I want to note for you that the rhetoric in this tripped my internal alarm for manipulation, and irritated me (though I'm self aware enough to know that's not what you meant, and am not irritated with you).
Block 1 of this is almost all pathos, culminating in
tight-fitting encasement of school, which, being like the shoes of a mandarin woman, pinch and bruise the nature of children on all sides and at every turn which is, for me, too heavy handed and over-colored when you've not made your argument yet.
We then hit 4 examples of famous people who didn't like school. I find this sub-par for a few reasons:
Finally, a lot of these people are really old and education now is a lot less abusive in many ways than it used to be! I was not hit at all in school growing up, and that's probably a large jump over what those guys had. It's just 1 more reason not to take their word over everyone else's.
Note: I do, actually, think education could be improved (even though I'm not one of the people it was really bad for) in ways that would stop a lot of people from being hurt and in other ways that would make it a lot more useful for many people. I do, however, want better arguments for it!
You might have any level of qualification here, but I am not aware of it, and am not sure why I should take your word instead of everyone already using the current system. ↩︎
I want to note for you that the rhetoric in this tripped my internal alarm for manipulation, and irritated me (though I'm self aware enough to know that's not what you meant, and am not irritated with you).
1. Pure appeal to authority / ethos2. It is an attempt to prove too much; I am asked here to ignore all the smart famous people who feel helped by school
Fair point. The post wasn't necessarily meant for the rationalist community, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to share it here.
It's my first attempt in a long time to write about things other than the start-up I'm currently building in the crypto space, so I certainly appreciate your input and will perhaps incorporate some of it in future posts. And I also apologize for doing this anonymously, but some things I express are perhaps not what I'd want people googling my name to read.
The part where you say "Albert Einstein also intuitively understood what needs to be done to change this" is just conjecture, unless we somehow know that Einstein is correct through other means than just what you've said there. I need more evidence than the guesses of a physicist and a LessWrong poster[1] on education, and this unbacked claim feels almost like a taunt at the current state.
What Albert Einstein basically said are two things:
One needs stimulation [of the intellect] and the freedom to pursue your own [intellectual] interests. Both arguments are supported by scientific literature.
Intrinsic motivation has been shown to play a significant role in deep learning experiences (Bodkyn, C., & Stevens, F. (2015). And intrinsic motivation can not arise from coercion or fixed curricula.
Andy Matuschak describes this more eloquently than I can do:
Some “educational” activities have intrinsically meaningful purposes, but in most educational environments, the primary concern is cause others/oneself to know something, which is generally not an intrinsically meaningful purpose (contra Enabling environments’ activities directly serve an intrinsically meaningful purpose).
A fixation on learning outcomes is a fixation on what would normally be the effect of a deeper cause: an intrinsically meaningful purpose involving that material. By attempting to produce the effect without the cause, the teacher makes the students into dependents. He’s the source not only of expertise but also of purpose. In such a relationship, the teacher’s role is defined by his superiority. This often manifests as (unintentional) condescension.
Internally-modulated learning is self-actualizing; externally-modulated learning is self-abnegating. Students sense the abnegation and often respond either by disengaging or by shrinking their sense of intellectual responsibility. Both of these behaviors magnify the asymmetry between the teacher and student, which in turn magnifies (intentional or unintentional) sense of superiority the teacher conveys.
Deep understanding requires (and is a result of) intense personal connection. Condescension and external dependence are unlikely to produce such a connection. Often, the teacher/author themselves doesn’t have such a connection to the material, which makes the condescension worse (see Authored environments are significantly colored by authors’ motivations)
Now we're coming to your last point, which I don't really buy:
Finally, a lot of these people are really old and education now is a lot less abusive in many ways than it used to be! I was not hit at all in school growing up, and that's probably a large jump over what those guys had. It's just 1 more reason not to take their word over everyone else's.
When I talk about coercion, then this has nothing to do with corporal punishments. It is purely about intellectual coercion.
Let's take again what I wrote in the post above about the 5 basic freedoms in an educational context - I don't think a single one of them is being met by most schools today.
In the context of education, this means the freedom to choose what to learn, where to learn it, with whom to learn it, as well as how to learn it — and, perhaps most importantly, if to learn at all.
It's a characterization of agency that challenges the systems and structures of most schools. Today, just as it did 70 years ago.
It’s my first attempt in a long time to write about things other than the start-up I’m currently building in the crypto space
Have you considered that you are so far out of the mainstream that any advice you'd give to the mainstream would be actively harmful?
The majority of children, and I say this as having been one of them, are not self-motivated self-directed learners. If I'd been allowed to self-direct in middle and high school, I'd have played video games for 16 hours a day, barely taking breaks to eat and sleep.
Yes, schools fail geniuses. But they do work for quite a lot of not-geniuses. I'm okay with that trade-off.
Yes, schools fail geniuses. But they do work for quite a lot of not-geniuses. I’m okay with that trade-off.
Having acknowledged this trade-off (which is the important part!), I do think that we can substantially minimize the value we lose by it. For instance, it should be much easier than it is now, for kids who are not well-suited to school to “opt out” somehow—pursuing self-directed learning, or even just going to specialized schools designed to better fit their needs.
The majority of children, and I say this as having been one of them, are not self-motivated self-directed learners.
Maybe because you've been trained out of it? I'd argue that every person is a self-directed learner: A toddler learns to walk, to speak by imitating his environment - the motivation for this comes from him. So why should it be any different for a 12 year old?
If I'd been allowed to self-direct in middle and high school, I'd have played video games for 16 hours a day, barely taking breaks to eat and sleep.
The fact that you would have played video games all day seems to me to be a kind of cry for help. Video games are the least adult-directed activity there is, in a world where children can no longer go outdoors and find others to play with, freely, away from adults, as they once did.
In a world like the one I imagine, learning, expanding your skills, is as enticing as video games. What attracts you to video games is not a dopamine rush (otherwise the effect of educational games wouldn't be so disappointing), but the feeling that you personally brought about what happened in this game.
And we can replicate that in an educational context as well, but not through stupidly gamifying what currently exists. But simply giving children the opportunity to approach everything in a self-directed way.
And this can also take place in a school, which, however, would no longer resemble the one we have today.
And by the way, video games are actually quite a good way to learn all kinds of skills. I've recently come across a paper by Benoit Bediou and his colleagues (2018) that reviewed all of the recent research (published since 2000) concerning the cognitive effects of playing action video games.
The analysis of the correlational studies indicated, overall, strong positive relationships between amount of time gaming and high scores on tests of perception, top-down attention, spatial cognition, multitasking, and cognitive flexibility (ability to switch strategies quickly when old ones don’t work anymore).
Other research by Linda Jackson and her colleagues (2012) has found significant positive correlations between amount of time playing video games and every aspect of creativity measured by Torrance’s Tests.
There is also a paper that has shown significant positive correlations between video gaming and the personality characteristic referred to as openness to new experiences (Chory & Goodboy, 2011).
I’d argue that every person is a self-directed learner
Beware the typical mind fallacy. There are quite a few people who have a hard time knowing their own preferences. If nothing else, school is a good way to get exposure to subjects that you might not have thought that you'd like. I'm a programmer by profession, but on my own time, I read quite a lot of history. That's entirely due to school. If I'd been "self-directed", in the sense of being able to choose my own curriculum at school, I'd have spent all my time learning programming, and I wouldn't have realized that I had other preferences.
A toddler learns to walk, to speak by imitating his environment—the motivation for this comes from him. So why should it be any different for a 12 year old?
Because Algebra and Trigonometry are considerably more boring than learning to walk and use the bathroom.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy your idea that we can make school as interesting or more interesting than video games. At some point you have to buckle down and do a bunch of drudge work in order to get to the interesting stuff. Video games, by making the reward loop so quick, actively train against that kind of persistence and perseverance. Yes, they may train creativity, but creativity is overrated. Being able to buckle down and grind is underrated, especially in this community.
All neat points! I mostly commented because this post seemed like it was probably in the class of posts that gets little-to-no attention, and I was trying to bump it while explaining how to outfit it with more content likely to make any further posts get more engagement. It seems like you have already got 2 more eyes on it though, so I was wrong!
Nitpick: You say that you are quoting "[j]ust [...] the ones who have a Nobel prize in literature". Albert Einstein was (along with other more important qualities) a good writer, but he never won the Nobel prize for literature.
There is the saying “Genius will out” and it was true for the four individuals you mention. But there are equally, cases where an enlightened teacher in an unpromising school has recognised genius, perhaps emerging from a lowly background, and helped it flourish, when perhaps it otherwise would have withered. Gauss comes to mind as one example. In decent schools today I would be pretty hopeful that genius, even if coupled to unconventionality, would be identified and nurtured. Of course not all schools are decent.
I don't have a particularly strong opinion on enforced schooling content, but I object to the term "unforgivable". Either it's annoying hyperbole, or you're advocating for the destruction of any civilizations that commit the offense (and/or individual humans who participated in furthering it). It doesn't belong on LW, and definitely not without some explanatory text about why it's used.
There are few things that strike me as being completely unforgivable. One of those things is how individuals and society as a whole treats children and adolescents.
Be it deliberately stripping them of agency on all matters in their everyday life, not out of benevolence towards them, but out of convenience.
Having them, under threat of consequences, devour continuously to the pursuit of what the adults in their life find is important for them. Knowing that they'll loathe the sight of these things, whether actually important or not, for the rest of their life.
Or requiring them to put up with the tight-fitting encasement of school, which, being like the shoes of a mandarin woman, pinch and bruise the nature of children on all sides and at every turn.
I am not the only one who believes this. In fact, if you look at the autobiographies of a wide variety of people, you'll come across these ideas again and again. It almost seems that every great personality at some point in their lives has written a critique of formal education. Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Rabindranath Tagore, and Bernard Shaw. Just to name the ones who have a Nobel Prize in Literature. [1] All of them could very well have said this. In fact, they have. What you read in the introduction is me paraphrasing each of them.
It is amusing to think that what most unites these four men, and perhaps all exceptionally able people to ever have lived, is not a particular political belief, nor the country in which they have lived. No, it is their dissatisfaction with what masquerades as "education" and the conviction that there is something wrong with it.
Albert Einstein
To begin, let's first look at Albert Einstein. Few words in his memoir are dedicated to his personal life. What stands out is that he doesn't refer to his mother a single time, and to his father only once (when he got a compass from him). But he takes his time to write in considerable length about the coercion he had to endure in the name of "education":
When Albert Einstein wrote this, he was already nearing the end of his life. And what a life it had been. Not to imagine if he had not devoted his time and energy to scientific endeavors.
Frighteningly, it seems to have come very close to this. One can only wonder if even a person like him could be temporarily alienated from what he loved most through coercion, how many people who don't possess his strength have we irretrievably lost to this.
Albert Einstein also intuitively understood what needs to be done to change this:
How powerful, how simple. An education building upon what Albert Einstein describes would not tell us what needs to be known, what is important versus what is trivial. Instead, it would place the "agency" of the individual in the center of everything, acknowledging its crucial role in deep learning experiences.
In the context of education, this means the freedom to choose what to learn, where to learn it, with whom to learn it, as well as how to learn it — and, perhaps most importantly, if to learn at all.
It is a shame that 70 years after Albert Einstein's death, this vision has not yet been realized. But perhaps it is an idea whose time has now finally come — in a world that is fundamentally different from the one Albert Einstein left in 1955.
Rabindranath Tagore
Once you start looking, these ideas can be found everywhere. A superb writer and one of the founders of modern Bengali literature, Rabindranath Tagore, wrote this:
He expanded upon it:
Maybe this isn't entirely true, but there are good reasons to think it is. How terrifying considering that shoes that are too tight cause numbness and irreparable (spinal) deformities.
Likewise, children who're systematically deprived of agency in an educational context and in their parental environment develop an unnatural relationship to failure and a bias for inaction.
Bernard Shaw
Bernard Shaw who famously thought of schools as being "in some respects more cruel than a prison", also had strong opinions about coercion in an educational context:
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill, who decisively shaped the course of history with his stubbornness towards Nazi Germany, had to fight battles on a smaller scale before that.
He had to fight his teachers, who had "large resources of compulsion at their disposal", whereas he had only his "stubbornness". Ironically, a situation not much different from his struggles in WW2.
The enforced attempt to have someone read something, have someone learn something, without the motivation coming from the students themselves. That can't work properly. It tries to produce the effect without the cause.
Conclusion
These were stories of some of the most brilliant minds we had, and they were each stunted in the growth of their own curiosity and interests through coercion in education.
Education today isn't built around the needs of exceptionally able children and adolescents. Perhaps the only ones who feel remotely content with it are (intelligent) conformists. In absolute numbers, the vast majority — measured in accomplishments, a tiny minority.
If the world consisted only of intelligent conformists, then the future of the Homo Sapiens would look bleak.
Because with a somewhat acceptable level of independence and originality in a narrow field, you may be able to become an executive at IBM, but you'll certainly not push the human species forward. The ones who do, they're non-conformists by definition.
What strikes me as the greatest loss are not the scientific breakthroughs never accomplished, the works of literature never written, but the squandering of the human spirit.
On a final note, I would like to share a story with you that I encountered while reading Peter Gray's "Free to Learn". A story that unfortunately involves the suicide of a 13-year-old girl:
In a just world, she would have had the freedom to learn on her own terms. But in a world of compulsory "education", she is deemed collateral damage.
The story above strikes me not even as a tragedy, but as something more inhumane. Someone wanting to decide for themselves, in a country that is purportedly all about freedom, and having to pay with their life for it.
I do not think this 13-year-old girl will forgive us. And I do not think we should forgive ourselves.
Notes
[1] Correction: Albert Einstein does not have a Nobel Prize in Literature.
[2] "Autobiographical Notes," in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Paul Schilpp, ed. (1951), pp. 17-19 © 1951 by the Library of Living Philosophers, Inc.
[3] "My School," in Personality: Lectures Delivered in America (London: MacMillan and Co., 1921), pp. 114-115
[4] "A Treatise on Parents and Children," preface to Misalliance (1909), reprinted in Bernard Shaw: Collected Plays with Their Prefaces, volume IV (1972), page 35
[5] My Early Life, pages 8-9, 12-13