Your mind causes you to do whatever you do, whether it's done by the conscious mind, or whether it's done by some other part of the brain. It's all you.

A great deal of the mental functioning of the brain just isn't visible to the conscious mind. Call that terra incognito "the unconscious" or call it "the brain", either way we can't observe most of what our own mind is doing. I think the conscious mind is just one of numerous operational centers in the brain. It makes the most noise, so we notice it, but our thinking is carried on out of the conscious mind's ear shot in various places, silently, out of our sight -- UNTIL the result is forwarded to the conscious mind and "suddenly we have an idea".

An example of this system is when you are trying very hard to think of something, and you can't remember it no matter what. So you stop thinking about it, and suddenly the word, name, or whatever pops right into your conscious mind. Problems that seem insoluble at bedtime can be totally solvable the next morning. "Intuition" is an idea sent to the conscious mind from somewhere in the brain.

Something other than the conscious mind often calls the shots, but it isn't an alien or some dark force, so to speak, it's just your own head doing what it does in the background. Sort of like spell checking; it is constantly (and invisibly) checking our spelling all the time but it doesn't do anything noticeable until you misspell a word, then suddenly it makes itself visible.

NK is definitely not a typical society. It is a lot like 1984, except that the Maximum Leader Kim Il Sung is a "chubby faced maniac" as Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte called him. It's a weird place.

Of course, Trump didn't get elected all by himself. But the thing is, every since 1945 control over the use of atomic weapons has pretty much always been lodged in the presidency. And while his predecessors haven't been as fast and loose with emotional eruptions as Trump, the narrow control has always been something of a problem. We came close to using nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis (well, they were actually Russian missiles) in 1962, and there have been a couple of incidents involving misinterpreted radar signals which could, conceivably, have led to a first strike order.

NPR carried an interview with a general who was explaining why attacking North Korea effectively would be difficult. The rockets and bombs are scattered around the country, and they are buried in tunnels. We don't have maps of the tunnels, so... where exactly is the missile hiding?

Second, if we attacked NK using surface detonations, the load of fallout passing over Japan (immediately to the east) would be heavy. Very bad.

Third, NK has a lot of chemical weapons, like Sarin, and Seoul is very close to NK guns. (There are about 20 million + people living in Seoul.) So, it wouldn't take NK very long at all to kill off a few million South Koreans, even if we blew up all their atomic bombs--which we probably can't do. For that matter, NK might be able to nuke Seoul, even after our initial attack.

My guess is that Kim Il Sung will not launch armed, or even unarmed, missiles at Guam. He might launch a couple of missiles out to sea to make us nervous, but that we can live with. The upshot of it all, the general said, is that we will probably have to accept a NK which is a nuclear power capable of hitting the US, and that there won't be much that we can do about it.

You seemed to go straight for the Misanthropes are arrogant position. — Andrew4Handel

I don't know why you feel that way -- I was only responding to what you said. You don't sound arrogant to me, and I wasn't trying to suggest that you were.

I don't think misanthropy is a society-wide phenomenon -- just because most people aren't that way. Maybe they should have darker views of human nature than they do, but they don't seem to. I don't know why, either way.

One person's aberrant personality is less reason to worry than a whole group of dysfunctional people constituting a society. — Andrew4Handel

Except when a handful (just a few) are able to instigate a nuclear attack. (That might not end up being an all-out nuclear war, but it would still be a bad thing).

I am sorry that you have had the kinds of experience you mention. Like as not, there are several routes to arrival at any strongly held view about mankind, whether that be we are despicable slobs or are destined for the stars.

I responded by asking a question, because I don't have a theory about how people become misanthropes, misogynists, misandrists, or Christ-like, for that matter. I'm would guess it is some kind of reaction. Your situation is one kind of reaction among several possibilities.

Should one like Thomas Jefferson because he wrote the Declaration of Independence, served as POTUS, was an innovative architect, an intellectual, etc. or should one dislike him because he had sex with his slaves and died bankrupt? While Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander in Europe. he had a mistress. Poor Mamie Eisenhower. Roosevelt saw the nation through the Great Depression and 98% of WWII, but he had a mistress also, despite being married to Eleanor (or because he was married to Eleanor?). Plus, he was a notoriously slippery politician.

Philosophers, Presidents, and Priests are all prone to inconsistencies, like all other humans. We might be great for one thing (very beautiful theories, excellent treaties, and superb transubstantiations) but on the other hand maybe we like to screw around. We say one thing and do something else. Only Agustino, of all men on earth, is free of this contradiction -- and we can not be sure about him (there's no corroborating evidence).

No one is altogether admirable. Maybe the Son of God not only loved that one disciple a lot (John--much to the annoyance of the other disciples who were peevish and jealous), and would you be happier with Jesus depending on whether he was a top or a total bottom?). If he was or if he wasn't, it wouldn't invalidate anything he said, and it wouldn't invalidate his sacrifice.

Mature minds understand that their heroes will have feet of clay and will be disappointing (or downright repellent) in some way, sooner or later. So shall I, and so shall you.

Is misanthropy a result of esteeming one's self too highly? So highly, in fact, that other people are blunt, dull, stupid, and ugly, and by comparison worthy of contempt?

It seems like misanthropy begins as a reaction by the individual.

The past is a foreign country, and it must necessarily be one. — absoluteaspiration

That's a great quote, but I don't think it is true. "The past isn't even past." Faulkner said. The past doesn't break off and float away like that. Every generation bridges the gap between the last, the present, and the next generation, and across that bridge travel cultural meanings (carried by people) which give us continuity over time. Larger historic episodes are also bridged, and maintain continuity, The Feudal era was bridged to the capitalist era, and in time the capitalist era will be bridged to whatever the post-capitalism era is called.

I'm not sure what you mean in the (Edit: ... paragraph above.

The example I gave was to show that cultures don't just compete and dominate. Despite themselves, they end up collaborating and making a new culture out of the two preceding ones.

It is not possible to empower the working class for the following reason: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/#5.2 — absoluteaspiration

Linking me to a long article in the SEP is no kind of answer. You sent me to read what somebody else thinks. I want to hear from you, here, what YOU think.

I don't believe that it is possible to preserve culture because culture doesn't exist in a vacuum. Cultures are necessarily in a state of competition. Ways of life that outperform others will filter into less active societies as we've seen throughout history. — absoluteaspiration

Of course culture doesn't exist in a vacuum. I understand that when cultures are brought into contact, they will interpenetrate each other, and this is likely to change both of them. The culture of black slaves was in no position to compete with the American Master Class. None-the-less, black culture penetrated white culture (and visa versa) producing a new culture which neither antecedents had 200 years ago. It was less cultural competition and more cultural intercourse (in the fucking sense of the word).

All knowledge comes from evaluating competing theories fairly and in proportion to the evidence supporting them. — absoluteaspiration

All knowledge? What about experience? You seem to have a lot of faith in this process of evaluating competing theories.

Even knowledge of the skills of different individuals belongs to the same category of knowledge. In that sense, all knowledge comes from fairness. If fairness is impossible, then knowledge as such is impossible. — absoluteaspiration

That statement does not make sense. [/quote]

Everyone else seems interested in preserving cultures and empowering the working class. — absoluteaspiration

My problem with these goals is that I don't believe it is possible to attain them. — absoluteaspiration

And just why the hell not?

Good advice.

Fortunately for your bank account, I'm unlicensed and can't legally bill you for professional services. That, of course, doesn't mean that my advice isn't pure gold.

Does being a professional psychologist suck (to use the technical term)?

Yes, all professions suck -- more and more, sooner or later.

Economics is the dismal science, after all, so why would anybody like it?

What you can do with x amount of education is determined by licensing codes. A bachelor degree in psychology might not prepare you to do much--but that would depend on the school you attended and what sort of training they provided.

As far as I know, you need to have enough education to get licensed if you want to provide services for fees, bill insurance companies, and buy liability insurance. Generally a masters degree would be the minimum, with the next level up would be a doctor of psychology, which is a professional degree short of the PhD.

In my state, for instance, there are 3 kinds of social work licensure (example of professional licensure)
LSW - licensed social worker (requires a BA)
LISW - licensed independent social worker (requires an MA)
LICSW - licensed independent clinical social worker (requires an MA+)

All three require x number of hours of supervised practical work under an experienced social worker licensed to provide that level of supervision, with much more supervised work for advanced licensure.

So, if you want to be a licensed therapist, you will have to get training, supervised practical experience, pass exams, and then get licensed. Not having a license doesn't mean that you won't be able to help people, but you would probably have to work in an agency, and be covered by the agency's liability and billing capacity.

If you wanted to be a consulting psychologist, you might need a PhD, plus experience.

Personally, I think it is important for helping professionals to have a wide range of interests, pursue lifetime learning, and have interesting experiences.

Hey, good luck.

Her waiter said, "Madam, how would you like your coffee?"

The diva leaned back in her banquette, arms around two gorgeous black guys, and said, "I like my coffee the way I like my men."

"I'm sorry, madam; we don't have gay coffee."

It's a sign of taking a forum's topic and guidelines seriously. — Michael Ossipoff

There is a time for every purpose under heaven. A time to be serious and a time to joke. They who do not recognize a joke (in a jokey thread) travel under a heavy yoke.

Garrison Keillor claimed that this joke was the funniest of that year's best jokes.
One penguin said to another, "You look like you're wearing a tuxedo.
The other penguin said, "Who says I'm not."


Mama, why is daddy not moving?
(louder) Mama, why isn't daddy moving?
(very loud) Mama, what is the matter with daddy?
Shut up, kid, and keep digging.

Lame because the joke took too long and required an explanation. 28% funny.

You're a failed abortion whose birth certificate is an apology from the condom factory. — Michael

Is this more insulting?

"The better part of [so and so] ran down his daddy's leg."

An Irishman walks out of a bar.
— Michael

I did that once. The toilet was broken. — Baden

Why would that bother an Irishman?

Forgive me, but I must admit that I'm not good at, or interested in, the sarcasm game. I assume that people mean what they say. — Michael Ossipoff

Are you looking for a girl friend? My single 74 year old sister is available. She's totally immune to anything with double meaning--sarcasm, complicated jokes, figures of speech, etc. I think it's an early sign of alzheimers. You two could go down hill together.

The Grand Taboo is, to me, that thing that we can't talk about. It comes up all the time in conversations in everyday life, though. — Noble Dust

"the presence of the outwardly unhappy is an unwelcome reminder of the presence of the inwardly unhappy state of the outwardly happy" is indeed something we tend to not acknowledge. It spoils "the magic" of good times.

Henry David Thoreau said that "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation" which is not something most people want to talk about, either.

Freud supposedly said something along the lines of "Happiness just isn't in the cards." If he didn't say it, he should have.

"the presence of the outwardly unhappy is an unwelcome reminder of the presence of the inwardly unhappy state of the outwardly happy."
— Noble Dust

Sort of like, "grace in reverse". — Bitter Crank

How so? — Noble Dust

Oh, I was just riffing on a phrase of Anglican catechism (I'm not Anglican) that ran through my head when I read your sentence ""the presence of the outwardly unhappy is an unwelcome reminder of the presence of the inwardly unhappy state of the outwardly happy." It reminded me of

...an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us; ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. — (1928 Book of Common Prayer, p. 581)

Actually the BoCP was defining a sacrament, not grace, so my smart ass comment falls twice flat. And no, I didn't know that the quote was from the 1928 BoCP, either -- Google Search, as usual.

Since we're talking about reality here, a reminder is apropos that "handles" (Rich, Schopenhauer1, Bitter Crank, etc.) are just placeholders representing an account, and have no revealing connection to the person behind the account.

Actually, I'm not bitter and not a crank (well, you can call me one if you want). I hope no one spends their lives being a bitter crank, or bitter anything else. Hey, I'm all for maximizing self-realization and lifelong learning.

The topic at hand has been chewed over inconclusively for a long time, so if you find that there is no common agreement, well...

You brought up the enteric brain. Maybe the state of one's digestion sways the cerebral conclusion. Maybe it's the micro biome in the gut that determines how one looks at the relationship between brain/body/environment. Who knows what politics the fungi and bacteria down there struggle with.

I'm all over. — Rich

"Rich tried to get himself together, but alas, discovered that he was spread too far all over everything, a fat bug smear on the windshield.

Perhaps in the next reincarnation, he will be incredibly unspreadable and will be able to keep himself together under all sorts of conditions."

I am familiar with the enteric nervous system, or brain in the belly. Familiar with the concept, not the details. Yes, it plays a large role in our lives, like the upstairs brain does. My guess is that the enteric nervous system is a survival of the tubular organization of creatures, sponges on up. Something has to look after all that stuff going on in there. The upstairs brain has it's own evolutionary history -- the gut brain isn't an offspring of the head brain, or visa versa. My guess.

But still, "You" are upstairs, aren't you?

I'm not convinced the notion of interpretation being in the brain even makes sense. There may be neuronal activities in the brain that are correlated with interpretative activities, but I don't see how those activities can be artificially cordoned off, so to speak, from the activities (cellular, muscular, electrochemical, and so on) of the whole body — Janus

If interpretation doesn't go on in the brain, pray tell, where does it go on?

I'm not suggesting any sort of mind/body dualism. The brain is part of the body and they are coordinated through the CNS and blood stream. What comes and goes through the CNS are very specifically channeled, and what comes and goes through the blood are diffused. But, as it happens, the brain is in charge. Not breathing enough? Feeling too hot or too cold? Fall asleep at the table? Wake up too early? Not sweating enough? Hungry? Scared spitless by a big snake? Avoiding spiders? Chatting up the UPS driver? Screwing your brains out? Addicted to cigarettes? Write great poetry? Doing groundbreaking research into String Theory? All that stuff, from not breathing enough to String Theory is all BRAIN.

nor how the activities of the whole body can coherently be separated from the energetic environmental processes that they are responses to. — Janus

I don't know about you, but I seem to exist pretty much inside my skin. Not that the buzzing, blooming world doesn't impinge on me all the time, but I am enough me and not everything else to notice when I am getting rained on, getting burned by the sun, froze, and everything else.

I think bodies are cordoned off from everything else, whether the body be a tree, a squirrel, a carp, or a human. The wind is very general, but trees are very specific. The environment is very general, but you and I are very specific.

The news that we are going to die could be received nonchalantly, (after a certain age one can afford to be nonchalant) but because we have an imaginative brain (and a curious one) we generally like to think about the meanings possible for the dying and the dead. It's the brain, not the grave, that does it.

Didn't I read that line in another post, recently?

say a fish spontaneously dies. A young seal comes across this fish and eats it — ThinkingMatt

Nature is red in tooth and claw, as Lord Tennyson wrote; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, as Thomas Hobbes put it. Just to keep things realistic here, the fish was most likely altogether alive and doing it's thing when the young seal joyously sank its teeth into it. It was not conveniently dead already. Predatory animals generally begin eating their prey before death has ensued. The prey are lucky if death is swift.

We try very hard to keep the affairs of our lives well outside the experience of prey species, except when we decide to pursue predation on each other, which happens all too often.

Perpetual Theory of Life
To identify the purpose of one’s life we first need to look at the purpose of the entirety of life as a whole. The entirety of life exists as a continuing loop of birth, survival and death. Where survival brings birth and death brings survival. — ThinkingMatt

The force that through the green fuse drives the flower
Drives my green age; that blasts the roots of trees
Is my destroyer.
And I am dumb to tell the crooked rose
My youth is bent by the same wintry fever.
... — Dylan Thomas, 1914-1953

The life of the world in which we share doesn't have a purpose apart from itself. Life is it's own purpose, going on now some 3.5+ billion years. A long time, a quarter to a third of the age of the universe itself.

We, being querulous creatures, haven't been satisfied with mere existence. We want an explanation and a meaning and plan, preferably that revolves around us--we paragons of animals. So we devise all sorts of reasons for our existence, and set up various purposes which we should fulfill.

The purpose of life is to...


• get as much as one can before somebody else gets it?
• find happiness?
• enjoy life to the fullest?
• figure out what life is for?
• serve God?
• eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die?
• WTF?
• travel from the cradle to the grave along the straight and narrow?
• make love?
• create beauty?
• exist?
• make lots of babies?
• wallow in the mire because life is meaningless?
• make other people happy?
• discover wisdom?
• find the purpose of life?
  

Maybe we should stop worrying about the "purpose of life" or "the meaning of life", but we won't. We can't. It's in our nature to seek meaning, and when we can't find it already made, to create it. Man the meaning maker. There are not exactly an infinity of possibilities, but there are quite a few, enough to suit every taste.

It seems odd to think of the body as being discontinuous, separate, from the environment. You seem to be thinking of "direct access" in terms of some kind of 'prime-itive' intuition of it as being analogical to touching objects with the skin. — Janus

A body IS part of the environment, quite right, and visa versa. But, the activity of the brain which we are talking about is not part of the environment, which is why we are having this discussion. If the energetic physical world were directly accessible to the brain we wouldn't talk about a representation of the real world.

Some parts of the brain are in contact with the real world -- smoke some weed, drink a gin and tonic, eat a piece of cake -- and the THC, alcohol, and sugar end up in neurons. On the other hand, some parts of the environment don't end up in the brain. One of the problems of medicine is that some drugs don't cross the blood-brain barrier. The anti-vital medicines for HIV can't cross the B-B barrier.

I don't think of "reality" as being constructed by the brain, I don't think of it as "construction" at all, but as a collaboration involving the environment and the body (the brain being merely a part of the latter). The collaboration is ever changing, just as the environment and the body are constantly changing. — Janus

The brain collaborates with the body (of which it is a part) to interact with other brains, bodies, and the energetic physical environment around us. But it doesn't seem that brain can have direct access to the reality of other bodies, warmth, cold, soil, rivers, etc. Of course, the CNS and the brain (and the body) are all one. But the interpretive function of the brain -- the making sense of everything -- is inside the skull. From infancy forward, it has to take the heavy flow of meaningless data and make it meaningful. Why does it do that? Because evolution primed brains to do that. It has to 'construct' a consistent reality into which information fits.

And it does fit -- 999 times out of a thousand. Fairly often we come across information that doesn't fit (optical illusions for instance, or a cow walking down Madison Avenue in New York) and we stop and stare at it. "What is a holstein doing here!" we exclaim, seeing it's wide black and white body cow-walking along.

I believe that the reality "out there" matches (more or less) the reality my brain, your brain, everybody's brain, has constructed. I believe it because the body's interaction with the environment is very consistent. I sincerely hope my faith in reality is well founded. IF not -- well, let's not even go there.

I think what deters people from committing crimes, whether it be shoplifting, lying, or murder, is the deeply ingrained morality of their family, and the less deeply placed morality of society at large. Most people teach their children not to steal, not to tell lies, not to hurt other people, not to destroy things just for the hell of it, and so on. People who don't teach their children how to behave probably produce the liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels which we all have to put up with.

It has to be repeated again, most murders are not planned, and are motivated by events occurring immediately before the impassioned act of killing--the jealous husband murder. Those murders present one kind of problem. First degree murder with specifically targeted victims is a much different kind of problem. Perhaps capital punishment is suitable for those cases -- not as a deterrent but as a psychological, or moral, satisfaction.

People who plan and execute murder, seek to escape apprehension by the police, then seek to escape conviction in court (people like Whitey Bolger in Boston) weren't deterred by much of anything. Maybe he should be executed, in public, like the good old days. Sell hot pastrami and beer -- hotdogs and soda for the kids. (not a serious suggestion, maybe)

Aren't there a lot of things you don't do because they are just wrong? My guess is that that is the case for you, and most other people. It isn't punishment that deters you, it's deeply ingrained morality instilled when you were a child. Fear of punishment (having parental love withdrawn) is the stylus that writes morals on the heart of a child.

I don't think adults are deterred by fear of punishment, for the most part. People who are planning to steal assume they won't be caught (and if they are fairly careful, they probably won't be). People who lie assume they will get away with it. Yes, they know punishments occur, but punishment seems unlikely. (People calculate the likelihood of getting a parking ticket more carefully than they calculate the risk of being embarrassed by being caught lying.)

Our brains are locked up in our skull; there is no way for the brain to directly access anything outside the skull, except chemical signals that are delivered by blood from elsewhere in the body. There are the senses, nerves plugged into the brain. But the senses are limited to picking up vibrations of various kinds, which gets interpreted by the brain. The nerves in the fingers don't actually touch the tree -- they come very close, but not quite.

Maybe the closest we come to direct experience is smell. Open a bottle of carbon tetrachloride and the chemical is up one's nose and into the brain, or so it seems. Smell enough carbon tetrachloride and the stuff will be in your brain, doing you no good.

If this is reality, and it seems to be, then it is appalling that we never actually come in contact with reality. I mean, reality just seems so real... And it's all a construction (but not a one-off construction -- the brain revises the construction all the time.)

We (our brains) are always at least 2 steps away from reality. (Vibration stimulates nerve impulse transmissions to the brain, and then the brain interprets the impulses.) Mustn't forget proprioception -- it's an import sense too, telling the brain how the body is positioned with respect to constructed objects.

I definitely don't like this, but I don't see any way around it.

It is not enough that the working class realize they're being screwed by an elite. There must be a shift in the general perception of what the "good" is, else a revolution will only breed new systems of oppression and evil. — Zosito

That is so very very true.

We don't put new wine in old wineskins (but we do put whiskey in barrels that had old wine in them, which yields good results. Jesus wasn't familiar with fine whiskey or bourbon. Maybe he would have been more a gin man.)

The "customer service" answering and routing devices are designed to do two things: Demonstrate to the consumer just how unimportant he or she is to the company, and to discourage him or her from annoying the company any further. They could just as well say "Drop dead, creep."

The system that Apple uses for it's voice to text feature uses big mainframe computers to perform the task of interpreting speech. I'm not sure whether it's a Google or Apple operation. That's how it manages to be as good as it is. Perfect? No, but it is head and shoulders above what "customer service" voice recognition fails to do even poorly.

Using some clues, one can sound as though one understands the physical mind better than one actually can. While we have made some real progress in developing some understandings about how the brain works, we ]don't know far more than we do know.

It's possible that we may not be able to transcend the limits of our brains to understand how the brain works.

Given that we do not understand how our own intelligence is achieved, it seems very unlikely we will design an actual artificial intelligence. We may have to be content with computers that seem like they are intelligent, but are not. That doesn't strike me as a problem. Isn't it enough that we can build programs to perform very useful functions like speech recognition, or autonomous automobiles?

The system was created by people — Meta

Created by some people, imposed on and acceded to by the rest. What it will take to end, or change this system is revolution. Oh, oh, alarms go off - warning flags go up!

Yes, revolution, but it need not, i hope will not be the French Revolution with heads piling up next to the guillotine. Nor the Russian Revolution of 1917, which ushered in the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin. More like a concerted take over by the rank and file of the people. Certainly that won't happen next week, and in no case will it be easy. It will take extensive and intensive organizing and a tremendous rise in class consciousness among the working class (the ruling class already has all the class consciousness they need).

Take off your wooden shoes and thoughtfully drop them into the works, if you can't think of anything else to do, but be selective.

And for everyone's sake, start thinking now about what it is that we want, and articulate it.

We can agree in that American English is the only English! — Meta

I like American English better than any other kind, but that's the English I grew up with. BTW, a lot of Americans like the sound of "received pronunciation" that they frequently hear on BBC and other British productions. They tend to think news delivered with an upper class British accent is "more authoritative".

IF the average school, whether you like it or hate it, dropped grades and left everything else the same, the public education would still be unsatisfactory. It's unsatisfactory for reasons having little to do with grades.

What is unsatisfactory?

1. One of the unstated functions of education is to keep children, youth, and young adults off the streets. To many youth on the streets, especially the wrong kind of youth (varies from place to place) makes some adults, business people, and police nervous. As a function of keeping children off the streets, schools also help regulate the labor pool, keeping younger adults in consuming rules rather than producing roles. (Of course, educational programs -- even state operated and private universities and trade schools -- are a form of service production which needs students in class.)

2. Schools are instruments of ideology for the ruling class (whatever ruling class you have got). History, civics, literature, social studies, and sometimes other subjects as well, are tailored to fit the ruling ideology. So, for instance, you won't find labor lauded and honored in history books; you won't find Manifest Destiny (an American obsession) described as aboriginal genocide. You will find the super rich of the the 19th century described as robber barons, but you won't find the current superrich described that way.

Eastern Europe is going to have it's own ruling ideologies to deal with in school.

3. The standards to which American students are expected to perform are generally too low. About 10% of American students receive a very good education -- high standards, good teachers, good curricula. Another 10% to 20% get a reasonably good education. But maybe 70% get a sloppy, low-grade education. It isn't what students want, necessarily, it isn't what teachers want either, but at least in this country, many people are at a loss to specify what children really need to learn.

4. The capitalist class aggravates the whole problem of education by structuring the economy to render many kinds of workers irrelevant. Lower skilled workers are obviously less relevant to the American and Western European economies these days (because we exported all that work to Asia). But so are some skilled and professional fields becoming irrelevant. Just how necessary is an old fashioned literature major (like myself, though I graduated from college 50 years ago and am not looking for work anymore)? No very.

How necessary are the many people who used to, and still do, work in middle management? Companies are laying these people off all the time and replacing them with computerized functions.

5. What is life for? Education should prepare people to answer that question, and then conduct their lives in the most suitable way to achieve at least some satisfaction and happiness in life. I don't think a lot of leaders have a clue, at this point, how to educate people that way. (Because, for one thing, to frankly address the problem of what your life is for, we have to admit to students that maybe their lives are functionally irrelevant.)