|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| === What is learning? How is that different from education? How can we learn more efficiently and effectively? ===
| | |
| You may be inclined to think that some of us are not educated (or learned, or informed) enough, and that including everyone’s voice will (certainly) hinder vital conversations and slow down important, time-sensitive decision-making. Well what if everyone had free access to quality learning so that they can fully understand the intricacies and thought processes involved for whatever topic of interest may be under discussion? Isn’t it odd why it isn’t already the case that everyone everywhere already has access to such learning? It’s high time we put our efforts together to create a human-centric, universally inclusive, empirical and intuitive learning platform, based on our immediate need, interest, and/or intention and customized to the learner’s ability level in real-time, no matter where or who we are. Would such a resource not level the playing field in terms of constructive conversations (to say the least)?<br>
| |
| <br>
| |
| If seemingly too Utopian a concept, then let’s consider the idea behind a jury. It has been mathematically proven that a collaborative decision will far outweigh the success of a probabilistic inference made by any single individual. Endless scientists, mathematicians and authors have argued in support of this notion. For instance, Charles Conn and Robert McLean (2019) who published Bulletproof Problem Solving support the idea of an egalitarian work process, which involves a multitude of contrasting perspectives as opposed to one, using a corporate setting example of ‘obligation to dissent’ to help support their point. This approach helps us overcome our innate human biases which sociologists everywhere argue that no individual on earth lives without. They also go on to argue that no impactful change can be reached without sufficient influence, so whatever decisions we make, we best make sure we always have the authority to exercise it.<br>
| |
| <br>
| |
| Carl Sagan (1995) published the Demon-Haunted World to argue the case for science, underlining how the mainstream has often tried to stereotype scientists as crazy or geeky or dangerous outcasts that see themselves as holier than though and then blow everything up. Sadly, an infinite amount of journalists and health experts, such as Gary Taubes (2016) in The Case Against Sugar and Michael Moss in Hooked (2021), have reported on the intentional misleading propaganda of big corp and their conflicting influence on governmental policy, all to the detriment of public health. The concept of a Food and Drug Administration in itself has been highlighted as paradoxical – if food can deteriorate health and drugs can heal the ailments, then we have an inherent conflict of interest under a single umbrella. How does such an organization continue to run after already having been pinned for so many traitorous acts?<br>
| |
| <br>
| |
| Dr. John Campbell recently (yesterday, as I write this) reported on various studies about Vitamin D in May of 2023 showing just how outdated government health policies can be. The War on Drugs lasted for almost a century, imprisoning, enslaving, and even killing young black men simply for having smoked a marihuana joint. Now that the world has to accept that all the “hip kids” do it too, the western world suddenly embraces this leaf as an industrious and ‘woke’ move forward. Labour lawyers such as Vivek Ramaswamy (2021), who published Woke, Inc, underline how stakeholder capitalism has abused democracy, and how the legislation has protected nefarious and often immoral acts against the common citizen. Community service may very well be a decent step forward in rebuilding community values and bringing people together again, growing and learning together through their actions.<br>
| |