If thinking were introduced into the school curriculum and taught properly, it would be made abundantly clear to everyone that actually most of the value in society is created by just a few people and the rest of us are just passengers (more or less).
And there is no way that the average school teacher or parent will face up to that reality.
So the push to teach thinking in schools may be as successful as pushing water uphill.
Maybe you can cover up that it is thinking that you are trying to teach!
Call it something more HIP or FUNKY! Something more modern!
Leaders have vision. Followers have dreams. When the vision fits their perception, they will follow and create value. Passengers are free loader with negative value. (Swindlers have plans to reap off followers thru someone vision - the evil side of the force).
It's hard work pushing water uphill against gravity. And when you have followers sharing your vision you still have to lead them. A leader's work is never done.
Charlie Sheen has topped all internet and social media discussions since the beginning of the year, beating out buzz and controversy surrounding the iPad, singer Lady Gaga and US President Barack Obama, according to a survey released by the Global Language Monitor on Tuesday.
"Charlie Sheen ... is everywhere. The growing pervasiveness of social media only enhances this global echo chamber," said Paul Payack, president and chief word analyst for the Global Language Monitor.
What has any of this teaching thinking stuff got to do with Charlie Sheen?
For a discussion about this discussion, please go to. . .
The push to teach thinking in schools will never succeed as long as we feel that it has something to do with parents and teachers. Neither of these two parties possess sufficient power to change the way the system works.
The people who must be converted are the TEACHER TRAINERS and their overlords - the educational bureaucrats who determine what everyone must accept and conform to.
Educational bureaucrats do not want people to learn how to think any more than the leaders of the Church in the Middle Ages wanted people to think.
Schools hire teachers on their ability to be compliant conformists - not on their ability to propose radical new ideas that could change the face of education. The reason they do this is because the educational high priests in cahoots with reigning politicians ensure that the system works in this way; to defend itself against all change.
Forget the parents. Forget the teachers. Forget the students. Get the educational academics to the table to learn this stuff.
In a way it's a kind of a war. The system defends itself, we the rebels, the designers of a better future have to use some pretty forceful tactics to maintain whatever towns and villages we capture.
One the thing that comes to mind is the Law of Least Effort. As a human, we all have complacency sometime. We want an easy way out (like becoming a passenger). We want things that make us happy (watching TV).
When people believed the system is working fine so why should it fixed. Ignorance sets in. Or even better, let other people deal with it. I already have my set of problems.
Leader has to walk the talk until s/he succeeded.
Very good, Adonis, excellent observation. Actually, our dear Phil, in using this phrase "pushing water uphill" to denote a seemingly futile effort, was trying to be polite. I am perhaps not so concerned with toujours la politesse.
The actual phrase that I have heard used countless times is:
"It was like trying to push shit uphill".
Actually, come to think of it, trying to push shit uphill would probably be that much easier than trying to push water uphill. It may well depend on the consistency of the shit, though.
Good story and insights, Adonis. I like it.
I find small improvements to be a powerful idea.
Yes,you are absolutely right,we need a revolution in our educational curriculae. However,as EDB observes more and more countries are introducing courses on creative thinking. However, it appears to me thta care must be taken in indentifying the stage or child's age at which it should be introduced. For more on this please clock " Creative Thinking and Child Development" in YouTube.
I looked it up on YouTube and there you were explaining why maybe children should learn the standard way of looking at things (eg. 1 + 1 = 2) before they are encouraged to think creatively and formulate alternatives.
My sense is that the priority with younger children is to give them confidence that they can understand things, do things, learn more things, see things from another angle. I certainly agree that they shouldn't be left to flounder or grapple with too many alternatives: Give them the sense that they "can do" and hopefully sooner or later they will do.
Maybe the core question is; "Are young children using a creative approach to thinking or a "standard" approach to thinking?"
If young children are using a creative approach to thinking it makes sense to build upon that approach and teach them when and how to use a standard approach to solving task and learning skills. And vice verse.
So the question is: What approach to thinking does young children "prefer and naturally" use? And what evidence support the suggestion?
And of course - What does it mean to use a creative approach when you are a young child?