is we cannot afford to NOT alter education.

Correct.

People are no longer payed what worth they have to society.

There's an inherent fog of war in the present for most people. Unless you are going through the work/industry magazines to "illuminate" this, which is a very high labor/cost work, you are subject to having to rely on mainstream/independent media, which honestly considering that they operate mostly through commercial promotional ads, is probably to take everything you read with a grain of salt.

You would die of stroke from how much salt grains you are taking in.

The "Market" is suppose to step in a make a solution in the eyes of conservatives, and in the eyes of the liberals it's the government that is to step in.

Point is, both the market and the government are fucking floundering from my perspective.

Poker Analogy: Markets only play on cards that they know they'll win on, and Governments are run by the people who run the markets.

If only we could all join a cult of a great leader, probably a man, that will Shepperd change into this world. Oh Boy, I bet Trump is that guy. 6'2 and 180 lbs. High on speed, it must be true.

@EndogenousRebel

cannot say for sure but left vs right brained people;

that difference may be key to knowing what people can do.

I am too uncertain I can be good at most things even with training on one side or the other side.

Left and Right Brain Hemispheres

On the left side of the brain, we have sequential language logic. On the right side of the brain, we have visual-spatial motion. This is because language takes over the left side with symbols understanding and speech production/understanding. The right side has to take over much of the load...

www.intpforum.com

Please consolidate the information you are trying to bring into this thread in this thread, it's not wise to make people click around if they don't have to.

In the vein of overeducation, I'm going to propose it's painfully easy to educate on mass to a high level, we just aren't willing to spend money on making a new system, just for someone else to come along and improve it and run away with that technology.

We can teach very complex things in experiments to even "very dumb "people.

It's a matter of high skilled labor to facilitate this and the money incentive to do so.

My perception is that the education sector is that private education is expensive, can vary in quality, but is usually better than public education.

Eitherway, the labor force in education is pretty low, if you're highly skilled enough, you wouldn't teach, you would create "manifest" the content that is taught by teachers. Which is good, but even now, you are trying to overcomplicate an issue that doesn't need to be so complicated.

These private schools function and being more effective is that much more indication, that these more-autonomous entities at least have something that is happening in them, that isn't happening in other schools, or maybe the inverse?

It seems you would need to create a very specific kind of class system for it to work.

So I think it could work but then you would need to ask about how to transition to such a system, especially since such a system may leave civilization stagnant for hundreds or thousands of years. What jobs would stay and what jobs would leave?

I think that's pretty drastic. Like I said, the education system adapts, but very slowly, especially considering the last 20 years.

 

[Black Rose]

So private schools have something other schools do not.

How would that translate to changing the system to facilitate people getting a better education?

I do not think this has much to do with apprenticeship or does it?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

So private schools have something other schools do not.

How would that translate to changing the system to facilitate people getting a better education?

I do not think this has much to do with apprenticeship or does it?

What is apprenticeship in this context?

Skill building beyond basic math and language. Give schools the resources to that, computers, puzzles class, wood working, electronic class.]

Maybe have a max teacher to student ratio of 1:9?

I'm not married to any one idea, but the point I'm making is that it's not complicated. It's not some unknowable problem. It's valid to be angry and upset with your government and whoever is maintaining the status quo, is the biggest take away I think.

 

[Black Rose]

Please consolidate the information you are trying to bring into this thread

I remember they tried to teach us Photoshop in high school computer class and also Flash Animation. But I was not so enthusiastic about them because I am not artistic. I have poor perception and lack creative drive for such things which other kids in the class had a really good time as I struggled to make a ball move on screen. I suppose if I had from an early age been taught to draw in the way needed to understand textures I would have had a good time but I think that requires knowing how to tell stories and maybe be original in what you create comic book wise.

I am sure that people can be brought up to a level of certain perceptual ranges early on in life. I am just not seeing where that goes in terms of the crystallized status I have. Because if we really are just making kids generally more intelligent that is one thing because then they can choose later to specialize vs if we are specializing them in the first place in some way. I can tell you that I have become something that I would not know what that is but it has a limited perceptual range where maybe if exercised could change but has learned things from an early age to be a certain way.

I am trying to gather whether in developmental stages people like me can become intelligent in that there are more ways to have cognition generalized than specialized and how that happens as a growth pattern from child to adult with their potential?

 

[Black Rose]

@EndogenousRebel

I am supposing there is a perceptul difference between left and right brained individuals that can influence cognition in child development where the left brain likes to do things one step at a time and the right brain likes to do multiple tasks at once.

I cannot absolutely say this will affect how schools operate but I think this distinction is great enough to make a category of specified cognition that must be accounted for in schools as they teach students.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

@EndogenousRebel

I am supposing there is a perceptul difference between left and right brained individuals that can influence cognition in child development where the left brain likes to do things one step at a time and the right brain likes to do multiple tasks at once.

I cannot absolutely say this will affect how schools operate but I think this distinction is great enough to make a category of specified cognition that must be accounted for in schools as they teach students.

I feel like what you are speaking to is a tense sense of conformity that school tries to put in us.

In America, the idea is that this place is built by the American socia-military-political effort or whatever. That we should all be grateful, which to an extent is true, the thing is the military is a tousands of year old culture.

If we need special resources to take care of you, I would think that most people see that as a liability.

Maybe this trickles down into classrooms? We want everyone to be measured by the ability of a specific type of person, but if I don't conform to those standards, then I am not just a liability, I am a threat to the pecking order.

This is just implicit in our culture, but most people do not talk about it. It's really strange. *When you consider how highly our culture values "opinions".

 

[Black Rose]

I feel like what you are speaking to is a tense sense of conformity that school tries to put in us.

More so I wanted to know if serialization was possible to be different from parallelization. Many kids I know dropped out because they did too much at once. I was fine until I needed to do tasks I was not trained to do in college.

In America, the idea is that this place is built by the American socia-military-political effort or whatever. That we should all be grateful, which to an extent is true, the thing is the military is a tousands of year old culture.

In terms of culture, I was influenced by television mostly. It had much less politically correct censorship than what we have on today's major internet sites about history.

I know allot about each decade of the 20th century that most people I know don't because I paid attention. But it is all in some sense random what I say to people.

If we need special resources to take care of you, I would think that most people see that as a liability.

A wave of mental illness has struck the USA recently. But that happens to be because of a loss of faith in the system by means that we do not know how to fix people's generational traumas. To them, conformity might be something that hurts more than helps.

Maybe this trickles down into classrooms? We want everyone to be measured by the ability of a specific type of person, but if I don't conform to those standards, then I am not just a liability, I am a threat to the pecking order.

For 15 years No Child Left Behind took money away from schools that had no resources because of poor test standards. I believe the people behind it knew what they were doing to try and hurt poor people.

This is just implicit in our culture, but most people do not talk about it. It's really strange. *When you consider how highly our culture values "opinions".

People on social media, specifically people who want to organize against maltreatment, can do so as long as they can spread messages. If this becomes limited by the algorithms then they may need to organize in a different way.

-

Currently in New Mexico college is free. The setback to the people at the top in all countries are people who are economically hurt by bad gov policies. So the best thing to do is support some kind of economy where people can vote for people who at least keep some promises or then the system changes the order and the people at the top don't want to leave. Not leaving depends on the economy being good.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

terms of culture, I was influenced by television mostly

Have you considered that the people who created that media, or had a hand in it's creation, grew up in an environment where you're implicitly patriotic, thus it doesn't really matter where you think you were influenced from, because when you live in society, you kinda have lot of diverging interests/agendas pulling for you attention, just present in your life?

A wave of mental illness has struck the USA recently. But that happens to be because of a loss of faith in the system by means that we do not know how to fix people's generational traumas. To them, conformity might be something that hurts more than helps.

Yeah, this is the worse it's been since the Crack epidemic in the Nixon/Reagan era. Not quite as bad, but there have been worse times in history, and we haven't really progressed that far when you think about it, it's like 50 years ago.

It is the duty of the people alive now, to change the way things are in the future, and not just deny there is a problem infinitely until it's too late to do anything about.

Maybe this trickles down into classrooms? We want everyone to be measured by the ability of a specific type of person, but if I don't conform to those standards, then I am not just a liability, I am a threat to the pecking order.

For 15 years No Child Left Behind took money away from schools that had no resources because of poor test standards. I believe the people behind it knew what they were doing to try and hurt poor people.

On one end, I'd like to blame ignorance more than malignance, but at this point, the damage is done, let's just get back on fucking track. The November election is this year..

This is just implicit in our culture, but most people do not talk about it. It's really strange. *When you consider how highly our culture values "opinions".

People on social media, specifically people who want to organize against maltreatment, can do so as long as they can spread messages. If this becomes limited by the algorithms then they may need to organize in a different way.

Yeah, tech companies couldn't get away with not controlling the narrative for long. It's going to be a big issue for the next couple months and years maybe because Trump is going to complain about people reporting facts about him as if it were a crime.

Currently in New Mexico college is free. The setback to the people at the top in all countries are people who are economically hurt by bad gov policies. So the best thing to do is support some kind of economy where people can vote for people who at least keep some promises or then the system changes the order and the people at the top don't want to leave. Not leaving depends on the economy being good.

Good to know, I am considering leaving where I'm staying at now, move to somewhere where partisanship government doesn't tear itself apart, and acts cohesively. I wonder where..

 

[EndogenousRebel]

In America, the idea is that this place is built by the American socia-military-political effort or whatever. That we should all be grateful, which to an extent is true, the thing is the military is a tousands of year old culture.

https://www.jyoutube.com/watch?v=Fx6m7VDkhAg

This came out the same day I posted it o_o the echos of the chamber converge.

 

[ZenRaiden]

@Black Rose generally learning is life long skill and we always have potential to learn.
We can also learn better methods of learning.
One problem in my age, that I noticed, is being wrong hurts more emotionally than when I was kid, or I perceive it as a bigger problem, so learning to feel stupid is hard once you have some established intellect.
Especially with completely new topics you know nothing about, as adult getting frustrated is real easy, vs kid.

Other psychological hang up I see is as adult you usually have big filter and lot less time to be playful. Filtering just means you accumulate resistance and biases along the way in life, and getting into learning mode means you need to set those aside asap.

Third thing about learning as adult means you have to be very patient, and play to your strengths. Often times that is where the gold mine is.

 

[sushi]

it is preparing you for a job and qualification, rather than survival and money in society

which i why i think people should drop out when they reach 10th grade.

you still have to learn how to survive after you complete school anyway.

and it stresses all rounders, like straight A on every course. what if you are a genius who outperform in 2 courses, but bad in all others. sucks to be you.

but it is a good escape or place to be away when your family is shit or they are abusive etc.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

If school were just 8hrs a day of people talking and discussing events and ideas, would that bring a bigger net benefit to society at the cost core curriculum?

Say that whatever the discussion would turn into is what would be studied academically? So if the conversation happen upon something mathematical, then that is what would be studied to settle the dispute for example?

You want to talk about gossip? We're studying politics and sociology today.

The things people talk and think about is cyclical, and I think that after a while, people would have to start thinking about novel things. Either that or it's an infinite regress idk.

I don't think school necessarily has to be about survival. Mostly because what "survival" means becomes outdated.

For me the only subject that has to be taught no bullshit is history.

 

[sushi]

If school were just 8hrs a day of people talking and discussing events and ideas, would that bring a bigger net benefit to society at the cost core curriculum?

Say that whatever the discussion would turn into is what would be studied academically? So if the conversation happen upon something mathematical, then that is what would be studied to settle the dispute for example?

You want to talk about gossip? We're studying politics and sociology today.

The things people talk and think about is cyclical, and I think that after a while, people would have to start thinking about novel things. Either that or it's an infinite regress idk.

I don't think school necessarily has to be about survival. Mostly because what "survival" means becomes outdated.

For me the only subject that has to be taught no bullshit is history.

no i argue for survival because we have alot of people still living with parents well over thirties and cant adapt to change and trauma

 

[Black Rose]

i argue for survival because we have alot of people still living with parents well over thirties and cant adapt to change and trauma

the numbers I found say that nothing has changed much

we still have the same consistent levels as 1930's and 1940's

that means the post-war period (WW2) was different than today (dropped 20 points)

and those numbers are not even that high (the percentage points only went up 3% a decade it looks like)

so I would say that adjustment goes in cycles

we only had the education system as it is now for about 100 years so we do not know all the ramifications (200 years ago we did not even have plumbing water)

In about a decade, I believe we will start using brainwave technologies to enhance kid's learning processes as each kid will have an individualized curriculum set for them by the computer

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

In about a decade, I believe we will start using brainwave technologies to enhance kid's learning processes as each kid will have an individualized curriculum set for them by the computer

 

[EndogenousRebel]

If school were just 8hrs a day of people talking and discussing events and ideas, would that bring a bigger net benefit to society at the cost core curriculum?

Say that whatever the discussion would turn into is what would be studied academically? So if the conversation happen upon something mathematical, then that is what would be studied to settle the dispute for example?

You want to talk about gossip? We're studying politics and sociology today.

The things people talk and think about is cyclical, and I think that after a while, people would have to start thinking about novel things. Either that or it's an infinite regress idk.

I don't think school necessarily has to be about survival. Mostly because what "survival" means becomes outdated.

For me the only subject that has to be taught no bullshit is history.

no i argue for survival because we have alot of people still living with parents well over thirties and cant adapt to change and trauma

Not many people can genuinely cope with trauma.

That's how you get so much dysfunction in society.

The "boomers" spawned from people at the aftermath of a war that shrouded the world in darkness and left more darkness in its wake.

The baby boomers came from people fucking like they never had before. I wonder why?

 

[ZenRaiden]

The "boomers" spawned from people at the aftermath of a war that shrouded the world in darkness and left more darkness in its wake.

Lets not forget boomers are by enlarge making politics as we speak.
They still live in cold war mentality.
Very few young people realize just how much crap happening today has more to do with the world boomers grew up in vs the perception we the younger generation have.
Many of these boomers also try to shape younger people minds, kind of sad they let these dinosaurs do that to them.
Instead of having original and authentic view.