When it's a numbers game ... Everyone wants those on the + side of the curve. When that workforce is depleted, they work down the scale.

WWII and the advancements within, demonstrated the need for an educated workforce. The tests we took pre department of education we're sponsored by DOD.

 

Wow, you guys are really hurting me. I've got a degree in mathematics and taught two years of high school math in Ghana. In university I kept taking math classes because I loved it. As an upperclassman I was deep into logic and getting farther from practical subjects and loving it even more. Did you know there was a guy named Godels who proved that some things in math can never be proved or disproved using the available tools? It's a fantastic mind game, at least to me. My grown up daughter chided me recently for how I made her cry while helping with her algebra homework. Oh, well, now she's an MD so no permanent harm done. You guys are all too serious. I don't care if a subject is practically useful or not. I care if it's interesting and beautiful.

 

My grown up daughter chided me recently for how I made her cry while helping with her algebra homework.

Interesting statement... what did you say to her?

 

I was simply explaining "Jim's rule of algebra". What ever you do to one side of the equation you must do the same thing to the other side. That's what makes it an equation, right, both sides equal. I've always been big on what the brit's would call first principles.

 

I was simply explaining "Jim's rule of algebra". What ever you do to one side of the equation you must do the same thing to the other side. That's what makes it an equation, right, both sides equal. I've always been big on what the brit's would call first principles.

No problem from me, so far... but why did she cry, at all? Did you lose your patience, or was she deeply moved by your involvement?

 

You see, her teacher had told her one of those "bring it over to the other side" rules that kids use when solving equations and I was trying to make her understand what was actually going on. I was interfering with her goal of getting the right answer don't you know. And she didn't like it.

 

You see, her teacher had told her one of those "bring it over to the other side" rules that kids use when solving equations and I was trying to make her understand what was actually going on. I was interfering with her goal of getting the right answer don't you know. And she didn't like it.

Now I get it... and yes, it's hard... Among the many gigs I've made, I tutored in physics and math at a high-school level for a few years. And the one thing that I found in common among all the under-performers was that they kept on parroting that they "hated math" ... they kept on telling each other the same mantra over and over until they got fully convinced that it was true ... and they didn't realize that they were already using math in their everyday lives just to survive ... my job was first to de-program them, and make them see that they were caught in a vicious cycle of self brain-wash in which they kept on repeating how hard it was, and how they hated it so much... and then after that I made things into a game, in which they could use the skills they were learning to either make (fictitious) money, or to make better use of their time and resources... the trick is to adapt whatever you're teaching them to their particular personalities... The problem with that, I admit, is that you can only teach one student at a time... which is fully confrontational against the current teaching methods

 

look here young lady

--Emphasis Added--

I daresay you're off to an auspicious start!

Now you can have the last word

Thank you! -- I will return your courtesy via a merely explanatory response...

"Raymond Genovese, post: 1159481, member: 327039"]I chose fundamentalist not functionalist with intention. Not everything is your quote. It's that kind of self-centered myopia...

Nah! -- Merely my wonky crystal ball again

that leads you to the absurdly flawed and pretentious assumption that 95% of the population are "dullards".

In the (IMO unlikely) event genuine misapprehension of my intent exists -- My 'sentiment' may adequately be rephrased as follows:

In my opinion 95% of 'the general public' are sorely lacking in initiative, critical thinking skills and, indeed, imagination -- A 'condition' I attribute, in large part, to the simultaneous 'coarsening' and 'dumbing down' of culture seen over the past several decades."

Again, there is that egocentric myopia - you are not the judge and there is nothing to win. You spoke your opinion, and I spoke mine.

And I would say that exchange of opposing opinion constitutes debate (and, hence, introduces the concept of victory/defeat) - I trust you are not denying the adversarial quality of your tone manifest in post #83? (rhetorical question)...

Sure, that's data irrefutably demonstrating that 95% of the population are "dullards"

--Emphasis added--
Not at all! -- As stated, my suggestion was by way of anecdotal demonstration!

a proposed procedure to ask people how far it is to Hypatiaville?

Might I suggest that a distinction exists between inquiring after a real (local) community vs. a wholly fictitious location?

It's not that it smacked of materialism so much as that it was rife with ignorance....in my opinion.

Sticks and stones!

That's what I mean. Great, you looked into the last and legal name of Howard and learned that it was Horowitz at the time of their birth

Actually I'm a bit of an 'old time entertainment buff' -- Hence my possession of that particular (albeit, perhaps, dubious?) 'tidbit'

so you decided to use Horowitz, ostensibly to confer what, I don't know.

'Twas by way of demonstrating my genuine familiarity with (and, indeed, appreciation of) the act in question -- Thus it seems to have produced the opposite effect

It is just plain unacceptable

FWIW I've yet to encounter anyone describable as a 'dullard' on AAC -- A 'stooge' or two perhaps - but no 'dullards'!

Very best regards
HP

 

Now HP I say Raymond has a point cuz I say throwing in an _IMO_ here and there would go a long way towards courtesy!

Agreed!

HP I say attribution would have been nice!

I'll grant that, as far as I know, yours was the first attempt to reckon temporal units in terms of common units of linear measure (and vice versa) via said observation!

MrAl I wonder how they'd respond to claim that only abt 50% of birds lay eggs?

I had a lot 'fun' with that one in the daze (sic) of my youth!

Full disclosure: I hold an MA in anthropology which I'm not proud of and have no plans of pursuing further! So yeah! I know! I wasted a lot of time and effort _finding myself_ and all that so plz just consider me adequately shamed, tnx!

Johnintx I chose anthropology cuz it seemed interesting at the time
So I know this won't sit well with some ppl but I'm independently wealthy enough not to need to choose career for purpose of livelihood. So I had privilege of pursuing studies in original spirit of _liberal arts_ education

Anyhow I was increasingly put off by anthropology's dehumanization of humankind to point of disgust! I say anthropology and most of psychology are the epitome of _bad science_ all the same as misanthropic religions are epitome of _bad spirituality_! So I stopped with masters degree (cuz I have hang-up about not quitting in middle of anything) and moved on to happier pursuits!

Aleph! Please take it easy with the personal info! -- I beg your cognizance of the fact that 'doxing' yourself is tantamount to 'doxing' me as well! -- There might be five or six people on this planet who yet ignore my identity -- I'd like to keep it that way if you don't mind!

Very best regards
HP

 

There might be five or six people on this planet who yet ignore my identity -- I'd like to keep it that way if you don't mind!

I've narrowed you down to either Catwoman or the Batgirl... but I'm gonna need more data... they both ride the coolest bikes, though...

 

Nicely put. I think it's even harder when it's your own kid. BTW, I'm staying out of my grandson's homework, going into eighth grade. He attends tutoring at Kumon and does their exercises. I have a real problem with their rote learning method. I doubt he can explain anything but he can factor polynomials like crazy for whatever that's worth. Sometimes I get to play the grandpa card and just stand back.

 

Hey now, Years ago I almost went for a psychology degree rather than my EE degree. Odds are I probably would have been pretty well off financially by now if I had don't it too!

Dude, you would be the worst shrink ever. People don't see a psychologist to be told that they're illogical pansies. They go there to be comforted. Can you even do that?
I think you know I'm right; good call on changing majors LOL.

 

So I know this won't sit well with some ppl but I'm independently wealthy enough not to need to choose career for purpose of livelihood. So I had privilege of pursuing studies in original spirit of _liberal arts_ education

I tend to call it -gainfully unemployed- as in having enough diversity in ones own odd personal resources in play as to not warrant having to get a normal job and do the normal typical work life routines as most people have to do unless I want to.

I'm not on the higher end of the financially independent or well of scale by any means (yet) and to look at my life from afar without knowing me personally I could easily be mistaken for a poverty level bum by my general outward appearances most days.

But, I live well within my means and have real life resources and skills at my disposal that very few my age, or any age, have in play to work with. Sure, I still live in a old trailer house, that has seen better days (but is being fixed up bit by bit) but I now do so because I am working on a multi year project to set up a new house for myself on a combination of DIY and pay as I go (as my resources allow me to do) which as working largely by myself in my free time is a long slow project that will keep my place looking like a construction site/junkyard for some time until everything is in place.

Sure, I could walk into my bank and likely swing a $200 - $400K loan now and have it all done in a year or less (and the spend the next 30 paying them back more than double that) but then I would be back to having to live the typical working life everyone else who has such debts to pay off does, which I do not care for one bit being it is where a person is stuck working for their stuff rather than having their stuff work for them.

Now that said, sure, I do actually plan to go back to work sometime in the next year or two once the bulk of the new house and related construction is done being I can now qualify for some of the higher paying oil field related employment opportunities. As much as I love my - do as I please- life style I can not in good conscious pass up on the opportunities to get a high 5 to 6 plus figure job in the fields I would likely enjoy either for much longer either! Especially when now that I am divorced my cost of living expenses for such work where I would be away from home for weeks at a time would be so low they might not even break using 10% of my anticipated annual take home pay level.

 

Dude, you would be the worst shrink ever. People don't see a psychologist to be told that they're illogical pansies. They go there to be comforted. Can you even do that?
I think you know I'm right; good call on changing majors LOL.

Unfortunately my life experiences have shown that most don't like having a engineer with practical working knowledge telling them they are illogical pansies for their less than informed/rational/unjustifiable views of how or why things should be built either.

People now do not like other people who are smarter, more informed and more capable than them telling them where they are wrong regardless of what field or place they hold in life. We see that here on this forum every day.

Casual comment over an observation is taken as harsh criticism, even when none was implied, and actual criticism no matter how small is taken as outright threat and insult yet an actual insult is rarely ever taken with any seriousness whatsoever. Facts don't take precedent over uniformed nonsensical opinion no matter how solid they can be backed up and proven as well.

As far as if I had even become a psychologist I am considered to be an above average listener with an above average patience and capacity to relate to and follow how and why others think the way they do. From there everything else is up to the other person to do something with. I can only give advice and educated, plus first hand experience based, opinion on what direction to go to which if some doesn't want to fix their life it's not really my problem.

But yes, I know my overall lack of tolerance for stupid would be a limitation for me in such a profession. I can deal with ignorance and lack of education but proud stupidity and self defeating defence are not something I put up with for very long as you have seen here.

 

I have some regrets about being a bit too harsh or mean-spirited within this discussion and I would hate to think that my poor behavior would obscure the important points that I wanted to make.

A dullard is defined as a “stupid person”
dull·ard
ˈdələrd/
noun: dullard; plural noun: dullards
a slow or stupid person.

synonyms: idiot, fool, stupid person, simpleton, ignoramus, oaf, dunce, dolt.

We can evolve the meaning of the word, say that it was not intended that way, reinterpret the meaning, claim a different meaning and so on, but the bottom line is that the word means “a stupid person”.

The points I was trying to make are:

There is simply no compelling scientific evidence to support the contention that 95% (or 98%) of people are dullards.

There is also no compelling evidence to suggest that 95% of people are dullards, not because of congenital factors, but because they lack “mental discipline”.

I have spent my adult working life as a behavioral scientist. By normal standards, I have been, at least reasonably successful, in that career. That fact does not make me right and it also does not make my opinion more valuable than anyone else’s.

It does, however, mean that I have thought and studied a great deal about these kinds of issues – and I offer that background to explain why I feel so passionate about this one (again, not that passion excuses poor behavior).

I believe that 1) people are more similar than dissimilar and that 2) virtually 100% of people act in a stupid fashion at some time – me, you, everybody.

That someone acts in a stupid fashion does not justify the categorization (the stereotyping, the typecasting) that they are a stupid person. This is not a trivial point nor a matter of semantics because if everyone who ever acted in a stupid fashion is placed in the dullard category; there is essentially no meaningful decision-making information (within the context of the topic) to be gained by using the category. The category simply fails to differentiate between people.

What I find so offensive is when otherwise normal, intelligent, people adopt some position (e.g., 95% of people are dullards and they are dullards because they lack mental discipline) based on some obscure, mentalistic, and frankly bizarre criteria…and yes, at times, I find it arrogant.

It’s as though all of the scientific and analytical process that they normally engage in by profession gets thrown out the window and they are simply certain that something is true without commensurate evidence. The defensive response is usually something like, well that’s based on my experience – fine, show me the data and let’s see if it justifies the conclusion.

This situation is very relevant to the instant case. A couple of times in the thread, it was expressed that someone did not want to be the one to make the decision but had some ideas about who should not be making the decision.

I feel so strongly about this process because these kinds of decisions are being made all the time, they are made by people, and they have real consequences.

I want those decisions to be evidenced-based. Yes, morally, legally and ethically sound to be sure, but I abhor the abandonment of some evidence-based approach.

For example, if one, illogically, decides that 95% of people are dullards, it could be the basis for deciding to drop the algebra requirement – 95% of the people are too stupid to meet the requirement. It could also be the basis of keeping the algebra requirement – 95% of the people are stupid so we need to teach them algebra. In either case, I would argue that the decision-making process was as illogical as the assumption it was based upon.

There has been precious little “hard-core” evidence presented in the discussion and that is typical of an off-topic, highly opinionated, but essentially casual thread. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that as the thread is intended for casual discussion and we are not the group making the decision – at least not for anyone outside of ourselves and possibly family members.

In one case, I read the post by @W_Bahn about the frequency of getting a fast-food order botched. He collected data and reached a conclusion that a significant performance deficiency existed - in a very specific situation. That is what he suspected and the data confirmed that it was as bad as he suspected. I think that was a sound conclusion because it was evidence-based. But I read nothing about a generalization in the form, therefore, 87% (or whatever the frequency was) of people are dullards.

I am quite confident that I could essentially correct that performance deficiency by making a new policy that anyone who botches this guy’s order is fired on the spot, and anyone who gets it right, gets a $100 bonus on the spot. A completely impractical and absurd decision, but if the consequences of the performance deficiency were particularly dire, such a procedure could, in fact, be a reasonable and evidence-based approach.

But, there is no need to assume that 95% of people are non-congenital dullards. In fact, that assumption, which is not based on legitimate evidence, offers nothing of value when it comes to decision-making. In the context of the original article and so many other decisions, it can be a real danger.

I think we can do better.

 

I have some regrets about being a bit too harsh or mean-spirited within this discussion and I would hate to think that my poor behavior would obscure the important points that I wanted to make.

A dullard is defined as a “stupid person”
dull·ard
ˈdələrd/
noun: dullard; plural noun: dullards
a slow or stupid person.

synonyms: idiot, fool, stupid person, simpleton, ignoramus, oaf, dunce, dolt.

We can evolve the meaning of the word, say that it was not intended that way, reinterpret the meaning, claim a different meaning and so on, but the bottom line is that the word means “a stupid person”.

The points I was trying to make are:

There is simply no compelling scientific evidence to support the contention that 95% (or 98%) of people are dullards.

There is also no compelling evidence to suggest that 95% of people are dullards, not because of congenital factors, but because they lack “mental discipline”.

I have spent my adult working life as a behavioral scientist. By normal standards, I have been, at least reasonably successful, in that career. That fact does not make me right and it also does not make my opinion more valuable than anyone else’s.

It does, however, mean that I have thought and studied a great deal about these kinds of issues – and I offer that background to explain why I feel so passionate about this one (again, not that passion excuses poor behavior).

I believe that 1) people are more similar than dissimilar and that 2) virtually 100% of people act in a stupid fashion at some time – me, you, everybody.

That someone acts in a stupid fashion does not justify the categorization (the stereotyping, the typecasting) that they are a stupid person. This is not a trivial point nor a matter of semantics because if everyone who ever acted in a stupid fashion is placed in the dullard category; there is essentially no meaningful decision-making information (within the context of the topic) to be gained by using the category. The category simply fails to differentiate between people.

What I find so offensive is when otherwise normal, intelligent, people adopt some position (e.g., 95% of people are dullards and they are dullards because they lack mental discipline) based on some obscure, mentalistic, and frankly bizarre criteria…and yes, at times, I find it arrogant.

It’s as though all of the scientific and analytical process that they normally engage in by profession gets thrown out the window and they are simply certain that something is true without commensurate evidence. The defensive response is usually something like, well that’s based on my experience – fine, show me the data and let’s see if it justifies the conclusion.

This situation is very relevant to the instant case. A couple of times in the thread, it was expressed that someone did not want to be the one to make the decision but had some ideas about who should not be making the decision.

I feel so strongly about this process because these kinds of decisions are being made all the time, they are made by people, and they have real consequences.

I want those decisions to be evidenced-based. Yes, morally, legally and ethically sound to be sure, but I abhor the abandonment of some evidence-based approach.

For example, if one, illogically, decides that 95% of people are dullards, it could be the basis for deciding to drop the algebra requirement – 95% of the people are too stupid to meet the requirement. It could also be the basis of keeping the algebra requirement – 95% of the people are stupid so we need to teach them algebra. In either case, I would argue that the decision-making process was as illogical as the assumption it was based upon.

There has been precious little “hard-core” evidence presented in the discussion and that is typical of an off-topic, highly opinionated, but essentially casual thread. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that as the thread is intended for casual discussion and we are not the group making the decision – at least not for anyone outside of ourselves and possibly family members.

In one case, I read the post by @W_Bahn about the frequency of getting a fast-food order botched. He collected data and reached a conclusion that a significant performance deficiency existed - in a very specific situation. That is what he suspected and the data confirmed that it was as bad as he suspected. I think that was a sound conclusion because it was evidence-based. But I read nothing about a generalization in the form, therefore, 87% (or whatever the frequency was) of people are dullards.

I am quite confident that I could essentially correct that performance deficiency by making a new policy that anyone who botches this guy’s order is fired on the spot, and anyone who gets it right, gets a $100 bonus on the spot. A completely impractical and absurd decision, but if the consequences of the performance deficiency were particularly dire, such a procedure could, in fact, be a reasonable and evidence-based approach.

But, there is no need to assume that 95% of people are non-congenital dullards. In fact, that assumption, which is not based on legitimate evidence, offers nothing of value when it comes to decision-making. In the context of the original article and so many other decisions, it can be a real danger.

I think we can do better.

While I cannot claim concurrence with every point expressed in the above quoted post -- Please know that your concern with the (IMO, very real) danger of unintended consequences inherent to potential application of causally conceived philosophical rhetoric (sincere though same may be) to 'real world' situations is well taken!

Sincere thanks for your candor!

Very best regards
HP

 

Now I get it... and yes, it's hard... Among the many gigs I've made, I tutored in physics and math at a high-school level for a few years. And the one thing that I found in common among all the under-performers was that they kept on parroting that they "hated math" ... they kept on telling each other the same mantra over and over until they got fully convinced that it was true ... and they didn't realize that they were already using math in their everyday lives just to survive ... my job was first to de-program them, and make them see that they were caught in a vicious cycle of self brain-wash in which they kept on repeating how hard it was, and how they hated it so much... and then after that I made things into a game, in which they could use the skills they were learning to either make (fictitious) money, or to make better use of their time and resources... the trick is to adapt whatever you're teaching them to their particular personalities... The problem with that, I admit, is that you can only teach one student at a time... which is fully confrontational against the current teaching methods

I completely agree. I tutored grades 9-12 for 10 years and I want to get back into it. The hardest part is getting past this mental block that core sciences are hard... One on one work is very important as when in group, everyone has different challanges and it is not possible to address them, students beging to hide their issues to keep up with others... It is definitely not easy. But one thing is, schools are setting up kids for failure by having things like applied math, which does not qualify them for any future studies and they beed to upgrade in the future once they realize they want to get into trades even. Of course this means money for colleges... all of this I find highly disappointing. Not coming from North American culture, I was brought up with different values - tolerate pain, take on as many challenges as you can, take hardest classes in school etc etc. Which was probably an overkill on the other end of the spectrum...

 

That someone acts in a stupid fashion does not justify the categorization (the stereotyping, the typecasting) that they are a stupid person. This is not a trivial point nor a matter of semantics because if everyone who ever acted in a stupid fashion is placed in the dullard category; there is essentially no meaningful decision-making information (within the context of the topic) to be gained by using the category. The category simply fails to differentiate between people.

Under most circumstances you are correct, However when someone openly and actively chooses to act stupid (as a way to get out of owning up to one's limits in true factually correct knowledge or such) then by all means I say they have quite justifiably earned the title of stupid by their own willingness to portray themselves as such.

Intelligent people don't earn a social or titled status of being intelligent without having given solid proof they are in fact intelligent and actively using it in their life and overall life views and actions.
Same with physically fit people. One doe not get a title of being in good active health by showing every sign of being everything but fit and or active in any way shape or form.

Simply put, if you get labeled something, like stupid or lazy, the odds are you have probably shown enough of that trait on your own behalf to have earned it.
Especially so if you have made many many claims of superior capacity in something only to fail miserably at proving anything but that you infact have no clue about what you are doing and or talking about most every time.

It’s as though all of the scientific and analytical process that they normally engage in by profession gets thrown out the window and they are simply certain that something is true without commensurate evidence. The defensive response is usually something like, well that’s based on my experience – fine, show me the data and let’s see if it justifies the conclusion.

This situation is very relevant to the instant case. A couple of times in the thread, it was expressed that someone did not want to be the one to make the decision but had some ideas about who should not be making the decision.

I feel so strongly about this process because these kinds of decisions are being made all the time, they are made by people, and they have real consequences.

I want those decisions to be evidenced-based. Yes, morally, legally and ethically sound to be sure, but I abhor the abandonment of some evidence-based approach.

Unfortunately the reality of life is that with some it does not matter how much cold hard factual proof you throw at them. They will always dismiss it as lies or made up whatever or that whatever source you used as proof is not valid to them even if it's one they themselves have used countless time before.

Then add in whatever like minded cultural or social group affiliations they have that also wants to feel and see things their way and resulting false support that person may have from it, even if totally and completely wrong, and that person has even less justifications or call to put forth any effort to listen to what the real facts and reality are saying and showing. 'Flat earth society members' or far left liberals for two easily seen modernday examples. In their minds they are the smartest most informed rational people ever despite the fact that reality says and continually shows everything but that about them and their views and actions no matter how much supposed support they have in their group.

For example, if one, illogically, decides that 95% of people are dullards, it could be the basis for deciding to drop the algebra requirement – 95% of the people are too stupid to meet the requirement. It could also be the basis of keeping the algebra requirement – 95% of the people are stupid so we need to teach them algebra. In either case, I would argue that the decision-making process was as illogical as the assumption it was based upon.

There has been precious little “hard-core” evidence presented in the discussion and that is typical of an off-topic, highly opinionated, but essentially casual thread. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that as the thread is intended for casual discussion and we are not the group making the decision – at least not for anyone outside of ourselves and possibly family members.

And then again that shows the problems with how society and the organizations we base our standards of life on are operated and thusly rewarded or punished for their performances and capacity,or lack thereof, to set and uphold those standards for the greater whole and good. 95% of the population many not be dullards but the sad fact is too many are and too many of those people unfortunately are in positions of power and influence (they do not in fact belong in for the very reasons of how they perceive the world) and what to do with the standards of what defines anything for good or bad.
Contrary to what the mass media and social perceptions want everyone to believe, low wit people are not the ones who society is the most biased or prejudiced against in any way shape or form. Intelligent and capable people are.

Very few people or businesses actively uphold intelligence and capability to do a job properly as being a postive thing any more. It's in many ways scorned and subjugated not rallied around and held on high for its value. I've both seen it and experienced it in person more times than I care to admit or recount any more. 'Intelligent and capable' makes a person 'Overqualified or 'too privileged' to work in many jobs where they infact are needed more than anything but will not be employed the because someone who is well below them in those aspects holds the keys and sets the standards over who gets hired or fired and sees anyone who is more capable than them as a threat to their undeserving job or postion.

 

I completely agree. I tutored grades 9-12 for 10 years and I want to get back into it. The hardest part is getting past this mental block that core sciences are hard... One on one work is very important as when in group, everyone has different challanges and it is not possible to address them, students beging to hide their issues to keep up with others...

Interestingly enough one of the issues with kids not learning things is that many if not most have a fair level of valid direct or indirect social interactions with others who have been through or do work with such things as they are given in school and thusly have a moderate understanding of what is or isn't in fact relevant or needed for day to day life or towards what likely future profession or general work they will go into someday.

It's like having a teacher say to their class that if they want to go into engineering of one field or another they have to have such and such math classes. Sure it sounds valid to them as a teacher and not an engineer but the reality is the odds are one or more of the students in that class have actual family that are in fact engineers who they have either worked with or have simply been to told flat out by that whatever math their teacher is pushing is not what any respectable engineer would ever use or that it is in fact pure crap that will hurt them in their future.

Then add in the fact of how many kids in that class already know for a fact what area of future employment they will go into has zero use or need for such mathematical knowledge and it that much worse.
Kids aren't stupid, They are extremely good at taking in information and extrapolating it into what likely reality it fits into and whether or not that reality is one they are or ever will pursue someday.
Then to top it off how many of those kids are aware of how badly they're being taught and for what largely unrealistic and selfish political agendas and it's that much more fuel on the fire to drive their dislike and distrust of the validity of what is being taught to them.

 

... my job was first to de-program them, and make them see that they were caught in a vicious cycle of self brain-wash in which they kept on repeating how hard it was...

I see this in plenty of adults also. So many are afraid to attempt anything new or outside their comfort zone. They've convinced themselves that they can't, they'll fail, it's not worth their time, whatever. They cannot visualize themselves doing the new thing and have rationalizations to comfort themselves with a 'good reason'. I grew up with "the knack" and so I'm frankly baffled by this self-limitation. I can't explain it but I can tell from your post that you know what I mean.

If I want to go kayaking, I rent one and go. If I want to play an instrument, I'll get one and give it a try. Cook something new or do an electronics project? Why not!? I have friends that look on in awe as if I'm actually good at any of these activities. I'm not, and that doesn't bother me. Failure is to be expected and is part of the learning process. Who can possibly be good at more than a tiny number of things? I don't want to limit my life to doing only what I'm good at!

I have one friend, a friend of my wife's, that grew up in a small world bordering on abuse. She couldn't even pump her own gas or put air in a tire, at age 50, before we met her. Fortunately she has picked up a few Pinterest-type crafting activities (which she's better at than I'll ever be). Not long ago I taught her to use a pop-riveter and my drill press. Both just blew her mind because they were so easy compared to whatever she thought they were beforehand. I watched her drill holes in over 300 plastic lids and bottle caps for one of her projects and she absolutely loved every minute of it. But she would have never even tried if I hadn't been there to teach and push her. I just can't relate to that defeatist attitude.