Schools are enablers but not the makers of great humans

Is education limited to a timeline? 

Schools, as we all know, follow a timeline. As soon as a student begins school, a race against time and comparison with other students starts. The students who move fast in this timeline or perform much better than his/her peers are considered bright students. And of course, every class has one or two bright students. I have no doubt that the majority of these bright students do well in their personal lives or make good and rewarding careers. To do well in life or career one needs to follow the existing systems. The question is how many of these bright students become great humans by creating a new system that becomes mainstream and changes humanity’s direction? 

The image is generated by Bing image generator 

With a quick glance at what we learn in school, one realizes that learning a system is fast but creating a new system requires an intellectual “Superman” or “Supergirl” if you like. For instance, children learn abstract ideas like alphabets and numerals in the first two years of schooling. It took humanity more than 6 million years to invent these abstract systems. Why did it take humanity so long to come up with systems that children learn in a few years of mentored learning? We can find some clues in the difference between learning a language and writing. Children learn language with ease, and when they enter the school, they are already equipped with the spoken language.  Learning writing, requires immense effort from the student, and his/her mentors, simultaneously. Let’s put it another way. It is very likely that humans in the stone age spoke complex languages comparable to modern languages. In 1930, Michael Leahy, an Australian Gold prospector came across the native people in the central mountains of New Guinea - the second largest island in the world - that he thought spoke in a “jabbering” language [1]. By 1960, it was learned that the native people spoke 800 different languages. The island was isolated from the rest of humanity for 40,000 years, and the languages that evolved were distinct to this island. In comparison, humans invented writing 5000 years ago. It is common knowledge that both alphabets and numerals evolved slowly in the last 5000 years. For instance, ancient Egyptians could write in hieroglyphics, and ancient Romans didn’t have the concept of zero. Noam Chomsky has an answer for the differences between language acquisition and writing skills. He proposes that all humans have an innate capacity for language and all languages follow a universal grammar [2]. The innate ability for language, even the partial innate ability explains well, why cavemen could have complex languages, and children learn language at ease even in isolated tribes. 

 Once students learn how to read and write, they are implicitly told that to become good at something they have to practice a lot. Phrases like, “practice makes perfect” are often quoted in a variety of ways. In recent years, round numbers such as 10,000 or 1,000,000 have become popular.  It is so appealing to learn that if one spends “10,000” hours at anything, he or she can become very good at it. It is known as a 10,000 rule [3]. It takes 3-4 years of disciplined commitment to accomplish the 10,000 rule. Let’s do some simple calculations. If one spends 8 hours a day with no breaks for 3.4 years on a single task such as writing, he or she can accomplish the 10,000 hours rule. Besides, the 10,000-hour rule, there is a million-word rule [4] for becoming a good writer which agrees on the amount of time with the 10,000 rule. If a person makes a commitment to writing 1000 words every day, it will take him or her 3 years to complete the task of writing 1 million words. 

In school, students spend lots of time reading and writing. If the 10,000 hours or a million hours rule is true, why do we not see a mass of good writers and speakers among high school graduates? By the time a student graduates from high school, he or she has spent more than 10,000 hours in school learning the basics of human knowledge. The 10,000 hours number comes from OECD [5] which says that a student in the U.S. spends 8,884 hours over 9 years in primary and lower secondary schools. If we add 4 more years that a student spends in high school to this number considering that the student spends 180 days per year or 1260 hours per year in school, a high school graduate has spent 13924 hours in school. 

When I googled famous authors with high school education, 14 names showed up including Mark Twain, William Shakespeare, Leo Tolstoy, Maxim Gorky, George Orwell, David Hume, Robert Frost, Jackie Collins, Michael Morpurgo, Frank McCourt, Roald Dahl, Dana Goldstein, Anne Ruggles Gere, and Juana Ines de la Cruz. What these famous writers had or done that millions of other high school graduates did not do? A quote attributed to Pablo Picasso may shed some light on this problem, “It took me 4 years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.” Picasso’s four years also agrees with the 10,000 hours or a million words rule but it adds another dimension to the debate, and that’s the personal calling. Since the 10,000 rule is a general rule, we may argue that by spending 10000 hours one can acquire the competency needed to write well or paint well, but to write something or paint something that changes the way people think or see things requires something personal - something that allows people see things beyond learned frames of thinking or organizing things, in case of Picasso seeing things like children, for instance. Just as Picasso learned to paint like Raphael, if he kept painting in that style, he wouldn’t be the Picasso we know. He had to come up with something totally different from all previous artists, something very close to the cave artists. 

Do genetic and environmental variations explain the difference between good and great?

Physical performances like athletic performances are greatly influenced by genetic variations -30 to 80 percent [6]. The muscle composition like slow-twitch muscle fiber and fast-twitch muscle fiber determines the endurance versus speed of the athletes, aerobic capacity - the maximum amount of oxygen that the body can provide to muscles, and other obvious physical determinants like height and muscle mass are mostly predetermined by the genetic inheritance. Besides physical fields, genetics also have a great influence on the intellectual performances of individuals. It is no brainer to see the link between one’s ability to behave, regulate one’s emotions, and form social bonds or attachments will determine one’s performance in school, work, relationships, and quality of life, in general. These three qualities are attributed to one’s temper, and it has been shown that temper is influenced by genetic inheritance [7]. In addition to genetics, environmental influences play an enormous role in both the physical and intellectual performances of a person. There is a critical period for the acquisition of a new language or language. A child exposed to multiple languages at the age of 1 to 5 years can effortlessly become multilingual. Recent studies extended the critical period for the acquisition of new languages to 17-18 years of age [8]. Another important aspect of the environment is the development of the attachment style that a baby develops in the first year of life [9] depending on the relationship of the baby to the caregiver which will highly influence the child’s future relationship when he or she enters into adulthood. 

Based on the variations in genetics and also the environment, it becomes obvious that there will be great variations among individuals just by following the 10,000 hours rule. It is also evident from the results of high school graduates. As mentioned before, students spend around 14000 hours in school to graduate high school, but only 60 to 70% of the students enrolled in colleges from 1993 to 2021 [10]. Besides, time, genetics, and environment are other factors to consider when we think about becoming good at something. Considering the accelerating rates of progress in every field, it seems a sufficient number of individuals become good at something. Considering the global talent pool at Silicon Valley that has come from gene pools across the globe and from a variety of educational institutions, one can argue that deliberate practice for around 10,000 hours may override most of the genetic and environmental variations among individuals. Becoming good enough at something is universal for most abled men and women. My argument is about going from good to great. Considering very few great men and women in each generation, I am inclined to think that going from good to great is something personal. 

So, What makes someone go from good to great?

I began this article by comparing language versus writing and numerals and argued that writing and numerals were hard to invent because, unlike language, they are based on systems. Numerals as a system of thinking are still in progress. What makes an individual great is not mere time spent practicing but time spent tweaking a system to improve or change it enough that it allows the rest of humanity to see the reality whether natural or constructed with a new perspective. Most people learn -mostly from schools - the systems but very few try to change it for the better. 

References

[1] Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct. How the Mind Creates Language. Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition, 2007. 

[2] Tool Module: Chomsky's Universal Grammar, https://tinyurl.com/yjjm57mr 

[3] Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: The Story of Success. Back Bay Books, Little, Brown and Company, 2019. 

[4] Fortier-Dubois, Étienne. “How Many Words Have You Ever Written?”, Atlas of Wonders and Monsters, 30 Dec. 2021, https://tinyurl.com/2unpd3x4

[5] “United States: Read Online.” Oecd, https://tinyurl.com/ykbd53ev

[6] “Is Athletic Performance Determined by Genetics?: Medlineplus Genetics.” MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://tinyurl.com/2p82uk4b 

[7] Cloninger, C.R., Cloninger, K.M., Zwir, I. et al. The complex genetics and biology of human temperament: a review of traditional concepts in relation to new molecular findings. Transl Psychiatry 9, 290 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-019-0621-4

[8] “Cognitive Scientists Define Critical Period for Learning Language.” MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1 May 2018, https://tinyurl.com/mpzdrufb 

[9] Li, Pamela. “Bowlby & Ainsworth Attachment Theory – How Does It Work?” Parenting for Brain, 17 Jan. 2023, www.parentingforbrain.com/attachment-theory.

[10] 61.8 Percent Of Recent High School Graduates Enrolled In College In October 2021 : The Economics Daily: U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics. 23 May 2022,https://tinyurl.com/3pk448ha 

So, the original is a hybrid? Not an angel or a devil?

I thought two kinds of originals existed that were recognized by humanity from time immemorial, an angel and a devil. The humans weren’t originals. They had to choose to become either an angel or a devil or if they did not have the guts of becoming either, they had to ask for help from an angel to save them or worship a devil to grant them the power to dominate others. But Adam Grant suggests that all who believe in these two well-defined groupings are conformists and to be an original, you have to be non-conformist. What the hell is a non-conformist? See, I am being a nonconformist here. The professor asked to summarize the video talk in 125 words, maximum. I watched the video. In the video, Adam Grant sells the idea that nonconformists are originals, and guess what? While watching the video, the “power of suggestion” starts rewiring the synapses (neuron connections) in my brain, and my brain instructs me to be an original by changing the format of writing. It instructs me to write the essay like an opening scene of a movie - show a scene that promises something is going to happen. Before I go back to the story of hybrids, read the summary of the video;

The image is generated by the Bing generator 

Summary 

In his TED talk titled, “The surprising habits of original thinkers”, Adam Grants notes three common habits of the people he considers “originals. The first habit is being “slow to get off the ground”, the second is doubting an idea instead of doubting one's ability, and third, generating lots of ideas until stumbling on an original idea. 

Response

While Adam Grants are successful in selling the three habits, and it is possible that most of the people who came up with an original idea and popularized those ideas through their works somewhat share percentages of these habits, I am not convinced of the implied definition of the “original” for several reasons, chief among them is the improving an existing idea. Another important reason is producing lots of ideas in the hope of stumbling upon an original idea. I am not saying that it doesn’t work. But I am inclined to the notion of the data analysts who believe in the concept of “garbage in, garbage out”. The quality of results or predictions depends on the quality of data, and that is the reason data scientists or scientists in general spend most of their time generating and sorting quality data before analyzing it. I think the same is true in the arts, creating movies, writing novels, establishing a business …etc. 

Originality is a personal culture. If one has developed a culture of originality then he or she can benefit from Adam Grant's ideas the most. I believe the culture of “originality” comes from the realization that there is no finished work and there is nothing perfect, not even in Nature. It is all processes that we experience. The wider culture of the society usually kills the realization of processes by the rules, costumes, traditions, procedures… etc. An original person develops a culture and skills strong enough to make his or her rule-breaking work acceptable to the wider culture. Picasso describes originality beautifully, “It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.” Adam Grant’s three habits enrich the personal cultures of an original person by informing him how these habits helped other original thinkers. I am inclined to think that one has not developed a personal culture of originality, he or she might enjoy the talk but those habits might not stick with him or her, and he/she might forget them when he/she finds another enjoyable video or video. 

Inclusive democracy is the engine of progress

Abigail Hogan in his article titled, “Discourse Is Democracy: Allowing Uncensored Speech on College Campuses" argues that a college is a place of growth, and for the development of political issues in the real world, the students in college need to engage in open and informed debates. The growing practice of blocking speakers with different political opinions is taking away the opportunity of listening to opposing ideas and engage in informed conversations. Protests by college students are a catalyst of democracy and progress but blocking speakers from colleges is a disservice to democracy. The stop on blocking speakers will benefit both students and future political discourse. 

I have an algorithmic approach to reviewing a piece of opinion that I have refined over the years. The algorithm is borrowed from the title of the famous Western movie by name of, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”. Any part of an opinion that is based on facts or can be backed by facts is the good part. The parts that are based on gray areas or not conclusive data are a terrible part of the argument. The part that is based on prejudices, or can’t be backed by concrete evidence is the ugly part of the opinion. 

Armed with an algorithm that I have defined in the previous paragraph, the good part about the opinion piece is the reference to the “Foundation for Individual Rights in Education” and the numbers of incidences that shows an increase in the practice students attempt to prevent public figures from speaking at colleges. Another good part of the article is the definitions of the protests and also political discourse with references to historical events such as Gandhi’s salt march, and the American Civil Rights movements, as well as the current polarization of the political environment. This distinction serves well in favor of the argument as it points to the fact that protests during the American Civil Rights movements had a healing effect on American society and political discourse in general, and in comparison, the college protests will deepen the political polarization by creating echo chambers, and therefore, it is interests of students to allow a wide range of opinions in the colleges. 

Image generated by Bing image generator 

Now, the bad part of the article is omitting the long history of marginalization as well as polarization. The article gives references to public figures and popular political movements. See, right there lies the problem that consequently shows itself in the form of political polarization and intolerance in the form of student protests. Let me explain. Public figures have had long careers and well-known political discourses that are known to the public, and it is hard to not hear them given the interests of newspapers, magazines, television, and social media about their lives, careers, and opinions. Allowing them to speak at colleges or not allowing them at colleges both serve them well as both events advertise their well-known opinions. An interesting exercise would be to bring these public figures to colleges and let them listen to students coming from marginalized backgrounds. The colleges and other students can help these students to refine their opinions and be able to present their thoughts and experiences. OR, alternatively, colleges can invite opinionated individuals from marginalized communities, and let public figures and other students listen to them. This practice serves well both democracy and political discourse. 

Now comes the ugly part of the article, and that’s jumping to the conclusion that “if we fail to listen or we turn our back to the opposition instead of arguing and engaging, then we have already lost” without providing a clear picture of how to engage and argue with opposition, who is the opposition and what we will lose by not engaging? Let me elaborate a bit. Students who come to college might not have had the levels of exposure to the pressing political issues, haven’t had the opportunities to speak their minds, learn to express themselves in proper manners, and even more importantly have more pressing personal issues that do not permit them to ponder political issues. Do the students who protest to the speaker represent all students or they have had exposure to political debates all their lives, and college is just one of many platforms available to them? Because of their vast exposure, they might not miss or lose anything. In the case of political discourse, they might be deep in dialogues or engaging fiercely on social media or political meetings, or other platforms. Even with casual surfing of the internet, newspapers, mainstream media, books, and journals published, we find a small intellectual class dominating the political discourse everywhere. Considering the dominant voices, allowing or blocking public figures in colleges does not change the outcomes of current political polarization or does not add any benefits to the students. There is a need for debate on the transparency of algorithms used for show web searches, enabling students to express themselves, publications, the way public figures are made, and selection of the speakers in order for marginalized voices to be heard, and engaging and inclusive debates to become possible. 

Any quick read of developmental psychology [1], makes it obvious that children's mental development is heavily influenced by their environments. A decade or two ago, it was mainstream media and Ivy schools that dominated the narrative spheres and influenced the mind development of most of the students. Then, the internet came and there were hopes for a more open and engaging environment where voices on the fringes could also be heard. Now, there are a few companies that dominate web searches, and their algorithms [2] bury the fringe voices deep enough to make them voiceless again. In fact, the internet has become an echo chamber, as once was mainstream media. Growing up in such an environment where voices on the fringes are discouraged (maybe unintentionally or purely on business needs or political needs), talking about the progress of political discourse or benefits of students just by allowing or blocking a public speaker on college campuses is misleading or doesn’t change the current environment. Every new invention, technology, or policy brings some hope but without guardrails, the mainstream becomes mainstream, and the voices on the fringes remain on the fringes. I have named this argumentative and response essay, “Inclusive Democracy is the Engine of Progress” which summarizes my response to Abigail’s article. 

References

1. Wikipedia contributors. (2023, February 10). Developmental psychology. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology

2. Weapons of math destruction how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy, O'Neil - Broadway Books - 2017

Inception, a classic science fiction thriller movie that almost met my expectations

A classic science fiction thriller 

Inception is a science fiction thriller movie released in 2010 and directed by Christopher Nolan. The movie can be considered a classic in the science fiction genre based on the unique theme- heist of dreams, plot - a thief that planted a simple idea in the brain of his wife which blurs the idea of a real and dream world in her mind and she kills herself. Now a businessman wants the thief to plant a similar idea in the brain of a rival businessman’s son, and steal important information from his memory, and unique cinematography - the multistory buildings bending back on themselves, and the hotel room turned upside down. If one google, “hard to follow the storyline of the movie, inception”, one immediately finds that the storyline thread was hard to follow for people who do not have some form of training or education in “system thinking” or “systematic thinking”, and easy for those who have such a training. As an example, I am providing the link at the end of this article to a discussion thread for those who are interested to know the differences of opinions on the difficulty levels of the storyline in the movie [1]. 

Visualizing the levels of dream

What I most liked about the movie was the visualization of the dream levels. Despite the complaints about the hard-to-follow storyline, the movie follows a logical sequence of events: the “dream inside the dream”. The “dream inside the dream” is symbolized by the floors that are accessible through an elevator. The lower floor takes the dreamer to the deeper levels of the dream. The most interesting thesis of the movie is that the protagonist built a dream world where his dead wife and separated children live on the last floor, a concept borrowed from the Freudian division of the mind into conscious, subconscious (preconscious), and unconscious parts. 

Image generated by Bing image generator 

The movie didn’t meet parts of my expectations

Before watching the movie, I had heard a lot about the complexity of the movie which dives deep into the world of dreams.

Difference of control vs. speed of time: I expected to see the differences in controls at each level of the dream, meaning the dreamer had more control on the first floor and almost no control on the last floor. Instead, the movie showed the difference between speed and time at each level of the dream. The time passes faster at the first level and very very slow at the last floor. The protagonist has total control in all levels of the dream world and intentionally leaves the last floor that he has built for his dead wife and children. 

No particular logic: I also expected some elements of weird, hard-to-follow logic, surprises, horror, or very pleasant scenes that are the signature of dreams. But the movie follows a logical series of events based on the waking world. While I enjoyed the thrills of the race against time- a common trick in most thriller movies, and a partial inclusion of the “dream world” such as the bending of the high-rise buildings, they still didn’t meet my expectations. By including more elements of the dream world, the movies could be much more exciting.   

External links

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3735373

NOVA Documentary, "Secrets of Mind": key take home messages

 Following are the take-home messages from the NOVA documentary “Secrets of Mind” that I found noteworthy;

Image generated by Bing Image generator 

1. For every part of the body, there is a sensory area or map of that part of the body in the brain called the somatosensory cortex. In the documentary, two phantom arm subjects were presented as case studies by Dr. V. S. Ramachandran. Based on the “somatosensory cortex” idea, except for the brain itself, we can get the phantom of any body part. For instance, Dr. Ramachandran mentions phantom appendix pain following appendectomy. 

2. I found the application of knowledge in solving the phantom problem interesting. For instance, the use of a mirror box for solving a phantom limb problem was outstanding because it was non-invasive, inexpensive, quick, and used as a common tool available in every home. 

3. The brain map of the body creates severe problems when there is a disruption in the bidirectional messaging system. For instance, when James -one of the subjects in the phantom limb case- lost one of his arms, his brain sent a signal to clench his fist because of the pain. But since there was no physical arm to send a signal back to the brain that there is too much clenching, the brain kept sending even more signals to the phantom arm. Normal medical interventions such as painkillers or traditional interventions such as mind control weren’t working in the case of Mr. James. A visual feedback to the brain in the form of a mirror box restored the bidirectional messaging and the clenching messaging to the phantom arm stopped. 

4. Separate pathways (more conscious vs. more reflexive) to the visual cortex help patients notice/see even when their visual cortex is damaged. One pathway is an evolutionarily new pathway that goes from the eyeballs to the thalamus to the visual cortex and helps us see consciously. Another evolutionary older pathway that is more prominent in evolutionary older vertebrates than primates such as other mammals, reptiles, and birds going to the cortex via the brainstem is more reflexive. This reflexive pathway helps people see/notice movements even when their visual cortex is damaged in a phenomenon known as blind sightedness. This documentary, the case of Mr. Young Graham from Oxford, England was presented who lost vision on his right side due to an accident during his childhood which damaged his visual cortex. But still, he notices movements, though not the color, shapes, etc of the objects. 

5. I found Dr. Ramachandran’s question based on conscious vs. reflexive pathways a fascinating and very important question about the nature of consciousness. Why is one pathway equal to consciousness and another to Zombie-like response? What consciousness is, anyway?  

6. Peggy, another subject, had a stroke that damaged her brain's parietal lobe and caused a condition known as visual or hemi-spatial neglect. When asked to draw a shape, she draws half of the shape, for instance, a flower. According to Dr. Ramachandran doesn't have only visual problems but also a problem of consciousness. Since the parietal lobe is responsible for 3D representation or layout of the physical world and helps us navigate our environment, the damage in one part of the lobe results in the inability of the patient to respond to stimuli coming from the opposite side -contralateral- of the damaged area. 

7. While navigating, the visual stimuli go through two pathways, the “how pathway” - which goes from the eyeballs to the parietal lobe area-, and the “what pathways”-which goes from the eyeballs to the temporal lobes, and then relayed to the amygdala, an area associated with emotions. David, another subject, suffered damage in the connection between the “temporal lobe-amygdala” part, hence occasionally does not invoke the emotional responses normally a person has upon seeing his parents. This damage caused “capgras delusion” in which the subject perceives his real parents as imposters. Since the auditory pathway to the “auditory cortex-amygdala” is intact in David he doesn't have a “capgras delusion” on the phone. 

8. The case of John Sharon who suffers from temporal lobe epilepsy/seizure is particularly interesting. According to Dr. Ramachandran, the pathway between the temporal lobe-amygdala has sensory neural connections that determine the importance or emotional significance of things and is unique in each individual. Something that might be unimportant or trivial to a person might be emotionally very important to someone else. A landscape -mountains, valleys, plain areas- can as an analogy for the relative importance of things based on the strength of these connections. The seizure or epilepsy of the temporal lobe increases the strength of these connections indiscriminately. These exaggerated connections strengthen the significance of everything -not just what is important for our survival such as relations we love or threats we fear. This cosmic importance of everything is what Dr. Ramachandran calls a religious or mystic experience.