13 - World Basic Education System

Towards a More Effective/Sound

World Basic Education System ⁽¹⁾

Update Note (March 5, 2016):  It would not be an overstatement that the all-pervasive and destructive problem outlined in the articles on this blog can be considered to be arguably the world’s worst education-related problem – and yet the majority of the world’s educators are blissfully ignorant of it.  It had not occurred to me earlier to verbalize the problem in exactly those terms; it was the mental agitation prompted by the request of a UK professor of education (whose specialty is educational policy) to remove his name from my mailing list that led me to that outcome.  Humanity's future would continue to be gloomy given our current sorry state of affairs – devastating nature of that problem which in fact would lend to a significant reduction with the right kind of educational policy coupled with a total lack of awareness of that vital and critical problem by a majority of the world’s educators.  (See also footnote to article # 12)    

A Clarification: It should be clear from my writings, particularly this article, that the problem originates in the way the human mind works – the way we make sense of the world – and that world education only exacerbates an already existing problem, by: i) not being aware of even its existence, and as a consequence, ii) not taking action to counter its ill effects while inadvertently exacerbating them.  It should also be clear from the writings that any solution, however effective / efficient, can be only partial since we don’t have control over the way the human mind works.  

The purpose of this article is to outline elements of a more effective/sound world basic education system that can contribute to human wellbeing to a far greater extent than the current one.  In fact, it can be seen from my earlier writings that the current system contributes significantly to the detriment of human wellbeing, thus it can be considered to be a flawed system.  It can also be inferred from the writings that the source of this ill effect lies at its basic level rather than higher levels.  Additionally, they show that educators are largely unaware of these flaws and thus are indifferent to their ill-effects and the havoc they are responsible for creating unwittingly by not doing what they should be doing. 

There are two central aspects that lend to these problems: i) the failure of the current system to take account of the nature of the way human mind works and ill effects arising thereof, and ii) its failure to cater for the most basic areas which an effective/sound basic education system should address.  

Regarding the latter, or the constituent areas of a good basic education system, a most fundamental question is, “What is the purpose of a basic education?”  The answer would be manifold, among them: i) endowing children with a basic understanding of the natural and social worlds around them; ii) instilling in them the basics of knowledge and skills needed to live in and interact with both groups harmoniously; and iii) helping to draw out talents latent in them by providing the right environments and guiding them to help develop those potentials.  To my limited knowledge, few, if any, of these vital and indispensable goals are met by the current world education system – and much of the world’s current troubles can be easily traced to precisely that deficiency.  

Regarding the former, or the way the human mind works (which is in fact more fundamental than the second one; it touches the core of our being), three interrelated areas can be identified, each cascading into the next level: i) the way we make sense of the world around us since the earliest days of our existence; ii) the way we prepare for life ahead of us while growing up and the way we interact with others; and iii) the way we function – or rather, don’t function – in societal decision making milieus.  We shall expand on these three areas first and return to address the central areas which a good basic education system should address, given that the former helps shape the latter.  

Making Sense of the World:  This is a vital area that underlies most of the problems mentioned in my writings; it also underlies the two factors that follow.  From the time we were in our mothers’ wombs we begin to make sense of the world based on the information we receive through our senses – that is, we process it by attributing meaning to it.  On being born, we are subject to a much more intense barrage of new information, and we have to make sense of them as well in order to survive.  Given that what each person experiences by his/her encounter with the world will be specific to each, it is simple common sense that there cannot be much commonality among what each of us attributes to a given stimulus, and we would continue to become increasingly unique in our mental makeup.  This is despite socialization processes to which we are subject to from the toddler years on, which work to even out those differences – for they would have limited success, and the differences in meanings we attach to our experiences can never be fully evened out.  The process would continue throughout our lives, and we would become increasingly unique by the day.  The implication of this process relevant to our topic is that it would create extreme difficulties for meaningful communication among people, which mandates sufficient commonalities (common language) among people but which the above processes render largely non-existent. 

Specialization:  Adding to above difficulties of getting across to others are the complexities arising from specialization, which is the primary driver of human advancement.  But with regard to the topic of human communication, it forms a huge impediment.  Thus specialization is a double-edged sword – while it constitutes the bedrock on which modern societies are built, it also exacerbates downsides arising from the processes described in the previous paragraph beyond comprehension.  This again is an area simple common sense can be of much help in understanding.  Given that we make sense of and understand the world relying on the information bases in our brains (paragraph above) we can also infer that while those specialized in a given area (that is, their heads will be full of information in their specialized areas but not much of other areas) can engage in meaningful high-level dialogue with those in that area, it would be virtually impossible to have such dialogue with those in another area, since they would not have a common background of shared meaning.  And real-life problems are complex and entwined and are not ordered into neat packages that lend to easy scrutiny by the specialized in the respective areas, and we can clearly see what the state of interaction/communication and decision making in modern democratic societies would be like.  

Public Policy Making:  Much debate is abound in forums and the media as to how to tackle complex societal problems, and some have fertile imaginations as to how they can be solved. ⁽²⁾   But except for a few problems of limited scope, few can come up with relevant solutions to them.  The reason is obvious: complex problems cannot be solved or future planning carried out when people specialized in required fields but with no overlaps in their specializations are gathered together; to succeed, they have to acquire that overlap (without which they cannot communicate meaningfully with those in a different area), which is a laborious and time consuming process and which today’s fast-moving societies are ill-equipped to handle.  Although such overlap is not uncommon in the private sector and a few public institutions that manage to provide necessary continuity and staying power (the problems they can handle successfully are also limited in scope), public policy making (which in practice is highly complex) in modern democratic nations is not so endowed, especially given that those at high levels of the system who can mobilize the necessary forces and get the situation moving in the right direction are replaced with every turn of the political wheel, and no one in reality can be responsible, even if their nation goes under, and what is expedient for the next election carries the day.⁽³⁾  It is thus unlikely that there would be many people in the governments of democratic nations who can actually take responsibility for reforming any of their public systems.  This in turn will spawn a multitude of societal ills and associated dissatisfactions.  The suggestions of my writings, if adopted, will lead to a significant reduction of the drawbacks arising from the currently ineffective public policy making process and thus reduce the plethora of damages arising thereof, and as a result vastly improve human wellbeing.

We can now turn to address the central areas which a good basic education system should address.  Focus on “basic” education is for two reasons: i) it is in early, formative years that a child’s basic characteristics – values, beliefs, habits, etc, are formed; and ii) beginning from middle school years, children begin to specialize into increasingly limited domains.  This is apart from that, as stated at the outset, it is at this level that roots of our problems lie.  Hence it is of utmost importance that a broad, solid foundation be laid in the early years on which specialized education can be built later. 

Understanding the Nature of the World:  As mentioned in the third paragraph, helping youngsters to understand the nature of the world they live in should be among the first areas that an effective basic education system should address.  This necessity arises from our very human nature – apart from any practical concerns.  We are not only endowed with a curiosity about how the world works and the cause-effect relations involved, we also have a deep foreboding about any uncertainties associated with it – for not only our ultimate fate but our daily survival is dependent on it.  (An enlightening example is the intense fear young children have about never seeing their parents again if they leave them and go out, hence the tantrums they throw whenever parents go out.)  And given that people in general have very sparse knowledge of how the world works (understanding of those with specialized knowledge is limited largely to their specific speciality, and even that only over a brief historical period), we are compelled to compensate by attributing what we don’t understand to higher powers to maintain our peace of mind and ultimately our sanity and by begging for help in fulfilling our needs and guarding our wellbeing both at present and hereafter.  This in fact has been the dominant theme of human beings for the last ten thousand years of their known history, and it is true for the vast majority, if not all, of humanity even at present.  The tendency for this theme to manifest in its various radicalized guises in the Middle East and US Bible Belt, for example, and in more benign forms everywhere is a sobering reminder of the failure of the world’s current basic education system to address this fundamental area of human needs: to enable us understand the nature of the world.  (Given the demand, supply means emerge in multiple forms – shamans, priests and mullahs of all stripes, psychics, fortune-tellers, horoscope writers, etc, etc, all claiming to know how the world works, and based on that, influence outcomes; the intermediary role they take also gives them much latitude for creative expression.)  The above is besides practical necessities for which we need to understand the world and its intricacies – including our interactions with it so that we can be better stewards of it instead of mindlessly destroying it in pursuit of material gain and endangering in the process the fragile setting we call home and depend on for our very survival.  

Understanding the Social World and Interactions Thereof:  We live in societies and yet do not seem to have the sense to endow our young with the basic knowledge and skill necessary for interacting and communicating with the other members of the society in a harmonious way.  (Higher animals, on the other hand, do teach their young about their world and how to survive in them.)  This is especially deplorable since, as we saw in the paragraph on making sense of the world above, our very make-up poses significant natural barriers to smooth interaction among people, and as if this is not enough, the specialization process further exacerbates those barriers enormously, which in turn leads to most ineffective and inefficient societal processes.  And yet when we so proudly boast endlessly about our achievements, we don’t seem to understand a most elementary aspect of human nature that is central to our wellbeing.                    My writings have suggested a partial but simple and effective solution to this complex problem – they pointed out that the current defects can be reduced significantly by instilling the right attitudes in children in earlier years, followed by teaching them in later years the essentials of communication and related psychology.  (For details, see the short piece titled “Reason for Sending My Articles” and the first paragraph of “12 – Empathy and Fundamentalism,” which laid emphasis on creating in children “an attitude to listen.”)                     Supplementary to this is “an attitude to learn,” the lack of which is acutely felt in institutional settings, judging by the large amount of literature on the topic, which is echoed in the concept of “life-long learning”; this is especially crucial given the fast-changing nature of today's world which renders that much of what we meet on a daily basis would be new.             Another aspect integral to human interaction, apart from attitudes, is the values we hold about various issues.  This topic also had been given some thought in my writings.  (For details, see the end of “Last Explanation.”)               Still another area that can smoothen societal interaction processes and help lead to high levels of human wellbeing is the sense of cooperation or non-cooperation that we hold.  Although not touched upon in the paragraph referred to – which focuses on communication, this would be part of “attitudes” we hold, and will affect our wellbeing.  And numerous current occasions, not to mention abundant past ones, show that a sense of cooperation can be of so much benefit to all parties concerned.                      A final area that should be part of a good basic education system is logical thinking – ability to follow up on the logic of arguments one encounters and build conclusions on them rather than preconceived notions, and to organize one’s thinking along the same lines.  This would be effective as a habit, not rote-learnt knowledge – see the paragraph referred to above.                    In general, the right attitudes have to be instilled in children, who adopt what they observe – right or wrong – as they grow up, and right attitudes don’t just “happen” – see “entropy,” below.  I believe that much of people’s irrational behaviour, including their inability to face reality and general adult immaturity, are ramifications of their not having acquired the right skills – much like our inability to relieve unrelenting socio-psychological pressures oftentimes leads, gradually and over time, to full-blown psychos.  And I’m not suggesting “social engineering” – whatever that means, as an emeritus professor of philosophy commented on my writings some time back.  In the same way we currently impart to the young our hard-won knowledge as formal education, we ought to do the same for the right kind of values and attitudes and other intangibles that humanity found valuable, which are just as important, instead of leaving them abandoned to start from scratch to reinvent the wheel.  (We can get an actual feel for the difficulties/hazards of this tedious process if we reflect on the torturous/turbulent histories of the various branches of knowledge and technological conveniences that we now take for granted.)  And without doing so, it will be futile to complain about societal ills that are direct outcomes of this lack, as is currently the case.  A critical point to keep in mind in this regard is that the foundation of our behaviour is laid when we are children and that as adults we only sail by autopilot guiding systems we acquire then (in the Maldives, we have an old phrase expressive of such permanency, "stuck to the bone"; an equivalent English expression being "in the blood") – with a helping hand from our evolutionary past; our conscious and rational minds more often than not merely affirm and justify what our unconscious minds had already decided upon, hence the critical and decisive role played by our values, attitudes, and habits in our everyday behaviours, and thus the utmost need to instill the right kind of values, attitudes, and habits in children if we want a better world, since they don't just "happen." (Readers unfamiliar with this line of thinking/reasoning might want to consult an experienced psychologist instead of jumping to erroneous/unwarranted conclusions.) 

Drawing Out Talents Latent in the Young:  The primary purpose of a basic education (in fact formal education systems in general) is to help children to grow and develop both physically and mentally, and to impart to them the wisdom of our foreparents and help them to be capable of contributing to society and themselves, and also the world at large.  Thus a central part of a basic education system should be to help systematically develop the potential of each of us.  And given that we all have the potential to develop in more than one area and that such development can be enhanced significantly by the right kind of opportunity – just as a muscle can develop by weight training, facilitating this process by providing measures aimed at maximizing the human potential has to be a central part of a good basic education system, particularly since the windows of opportunity for such growth are open only when we are children.  And this should be supplemented with the right kind of career guidance.  Currently, the most we are able to get, if we get, is a one-time aptitude assessment.  The cost of the mismatch between potential and career path is enormous; we see people realizing the existence of a mismatch only after having wasted years pursuing the wrong path, at which point they would also be burdened with many responsibilities of life, thus making a switch not only costly in money terms but psychologically painful.  Thus streamlining this process and providing the means for maximizing the human potential has to be an important and vital part of any good basic education system.  

An obvious observation regarding the suggestions of my writings, including this one, is that they are generic and not age-specific, thus what should be included at what stage has to be decided by those qualified to make that decision.  Given that a theory component is integral to the suggestions and since young children are not equipped to handle theory, it is only logical that these parts of the program would naturally spill into levels higher than the realm of “basic education”; in my view, they should be spread over a number of years, with increasing complexity as one goes higher. 

It is abundantly clear from the above arguments that humanity has so much to gain by a thorough overhaul of its currently faulty basic education system.  The above are core areas that I find should be incorporated into the world’s basic education system and are relevant to humanity at large and will increase societal wellbeing beyond our most fertile imaginations, although different nations would likely add to their curriculums other areas they feel would cater for their specific needs.

Many people hold the implicit belief that the world functions well on a laissez-faire basis and thus that all reforms, including those in the education sector, would happen spontaneously through a multitude of continued societal interactions, with everyone pursuing their own interests.  In reality, however, the world works in exactly the opposite way, and obeys a fundamental universal law of nature – entropy, or disorder in everyday language.  Simply expressed, it implies that in the absence of an overarching guiding force, events (in the universe) would tend to disorder – and chaos.⁽⁴⁾  Thus the more people involved, the more ideas and the more diversified they will be, and while this is valuable for generating new ideas and creativity and innovation at earlier stages of public policy formulation, the process by itself will not lead to coherent policy; spontaneous synthesis by sporadic interactions of the multitude does not happen.⁽⁵⁾  (This latter expression shares the central theme of the saying, “A monkey pounding at a keyboard likely cannot produce a Shakespearean play.”)  Coherent synthesis can be achieved by ironing out differences of opinions as to what goals should be aimed for and by delving into details of the process through which they can be reached. 

And for that to happen requires leadership – the guiding force that can help channel concordant and discordant voices towards coherent synthesis.  As stated in my earlier writings, I’ve been hoping that such leadership would emerge from among the more experienced of world educators – those more aware of the nuances of the deplorable situation experienced by world’s populations, which situation would have been vastly improved had the more senior of the world’s educators paid heed. 

In the short piece labelled “Cover Note” we saw a glimpse into the haphazard, directionless way the current world education system had evolved.  But given the fast-changing, thus complex nature of our world, we are at a crossroads and do not have the luxury of leisurely tinkering around in the system hoping that things will improve; the world is changing too fast for that to be practical.  And we now have an accurate understanding of many areas that contribute to the jeopardy of human wellbeing.  In addition, I have suggested a feasible pathway towards achieving the ends we seek (see the account at the beginning of the second part of “Last Explanation” – article # 9 (2014)).   

The time has come for the world educators to rally for action; they should no longer be indifferent to a situation for the exacerbated condition of which they are largely responsible – for not being aware of the existence of the problem and thus being ignorant of the dire outcomes of some of their actions and, as result, for not doing what they should be doing to offset them.  There is no excuse for inaction.  If clarification/elaboration of what was said in my writings is needed, please contact me; we could also establish real-time interaction via Skype. 

[To respond to a legitimate and likely common concern about such contact, let me state that while numerous educators have been referred to in these articles, I have taken utmost care not to reveal their identities either directly or even by implication.  I have done the referencing in the common interest of all readers – to share with them any relevant knowledge about the topic that I possess.  And I offer no apologies if some of my phraseology had displeased some – for the simple reason that watered-down phraseology would in all likelihood destroy the very purpose of the referencing, and given this, make any apology hypocritical.  To evaluate these claims, readers might ask two simple questions: i) Did the referencing add to their insight of the topic? and ii) Could any watered-down phraseology have achieved that objective as effectively?  It would also be worth mentioning a satisfying aspect of referencing the way I had done, judging by a few very brief thank you notes I received from some senior educators – that those who "got" the point being made (see footnote to article # 12) had no problem with my phraseology, that is, they saw it appropriate to the occasion, while those who saw it a problem did not in all likelihood "get it," and thus most likely would not have the capability of contributing to the effort of this blog, at least not to any significant extent.  A corroborating aspect is that I'm not running a "politically correct" campaign here; this is a desperate effort to search for underlying factors of a deplorable truth that is in effect chocking humanity, and pave the path for reversing the tide and raise the human kind to unprecedented heights, which calls for those who are not competent to get out of the way⁽⁶⁾ so that a good job could get done.  And it is only on a solid and unshakable foundation that meaningful participation of the crowd can happen.]  
________________________________________________________________________________
⁽¹⁾  While some people, particularly those from the more technically and economically advanced nations, may object for their being lumped together with the much less advanced nations, the reality is that today the world is being integrated virtually in every sphere.  Notwithstanding that Western education was based on Greek philosophy, as was the case with Moslem theological philosophy – after Arab conquest of Egypt and gaining access to the contents of the Great Library of Alexandria, and that the revival of Greek philosophy in the West during the Renaissance happened through accessing its depositories in both Egypt and the then Moslem Spain, integration in the sphere of knowledge had started long before the recent phenomenon of “globalization” and mass movement of people, goods, and services (outcomes of improved air and sea transport with the advent of wide-bodied jets and containerized superships; the process having been much accelerated by the advent of the Internet and the computerization of services, which enabled swift global communication and money transfers), for beginning from the days of steam-driven ships and railways, people (though limited in earlier years of the era to societal elites) have been enabled increasingly to cross lands and oceans to gain knowledge, do business, and meet to exchange ideas – not to mention simply in search of a better life, as evidenced by the mass migrations of Europeans to the New World .  Consequently, there is hardly a nation the education system of which can be called “pure”; they are all “mixed.”  This is particularly true given the legacy of imperialism; prior to the Second World War, most of the now “developing” nations were under the yoke of Europeans and the various systems of those nations were modelled largely on their legacy.  Also, while different cultures may have retained elements of their uniqueness, they are limited largely to specific areas; religion, for example, is limited to only related fields and does not venture into the spheres of science and medicine.  Thus it would make better sense to talk of one world education system rather than many systems of individual nations or even groups of nations.  This position is further enhance by the fact that here we are attempting to formulate a basic system relevant to humanity at large in our fast-changing and thus complex world and transcends culture and creed.  

⁽²⁾

This Newsweek cover story and other such articles highlight the complexities of public policy making; the topic (US Government’s policy making process and downsides thereof) was also covered in an article I wrote in May 2009 which, among other things, sketched out the broader outlines of measures that the US could adopt to overcome a significant part of current downsides – this was the “first article” mentioned at the outset of “2 – Education and Fundamentalism” (2012) and was meant to be published on my complementary blog www.rifatafeefuspolicy.blogspot.com (created concurrently with this blog) but was postponed lest it diverts focus from the topic of this blog, but hopefully I’ll be able to upload it before Mr Obama becomes practically dysfunctional in office, particularly since the article was addressed to him and was sent to him along with the then top officers of his administration.   A few months apart from this Newsweek article, Time magazine also ran an article on the same theme; its cover picture showed “We the People …” coming out of a shredder – naturally, that act wouldn’t solve the problems of an archaic policy making system; the solution lies in understanding that the world has changed since the days of the Founding Fathers and is changing at an accelerated pace, and adapting to the realities of the times by modifying the present system to accommodate current necessities, including realities of the way the human mind works as discussed in this article.  The first article mentioned above had tried to incorporate these concerns.  

⁽³⁾  Plato proclaimed that democracy was “the rule of the mob”; given the lapse of two-and-a-half millennia and the transformations that had occurred in human societies in the intervening eras, I’d opt for “the rule of the media circus.” 

 ⁽⁴⁾  We saw this law at work not too long ago, when the money-people, seeking more money, pursued their own interests individually and without much governmental oversight, which pushed the world to the brink of a financial meltdown, and it was hasty interventions, perhaps some not so sound, by central banks of the rich nations that saved the day – although it was their economies that were mostly at risk, given the interlinked nature of today’s global economy and that it is their currencies that are being used worldwide, such a meltdown would spell catastrophe to everyone, which we saw first hand.  (Strictly speaking, “entropy” is a concept in thermodynamics applicable at molecular level, but translated as “disorder,” as it is commonly understood, the concept is equally valid to real-life situations as well.)   

⁽⁵⁾  The usual format for expressing such diverse views is international conferences on a given topic, but sadly their results don’t go very far beyond collated proceedings, and while valuable by themselves, such diversified views left in that form could be considered worse than useless in terms of policy – given that such conferences could effectively block alternate measures to address the problem in question in view of public hopes in conference mission, while the problem continues in its unabated rampage, creating more misery to humanity; for ideas of conferences don’t get translated into policy by themselves, and improvements that might result from them are likely to be incremental and marginal at best, making their influence on public policy to be minimal.  These statements might be easier to swallow if we distinguish conferences on natural sciences from those on social sciences – their natures are different.  For while concepts/ideas in natural sciences published in conference proceedings could become input for colleagues who could turn them into tangible form and thus provide their benefits to the millions, those in social sciences will be hard put to see practical light this way; they could become public policy only through concerted efforts that usually don’t exist; of course, they can get incorporated into academic texts and enlighten generations, but that enlightenment doesn’t automatically turn into policy that could better the human condition.  (Perhaps I misunderstood: that such conferences are not about solving problems; suggestions in my writings, however, are very definitely about solving a problem: that of a faulty world education system and ramifications thereof, hence my aversion to scholarly papers given my belief in the ineffectiveness of the prevalent variety of international conferences based on such papers in solving pressing global problems – see second paragraph of the second part of the piece referred to above: “9 – Last Explanation.”)  

⁽⁶⁾  This last phrase was inspired by an utterance of Lee Iacocca during the peak crisis days of the US auto industry in the 1990s, the full version of which was, "Lead, Follow, or Get out of the way" – though an Internet search revealed the quote attributed to a number of other people as well.  The problem of unequal ability was dramatically emphasized by Guy Benveniste in Mastering Politics of Planning, which divided those in any organizational setting into three broad categories: "idea people," "climbers," and "dead wood"; the vast majority in any given setting being "dead wood."  The problem as relates to education has also been dealt with by many people, two of who I found shed significant light on related aspects were Paul Goodman in Compulsory Miseducation, a slim 1960s paperback, and Professor Will Durant in the preface of The Story of Philosophy, a long quote from which is at the end of  "2 – Education & Fundamentalism."  The problem of differential ability and the role of education in the outcome had been the topic of discussion and debate over decades but to-date no one seems to have arrived at a convincing and viable answer, most likely due to the enigma it presented which inevitably arose from the complexity of the topic.  Nevertheless, the writings on this blog had helped to decipher aspects of that enigma in a broader context.  What is required now for a significant release of pressures due to the multitude of education-related problems is to accelerate the momentum of the blog's effort and fortify it with the complementary logical process tentatively outlined in the second part of "9 – Last Explanation."  

12 - Empathy and Fundamentalism

On Empathy and Fundamentalism

The following is based on an account I wrote to a professor of psychology, and dwells on two topics: one relates to efforts for inculcating an empathetic attitude in children and the other to religious fundamentalism. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Thus far, I read only the abstract of the article, but as I read it, I gained the feeling that the right kind of teacher-group (equally, parent-children) interaction would be far more effective in inculcating empathy in children than any kind of gadgets.  For example, asking one kid in a group setting about the meaning of what was said by another, and dissecting the whys, whats, etc, of that statement, while the colleagues listen actively.  This way, youngsters would learn to focus on the actual meaning of what was being said rather than jumping to the first conclusion that pops to one’s mind, in which case each is likely to reach a different conclusion that doesn’t have much in common with the speaker’s actual intentions – since we interpret the world based on info bases in our own brains, which are different for each person; the situation also being made worse by semantics, each word or expression having multiple or shades of meanings.  This kind of exercises would lead to forming in children the habit of focusing on what is being said, which in most cases would also involve asking clarifying questions about “what is meant.”  Of course, meaning would involve feelings and emotions, which are integral to communication.  Understanding another person as fully as possible is the essence of empathy.  What is required therefore are classroom interactions that would help make this kind of thinking an ingrained habit in children, or an “attitude,” so to speak! 

I’m also more optimistic on the religious front, on which you seem to be depressed, with justification, I admit.  This is particularly true given what we see on current news.  But if we understand the underlying factors of the issue that is seemingly complex, potential prospects don’t lend to despair; for on the one hand, we do have a realistic understanding of the nature of the problem (see the second part of the post titled “2 – “Education and Fundamentalism”) and on the other, we know the path to a lasting solution, which is implicit in my writings in general, given the nature of the problem just cited (see also below).  What is really despairing, for me at least, is the lack of action on the part of the world academics/educators, who are in fact blocking the path to progress, even if unwittingly – see the boxed account on the short post titled "7 – Two Methods of Science."  (Please read the writings again – I’m attaching the full set as PDF docs to help, as they will be easier to read than a webpage; they can also be selectively emailed to colleagues, if you desire so.  But the webpage articles in general would have some additional details that are missing in the PDF docs, given the limits imposed by the latter's page size; PDF docs would nevertheless cover the topics in adequate detail and thus have not been compromised.)

There are at least two more ways towards understanding the nature of the problem and the path to a solution, besides what is in the specific pieces cited here.  One is through the outcomes of implementing the “attitude” program mentioned above, supplemented with the theoretical basics of both communication and associated psychology, second part of the program, which has been elaborated in numerous locations in the writings, in particular the post titled "4 – Reason for Sending My Writings."  Equipped with both an attitude to inquire into what one hears or reads about and tools to analyze it, a generation versed with the program will not be so submissive and swallow any nonsense thrown at it in its social environment.  We know how inquisitive children are and how, as they grow up, that innate characteristic is hammered into submission by societal norms and convention; this is particularly true in view of the naturally increasing burdens of living.  Individuals in current societies are not thus equipped and it is easy to conform them into societal straight-jackets.  I believe that a generation equipped with the right attitude and tools to go with it will fare much better.  It is also heartening that people’s perceptions in general have much improved over the decades.  But sadly, current generations are more on the rebellious side than are equipped with an understanding of the nature of the world to be able to formulate a balanced philosophy of life.  This, again, is an outcome of flawed education – see the footnote of my email, which became the attached PDF doc labelled “11 – Cover Note.” 

A second way to understand the situation is to look at it through the lens of “Social Judgement Theory,” with its latitudes of “rejection,” “non-commitment,” and “acceptance.”  Given that we make sense of the world based on the information bases in our brains, is it any wonder that the Moslem fundamentalists, for example, whose knowledge is based solely on what they have rote-learnt from centuries old religious texts, are unable to think with any sense of rationality about issues in our fast-changing, complex world?  The situation is further aggravated by the distortions that have happened to the “religious” teachings on which they rely so heavily.  The result is that their perceptions of “religion” have little realistic basis – see the second part of the post “2 – Education and Fundamentalism,” referred to above. 

[Parenthetically, it would be interesting for you to know that I have a solid religious background.  It is tradition in the Maldives that children are taught to read the Koran (rote-learning, without understanding the meaning, as the book is in Arabic) and associated prayers.  Fortunately, I was sent to Egypt to study religion at Al-Azhar (check Wikipedia) given that I did well in school.  I was a good student in Egypt as well and progressed rather quickly, and, although I rebelled and built a science foundation and studied architecture in another university (Ain Shams) in Cairo, I do have a very good grounding in both Arabic and Islam.  Thus when I speak of Islamic fundamentalism, I have solid and authentic knowledge of what I’m talking about.] 

Given this state of affairs – the fact that their whole information base is centuries old, and a distorted one at that – we have to look at the situation through their eyes, call it empathy if you will, and interpret what we see on the daily media about their behaviour in that light.  This is the same as viewing the behaviour of a wild animal in the light of “its nature,” or, for that matter, viewing behaviour of your forefathers when they went about subjugating the rest of the world to their domination – in case of north America, wiping a continent of its people and calling it home.  (This example is not meant to embarrass you, but only to drive the point home.)  Those who go about genocides have a parallel mindset: for them, their victims are not human.  An example to similar effect was described by Alain de Botton in Consolations of Philosophy about the way Spaniards looked at the natives of what is now Latin America – subhuman, even if not entirely non-human.  (Later examples of such mindsets include: the Nazi treatment of the Jews, the Serbian treatment of Bosnian Moslems, and the mindset underlying the Rwandan genocide.) 

Thus if what we see on the media are manifestations of the mindset of religious fundamentalists, and if we want to improve the situation, the solution leaps forth – change their mindset!  This can be achieved by the proposals of my writings – in fact as a by-product of their original purpose, namely, enabling and enhancing effective societal interaction processes or communication.  At least it is the first of two parts to a viable solution.  (This first part aims at the next generation while the second part aims at active adults.)  The second part was alluded to in the first of three boxed accounts at the end of the post titled "1 – Introduction."  I don't want to go into the details of it for now, in part because not everything is clear in my own mind and also that such understanding would call for a deep knowledge of the tenets and history of Islam, which I don't think you have.  But there is an aspect that you will understand – the psychology associated with their behaviour, which plays a central and pivotal role in transforming ordinary Moslems into diehard fanatics.  (I believe that this is about the same kind of process thru which unrelenting socio-psychological pressures transform susceptible but otherwise normal people into schizophrenics – or those with equivalent social pathologies.)  

In all, we do have a clear understanding of not only the nature the problem but the path to a viable and lasting solution.  But as I mentioned above, it is your colleagues, world academics/educators, who form the obstacle blocking forward movement.  Unlike a few academics/educators like you, the majority of them are not even interested in thinking about the problem, let alone striving to achieve a solution; they are largely content to be engrossed in their mundane daily routines or pet projects!***  Just last night, a full professor in the education department of your own university requested removal of his name from my mailing list.  After crossing out his name and address on my mailing list and while informing of the fact, I wrote the following in the reply email: “It’s a pity that a full professor of education like you has no interest in an education-related problem that has devastating impacts on humanity at large, which includes Canadians”; emphasis added.  

Luckily, I anticipated this tendency at the outset, for it was part of the reason why I cast such a wide net – sending my writings to some 35,000 academics/educators in 103 universities in 22 nations.  [A second part of the reason relates to the logic of networks: if one wants to propagate an idea to a large number of people and in a hurry, one needs to seed widespread nodes and and their gatekeepers with the idea.  A third part of the reason has to do with stealing of one’s ideas by others and claiming them to be theirs and depriving one of the credit one deserves; I saw this vital for two reasons: i) the global positive potential of the ideas of my writings, and ii) my first-hand experience of it while in Hawaii after graduate studies – a professor at a UHM department plagiarized original ideas of my masters thesis, claiming them to be his own; my response (in 1992) was to make copies of the thesis and send them to libraries that would carry material related to the development of small island states (focus of my thesis): two at the UHM, one in ANU in Australia, and one at the University of South Pacific in Fiji – so that people would be aware of where the ideas originated.]  

Notwithstanding the downsides, I’m happy to report that, although most recipients of my writings were not responsive for one reason or another, there are quite a number of people, mostly senior – again, as I expected – who are in fact interested, from all over the world: USA, France, Germany, Canada, Britain, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, and others, and to my surprise, from nations to which I was unable to send emails, including Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Chile, South Korea, and Vietnam.  So may be we’ll get somewhere after all!  I hope it will be sooner rather than later.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
***  They don't seem to be interested in the "big picture," where their own professions fit in the larger scheme of things – typical of the inductive, as opposed to deductive, mindset.  That is to say, by a little amateurish speculation, that the vast majority of people can handle only limited issues; they don't have the capability to handle complex issues with a large number of variables to create coherent synthesis – which in turn relates to their modes of thinking and propensities for information processing, or linear thinking vs multidimensional thinking, all of which would vary over time, and significantly so for some people, depending on the kind of use to which one puts one's brain; this latter is a finding of recent neurological research, from which had emerged the generic mantra "use it or loose it."  But given this reality, it won't be quite correct to say that most of those people are just "not interested," period; it would be more accurate to say that they don't have what it takes "to get it," and because they “don’t get it,” that they also would not be commensurately interested.  We've an old saying in the Maldives, "You can't squeeze from something what isn’t in it."  I had been at the receiving end of this philosophy when I was a student of architecture some 40 years ago: our then head of department reputedly would, in his final-year design classes, pass those who he thought were working hard enough although they many not have the talent, but he'd put a hard squeeze on those who he thought had potential but were not delivering.  Perhaps this is also true for graduate programs, so that those who had "worked hard" would crawl up the "status ladder," though they my not have what it takes to live up to the expectations of their positions – thus there are professors and there are professors, or as claims another adage of ours, "Five fingers are not equal," or to hijack George Orwell, "Some are more equal than others."  If this is true, it is natural that those who are "not so equal" and who would form the bulk of the lot, are likely to drag down progress, and society, along the lines suggested by Francis Galton, who coined the term "regression" in statistics science – "towards mediocrity"; "stagnation" is another word descriptive of the phenomenon.  The minority who "do get" would therefore have a moral responsibility thrust upon them that is far beyond their fair share of the burden.  But then, who said the world is fair?  

11 - Cover Note

Cover Note

Email Being Sent to World Academics/Educators with PDF Print of “A Summary …”

(For the Benefit of Those Readers to Whom I Don’t Have Email Access)

Greetings for a Happy New Year 2015! 

Attached is a summary of the ideas explored in the writings I sent you over the past two-and-half years or so about a global problem that significantly impacts human wellbeing for the worse. 

Thesis of the writings was that while our ability to understand the world and interact with others is dependant on information bases in our brains, they are largely unique to individuals, and thus that there is no adequate common ground for people to smoothly interact among themselves for optimal, or even satisfactory, societal functioning.  The writings suggested an effective but a partial solution to the problem through a small but vital modification to the world basic education system – a partial solution since a comprehensive one is virtually impossible given the nature of the functioning of the human brain (see also “1 – Introduction”) and will be effective for future generations rather than the present one. 

While there are numerous areas that are in need of urgent improvement in the world education system, most importantly regarding the purpose of education in today’s complex world (the current system is the outcome of haphazard incremental tinkering over historical time to already flawed entities in futile efforts to meet ever increasing societal demands, but has not kept pace and is thus hindering to human wellbeing, not to mention progress),*** the writings have, by and large, kept the focus on the crucial problem area mentioned, given its widespread devastating impacts on humanity at large. 

I hope you find the summary and this email helpful in putting in perspective the ideas in the writings and the education scene in general.

Yours faithfully,

Rifat Afeef (from the Maldives)

***  In my opinion, much of the societal problems can be traced to flawed education – the designers of the system tend to be unaware of the crucial need to cater for broader societal goals (primary suggestion of my writings deals with only one of them; societal values that are consistent with today's complex world form a second group), which leads policy makers to try to cope, using mostly knee-jerk measures, with the massive and pervasive consequences of the oversight of that most fundamental aspect. 
  

10 - A Summary ...

A Summary …

Based on Excerpt from My Recently Updated Résumé 

  

October 1997 – To-date

The direction of my thinking had totally changed following an insight of earthshaking proportions that I gained in 1997 and expanded and perfected since, and, coupled with my ongoing experience in the development setting of the Maldives, I had come to the conclusion that development efforts would be largely in vain without overcoming, or at the very least minimizing, the massive ill effects of the problem underlying that insight.⁽¹⁾   Consequently, my subsequent work had been directed towards that end.  The essence of that problem is that while our ability to understand the world and interact with others is dependent on the information bases in our brains, they are largely unique to each individual and, as a result, that there is no adequate common ground for people to smoothly interact among themselves for optimal, or even satisfactory, societal functioning.(2)  To make matters worse, people do not have a clue that such a problem even exists.  The ramifications of the problem would therefore have devastating global impacts and make it arguably the worst enemy of human wellbeing.  The nature of this problem and a realistic albeit partial solution to it are explored in the writings on this blog.  As expounded in the writings, this solution lies in a rather small but crucial improvement to the world education system, which requires both the awareness and support of world educators which are currently lacking.  (People cannot support a concept that they don't know exists.)  To help rectify the situation, the writings have been sent to some 35,000 of them in 103 universities in 22 nations in the core areas⁽³⁾ of education, philosophy, psychology, sociology, political science, and communication.(4)  

______________________________________________________________________

⁽¹⁾  For the process of this transformation, see the post labelled “5 – Further Illumination” on this blog.  

⁽²⁾  For an overview of the concept, see the short paragraphs 2 – 5 of “9 – Last Explanation,” below. 

⁽³⁾  For the criteria for deciding the core areas, see paragraph 9 of this same post (Post 9). 

⁽⁴⁾  For a complete list of their names and affiliations, see www.rifatafeefthelist.blogspot.com.  

9 – Last Explanation

Last Explanation … Hopefully

The following is based on an email I sent to a senior academic/educator in a world renowned university. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

...........
.......................

.....  I feel that you haven’t quite grasped the essence of their (my writings) message; your concern about my exclusion of the economics discipline and sending the writings to only those of the six disciplines cited in the writings is indicative of this inference (more on this below).  (See also PS)

The core problem discussed in my writings is very simple and fundamental – elementary, if you will, and arises simply from the very nature and functioning of our brains. 

More specifically, it has to do with the disposition of our brains that limits our ability to understand anything to what is in the information bases in them (see paragraph 3 of boxed quote in “8 – A Fresh Viewpoint” on this blog).  This is the basic cause of the problem and leads to the natural/inevitable outcome of barriers to our understanding of fellow humans (and also issues) since the information base of each individual would differ from that of another person.  This is the essence of the problem my writings had tried to deal with. 

The differences in the information bases in turn arise from three primary overlapping sources: i) differences in individual experiences, which are outcomes of each person’s interaction with the outside world and thus would be different for each individual, including identical twins brought up together; ii) differences due to our belonging to different cultures – both at the macro level such as various ethnicities or tribes or localities and at the micro level such as in family settings within these more or less homogeneous larger groups; and iii) differences arising from specialization, which is the global norm today.  Of the three areas, (i) is basic, and (ii) and (iii) can be seen to be subsets of it, but given their weight, they have been given due emphasis. 

The two-step solution outlined in the writings is a direct measure to counter the effects of these differences by providing an effective means to bridge the gaps that result from those differences and minimize and/or eliminate the damage those differences are responsible for inflicting on humanity at large. 

Given the nature of the problem outlined above and given the lack of an effective measure to counter that problem in the current world education system, it can be said that it now lacks the necessary awareness.  To be sure, there are vague notions of “awareness” and correspondingly sporadic efforts in the academic circles aimed at finding “solutions.”  And yet the nature of the “problem” is not clearly understood, and as such, “solutions” put forth to counter vague notions of “problems” are no more than efforts to grope in the dark.  A clear and precise understanding of the nature of the problem is necessary for effective remedy – the same way modern medicine relies on clear and precise understanding of how the human body works rather than the dubious practices of the centuries past which had relied on trial and error (this kind of hocus-pocus, though, can be effective for a very small group of illnesses that respond positively to the “placebo effect”).  

This is not to say that every problem can be expressed in simple terms; in fact, most complex problems cannot be reduced to simple terms.  But as we saw above, our problem, while complex, could fortunately be reduced to its root causes that can be expressed in simple and accurate terms.  And we now have a crystal clear understanding of the nature of our problem.  Given the nature of the problem as outlined, the simple and straightforward two-step solution suggested, while partial, also seems to be logical and reasonable.

The purpose of sending my writings to the 35,000 or so world academics/educators is three fold: i) to get them to assess the nature of our problem, and whether or not they find my analysis accurate; ii) to get them to come up with an alternative analysis, if they have any; and iii) to pave the path for incorporating agreed-upon solutions into the world education system so that the current sad situation can be improved and a high level of human wellbeing achieved.  Of course, foremost in the effort was raising awareness – which most of them presently lack; if they had, they would have already solved our problem.  The continued existence of the problem with its devastating impact on humanity is clear evidence that the world education system currently lacks the required understanding and, as a direct result of this lack, the willpower to rectify the problem; for when we are genuinely convinced that something is terribly wrong, we act strongly to rectify the situation, as evidenced by the multitude of social movements the world over.  Hence their indifference may very well be indicative of their lack of awareness of even the existence of a problem, or regarding those with vague notions of “a problem,” a lack of clarity of its nature and thus how it can be effectively rectified.   

(Paragraph 9)  As to the exclusion of the economics discipline, it is clear that my writings are not about social policy; they’re about the failure to come up with viable policy and which failure is caused, in large part, by the problem outlined.  Here are the reasons for the choice of the six disciplines mentioned in the writings: education was chosen because, as would be clear from them, the solution to our problem resides with that discipline; philosophy was included because it is the integrating discipline of human knowledge (please refer to the long quote from Professor Will Durant’s book The Story of Philosophy at the end of “2 – Education and Fundamentalism”); psychology and communication were included since the essence of the problem is rooted in them both – one talks of one’s inability to “reach another across gaps”; this is psychological and communicative in nature at one and the same time; in fact, in “5 – Further Illumination,” I described them to be “two sides of the same coin”; and sociology and political science were included since our problem has widespread sociopolitical repercussions globally and the analysis of such impacts falls within their domain. 

I don’t see any scope for the economics discipline in this scheme of things – in our effort to analyze the various facets of our problem and to come up with a viable solution.  If we were discussing social policy, the economics discipline would certainly be central to the effort.  And if we were to broaden the scope and aim for comprehensiveness, mathematics would be a most eligible candidate since a high level of analytical capability is central to it, but given its rather abstract nature, I chose not to include that discipline. 

As to the source of the concept of “simplicity” vs “complexity” of knowledge, I believe I read fragments about it in numerous sources; I don’t remember exactly.  Regardless of where I read about it, or whether I read about it at all, the concept is a direct corollary of the discussion of my writings: those with knowledge limited to one discipline would have a simple mindset while those with knowledge that covers multiple disciplines would have a complex mindset.  The “Social Judgement Theory” of social psychology sheds ample light on the different approaches to social situations by those two groups – hence the notion of “social judgement.”   I believe that the concept underlies the saying “travel broadens the mind” – for those exposed to cultures other than one’s own would know that there are other ways of life, and that it is not as simple as it appears.  If I’m not mistaken, Plato was beneficiary to this; during his travels to cope with his grief following the death of his mentor and friend Socrates, he encountered more viable ways of organizing the state than he had in mind when he left Athens, and modified his views to incorporate the new knowledge and insights he gained.  And in the Maldives, we have the adage of “mentality of the frog in the well,” and many talk of an “island mentality.”  These are all variations on the same theme – the concept of “simplicity” vs “complexity” of knowledge, which we encounter frequently in daily life.  Thus it does not require reference to a scholarly treatise for one to make use of the concept in a piece of writing. 

I suggest you read the writings again carefully – slowly and reflecting / contemplating on what is being said rather than in the manner you’d read a student’s term paper, with an eye on finding faults / inconsistencies; the frame of mind arising from this falls into what psychologists call “counter-arguing” and would naturally and inevitably divert one’s focus from the logic presented.  It is quite likely that this unfocused state of mind is the main reason that made you loose sight of the big picture. 

I hope the above discussion was useful and clarified issues that were hitherto vague.  And I apologize if the way I chose to express my thoughts had made you uncomfortable.  (I’ve a reputation for being blunt, which is apt to make people feel uncomfortable.)

.............................
..........

PS:  I’m uploading this email to my blog; in fact, it has been written with this in mind.  The reason is, given that an eminent professor of your stature at a respected university could not quite grasp the simple central message of my writings, it is likely that it would be the case for a significant number of others to whom they were sent.  And I thought I’ll make a last effort to help them understand – which, after all, cannot be forced. 

PPS:  To help you with easier reading, I’m attaching the PDF version of all the eight pieces I wrote thus far, which were sent to the academics/educators on my mailing list, yourself included, plus this new one. 

*********************************************************************************

Besides attending to our problem outlined here, there are other areas that are in need of improvement in the world education system if it is to contribute optimally to create a better world.  Instilling in children values that are in tune with the world we are living in is one such important area, since the right values instilled in them would help make them better adults, and the world a better place.  I’ve referred to values (see below) many times in the writings, but I purposely avoided dwelling on them and similar issues for numerous reasons, among them: i) the problem being discussed is core and apparently rather difficult to comprehend, perhaps because one’s vanity can’t quite accept its inevitable psychological implications; ii) to keep focus on the most important issues, which in turn would help keep discussions manageable; iii) any discussion of “values,” in particular, would be a thorny/sticky issue since everyone would want to include their beliefs in discussions; iv) core issues could be agreed upon through an international effort, perhaps a forum gathered specifically for the purpose, and those core concepts can be adapted by different nations to suit their specific needs.

Naturally, any international forum would require careful preparation.  What I have in mind in this regard is that this phase should require informal cross-discipline and in-depth dialogue among a sufficient number of senior academics / educators from all the six disciplines and an agreement on core issues should be reached.  There should not be any papers.  (No single person in any given field is likely to produce a comprehensive, balanced, and viable solution; papers with unrelated, divergent side issues would form a big impediment to reach agreement.)  An agreed-upon communiqué should do.  And only those who can provide their expertise for promoting human wellbeing – rather than enhancing academic fame by promoting their papers – should be invited.  Funding also need be sought to provide the participants sufficient / reasonable compensation. 

Given that basic agreement on core issues is to be reached in these informal encounters, the bulk of heavy lifting would be done at this stage, and the larger gathering would primarily formalize or ratify agreed-upon concepts of this preparatory stage.  Even at this larger forum of (limited) international stature, participation would be limited to academics/educators.  But to enhance smooth implementation, it would help to include in it (academic) representatives of key governments involved and relevant international organizations such as UNESCO.  Also, to facilitate a smoother ratification process in the formal setting, issues agreed-upon in the preliminary stage should be passed to participants of this larger quasi-international forum and their informal online dialogue with the preparatory group enhanced before the face-to-face meeting in the larger forum.  

_________________________________________________________________________________

Values:  I believe that currently there is a vacuum of responsibility as to who is to instil appropriate values in the young, and this is a global phenomenon.  Unlike earlier eras when adults used to pass on the wisdom of the past to the young, the modern family, often with both parents working, seems to be unaware or unable or unwilling to face this responsibility; this may be largely due to the fast-changing nature of today’s world in which many values of one generation become practically irrelevant for the next.  And neither the parents nor the school system currently takes that responsibility, perhaps each implicitly thinking that it should be the responsibility of the other, and children grow up without proper guidance to the right path.  But in view of both the fast-changing and complex nature of today’s world, parents, even if willing, would be largely ill-equipped to handle the task.  This naturally shifts the burden to the system.  It would also be more practical / feasible since today children are at the disposal of the system from an early age and for increasingly longer periods on a daily basis, and since it also has the potential to undertake the task.  Thus what is required is to gear-up the system to do a good job – to transform it from the current state of a total lack of awareness about the societal need for core values in its young that will enable them to be good citizens (meaning, be able to deal with responsibility and compassion both fellow human beings and the environment, both natural and human-made) to the state of being both aware and able to handle the job effectively and efficiently.  (This is apart from its being geared to instil in children an attitude to communicate with their mates and also adults with empathy and to teach the youth the basic techniques of effective communication and related psychology.) 

8 - A Fresh Viewpoint

Human Wellbeing … A Fresh Viewpoint

This is a follow-up on the writings I sent you earlier; their central thesis is summarized at the end.

The piece is based on part of an article I sent to several hundred local professionals and politicians just this week.  And it looks at the problem outlined in those writings from a slightly different perspective, given its local context.  The change of perspective would shed additional light on what was said in the earlier writings.  (This blog contains all those original writings.)

Boxed below is a quote from that article sent to the locals, and the explanation that follows is based on it.  (The original article from which the quote was excerpted is also available on my complementary blog: www.rifatafeefmaldives.blogspot.com under the heading "Positive Socio-Political Atmosphere.") 

Quote:
……………………………………  

Three:  Basing Public Policy on One’s Limited Knowledge and Dogged Refusal to Learn

Part of this problem lies in that public or development policy is broad, multifaceted, and intertwined on the one hand, and on the other that the specialized education one can obtain through the world education system is only partial and thus limited.  Add to these limitations the intricacies arising from the local context and the complexity of policy formulation becomes enormous.  (This part of the problem is not limited to the Maldives but manifests globally; an account of its root causes and action to counter some of the down-sides arising from them on a global scale are given in the writings on this blog.)  The other part of the problem is that the Government is totally oblivious to the challenges arising from this situation and goes about adopting any surmise by anyone as valid policy.  In spite of repeated explanations of the impossibility of devising valid policy the way they go about now (see below) there has been little inclination to date to face reality and adopt the right methodology of formulating policy.  

Given the many areas comprising of development policy, the flawed conclusion most people tend to jump to is this: “If policy involves so many specialities, we’ll get people knowledgeable in those areas to discuss the issue among themselves and they’ll come up with the right policy.”  It may sound like systematic thinking, but the approach will not work (even if adopted, which people usually don’t but rely on some person’s self-proclaimed pseudo-knowledge).  To understand why it will not work, we need some preliminary background.  

We all understand that the ability of a physician (as medical doctors are called nowadays) to cure an illness depends on how well he or she had mastered the profession of medicine, besides the availability of required facilities and medications.  Similarly, the ability of a structural engineer to do a good job depends on his or her mastery of that profession.  The physician understands his/her profession and the engineer understands his/her profession.  We all know that much.  Here is the tricky part most people find difficult to comprehend: neither the physician nor the engineer has any meaningful knowledge about the other’s specialized area, and as a result, neither can speak meaningfully with the other about either medicine or engineering.  And it is the same story with, say, an economist and a sociologist, or a financier and a psychologist, and so on.  In short, those specialized in all areas are in the same boat: they don’t have a common language to talk meaningfully with another person of a different specialization.  

Thus getting people of different backgrounds together is a useless endeavour.  In fact, it is a misleading endeavour, as we are usually under the mistaken belief that gathering people of different specializations can produce viable development policy and thus go about adopting the outcomes of such processes as valid policy.  We are therefore faced with a difficult dilemma: those of different specializations cannot converse meaningfully with others in a different field, while policy making involves many different fields that are entwined in complex ways. 

But the problem can be overcome if a single individual has mastered, or at least has acquired the basics of, the central areas of development planning; this will enable the integration of fragmented and disjointed info into a coherent and meaningful synthesis.  And that is precisely what I had done over the past 24 years, by sacrificing, basically, all else.  …

……………………………………………………

End Quote

The last paragraph describes a process few can afford to go through in normal life and thus, given the logic of the paragraphs preceding it, societal processes will continue to be ineffective and inefficient.  But as advocated in my writings, given that specialization is indispensable for human advancement, the way to improve the situation is by taking effective measures to overcome the downsides mentioned.  As explained in the writings, this has two components: i) instilling a more conducive attitude of mind at early stages in life (see “4 – Reason for Sending the Writings”) and ii) equipping them in subsequent years with techniques that would improve interaction among them – ie, teaching them the basics of both communication and related psychology as an integral part of their basic education.  This will help them as grown-ups specialized in various fields to be equipped for minimizing, if not totally overcoming, limitations arising from specialization.  And as explained in the writings, this would be besides being able to mitigate the downsides arising from human uniqueness to begin with (see “5 – Further Illumination,” last paragraph).  It can be clearly seen that this modification to the world education system will bring about positive long-term impacts on both human well-being and human advancement that will be nothing less than spectacular! 

And it is not only societal decision-processes that fall victim to the lack of a common language, but all interactive processes at all levels of society – including international relations.  And the myriad of current measures to overcome the downsides of interactive processes, including the many books on the subject, fall far, far short of addressing the real issue; they tend to treat symptoms and not the root causes.  More importantly, as mentioned in “1 – Introduction,” people are not even aware of the existence of a problem that is beyond the interacting parties; they invariably assume that the problem lies with the other party!!  (The complaint "Am I talking to a brick wall?" would be familiar to most readers.)  The writings have made it clear that it is not the case, and that the lack of a common language is the culprit!  As dwelt in the writings, the problem lies in that, on the one hand, human understanding depends on the information bases in their brains, which are not only different across cultures but vary from person to person, lending to their lack of awareness that a problem even exists, and on the other hand, they are simply not equipped to handle the situation even if they were aware (see "2 - Education & Fundamentalism," paragraph 9).  It is therefore a logical conclusion that the two-step process outlined above will go a long way towards minimizing, if not totally overcoming, the downsides arising from our problem.  

The ball is now squarely in the court of the educators to whom these writings are addressed.  It’s time for decisive action; the time for leisurely intellectual amusements is over … people around the world are suffering because of the inaction of those who should have acted a long time ago! 
  

Central Thesis of the Writings:  The writings have made clear how a downside arising from the nature of the functioning of the human mind (“5 – Further Illumination,” last paragraph) which is aggravated by the way the world education system is currently setup, is causing widespread misery on a global scale.  The writings also suggested a partial but pragmatic solution to this problem.  And the last piece (“7 – Two Methods of Science”) had made clear how the indifference of the world’s educators is responsible for the continuation of this sorry state of affairs globally; their lack of awareness being responsible in the first place for the aggravation mentioned (footnote 2i of “1 – Introduction”). 

An Afterthought

This note is aimed primarily at those who have difficulty in comprehending the message of my writings and its global impact on humanity at large over time; those who do understand it can, of course, benefit from it by letting it help them to expand their thinking to wider horizons and let their imaginations soar. 

In my opinion, the direct benefits that would be accrued to humanity by the intellectual revolution that will be unleashed by implementing the two-step process outline above will go someway towards being comparable to the indirect impacts of the Copernican revolution in the sixteenth century. 

Indirect because, in my opinion, again, it is not the direct impact of that revolution that helped humanity to be set on the path of its unprecedented advancement; for knowing that it was the Earth that revolved around the Sun rather than the other way around would hardly matter in terms of human wellbeing.  But it was the thinking process that revolution helped unleash, which is an indirect outcome of it, that in turn helped give birth to the scientific method, which was responsible for the huge strides humanity had made towards bettering its condition.  For it was the scientific method (which in fact began with Aristotle) that helped us to better understand the nature of the world around us, which underlie the many advances that had helped raise humanity from its pathetic early existence; this is in addition to the revolution this thinking had helped to bring about in our understanding of the universe itself.  My claim is that the suggestions proposed have the power to better the human condition in a comparable way.  I'm not saying that our better understanding of the Solar System as a direct result of that revolution is to be ignored; all I am saying is that a better understanding of which body revolved around which has a rather minimal direct impact on human wellbeing. 

Of course, prior to Copernicus, the Greeks had been on the right path towards a better understanding of the world around us.  But treading that path demanded mental exertion which, human beings being rather lazy and thus opting for the easy way out, didn’t sit well with the masses, which led to those responsible being persecuted – in the form of Socrates being forced to end his life, or to exile himself.  Not too long after, “the easy way out” triumphed massively, plunging Europe into the Dark Ages.  For few bothered about cause-effect relations of events and assigning that burden to a "higher power" deemed sufficient.  George Orwell had it right – in Animal Farm, he saw the masses as sheep whose reasoning ability was limited to "four legs good, too legs bad," much like "the frog in the well," a comparable example from the Maldives.  It is a similar mental lethargy and an ensuing indifference that is largely responsible for the current sorry state of humanity in our fast-changing world which calls for urgent adaptation to unprecedented and accelerating change.

I believe it is this human tendency to shun any significant mental exertion in preference for easy answers that is driving those who have a hard time in understanding my thesis; for such understanding would call upon them to face some mental exertion and follow through the logic presented in the writings, stated in most simple language.  Of course, this mental laziness merely complements the much bigger impediment to understanding (which is in fact the root cause of the former and inducing the laziness) that is the essence of my thesis: given that people make sense of the world based on what they have in their brains and that their information bases are usually limited, they're unlikely to have an easy grasp of most societal issues.  It is here that a little diligence can help – in particular, dialogue with those knowledgeable in the areas where one falls short, instead of attempting to reinvent the wheel.  In the case of my thesis, this requires a person in any of the six areas identified (education, philosophy, psychology, sociology, political science, and communication) to engage in dialogue with those in at least some of the remaining five areas.  While the suggestions of my writings imply educational action, the essence of our problem is rooted in both psychology and communication, and thus if those in the business of teaching education try to do it alone without the involvement of the professionals in those disciplines, they are likely to jump to erroneous conclusions and lead to ineffective action.  Needless to say that cross-discipline dialogue is not an easy task, as can be seen clearly from the boxed quote at the outset; to succeed, one has to work at it, as one necessarily has to work in any relationship.  Meaningful dialogue will also be facilitated if one can come to terms with one's own insignificance in the bigger scheme of things – however knowledgeable one may think he or she is.  (A little humility would also go a long way to lowering defensive psychological barriers and to fruitful interaction.)  It is the failure to engage even modestly (primarily due to the root cause mentioned above) that is the real impediment that stands in the way of understanding.