Waking up. About 5am in the morning.

 

Adding to the thought I wrote last night...,

 

I think that today's education system relies too much on interpreting what is already established.
Someone's else's idea. Someone else's principles. Which isn't a bad thing. But when that comes to creativity, asking student to create something of their own, of which is the goal by the way, revering established people from history. They can't. So I think there's some problem in such a way that... People forgotten or choose not to work from principles of things. Simpler foundations they remove the need to think at the convenience of readily interpreted package and the need to interpret this for the sake of grades. And often what you get is recited knowledge reliant on memory and analysis of the knowledge from the surface level understanding of their establishement... So the solution to that is... After a certain age, say age of 10, in a different approach to encourage education in principles of thought, no guardians of gateway to their expansion of knowledge (parents or teachers) should give them what is established without first attempting to mimic the creative behavior from the principles of making. Meaning, if a child wants a toy, that toy should be made by the child in the most primitive and baser form. Then the more sophisticated form can be brought to the child in comparison. The same goes with all types of knowledge. Isn't that what schools are doing? No, not really. Some do, but I think most are tailored for grades. Better teachers are 'consultants' that speaks volumes in their wisdom/flair/navigation of knowledge in their expertise. Hence why I suggest my website. Experiential learning must be seen by the learner. And at the opposite end of navigating principles of creating, is the 'meta' knowledge people are not accustomed to. They are so specialized in their own respective fields that they dismiss or haven't seen the 'threshhold' or 'capacity' of approach to research, which is at the higher level of learning (at PhD levels) which can be observed from scientific papers and try reverse engineering actionable steps to their approach. Of which most, do not. So I think that key to becoming a 'polymath' is in recognizing that threshhold. That something higher exists and their navigational methods to extract an outcome from that method of analysis, once one method is recognized and mimicked, those principles of thought will be applied to all forms of knowledge that they encounter. And at that point they understand quantification (measurement of the topic/object at hand by numerical value) can be altered in such a way that ultimately can be enhanced with a better value and altered to convenience of society. Breaking things down into more fundamental, baser level from the nature of what it is, but simultaneously using higher level of control to extract an outcome of discovery or enhancement... So these approaches are important for layman to understand. More so than the memory based learning..

 

GPT interpretation of my writing. Not quite the approach I have in mind, but it understands the pathways. Through the website, experiential level transparency in all knowledge, will result in question of need. Hence the step of creation will be forced, as solutions to roadblocks will be questioned by the limitations of what is offered as convenience by the society.