education
It is apparent that in order to insure that fairness conforms to the evolutionary standard, intuition must be superseded by some other mechanism.
Evolution has endowed the vast majority of human brains with the cognitive mechanisms described under the section on Truth. So the basic neurological structures required to test any information for validity exist in virtually all brains. That is, everyone has the potential capacity to test any claim for truthfulness. In this instance, does a cultural claim of fairness conform to the evolutionary standard? Even in those circumstances where that capacity cannot be realized directly because we, personally, do not have access to the technology or the requisite background information to make such a test, we know those standards that must be employed by those who do have such access if their claims to truth are to be accepted as valid. Without the employment of such standards, no claim can be valid. In theory, then, everyone has the capacity neutralize deception by the application of the truth-producing methodology. So why don’t they?
The problem is that evolution has predisposed human beings to rely on certain “cognitive intuitions” in our thinking process, with no corresponding natural impulse to use the brain to be a truth-producing instrument, as we now understand what “truth” is. The trouble with cognitive intuitions is that we have discovered a number that fatally compromise our ability to get to the truth of things. Why this should be so is easily understandable from an evolutionary viewpoint. Our cognitive intuitions evolved as mental “short cuts” for the enhancement of survival in a hunter/gatherer environment, and they were successful adaptations for that purpose. But they only had to be right more often then they wrong for the intuition to be preserved by evolution. In other words, a slight statistical survival advantage over time would be sufficient to preserve an intuitive “short cut” in thinking, and evolution would have “no concern” about the failures produced by that same trait.
However, although evolution has “no concern” about the failures produced by its primitive cognitive intuitions, we most certainly do, since human experience has demonstrated that our cognitive intuitions have a very high failure rate in the quest for the truth department. It is apparent that these intuitive cognition mental traits, which provided enough of a survival advantage to get preserved in a “hunter/gatherer” environment, are simple too blunt an instrument to be of much use in the current “acquisition of the truth” survival task.
In the course of evolution, it often happens that a trait that evolved for one purposed has been “high-jacked” for use in fulfilling an entirely different purpose. Evolutionary biologists have coined the term “exaptation” for this occurrence. An example would be the evolution of wings. It is an axiom of evolution that it has no foresight. That is, it uses the materials at hand to solve the problem at hand. It has no capacity to determine that the materials at hand could have been better designed for the task, and improve that design before proceeding to use the improved material to solve the problem with maximum efficiency. Nor does it have the capability of solving the immediate problem and, in addition, including a “tweak” which will handle a problem on the immediate horizon but not yet at hand. It just plods along, a step at a time, oblivious to the down stream consequences of its operations. Since the process of evolution has no foresight, it has no capacity to anticipate the survival value of flight and, on the basis of that anticipation, evolve structures that will enable flight to occur. Structures are selected for in evolution only to provide an immediate survival advantage. Therefore, the evolution of wings had to evolve from structures fulfilling some immediate survival advantage other than flight. Then, over time, those initial structures undergo successive modifications by incremental steps, with each step providing an immediate survival advantage, until full flight had evolved by the modification of the initial structure into wings. In effect, the initial non-flight-producing structures have been “exapted” into flight-producing wings. Apparently, flight provides an effective survival advantage in many environmental niches since it has independently evolved several times from very different structures.
But, paradoxically, although the process itself is without foresight, some of its products do have it. In order for foresight to exist, there must be an entity that can accumulate knowledge as to how a system functions and use that knowledge to make reasonable predictions about the outcomes of future system’s operations. Human beings fit that bill. In addition, our uniquely evolving consciousness and intellect have allowed us expand our foresight capacity beyond simple analysis for short-term situations (which seems to be the case with other creatures endowed with foresight) to highly complex analysis of the long term. Using the information gained from the truth-producing methodology, our foresight now tells us that progressive acquisition of the truth is the best technique available for enhancing the probability of the survival of the human species. Although the human brain has not been naturally endowed with an intuition to get to the truth of things, we have discovered techniques for “rewiring” the brain for that purpose. We can, in effect, “exapt” the “hunter/gather survival brain” into a “truth producing survival brain”. Another name for this rewiring activity is education.
As noted above, evolution has provided the vast majority of human brains with those cognitive mechanisms needed for a truth-producing instrument. Although virtually all brains contain these structures, they differ in other structures, which means that how rewiring can access those basic structures will differ from individual to individual. Since human variability applies to the way brains function, no single technique will be successful in this rewiring attempt with all individuals. Therefore, the fundamental task in education should be to diagnose how each individual’s brain functions and, on the basis of that diagnosis, to reveal those methods to the individual which most effectively exploit that functioning for that individual’s benefit by acquisition of the truth. From this perspective, it is apparent that the fundamental task of education has nothing to do with the contents of a traditional “curriculum” but should be focused on putting each individual “in touch” with his/her own particular brain functioning.
The task of getting an individual in touch with his/her particular brain functioning consists of two elements. The first is the diagnosis and revelation as noted above. Second, individuals must have access to the mental tools to extend the range and skill in their thinking. Once individuals have an understanding of how their particular brain functions, they have the capability to acquire mental tools. What are mental tools? Since all thought is the manipulation of abstractions, a mental tool is created by our ability invent abstract representations of the world.
A hammer is a very useful tool, however, if it is the only tool in my toolbox I am severely restricted in the type of tasks I can accomplish. If I expand my range of tools to include a saw, plane, chisel, etc., the range and skillful completion of tasks that I can now accomplish has expanded exponentially. The more tools we have at our disposal, the greater the range of our capabilities. By analogy, as we increase the variety of our mental tools, we increase the range and skill of our capability for thinking.
The fundamental abstraction is, of course, language. Its acquisition is not a problem since evolution has provided nearly everyone with special mental structures for an intuitive ability to master this abstraction. But that nearly universal intuitive ability for the mastery of abstractions ends with language. For all other abstractions, mastery depends on a sustained and conscious effort. That sustained and conscious effort is the act of rewiring the brain to “exapt” the “hunter/gather survival brain” into a “truth producing survival brain”.
There is no intuitive ability for the acquisition of literacy. Indeed, to become fluently literate, requires about a decade of effort for most children. But we now know that nearly universal fluent literacy is possible. The failure to achieve that goal is the result of an inability or disinclination to make the necessary social investment, and the ineptitude in our teaching techniques.
After language and literacy, the most powerful mental tool available is mathematics. At one time, literacy was assumed to be possible only for a small subset of populations, those who had heightened “intelligence” and a particular talent. Although we now realize that assumption is false with regard to literacy, we still hold fast to it for mathematics. Of course, it is true that there is a small subset of populations that will have a special aptitude for mathematics. This will happen because all brains differ and some brains will have an intuitive advantage in dealing with mathematics. But should we draw the conclusion from this that the only folks who should engage in mathematics are those with this special talent?
To sort this out, let’s examine the situation with regard to running. In hunter/gather environments, individuals who have a natural talent to run fast have a decided survival advantage since that ability increases their chances of obtaining, and decreases their chances of being, prey. But is it sensible to draw the conclusion from this that the only folks that should engage in running are those with a special talent for the skill? That would be, of course, absurd. Whatever talents in this department individuals may possess, their survival opportunities are enhanced by getting the most advantage they can out of those talents. After all, it isn’t necessary to be the fastest runner for every situation; it is only necessary to be faster in a particular situation. We just have to be a bit faster then a potential danger or opportunity. Also, a talent is seldom decisive in isolation. It is the value of our talents in combination (speed, visual acuity, accuracy in throwing, etc.) that is the final determinant of our evolutionary success in the hunter/gatherer environment.
Just as we now understand that the assumption that literacy was a talent accessible only to a unique few was false, we must also understand that this assumption is false with regard to mathematics. It is possible for virtually every neurotypical person to achieve an understanding of the basic concepts of arithmetic, geometry, algebra, trigonometry and the calculus. I know this is so because I was able to accomplish this in my dotage without a teacher, solely through books. And I am a mediocrity, with no natural aptitude for mathematics, who began this quest with mastery of only arithmetic, elementary algebra and plain geometry. The near universal failure to teach mathematics effectively is, like our failure with fluent literacy, a function of ineptitude and disinterest.
Interestingly, most cultures value mathematics only for cultural replication. That is, it is recognized that mathematics is necessary for certain professions needed for cultural replication – such as engineers, physicists, actuaries, etc - but beyond such professions effective mathematical education pretty much ends with basic arithmetic. No recognition is given to the proposition that mathematics is an essential thinking tool in the modern era and should be in the tool kit of everyone who wants to regard themselves as in control of their own thinking and “well educated”.
Although literacy and mathematics are the premier mental tools, the acquisition of any abstraction representing the functioning of the world increases the range and scope of our thinking. The curriculum for the evolutionary standard of education could also include such things as music (reading and writing, not necessarily performing), knowledge of a foreign language, etc. The purpose of such a curriculum is not to become a professional in a particular field, but rather to increase the accuracy, flexibility and range of everyone’s thinking.
Finally, as noted above, cognitive research has revealed those intuitive functionings of brain processes that invariably corrupt the process of logical reasoning. Surprisingly, these kinds of cognitive errors have been clinically demonstrated to occur in the thinking of persons who are considered by conventional standards to be highly educated - doctors, lawyers and mathematicians. It is, therefore, essential that real education identifies these intuitive pitfalls in thinking and demonstrates those strategies that can be employed to prevent our thinking from being compromised by them.
The conventional definition of being “well educated”, consisting of being “credentialed” by society as to the mastery of a traditional curriculum, is not the standard of education required by our current evolutionary circumstances. Since the premier evolutionary quality of human beings is the potential to think, being “well educated” must now be defined as the successful re-wiring of the “the “hunter/gather survival brain” into a “truth producing survival brain” as outlined above. That is the current evolutionary standard: as our environment changes, so change the qualities needed for survival.
The evolutionary standard for education has the potential to seriously disrupt the process of social deception. It would provide the opportunity among all members of the group (including the disadvantaged members) to test social rules for validity on fairness. The evolutionary standard of education, in conjunction with the truth-producing methodology, provides a basis for judging the quality of information that is independent of the source of that information. In fact, the source of the information is now irrelevant and, therefore, as is the concept of “authority”. The only issue is the method by which such information was validated. Each individual would now have the potential to understand the standards that method requires, and to enforce that standard, at least with regard to their own thinking. In short, each person would have the capacity to drastically reduce the potential of being hoodwinked into the acceptance of any social claims to fairness that are in conflict with the evolutionary standard.
Incidentally, our foresight and capacity for thought do not allow us to “transcend” evolutionary processes since those traits are, themselves, products of evolution. Since all life is embedded in the process of evolution, it is not possible to transcend those fundamental dynamics. What foresight and the capacity for thought do allow, is the capability to understand evolutionary dynamics and to use that understanding to consciously engineer those dynamics into circumstances which enhance the probability of the survival of the human species by increasing the variety of insights through the expansion of the number of thinking people.
From the above, it is now possible to make a distinction between the concepts of education and training.
Training is that which cultures provide under the designation of “education”. Since the primary cultural imperative is to insure its own replication, it must train in those tasks that maintain the culture. That training can be highly complex, for instance, in the training of physicians. However, true education, as defined above, is not an intended purpose of that process since true education has the potential to destabilize the culture.
Due to the urgency (from an evolutionary viewpoint) of transforming hunter-gather brains into truth-producing brains, training should only be initiated after true education has been achieved.
- Home
- Introduction
- Part 1
- Truth
- Insights
- The Human Condition
- Education
- Human Decency
- Enlightenment
- Part 2
- Culture Demystified
- The Elite
- Mediocrities
- Self-regard
- Self and Society
- Part 3
- Morals, Ethics, and Virtue
- The Concept of Evil is a Bad Idea
- Religion
- Patriotism
- Freedom
- Market Capitalism
- Wealth Distribution