I tend to rant about a lot of these things in daily conversations, but I thought that I would write it out in words for all to see.
I have been heavily influenced by the works of Charles Murray and John Taylor Gatto, both of whom I have referenced in my earlier blogs. I'm citing them here, because they have influenced my thinking perhaps the most in recent times. And this blog in particular.
 |
| John Taylor Gatto |
I have only learned about John Taylor Gatto recently, but I wish that I had many years ago. The man is a national treasure.
John Taylor Gatto taught school in New York City for around thirty years, winning "NYC Teacher of the Year" award in both 1990 and 1991. He quit teaching shortly thereafter, disgusted with our public school system. He has since been a writer and speaker on the subject of education, particularly the American school system. He is a major advocate of homeschooling. His knowledge behind the history of compulsive schooling in America is perhaps second to none.
Sadly, Gatto had a stroke in 2011, leaving him partially paralyzed. He has regained the ability to speak through physical therapy, although it's very trying on him. If you listen to some of his more recent videos on Youtube, (I would recommend all of them. I've only listened to a handful, and each one was excellent.) you will notice his speech is slurred. That's why .
 |
| Dr. Charles Murray |
Dr. Charles Murray is a political scientist, with an undergraduate from Harvard and a PhD from MIT. He currently works for the American Enterprise Institute.
Murray was originally a liberal Democrat, but changed his views when he researched the welfare programs instated during Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty." His book "Losing Ground" talks about how not only were these programs failures for bringing people out of poverty in the long run, they also created a series of new problems such as rampant child illegitimacy and loss of self esteem.
Perhaps his magnum opus is "The Bell Curve" which he coauthored with the late Harvard psychologist Richard Herrnstein. The book got much praise and criticism for discussing intelligence, especially the whole debate about whether intelligence is genetic, environmental, or some combination of the two.
As someone who has read most of the book, I can tell you that the critics that attacked it either deliberately misrepresented it, or let their egalitarian bias get in the way of rational assessment.
He has written several books about the education system, about human accomplishment, advice when being interviewed, and more.
What I'm angry about
I thought that I would write this blog to get several things off of my chest.
I don't want it to read like an angry rant, but rather a systematic analysis of (based on my findings) why things are the way they are.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous, that we have a population that spends more time in school than ever, is spending more money on school than ever, and are still ignorant about what used to be considered common knowledge. (You can read my other blog "Dumbing Down America" where I cite the financial figures if you want to know.)
I have seen college students being interviewed, and been unable to answer questions such as:
"What country did America used to be a part of?"
"Who was the first American president?"
"How many stars are in the American flag?"
"Who is the current Vice President?"
"What does the Fourth of July celebrate?"
"What is the Bill of Rights?"
"What are the three branches of government?"
"How do you spell 'Barack Obama'?"
The ability to think critically or independently has been vastly diminished. My interest in politics got me to notice this more and more.
Notice, that I'm not even criticizing here whether the people agree with me or not.... rather that they didn't come to their beliefs by hearing different opinions, and weighing them in their heads.
I've both experienced, and witnessed people answering the question:
"Why do you vote the way you do?" with these sorts of answers:
"My family does."
"My friends do."
"My 'people' do."
"He sounds smart."
"He seems cool."
"He or she's the first (fill in the blank)"
"He's a white Christian man. "
"I can't vote for him! He's a Muslim-atheist!"
"My friends told me that (the other party) is bad."
...... and on and on.
I don't care what your religion, political views, outlook, or whatever else is. It should seriously bother you that we live in a country where this has become the norm, in spite of record amounts spent on education.
Education, like all government programs seems to be touted as:
"It's not working, because we're not spending enough."
The Kardashians
 |
| The Kardashian sisters when they came to my workplace |
Truth be told: I don't know them on a personal level, so I can't really say whether they're good or bad people.
My issue with them is that their high level of popularity to me, is indicative of how brainwashed and dumbed down the population at large has become.
I look at it like this:
If you obsess over an athlete, actor, or singer, at least you admire some sort of skill.
I will never in a million years, be able to play basketball like Lebron James, act like Gary Oldman, or sing like one of the best. (I didn't name a singer, because everyone has different tastes.)
Back in the day, when I was a huge Michael Jordan fan, I recall reading that his practice routine was by far the most intense around.
Hence: Why he did what he did on the court.
Even as someone who's not into sports, I still can't help but admire that level of work ethic and drive.
Gary Oldman is one of my favorite actors because is like a chameleon, taking on all sorts of diverse roles, and pulling each one off perfectly. And he's very humble, and has made an effort to keep his personal life out of the limelight.
Kim Kardashian is famous for four reasons:
1) Her late father was the OJ Simpson trial lawyer.
2) She made a sex tape. (As if she's the first person to do that.)
3) She got plastic surgery.
4) She hung around Paris Hilton.
That's it.
Her fans have tried to defend her saying that she has "great style".... which I don't get, because she pays fashion designers and makeup artists for that.
I have actually watched the show too... It's just everyday nonsense. I could hangout around the mall, and I would see many of these scenarios being played out. Although perhaps, with less money.
I find it interesting too, how even some people I know that aren't intellectual powerhouses, (in some cases, that may be putting it lightly) have said to me and others in private, that they don't understand the reason for her popularity. They just don't vocalize it in front of everyone for fear that they will get made fun of for it.
I got over that a long time ago. I learned not to worry about what "other people think", because to me it's a question of philosophy and who's ultimately right. Just because "other people do it", doesn't make it right.
Slavery was once considered acceptable, and the abolitionists were a tiny minority of the population... Remember that.
A friend of mine, who's a successful entrepreneur nailed it:
"One of the biggest things dragging down our society is that we worry way too much about what stupid people think."
I think that's the root of most of these problems.... especially the Kardashians.
The American sports and celebrity scandal obsession
As with the Kardashians' fame, I would attribute much of this to bandwagon mentality.
Now... I have nothing against being interested in sports. Several of the men in my family are huge baseball fans. One of my favorite economists, Thomas Sowell even tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers way back when.
 |
| Dr. Thomas Sowell |
"This is trivia. Why do you care?"
..... shortly thereafter, the conversation devolves into a discussion about what the Kardashians are doing, what the Manning brothers do on their spare time, what outfit a celebrity is wearing, what "Caitlyn" Jenner wrote on Twitter, etc.
It drives me nuts, the degree to which people completely ignore the issues that affect them (like taxes or education) but treat the outcomes of sporting events and celebrity scandals as life or death consequences.
Is it really worth setting something on fire because a team loses a match? I don't even see the athletes doing that, and it's their career.
This wouldn't bother me if more of the population had at least some interest in issues that affected their outcomes.
Even if you don't agree with me 100% in this section, think about this for a second:
Towards the end of the Roman Empire, the people in charge used the gladiatorial fights, parties, and races as distractions from all of the problems that the empire had. The bankruptcies, the failing economy, the barbarians moving in, the rampant corruption in government, etc.
"Bread and circus".
We've lost our sense of community, faith, and family as a nation:
This is huge, and perhaps far more destructive than people realize.
Charles Murray has argued for years that there are four domains in which people achieve true long lasting happiness. This is from both studying philosophy such as Aristotle, and modern research of sociology.
1) Family. (This includes relationships.)
2) Community.
3) Vocation. (This is meant to be work, but charitable activities apply here too.)
4) Faith.
You don't have to tap into all four. There are single, happy atheists, and there are happy celibate, childless clergymen.
Ideally, you should have at least two or three of them.
1) Family:
As a libertarian agnostic, I'm less concerned with marriage in so far as an official government or religious piece of paper. I'm more concerned with two people staying together, and only having children when they're able to take on the responsibility. And of course, be able to provide financially, as well as spend the time. For the rest of this section, when I say marriage, I mean more "relationship stability" although the formal institution applies here too.
Marriage is far more likely to end in divorce than it used to. There are those that would argue that this is a good thing, because it allows people to escape marriages that they are unhappy in. I would say yes and no.
There have been many studies ("The Case for Marriage" is one such book.) indicating that children raised by a single parent are bound to have more difficulties than one raised by two. This isn't an absolute: There are many great single parents, some of which I know.
It's just that there is lots of evidence suggesting that a child benefits far more from the two parents.
For example: A mother telling a child not to climb a tree for fear of being hurt, whereas the father allows it saying: "boys will be boys".
They balance each other out. My parents differ in political and religious views, and I would see that I have benefited a lot from that; it taught me to look at things from different angles.
I think much of the problem here is that people get married and/or have children prematurely because it's "what other people do", and they're afraid of not fitting in. I think that people just need to look inside themselves and do what's best for them... not "what other people do."
Murray has been attacked for romanticizing the time around 1960, possibly from a bias towards his own childhood.
Murray has refuted this. There is even a part in one of his books where he says:
"If there were a time machine that took people back to 1960, you would have to drag me into it, kicking in screaming."
That's because life in many ways, is better now that it was then.. including for people like me and him.
The problem again comes down to culture. It used to be that you only had a child if you could afford one, and you and the other parent would stay together and take care of it.
Murray (and many of the other older people I know) have memories of during their younger years being told that if they got a girl pregnant, they married her and took care of the child. Or the baby got put up for adoption. There weren't people bragging about numerous kids from all of their "baby mommas". And they didn't look for other people to support the child either.
This is across all ethnic groups, mind you.
Illegitimacy used to be a maximum of about 10% (from 1960 and before) for the white, black, Asian and Latino populations, respectively.
Today's percentage of out of wedlock births by ethnic group (as of 2013):
White: 29%
Black: 72.5%
Latino: 53.3%
Asian: 17.2%
This is in spite of trillions of dollars having spent on welfare, public housing projects, increased spending on education, etc.
This is clearly a major cultural problem.
I don't have a quick and easy solution for this, but I think that there need to be several conversations, which will turn into hundreds, and then thousands, and then million of conversations. I hope that writings like this blog will have some influence on that.
2) Community:
Gatto had a brilliant essay, talking about how we have gone from being a "country of communities" to a "country of networks".
Here's the difference:
A community is a naturally occurring, voluntary association of multiple people, getting together for some mutual purpose. That purpose might be just because they enjoy each others' company, or to achieve some higher goal. A community ends when enough of its members decide that getting together is no longer mutually beneficial. Various clubs, churches, and block parties are all examples of community.
A network is an artificial framework, bearing some semblance to a community, but not entirely. The problem with a network, is that it is established arbitrarily, often online. Networks aren't bad in of themselves, (Obviously, I'm on a few of them. Gatto and Murray are too.) but they will never take the place of community.
For example, when you talk to someone online, it's not the same as face to face. There's a disconnect. I have also experienced many, many times, when people will say things online that they would never say in person. I think that's one of the biggest drawbacks to most of these artificially constructed networks, and the Internet in general.
Gatto made an excellent analogy explaining why networks can never be communities:
Picture that you're overweight, and trying to lose weight. You can do it quickly through some artificial, mechanical, "by the numbers" method. Think of diet pills, crazy diets, radical exercise, etc.
The problem with doing it this way, is that you're likely to gain the weight back, because you haven't fixed the main cause of what made you overweight in the first place. Until you do, "quick fixes" aren't going to lead to lasting results.
As someone who used to be overweight, I agree with this 100%. I used to be overweight because I would munch on things when I was bored, eat the wrong types of foods, and was physically inactive. Until I found other ways to occupy myself, learned to gradually eliminate bad things from my diet, and find exercise that appealed to me, nothing changed.
The same could be said of self esteem. I have struggled with this, and so have some of the major celebrities. It's something that has to be resolved from within.
Despite all the money and fame they receive, they feel empty inside. Nothing can replace a confident self, developed through a feeling of accomplishment, social connections, and purpose. Celebrities often report feeling very lonely, because there are only a select few people that truly know them. This was true of Robin Williams, and of David Letterman as well. Tragically, Williams never resolved his self esteem issues. Fortunately, according to what he has said, Letterman has.
It doesn't matter how much time we spend online, or on our smart phones. Nothing can replace friendly or intimate human connection.
I'm always amazed at my job (and elsewhere for that matter.) when I see couples on dates across the table from each other, both glued to their smart phones. They barely even acknowledge each other.
What's the point in even going on the date in the first place?!
As with the issue above, I'm not sure how to solve this. I think that all people (myself included) have to find more extracurricular activities outside of work. I'm in the process of searching for more people with my political views in NYC (which is a major challenge!) and see if I can somehow, some way make a difference ultimately.
3) Vocation
This is a complicated issue, because we live during bad economic times. Many who have been laid off can't go back to what they used to do, at very least not at the same pay.
The majority of college students are not finding jobs for their degrees. The "Student Loan Debt Bubble" has reached $1.3 trillion. There is no way these loans are getting paid off. We're not creating enough high paying jobs, at a fast enough rate to finance these. (The economy currently holds 2 million fewer, full time, breadwinner jobs than in the year 2000.) Last I checked, around 40% of the loans are either in forbearance, or have been defaulted on. And that was a few months ago.
I myself was going to go back to school for Political Science, but reconsidered upon evaluating the cost, and the limited opportunities available. I'm disappointed, but I would rather figure something else out, than rack up debt that I will be unable to pay off... and thus, wreck my credit rating big time.
I feel bad for many of these students going in now, but it's also the price of being uninformed.
Do you think that the people running colleges sit up late at night, worrying if their graduates are employed?
The majority of economic growth comes from small business, not large. That was the foundation of the American Dream. You could own your own destiny.
Unfortunately, through a whole mess of taxes and regulations, starting a business in America is much harder than it used to be. Those things add to the risk of having a small business, over 90% of which fail within a year. In the last few years, more businesses have been closing in America than opening.
I read a study stating that if the regulatory state stayed where it was in 1949, the economy would be about three times larger than it is now.
And if you think that these regulations, requirements, fees, and licenses are "for our own good"... ask yourself:
"Who is more able to pay for the things mentioned above?"
Rich, or poor people?
It is my firm hope that we can at least begin to scale back the State in my lifetime. I know that it can't happen overnight, but I would like to go back to an America where someone could come here with nothing, and make it big.
That's "social justice" in my view.
4) Faith
Religion is declining in this country, and I have mixed feelings about that.
The good thing is that as science explains more and more, we gain a better understanding of how the world works. I think that it's important that ideas be put to some sort of test, rather than taken on blind faith.
I believe that it's important to have faith in general, whether it be in a cause or oneself. I just worry when people are discouraged from questioning things, and deferred to some sort of higher authority. That trait tends to get carried into other walks of life.
The bad thing is that morals have declined, and more and more people go by "moral relativism" now. The belief that any moral system is valid, and can change with the times. The problem with this, is that anyone can just rewrite "what is right and wrong" on a whim. I also find that people that go by this sort of thinking have many inconsistencies, contradictions, and logic gaps in their philosophy.
For example:
Complaining about how sexist and homophobic America is, but then defending to death the Islamic extremists in the Middle East. This is in spite of the fact, that they oppress women and gays more than anyone else.
I think Murray hit the nail on the head here. He said:
"There's nothing wrong with being an atheist, insofar as you aren't an unreflected atheist."
He and I have noticed that many people just going into college will become atheists, because their peers and teachers sort of socially pressure them into it.
"Smart people don't believe in that stuff anymore."
"Religious people are just mystics."
"Religious people are just looking to fill in a gap in their life."
"They just believe those things because their parents told them to."
In this, there is a great irony.. Certain atheists attack religious folk for taking things on faith, but some of them are doing the exact same thing. The only difference, is that it is the faith of their peers and teachers.
They didn't read through various religious texts, and just decide that the writings didn't add up.
I think that it's important to at least consider what religion has to offer. As an agnostic, I find myself agreeing with much of the philosophy and moral principles, of many of the world's dominant religions.
As I wrote in a previous blog, I think that schools should teach some sort of classes on ethics. Confucius and Aristotle are two good models to follow.
I think that there should be classes where there is a dialectic (a discussion where everyone contributes) about what's right and wrong. Nobody has to force their views, just discuss them and reflect on it. Perhaps the grades could be determined by how much the other students are compelled by one's arguments? Food for thought, anyway.
The other drawback with religious decline is that faith is a community in of itself. And as listed in point two, no amount of Twitters, Facebooks, or Tinders can replace that.
The origins and the problems of our schooling system:
As I wrote about in my other blog, I think that much of the reason for so much ignorance today is due to the education system. How we're taught, what we're taught, the pacing, and so on. I always knew there wasn't something right in my head, because of how little people they know when they come out.
Gatto does an outstanding job of explaining the origins of our school system, and how it's lead us to where we are today.
Many don't know this, but our current school system is modeled after the Prussian military school.
Prussia (Or the Duchy of Prussia, which was the original one) was the city state that ultimately conquered, and united the rest of Germany. The first leaders of modern day Germany, were Prussians.
Prussia was famous for its compulsory state schooling of children since the time of Martin Luther.
What was the reason for this?
To make children loyal, obedient servants of the State.
From a young age, they would be taught the Lutheran religion. They would also be taught that other sects of Christianity as well as Judaism, were evil and that service of the State in the military was the greatest honor.
It was known that if children were raised by the parents, or by private schools, they would think independently, and challenge authority.
This sort of system lead to a completely obedient culture, that was taught from a young age never to question authority. Many scholars have argued that this mentality was what made it possible for someone like Hitler to rise to power there.
Towards the end of the 19th Century, big business (Carnegie and Rockefeller most notably) pushed to control the school system. They knew that if they did, they could gain control over the population and make it "manageable". It was far easier for them to sell their products en masse, and recruit workers that would do brutal, manual labor without too much trouble. Well educated, independent thinking workers would be more likely to demand higher pay and better conditions.
Between 1900-1920, Carnegie and Rockefeller spent more on education that the government itself did.
You have to at least be somewhat skeptical of their motives, when you consider that more of the population was literate before compulsory schooling, than after.
Consider this quote by the academic Max Otto, writing "Science and the moral life" in 1949. He explained:
"It is natural businessmen should seek to influence the enactment and administration of laws, national and international, and that they should try to control education."
Think about how that applies to everything that I have said so far, and keep it in mind throughout the rest of this blog.
I plan to write more about these origins of American education in a future blog, so I won't go on about all of the details here.. this was just meant to be a quick overview.
What effect this sort of system has had on our development as a people:
For one source of information on this, Gatto cited the work of Alexander Inglis. His 1918 book "Principles of Secondary Education".
In this book Inglis, elaborates on the six principles of compulsory schooling, and what it's designed to do.
1) The adjustive, or adaptive function: Establish a fixed reaction to the demands of authority.
Hence, why we're taught to only speak when we're called on. This makes it harder to teach the children in a way that they find interesting, because they're being conditioned only to do what they're told.
The very nature of compulsion disinterests a person from doing something... That's why fewer and fewer people want to read history for example, because they just feel that it was a dry subject that was rammed down their throats in school. I only became interested in it after watching movies and playing video games. That got me to read about it on my own.
2) The integrating function: This is to make people conform.
Hence, why the kids are lined up in rows, taught the same things at the same pace, and segregated based on age.
Instilling this mentality is what encourages social cliques to form. Students lack self esteem through accomplishment, so they look to each other. Kids conform in order to "fit in".
3) The diagnostic and directive function: This is to put people into certain categories based on exact information taken on them.
Hence, the level of increased data mining of children over time.
The late neurologist Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld said that when he was a kid, they had your name and address, tops. Now, they know almost everything about you.
4) The differentiating function: This is why we have simplified "Honors", "Regents," and "Remedial" systems, rather than flexible systems that could be tied more to individual performance.
Learning in this system is less about a child's individual strengths and weaknesses, but rather more about where they "fit in the machine".
5) The selective function: This was meant to separate the "cream of the crop" from the rest.
In the older days, this meant separation along racial lines. This was done in order to achieve a "pure bred stock".
6) The propadeutic function: The system can only be carried on by a number of elite caretakers.
The smarter and better connected kids are put into better schools and fraternities (look up the "Skull and Bones" fraternity at Yale. Both John Kerry and George Bush were members.)
This way the government, and the corporations running the country can continue to lord over the population, too oblivious to oppose them.
Inglis wasn't alone in this at all; there was John Dewey and his followers, big business magnates, Horace Mann, Woodrow Wilson, and others at this time all touted similar messages in their writings and talks.
Where has this lead us today?
Gatto has put into words what I have thought about for awhile, but had trouble articulating.
School and now college, perpetuates adolescence.
At one point in our time, people slightly over age 13 were considered adults. Not anymore.
Theorists as far back as Plato, believed that surrounding children primarily with other children perpetuated adolescence.
My understanding is that in the old days, families spent more time together. Adults and children interacted far more then, than now. The elderly were more respected, not mocked and marginalized like they are today. A community was built on the interactions of all people across the age spectrum.
Children also served as apprentices at a young age, which give them someone to aspire to be like. It was natural for them to model themselves after their masters.
This has gotten worse and worse. I know people in their mid 30's, that act like teenagers that I knew in high school. (I won't mention any names here!)
High school kids are known for being immature, (at least in recent times) but unfortunately this has spread onto college campuses as well.
College campuses have become these sort of artificial environments, where political correctness rules the day.
There are:
"Free speech zones": Where people can say what they want. (Shouldn't they be able to, regardless?) "Trigger warnings": Where the teacher announces that an offensive word is about to be used, so anyone that feels uncomfortable can leave. (I can't understand why white kids are offended by hearing the "n word" in books written one hundred or more years ago.)
Oh and "micro aggressions" where saying things like "you guys" is bigoted.
This tells me one of two things:
1) People don't know how to act like adults by college age.
2) People are ultra sensitive, and offended by everything.
I'm willing to say that both are true to an extent.
There are cases of kids joining clubs, getting kicked out because the other members don't want them, and then the person sues the club for discrimination. They also try to get the club eliminated from the campus.
"I love diversity, as long as it agrees with me."
I would love to throw some of these people into kitchens that I worked in, and see how long they survive being screamed at.
I really want to know what practical purpose this serves... most authority figures in the real world aren't going to sit around worrying if you "feel offended" because they criticized you.
Now, let's contrast this with experience of some of our forefathers:
Thomas Jefferson: He was handling ledgers and payments by age 12 when his parents passed away.
George Washington: He taught himself trigonometry when he was 10, and was running his own surveying company by age 15. He also learned how to grow his own marijuana, according to his journal, for "medicinal purposes".
Benjamin Franklin: He left school when he was 10, and become a printer's apprentice at 13. Around that time, he pushed himself to study a self made curriculum, which would be about on par with what a Yale senior does today.
Admiral David Farragut: He was a naval officer in the Civil War. He was stationed on a ship at age 9, during the War of 1812. At age 12, he was responsible for steering a captured British ship back to port.
Abraham Lincoln: He only had one year of formal education total in his entire life. Before being president, he was the top lawyer in the country.
Andrew Carnegie: He begged his mother not to send him to school at age 13.
People have argued against this, citing that people lived much shorter life spans back then. That justifies stretching out various walks of life in modern times.
I would argue the exact opposite: I see a longer lifespan as a chance to accomplish much more.
I've worked with some Europeans who started cooking professionally in their early teens, and they run circles around those that started later.
Obviously, there are those who start later and do very well too:
A prime example would be Jean George Klein. He started cooking at age 44, and won 3 Michelin stars. Granted, his story isn't the norm.
But I wonder, what could he have accomplished if he had started much earlier?
American crass consumerism:
Gatto perfectly sums up the reason why Americans feel compelled to live way beyond their means.
There are two types of people that spend (if they can) excessively:
1) Children
2) Addicts
Our schooling system does an excellent job of creating both.
The desire to consume endlessly is the result of a dependent personality. It's an effort to fill in a void. Problem is that like with all addictions, it increases over time and can't be satisfied indefinitely.
Think about when you were in school: Everyone had to have the latest Air Jordans. Everyone had to wear the latest fashion trend. Everyone had to rush out and see the latest movie.
Even if everyone could afford to constantly buy the newest things, would they still be happy? Or, more than likely, would they just keep wanting more and more?
The original architects of our education system (the big business magnates) knew this. With a predictable population, trends would be easier to identify, and it would be easier to mass produce products that the people wanted.
This is how you see the development of fashion trends; a certain design is modeled by someone popular. Other people see it, and want to buy it because they look up to that person. The designers know that once something becomes popular, they can sell it en masse.
This would be drastically harder if we had a country of independent thinking individuals, that all had very unique styles and preferences.
However, as is the case with any addiction... giving more of the drug doesn't solve it. The root of the problem must be pulled out.
They always tell you when you're little:
"Money doesn't buy happiness."
I believe that's true, and it isn't at the same time.
It's true in the sense that money can't buy you lasting friendships, relationships, or connections. If you have a lot of money, people might hang around you because it benefits them, not because they're drawn to your character.
On the other hand, I aspire to at least be financially comfortable for the sake of freedom. I would love to be able to take time off, visit different people and places, and not have to worry that I will miss a bill payment if I do.
Boredom:
We live in an era where people are easily bored. There are a few reasons behind this.
For one, it's a form of intellectual laziness. In the older times, before the TV and Internet, people had to find their own entertainment. This took the form of various board games, outdoor activities, competitions, reading, etc.
Now we look for others to entertain us.
We don't pick up a book and read, (I do personally, but it's hard to get many other to.) we wait for a show to come on, and the information to be beamed to our heads. This isn't the same as picking up a book, interpreting the information, concentrating, and putting your mind against the author's.
We get our news in thirty second sound bites, rather than in depth explanations.
I've known people that won't even play certain video/computer games because it "gets them to think too much".
I love Gatto's quote from his grandfather:
"If you're bored, that means you're boring. It means that you have a limited mind, and you better do something about that, because nobody wants to hang around boring people!"
He says that since his grandfather told him that at young age, he never let himself slip into boredom again. I'm trying to embrace that myself.
Low self esteem:
I talked about this in other sections, so I think it's pretty straightforward.
People are self conscious because they compare themselves too much to other people, and they worry too much about what stupid people think.
I used to hold myself to ideal people in other categories, and I realize now how stupid that is.
It used to just be accepted that everyone is unique, meaning good and bad in different ways. I might be better looking than some, but less attractive than others. I'm also more intelligent than some, but there are many that are vastly smarter than myself.
I think everyone just needs to search for the truth, and set their own standards for things.When people are impressed by what I know about a certain historical or economic topic, I just tell them it's because I found it interesting and chose to research it on my own. Simple as that.
Everyone has learn not to be afraid to embrace their curiosity. Who cares if people think you're a "nerd"? It has no real consequence in the real world... unless of course, you're surrounded by people that still act like teenagers.. at which point I would recommend finding better people to hangout with.
I learned recently that simply being curious, releases dopamine in the brain, and makes learning easier. Makes sense to me!
Conclusion:
I think that now is a good stopping point.
I plan to write a blog real soon about the origins of the American Education System. That will tie to what I'm talking about here, as well as "Dumbing Down America".
Thank you all for reading! More coming soon!
-STK
