TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

What was not taught in school that you realize, REALLY should have been? (Why?)

For me, things like Financial Literacy, Entrepreurism, Cooking and Sex Ed (and the Psychology of Relationships), were not taught. And I realize that I have had to spend quite a few years now bumbling through life with the rest of my friends, rather clueless. Yet, I'd always score high on calculus quizzes, in labelling body parts and I am an excellent speller. Oh! And I am really confident! : /

I feel I have useless superpowers in some areas and not enough power in others where I super need it. (Perhaps my ignorance is ripe for being picked on by predators in society...) Most of the things that I wish I learned, improved the quality of my life and mind once I did learn them.

What is your deal?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 18 2012: strangely, i can't think of anything. whatever i miss from my education, they could not possibly give me back then. i mean, proper economics is not even believed today, science of nutrition is still changing every year, being critical is not exactly praised by the mainstream, and such things. it is still not the time for these areas to enter the classroom.

    what i pity is the amount of time spent on useless things. i still can construct a triangle from a side, an angle on it, and the opposing angle. i wonder if i should put that on my CV.
    • thumb
      Sep 18 2012: What about self esteem? All this 'doing', and trying to improve oneself, does it create security and happiness or fear and anxiety, do you think? If all people in the world felt true inner self worth, how much of our global disunity and conflict would simply disappear? Most of it I say.
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: i don't know what about self esteem. i'm kind of sure constructing triangles does not help it. and for those that were not very good at it, it was a self esteem destroying experience.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2012: Well I guess it one can be a substitute for the other for a time?
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: depends on what do you mean by self esteem. i had to look up to be clear on that. it seems that self esteem means the emotional variant of self knowledge. it can be positive or negative, and it also can be baseless or true. who needs a positive self esteem that lacks basis? sure it feels good, so as heroin. but for many, current school systems gives a negative self esteem that lacks basis. now that is bad, beyond doubt. maybe it is a lesser problem in the US, as there, large part of the curriculum is to boost positive self esteem (without basis of course).

        we spend way too much time on building a positive image of ourselves, as opposed to build a true knowledge of what we are really capable of.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2012: I think you too might be confusing ego with self esteem. Self knowledge, or the emotional varient thereof, means a deep concious and more importantly, unconcious, security with oneself and the world.

          If you do not possess this, your feeling is a constant feeling of want, a personal sense of needing to be better or worse still, an innate sense of failure. For those of us who have experienced this lack of self knowledge, which is nearly everyone, its nearly impossible to imagine what it is like to possess such inner security. Therefore we do not, most of the time, even bother to seek it.

          It can be strengthened or recovered when we are children. But telling kids they can be then next president of the usa is not the same thing as building self knowledge. Its just another silly ego game based on original insecurity.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2012: ...actually, it can be recovered when we are adults too, but this is more difficult. therefore I say, should be the first thing we do in preschool and at early childhood. Studies show, when inner security is addressed, kids learn to build triangles much quicker and other cool stuff too.
      • thumb
        Sep 20 2012: i don't see how self knowledge would lead to security with oneself. what if i know that i'm lazy, and i hate that. how would that grant me a feeling security?
        • thumb
          Sep 20 2012: Your logical mind cant help you with this one Krisztian, it's whats going on for people underneath that drives them. Emotion drives them. What makes the emotion? This is the only question really worth answering.
    • thumb
      Sep 19 2012: Hey man, solving right triangles and finding the value of the missing length are nothing to laugh at, I use that when I eat my Reese's puffs for breakfast, go on facebook, code java, and doodle in class. It's like breathing, IT'S A NECESSITY OF LIFE.
    • Sep 19 2012: "i mean, proper economics is not even believed today"

      And by "proper" economics you mean Austrian "let them eat cake and drink whatever liquids we trickle down on them" laissez-faire economics, way to present your own personal preference for what is essentially not even a science (economics just isn't real science) as if it were an immutable fact, I'm sure education needs a lot more of that...
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: proper is proper. it means does not contain logical fallacies, falsehoods and such. metaphors don't help. relativism also doesn't. understanding helps.
        • thumb
          Sep 20 2012: Krisztian, I fully agree with you regarding relativism being useless and the lack of encouragement for critical thinking in schools nowadays

          Falsehoods don't help, but metaphors, well, if you have ever taught a classes to young kids, you will remember that pieces of knowledge embedded in stories (whether true or fictional) are remembered best

          Let me now pick on "proper" as you define it here, maybe you are right the austrian school of economics goes to great lenghts to be "proper" and attempt to close all open loops within its framework. Logically consistent, well, maybe yes.

          But proper also means appropriate or adequate. And economics as taught in the austrian school of economics is not proper in that sense. I am yet to see a country that implements "pure" laissez faire capitalism. Only then we'll be able to see if which of the the claims of the austrian school are confirmed or not

          cheers
        • Sep 20 2012: @Andres Aullet: I'm sure Krisztián is quite capable of addressing your concern, but here are my thoughts, anyway.

          If we were to looking at the logic of your argument, one could also say 'I am yet to see a country that implements "pure" corruption-free governance. Only then we'll be able to see if which of the the claims of the honest principles are confirmed or not'.

          The whole idea of "no one has tried it yet, so it won't work" gets you very limited mileage. What Austrian economics has going for it are:
          1. Sound reasoning behind principles
          2. Accurate predictions of what will go wrong with each aspect of the erosion of liberty

          I, myself, though largely Austrian in my outlook, am not convinced by ALL aspects of the Austrian canon. However, I am convinced by the bulk of it. The reason I mention that: I am not averse to discussion; I only stand to gain by discussing issues with knowledgeable people. However, I find that when people are dismissive of such a well-reasoned structure, they are mostly people who are unwilling to explore and to learn.
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: what about this statement: corporate tax is paid by either employees, or owners, or customers, or some combination of these.

        would you say it is unscientific, up to interpretation, dubious, questionable or what?
      • Sep 19 2012: 'Austrian "let them eat cake and drink whatever liquids we trickle down on them" laissez-faire economics'?

        No wonder you forgot to add "straw man" to the list of logical fallacies ;-).

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.