Other Expectations: Making One's Way
Recent comments from Turtlekill have stimulated me to consider alternative ways in which a person might wish to order his/her life. Both men and women are being shortchanged by current societal expectations.
For women, some evidence suggests that having children at an early age (in her twenties) produces health benefits for both mother and child. But all health concerns aside, is it possible that there is something inherent in the process of raising a very young child that teaches something to a parent that cannot be easily learned any other way? Is it possible that child-raising itself offers benefits to the mother (primarily), that will stand her in good stead in the course of her later career?
I suggest that this is the case, that watching and aiding the physical and mental development of a very small child provides a learning experience that is very profound and very valuable. Such an experience is also frequently very rewarding emotionally, and frequently not regarded as a sacrifice.
A woman trained in human nature by very young professors-in-diapers, can be a formidable judge of character indeed. Often what seems to be missing in trial judges in courts of law, entrepreneurs, and rising executives in enterprise, is that very character judgement. Yet so often professors of feminism discourage young women from having children early, and disparage and criticise women who make such a choice for early child rearing. Perhaps they lack good judgement themselves?
Young men are also putting off marriage and child-rearing later and later in their lives. ( Why should they buy the cow when they can get the milk for free, so to speak?) It is not only the mother who learns from the young child. If the father will pay attention and attend to the child himself, he could also learn a great deal about human nature, and also gain an emotional reward.
Education
It is expected that children of college educated parents will also go to college, and beyond. In fact, it is desired, "societally", that most youth should graduate from high school and go on to graduate from college. But is that the best plan for the youth, and for "society?"
With the internet (and before that with public libraries), virtually everyone can have the knowledge base and erudition of the college educated, regardless of their formal educational attainment--as long as they can read and learn to operate a computer. With faster connection speeds and more advanced interfaces, virtually any type of knowledge or skill will be available over the net.
The lack of a college degree did not keep some of the most famous billionaires and tycoons from achieving their wealth. In a large part of the world, it is still a person's capacity to achieve that counts, rather than the degrees behind the name. Children and youth need to learn real world skills, and problem-solving skills well enough that they acquire justified confidence in their ability to make their way in the world. A college degree is no substitute for confidence based upon achievement.
Unfortunately, the educational system in the west is devised to deny children and youth the opportunity to achieve anything meaningful. This is because the people who devise and revise the educational system do not have real-world skills themselves, so fail to see any value in them. Educated idiots, is the cruel but accurate description for a large proportion of university professors and professors of education. How are these educated idiots going to help students to acquire necessary skills that the idiots do not even recognise as important?
University of Minnesota scholars Harkins and Moravec have put forward a bold plan for making universities relevant again. Their Leapfrog University proposal is a hopeful and reasonable approach to making universities a fertile bed for growing solutions to societies problems.
But not everyone, not even most, perhaps, should go to university. A university education is no guarantee of success or competence. The more society tries to force everyone to get a college degree, the less value the certificate seems to have. Then you need a masters, a doctorate, a post-doc, a post-post-doctoral fellowship, and so on, to distinguish yourself academically.
But in the real world, it is competence that counts. Competence and confidence that is based upon competence. One alternative to college for young men (and recently for young women) has always been military service. Many young people go into the military uncertain and unskilled, and come out with job competencies that in civilian life might have taken much longer to acquire.
In an opportunity society, it is entrepreneurs and independent businesspeople who have the greatest potential for economic growth. In the independent business world, you do not generally need a degree if you have the competence. This is more true in the trades, in businesses that service the large businesses, and in new pioneer industries, where rigour mortis has not set in, as it has in the professions.
An intelligent high school dropout can still apprentice in a trade, learn the business, then strike out on his/her own. If able to out-compete, the dropout can grow a new business to an impressive size, and either cash it in or move to a supervisory and planning role and live on the proceeds. Not bad for a dropout. Better to have the degree, perhaps, but there are ways to compensate if people are open to them.
How many people have internalised the attitude of "failure" or "loser" because of the limited and overly critical attitude of many in society toward educational and professional achievement? How many of these go on to become failures, losers, drunks, junkies, etc. because of this subconscious internalisation of society's attitudes? What might they have contributed if they had been given all their options when they were young?
But how could they, when there is such prejudice against alternative orderings of one's life? When their teachers themselves serve merely as conformist enforcers for the larger society?
These are very interesting things to consider. Do not for a moment believe that this blog has seen the last of speculations on this topic.
:-)
For women, some evidence suggests that having children at an early age (in her twenties) produces health benefits for both mother and child. But all health concerns aside, is it possible that there is something inherent in the process of raising a very young child that teaches something to a parent that cannot be easily learned any other way? Is it possible that child-raising itself offers benefits to the mother (primarily), that will stand her in good stead in the course of her later career?
I suggest that this is the case, that watching and aiding the physical and mental development of a very small child provides a learning experience that is very profound and very valuable. Such an experience is also frequently very rewarding emotionally, and frequently not regarded as a sacrifice.
A woman trained in human nature by very young professors-in-diapers, can be a formidable judge of character indeed. Often what seems to be missing in trial judges in courts of law, entrepreneurs, and rising executives in enterprise, is that very character judgement. Yet so often professors of feminism discourage young women from having children early, and disparage and criticise women who make such a choice for early child rearing. Perhaps they lack good judgement themselves?
Young men are also putting off marriage and child-rearing later and later in their lives. ( Why should they buy the cow when they can get the milk for free, so to speak?) It is not only the mother who learns from the young child. If the father will pay attention and attend to the child himself, he could also learn a great deal about human nature, and also gain an emotional reward.
Education
It is expected that children of college educated parents will also go to college, and beyond. In fact, it is desired, "societally", that most youth should graduate from high school and go on to graduate from college. But is that the best plan for the youth, and for "society?"
With the internet (and before that with public libraries), virtually everyone can have the knowledge base and erudition of the college educated, regardless of their formal educational attainment--as long as they can read and learn to operate a computer. With faster connection speeds and more advanced interfaces, virtually any type of knowledge or skill will be available over the net.
The lack of a college degree did not keep some of the most famous billionaires and tycoons from achieving their wealth. In a large part of the world, it is still a person's capacity to achieve that counts, rather than the degrees behind the name. Children and youth need to learn real world skills, and problem-solving skills well enough that they acquire justified confidence in their ability to make their way in the world. A college degree is no substitute for confidence based upon achievement.
Unfortunately, the educational system in the west is devised to deny children and youth the opportunity to achieve anything meaningful. This is because the people who devise and revise the educational system do not have real-world skills themselves, so fail to see any value in them. Educated idiots, is the cruel but accurate description for a large proportion of university professors and professors of education. How are these educated idiots going to help students to acquire necessary skills that the idiots do not even recognise as important?
University of Minnesota scholars Harkins and Moravec have put forward a bold plan for making universities relevant again. Their Leapfrog University proposal is a hopeful and reasonable approach to making universities a fertile bed for growing solutions to societies problems.
But not everyone, not even most, perhaps, should go to university. A university education is no guarantee of success or competence. The more society tries to force everyone to get a college degree, the less value the certificate seems to have. Then you need a masters, a doctorate, a post-doc, a post-post-doctoral fellowship, and so on, to distinguish yourself academically.
But in the real world, it is competence that counts. Competence and confidence that is based upon competence. One alternative to college for young men (and recently for young women) has always been military service. Many young people go into the military uncertain and unskilled, and come out with job competencies that in civilian life might have taken much longer to acquire.
In an opportunity society, it is entrepreneurs and independent businesspeople who have the greatest potential for economic growth. In the independent business world, you do not generally need a degree if you have the competence. This is more true in the trades, in businesses that service the large businesses, and in new pioneer industries, where rigour mortis has not set in, as it has in the professions.
An intelligent high school dropout can still apprentice in a trade, learn the business, then strike out on his/her own. If able to out-compete, the dropout can grow a new business to an impressive size, and either cash it in or move to a supervisory and planning role and live on the proceeds. Not bad for a dropout. Better to have the degree, perhaps, but there are ways to compensate if people are open to them.
How many people have internalised the attitude of "failure" or "loser" because of the limited and overly critical attitude of many in society toward educational and professional achievement? How many of these go on to become failures, losers, drunks, junkies, etc. because of this subconscious internalisation of society's attitudes? What might they have contributed if they had been given all their options when they were young?
But how could they, when there is such prejudice against alternative orderings of one's life? When their teachers themselves serve merely as conformist enforcers for the larger society?
These are very interesting things to consider. Do not for a moment believe that this blog has seen the last of speculations on this topic.
:-)
Labels: character, dropping out, education
7 Comments:
Our education system is really good at teaching people how to deal with ideas and technologies--but I think we've really come to short change ourselves in terms of how to deal with other people and life in general. The most powerful computers in the world, so far as we know, are the three pounds of meat that sit on our shoulders--and if we really wanted an "information revolution" as sold to us in the 1990s, we would teach people how to interface with biological and social machines rather than technical ones.
It may be that the reasons CEOs are paid such vast amounts of money and politicians (who are paid much less) have grown so very incompetant is because we have a shortage of people who are capable of managing other people. Training people in human nature, as you're talking about here, may do much to alleviate that shortage and propel the global economy forward.
It may be that the reason Bill Gates is relinquishing many of his responsibilities at Microsoft to focus on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is because he's realized that the economic potential of the human beings who are lost to disease, starvation, and undereducation is far greater than the economic potential unlocked by giving faster computers to the already rich. Even before we are capable of wholesale rearrangement of our biology, we could achieve great results just by rearrangement of our society. Rather than a technological singularity transforming our society, it could be a transformation in our society that causes a technological singularity.
Thanks, Micah. I enjoy speculating about societal changes almost as much as technological change. The two things are inextricably intertwined, regardless.
K.A.T., I think what you are outlining is the logical direction for progressive thinkers to go, in terms of social organisation. You cannot expect most people trained in technology or the sciences to take that route, but the social sciences are populated by a different breed. If indeed social scientists can theorise such a re-structuring of society that could potentially bring about a singularity-like improvement in human existence generally, they would, in one stroke, improve their prestige and restore balance vis a vis technology and the hard sciences.
You may be right, but I'm uncertain. I come from a technical background, now I apply technical metaphors to social problems. There's the example of Bill Gates I mentioned, and a few years ago Bill Joy's Cassandra-ism was a hot topic among futurists. The classic example would be the various scientists who became pacifists after the Manhattan Project. I think a growing number of computer technician are realizing that computers, today, are more useful as *communication* devices than as *computation* machines.
It isn't that I think social scientists are more important than the more physical ones--it's that this artificial separation is hurting everyone. Social "things" are made of the same stuff as physical "things"--ideas and cultures are stored in our minds, and most physical scientists assert that our minds are physical things. Both sides have things to learn--for example, if the people cannot be reassured that a particular technology should be legal, then political pressure becomes just as physically real a limitation as the laws of gravitation--unless we want to say that a policeman's baton is only imaginary. On the other hand, economists have to realize that the laws of thermodynamics *DO* apply to them--we cannot build a perpetual motion machine no matter how high the demand curve climbs for it. Political scientists would do well to realize that a system cannot decrease the complexity of its macrostate without losing energy to an equal or greater rise to its macrostate. Every act of violence and most acts of coercion are an attempt to erase this complexity, and this may prove thermodynamically wasteful.
KAT, if you would be kind enough to return to this previous comment of yours:
Even before we are capable of wholesale rearrangement of our biology, we could achieve great results just by rearrangement of our society. Rather than a technological singularity transforming our society, it could be a transformation in our society that causes a technological singularity.
to expand and clarify on it, I would be grateful. I was quite intrigued by the possibilities hinted at--that some type of rearrangement of society might transform society enough to cause a technological singularity.
What type of rearrangement/transformation of society interests you, and how would you propose to bring it about?
There is something I've been working on, but I haven't ironed out all the details.
Are you familiar with the notion of reversible computation? A computer could operate without using any energy or expeling any heat. However, such a computer would operate with infintesimal speed and could not erase any data. Nonetheless, if we could build a sort of reversible computer that would only go as fast as it needed and erase as little information as possible, such a machine could potentially be fantastically more efficient than computers of today. As Moore's Law approaches its end, reversible computation will be one of those tricks we can use to push computers still further.
When I first heard about reversible computation, it struct me as really weird. My intuitions always said that it was acquiring information that was hard, and erasing it was easy. But, according to current understandings of thermodynamics, measurement is free--it's erasure that's expensive.
Likewise, the methods of Mohandas Gandhi and others--to enact social change through the use of patience, empathy, simplicity, and openness--strike a lot of people as counter-intuitive. Especially many of us Westerners, who are inclined towards the use of force and haste to solve problems.
I think these counter-intuitions are linked. I think two people who understand and trust one another are in an algorithmically simple state of lower entropy compared to two people who regard one another with suspicion. A society that is founded on trust with leaders who continually prove themselves to be trustworthy has much more usable energy available to it than one based on paranoia, and is therefore more powerful. A leader who is capable of patience and selflessness is therefore the leader a rational person who will choose to rule their society. Thus, the meek shall inherit the earth.
That is my proposal--that the society of other people is the most useful tool available to any individual person, and the best way for you to utilize this incredible power is to reciprocate--to make yourself as useful as you can be to society.
There is a great deal that is admirable in your proposal.
I suspect that if you wanted to found an intentional community based upon those principles, that you could easily do so in most western countries.
In fact, consider that an experiment. Design a prototypical community based upon your proposed guidelines, and locate the best place on earth for your community. Price the land, contact local government administrators about land use restrictions etc. Work it out as best you can.
Prototypes are excellent ways of trying out an idea, of "debugging" it, so to speak.
Otherwise these ideas tend to sit in the back of the mind gathering dust.
Ah, if I only had the courage, it would be vastly easier than even that simple proposal. I'm not talking about a new society, but a new way of living in this one--in any society of human beings. One in which the benefits are linear and additive. If but one person does it, it benefits both that person and all of society. If all society does, then all society is fantastically richer.
In fact, it's not really new at all--I'm just uncovering the math behind it.
Post a Comment
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell
<< Home