Why Do I Want To Vote For Trump?

A disclaimer: the add for this post was banned by Facebook. 
_____
In 2016 I didn't want to vote for Donald J. Trump.
But now I do.
Why?
I want to start from an old joke (used on July 7, 2017 in “When will the Democrats make the first step of the 12-step program (admitting!)? Seems - never!”).

To study the development of intellectual abilities in a monkey researchers designed a cage with a tree and hanged a banana on a branch to keep the banana high enough. Monkey enters the cage and sees the banana. He tries to jump, but the banana is too high. He tries to clime the tree, but it is covered with plastic, so the monkey just slides back. Monkey looks around and sees a stick. He takes the stick and hits the banana down. Success!

Researcher prepared the cage for the next run, placed a new banana and left for a lunch. Suddenly a hungry physics graduate gets in the cage. He sees banana. He jumps, but the banana is too high. He tries to clime the tree but slides back. He starts to shake the tree, but the banana holds tightly to the branch. He keeps shaking the tree. Nothing happens. Researches returned from lunch and see the student shaking the tree. Finally, one researcher gets tired of watching, switches on an intercom and says: “Hey, take a second, think it through.” “F@#k thinking”, says the student, “All I need - just shake it, shake it harder”.

__________

I want to vote for Donald Trump. 

Will I vote for him?

My heart does not allow me to vote for such a person.

By my mind wants me to vote for him.

My reason is not the same reason that every Trump-bro supporter has: “He may be a racists misogynist bigot, a liar, a thief, a narcissistic psychopath with a dying brain, and a traitor, but as long as he keeps kicking the Democrats in the nuts and filling offices with our people, HE'S MY GUY!”

No.

My mind tells me that in 2020 all Americans will have to chose between a bad choice and a very bad choice. And my reason tells me that Trump is bad. But he is the lesser of the two evils. In a long run, if in 2020 a Democrat will take the White House, he/she will do more damage than four more years of Trump.

Because none of the Democrats has any idea about what has gone wrong with the country and what to do about it. Moderates (e.g. Biden) simply have no vision of what needs to be done; hence, in four years there will be no serious changes in politics and economy; people will not get what they been promised; people will get even more disappointed, and America will enter the era of Trump-2.0. If an extremist (e.g. Sanders) takes the WH, American economy will fall into a state of permanent chaos; progressive extremists wants to drastically alter the fabric of American economy making it government-based; the fight will consume all the energy; people will not get what they been promised; people will get even more disappointed, and America will enter the era of Trump-2.0.

By my calculations, the chance that in 2020 a Democrat will win is very small. Progressive extremists will lose the electoral college because they are blinded by their own ideas, and do not see that those American voters who will make the difference do not want any “free stuff” promised by the progressive extremists. Americans want to feel proud of their lives, and for that they do not want charity, they want decent jobs, they want decent wages that would let them pay for things they need (including food, college, and healthcare), not be handed down by a government.

The most vocal and energetic support for the progressive extremists comes from youngsters. There is nothing wrong, or strange, or new about it. Young people inherently are prone to extreme ideas. For example, review the history of the Cultural Revolution in China. If you don’t know that history, but you care about politics – search it and read about it. If you don’t know that history, and do not care about politics – you deserve Trump.

Anyway, the point is, none of the progressive extremists will be able to win over enough voters in the swing states. The #1 question that progressive extremists should ask themselves but don’t is “why did people who voted for Obama then voted for Trump?” Hence, they will not get those votes.

A moderate Democratic candidate also will not have an appeal strong enough to attract voters who in 2016 switched to Trump from Obama. In 2020 the psychology of that voter will be “Yes, Trump is awful, but economy seems fine, I'm doing OK, why shake it?”. Minority voters could swing the victory to a Democrat, but they do not want to use their own power.

My personal vote for Trump or against him will not make any difference. He will almost certainly win. Even though, there is a strategy that would guaranty the victory for the Democrats. But in order to develop and to pursue that strategy Democrats need to have people who have all four following traits: smart (to recognize and accept the most important aspects of economic and political reality), visionary (to be able to design a long-term multi-step poly-version plan of actions), bold (“having balls” to make risky decisions), powerful. Evidently, such people don’t exist. I’ve been writing about such a strategy for three years, and so far, no Democratic political strategist would even have mentioned something in that venue. And this is the most important reason a Democrat in the WH would be even worse than Trump – Democrats are not ready for the Presidency; they don’t have powerful people who are smart, visionary, and bold. It's bad when people cannot produce any original idea. It is even more sad when they even can't steal one from someone else.

NOTE: offering people policies that have been tried and failed in other countries is not smart or visionary, but still can be considered as bold. Governmental takeover a la “socialism” in such a country like U.S. cannot be any similar to Finland or Switzerland due the huge structural differences between the U.S. and Finland or Switzerland. Governmental takeover a la “socialism” in such a country like U.S. would be more similar to the USSR, and we all know how did it go.

People say: “Fooled me once, shame on you; fooled me twice – shame on me”. Democrats do not want to accept/believe that they have been fooled, and because of that they keep using the same foolish strategy that failed in 2016. Folk wisdom teaches - it's got to get worse before it gets better. Only when the Democrats lose again, they may finally take a hard look in a mirror and start asking hard questions, like – what did I do wrong, again?

That is why Trump’s victory in 2020 will be the best thing that will happen to the Democrats. It at least then they will begin to rethink their old playbook.

I know that using a third-party candidate for a switch is unconventional and hence seems risky (and America has lost the ability to take risk - in politics, management and in business). But Democrats had another (but kind of a similar) winning strategy in 2016, and still have it for 2020. Imagine that Bernie and Hillary would flip a coin - who will be the President and who will be VP. And ran together. Trump would had no chance. Now, Bernie and Joe could do the same (as I suggested three years ago). But they will not. Why? Because at the bottom, the Democratic party suffers from illiteracy, and at the top from arrogance and ignorance. I assume Biden could offer a hand to Sanders, but Bernie has ego matching Trump's. He would need a strong push from his base, but that is not going to happen.

And why, when marketing, are they stuck on the pictures of only two people - P, and VP? Joe and Bernie could announce their "shadow cabinet" (Harris for the Secretary of State, Booker for ..., etc.) and plaster all faces everywhere - WE ARE THE TEAM! Even Stalin has posters where he was the fourth - after Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

In full disclosure, three years ago I wrote that Trump’s victory was the best thing that happened to the Democrats, but the Democrats succeeded in proving me wrong. Well, let’s hope that the Democrats aren’t people who – in order to start thinking “outside of the bubble” –  need to be taught a hard lesson three or even more times.

Although, who knows?

People on the conservative side of politics do act like they are insane. Democrats may not be immune to the insanity, as well.

Albert Einstein said: “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity”. And that is what the Democrats have been doing so far for all three years.

In three years after the loss, democrats did only two smart/visionary/boldly things. The first was the initiation of the impeachment hearings. And the second one just recently happened.

This is what I wrote on July 6th, 2017 in my post Peering through the fog of brainwashing: “Conservatives have been quietly building up a brainwashing media machine. If you think FOX News, or Breitbart – you are wrong. Those guys are not quiet. Think Sinclair; and check the latest John Oliver’s piece on it (https://youtu.be/GvtNyOzGogc). BTW: what do Democrats do about it? Nothing. They do not have any vision.”

The point was that republicans have been quietly building a propaganda machine on a local level, not just via national broadcasting venues. And democrats did nothing beyond screaming to each other from one national network to another one. What’s the point of screaming if people who need to hear it do not even listen to you?

But three days ago my eyes caught this title: “The Left’s Plan To Counter Trump In Swing States: Fake Newspapers”. If a right-wing paper uses a degrading or dismissive language, it means they are scared, it means they know that whatever they write about may matter, may make a difference. So, I checked it out. Finally, a national level Democrat turned toward a local level news production. If they have read my piece two years ago, they could have started earlier, but better late than never. Probably, too late, but still, better than never.

It also means, there is a chance that some top-level democrat may mull on the winning strategy I have been explaining for three years. I know, it requires such difficult actions like reading, thinking, and that takes time, and the dominant acting stile (or ability?) is the opposite of that. But, since things are not looking good for any Democratic candidate, maybe it’s time to stop fidgeting and take a pause for the cause?

The latest polls show no definite frontrunner among the Democratic candidates. None. This can’t be good for the Democrats. It rises the uncertainty to the dangerous level. Way too dangerous.

But why did it happen? Why people cannot yet agree mostly on one person?

Because the #1 quality people are looking for in a candidate is an ability to beat Trump. And evidently, they do not see the one. They don’t see anyone who in their eyes is strong enough to win. That is why they look for secondary features – charisma , familiarity, age, proposals, etc. And everyone finds something here and there, hence – no front-runner, everyone is good for someone.

Political strategists, pundits, analysts, operators, donors think – let’s double-down on promoting candidates, eventually people will choose the one. Of course, eventually it will happen; someone will eventually get 50% + 1 vote on the convention. But as I described before, there is no democratic candidate who can beat Trump in 2020.

But there is a strategy that will bring the Democrats to the victory in 2020.

The strategy is not about one specific candidate.

On the contrary, because no candidate can win, the strategy has to be name-independent. This is when all political strategists, pundits, analysts, operators, donors make an immediate decision that I am insane. “It’s never about a strategy! It’s always about a candidate! All we need is a good candidate!” And how has it been working out for you?

This is my absolute belief.

Whoever democrat will get the nomination on the convention will not be able to win – alone.

Democrats want Trump removed, beaten, out.

Who will do it is secondary. How it’ll be done is secondary.

Now, hear me out. As the ultimate goal, “beating Trump” is NOT the same as “wining the WH by my guy”. If this sentence confuses you – retake 5^th grade math (from a good teacher). If this sentence upsets you - Grow up!

“Beating Trump” can only happen if (1) not only democrats will vote for a Democratic candidate, but (2) also un-enrolled, independent, third party voters will vote against Trump.

And for that they – un-enrolled, independent, third party voters – will need their own candidate.

Who?

Does not matter as much as how will that candidate end his/her run.

One possible scenario (there are many).

Democratic convention is over. Whoever comes the second or third makes an announcement that he/she will run as an independent.

“I still believe that I am a better choice. And I will do my best to beat Donald Trump. But I am not suicidal, and not an arrogant jerk. My Country is more important for me than anything else. If I see that people do not support me as much as needed for a victory. If I see that me running may help Trump to win, I will step aside. But that will not happen until people will tell me to do so.”

And about a month before the election day he/she steps aside and tells the supporters: “We had a good run, we did everything we could to beat Trump. But the odds are not in our favor. If we keep going, we may help Trump stay and we don’t want to have this on our conscious. Let’s give all our votes to …”

Done.

However, as I said before, there is almost no chance that Democrats would even consider this scenario. For that they would need to have people who are smart, visionary, bold, and powerful. And they don’t. That is why I can share this strategy despite my own belief that Democrats are not ready to have the WH. On another hand, if by a weird stroke of good luck, they will use my strategy and win, there is a chance they will also be open to revise some of their economic policies making those less extreme (how I described in several of my publications). 

So, I want to vote for Donald Trump. 

Will I vote for him?

My heart will not allow me to vote for such a person. My heart will stop me, because I have a belief that the President of one of the most important countries in the world should be a decent person. He or she should be knowledgeable, educated, intelligent, smart, visionary and a decisive person, too. But above all – decent. And Donald Trump is not. That is why my heart will make me vote against him.

Dr. Valentin Voroshilov

Note: I believe that when Albert Einstein said what he said, he meant a different word, not “insanity”. He was just too polite to say “idiocy” or “stupidity”. Those both are terms with a specific clinical meaning. Insanity is acting against the reason, meaning, be able to reason but choosing not to follow it. Idiocy and stupidity are terms for describing people who (due to different reasons) are not capable of logical thinking.Idiocy means the ability to reason exist but one chooses not to use it (hence, inability to reason due to psychological reasons). Stupidity means inability to reason due to genetic or cultural reasons. The top of the Democratic party has been regularly demonstrating all three. They could not even to exploit a natural tendency of Americans to decency (at least of the undecided ones). For three years they should have been running a general campaign “Americans are decent people” - no political names, just making sure that terms “an American” and “a decadent person” would become synonymous. Then they should have started adding examples of decent actions by previous Presidents, imprinting the idea “the President is a decent persons”. And in 2020 - the next stage - “Trump is no a decent person”, thankfully, there are plenty of examples of that.

Note: My motto (one of several) says: “Be ready to the worst-case scenario, but be happy if it doesn’t happen”. Climate change is happening but not everyone is on board with it. Climate scientists and proponents blame climate change deniers for not taking things seriously. For example, in a recent interview Noam Chomsky said “With regard to the climate crisis, yes, it’s time to panic. We are in deep trouble.” These should be the defining terms of the 2020 election”. What he and others do not realize that under the cloak of a climate change denier there often may be hiding a climate change greeter, meaning, a person who wants the climate to change in such a way that people would get hurt hard. In “1984” George Orwell explains a meaning of a war as a tool for preserving a hierarchical society. But a war is just one of the possible instruments for that. The general term for any hierarchical social structure to be strong and “needed” is “tough times”. Because “tough times” require “a strong hand”. The existence of powerful people who sabotage any actions directed at slowing down climate changes is my “worst-case scenario”. And I’m afraid, progressives, democrats do not take this scenario into an account.

Note: What is the function of money? Left or right, conservatives or democrats – they all give the same answer to this question, not difference there. Money is the measure of purchasing power. Who has more money can buy more stuff. Simple! The Federal Reserve may have its own theory of economic development, and economists of progressive politicians may push for another theory (MMT, for example), but their theories only differ by how to use money (different rules for distribution), the fundamental basis is the same: money is the measure of purchasing power. What is good about a theory, any theory – it’s a theory, meaning, people wrote it. Anyone who had an encounter with science, any science, knows that theories evolve. They have a structure and that structure may change. And sometimes, a new theory replaces on old one. I believe, it is time to reexamine the answer to the question about money. Money should be considered as the measure for productive power. If money is used to just make more money it violates its function. Unfortunately, this is how money has been seen for decades – just a source of more money. This view distorts economy and skews it more and more in a favor of people who already have more money. However, if money is the measure of a productive power, it changes the criteria of how money is being used. It also affects the rules of money distribution. For example, if money is concentrated in one place, it negatively affects production in the form of overproduction. There are many questions that may need to be revisited and the answers to which may be revised.

For example:
Where does money come from?

Who, how and why decides how much money is needed to be printed?
What is the purpose of taxes?
Why do people have to work?
Do people have to work?

How to establish the value of a person?

Who establishes the value of a person?
Is wealth and money the same thing?
How to decide what is a fair?
Who decides what is fair?

… The list is long.

The Road To World Domination Lies Through Mass Education; Part II

Note: this post is a part of the series:

China v. The U.S.: The Battle Of Strategic Thinking

The Biggest Fakes and Breakthroughs of The Next Decade

Confessions of a Creative Brain

The Road To World Domination Lies Through Mass Education: Part I

-----

How can Microsoft keep growing if the market for office software and electronic devices is saturated with cheaper but yet high-quality programs and devices (e.g. from China or India)? The severe competition brings  profit margins to almost zero. The cloud business is still growing, but it also shows signs of saturation.

The answer is simple – do not look for new market areas, look for new market regions, where technologies that are abundant in developed countries are still in greatly underdeveloped state.

Africa! The place where Bill Gates already has set his foot.

Yes, there is a problem with Africa - Africa is poor. Not many people can afford a computer or a tablet.

Hence, give them something they can afford, something cheap, or even free. But what can be used like a computer or a tablet.

You got it!

A phone!

There are very cheap smartphones. Cellular infrastructure already exists and in a state of a fast development (a good area for an investment). What is needed is an ability to use a smartphone as a computer. For that, make a phone to be a remote terminal for connecting with a computer. Naturally, that requires development of interconnected cloud centers. And cheap but effective software (e.g. a lighter version of an existing remote desktop).

That will be a solid investment in the future infrastructure that will keep clients within its framework.

Forever.

If you do it right, you can even revive a Windows phone (or a Fire phone, for that matter, if Jeff Bezos would be (a) fast enough to make the first move, and (b) had left any business interest beyond his idea-fix, i.e. leaving this planet for good).

The business project I just described illustrates the difference between “simple” and “easy”.

People often don’t see the difference between these two terms. But it is huge.

“Simple” means “the strategy to solve a problem and achieve a goal is clear”. The solution may have many steps, it may require a large volume of recourses, but it does not require a complex analysis for establishing what to do, and how to do it. The vast majority of actions are based on the existing experience, and require mostly just a certain modification of the previous experience to tune it up for the current situation. But the execution of the steps may not be “easy” because it may require a large amount of work of different type: organization, cooperation, coordination, etc.

“Simple” is opposite to “complex”, and “easy” is opposite to “hard”.

“Simple” and “easy” do not belong to the same axis. “Simple” and “complex” represent two opposite extremes of one axis that describes a parameter called “complexity”.

“Hard” and “easy” represent two opposite extremes of one axis that describes a parameter called “difficulty” (or “effort”).

A problem can be simple to figure out how to solve it, but hard to execute the solution.

For example, development of a settlement on the Moon is a simple problem that is hard to solve. The development of a settlement on the floor of the ocean is a hard problem. Harder than a Moon mission. But still it is a simple problem. Scientists and engineers know - in principle - how to build complicated systems that can sustain pressure difference of one atmosphere (on the Moon), or even several atmospheres (in the ocean).

A complex problem is such that requires special mental activities leading to designing a possible strategy for solving that problem, because this particular problem or a similar one has not ever been solved before. “Complex” means “needs a lot of figuring out”.

Terms “simple” and “complex” or “complicated” are the terms that describe the type of mental work required to solve a problem and achieve a goal. “Simple” is based mostly on retrieving and repeating. “Complex” requires designing a solution to a problem (by figuring things out).

“Easy” or “hard” describe the amount of work and effort, the number of steps and actions, the volume of resources required to solve a problem.

Of course, there are gray areas where “hard” and “complex” overlap. And some problems that in principle are simple still may need a lot of figuring out on lower more detailed levels.

The point is that humans may be involved into two very different practices (sometimes at the same time):

·     A practice when activities are based mostly on retrieving from a memory (a.k.a. Google) an already existing strategy and then reenacting steps that has been used before for achieving a similar goal in a similar situation.

·     A practice that as a major activity requires initiating and conducting a process of designing a strategy that can be (hopefully) used to achieve a goal.

In order to be able to participate in these different practices, i.e. to enact activities required by these different practices, people must be immersed into different educational practices.

In simple words: an ability to participate in a specific human practice is defined by the education one receives.

Unfortunately, in the U.S. vast numbers of people, including politicians, parents and educators, simply have no idea what education is, what is it about, why it's important, and how to make mass education sufficient and efficient.

People who run different organizations or projects related to education very often have a very primitive view on education.

The vast majority of people, including general public, educators, administrators, businessmen and politicians confuse “I learned” with “I heard”. They don't know the difference between education and enlightenment.

For them “you are learning” means “you are listening/watching/reading”, and  “you learned something” means “you have received some information you have not had in your memory before”. How can that new information be used - that doesn't matter.

But what is the purpose of information if one cannot use it for anything?

Presenting new information to people is not education, it is enlightenment.

Being enlightened may feel good, but unless that enlightenment alters in any way existing activities, helps solve a new problem, helps achieve a new goal, or helps with achieving an old goal but in a better (more efficient, faster) way – those feelings are irrelevant.

Education must result in a new ability, a new skill. An educated person is a person who can perform new skills and demonstrate new abilities, skills and abilities the person did not have before the education happened. “I learned” means “I can demonstrate how I do something I could not do before”.

An educated person is more than just and erudite with an encyclopedia in his/her memory, more than just a knowledgeable person who can quickly retrieve from a memory various facts (people call this person “smart” and that is also a wrong term: What does it mean to be "smart?"). An educated person is more than someone who knows how to do things. An educated person is someone who can do things.

Remember when I wrote: “vast numbers of people have no idea what education is, what is it about, why it's important, and how to make mass education sufficient and efficient”?

There I used a tool writers call “exaggeration”.

Of course, there are people who write about education and say that education is not just about memorizing facts, it is about becoming a competent person. That is why those people invented a new term “a competency” to describe the learning goals and outcomes of education. Educated people are people who have specific competencies, who are competent in a specific professional areas.

But when we ask – how do we know if someone is competent?; how do we know if someone possesses required competencies? The answer inevitably goes down to asking a person “what do you know?”, and “what can you do?”. “Asking” means “testing”, “assessing”, “measuring”. That’s why it’s clear that any competency is just a set, a combination of specific knowledge and skills.

In theory, everyone immediately agrees that educated people – as the result of an educational practice – should be knowledgeable and skillful. But in reality, the vast majority of educational institutions focus much more on enlightening students than on developing a specific skill set. And this is a serious issue of the contemporary education.

Proponents of “knowledge economy” point at another serious issue; they stress that one of such skill sets that should be required for every graduate is to be composed of skills that allow graduates to manage knowledge, i.e. to manage information flaw; graduates need to be able to search for an information required for achieving a goal, and then to use that information for achieving a goal.

My distinction between “simple” and “easy” points at another, the third one, and the most serious issue of the contemporary education.

Even if all graduates will possess skills required to manage knowledge, they will be at risk of being replaced by “knowledge machines” (e.g. think Google AI that can do a search for an answer to any specific question).

Even though the knowledge economy has not yet taken over the large part of the largest economies, it has already become obsolete. At least, ideologically.

Existing vast data bases eliminate the need for very knowledgeable people, because anyone who can type in a question can find an answer to practically anything. And with the rise of AI, relatively soon the bulk of knowledge management will be done without human interaction (this side of the future is discussed in other posts, starting from The Road To World Domination Lies Through Mass Education; Part I).

A practice when activities are based mostly on retrieving from a memory (a.k.a. Google) an already existing strategy will be transferred over to AI. A practice required reenacting steps that has been used before for achieving a similar goal in a similar situation will be transferred over to robots.  

Any practice that is based on a search and application of existing patterns (mechanical and mental) eventually will be transferred over to machines.

The only human practice that will remain human will be a practice that as a major activity requires initiating and conducting a process of designing a problem-solving strategy.

Hence, the goal of all educational institutions will be (and already should be) helping students developing skills required for designing a problem-solving strategy required for achieving a specific goal or set of goals.

In a design economy all graduates will have to be designers (in their professional fields).

To achieve this level of education students have to go through specifically designed training.

Training people helping them to develop a set of specific professional skills (make them competent in a specific professional area) essentially is not much different from training circus animals do tricks; show, explain, repeat.

Training people how to design solutions to problems they have never solved before is very much different from training circus animals do tricks.

The way educators teach today will never help students to develop an ability to design solutions to problems they have never previously solved. For every individual, the process of learning evolves through three main stages: at first it is based mostly on receiving and processing information; then education requires practicing in using that information for achieving specific goals. This leads to the formation of specific professional competencies. But how to make the next step, how to transition to the third stage?

The answer is simple and it is based on one of the laws of TeachOlogy (“Fundamental Laws of TeachOlogy”).

People do not learn by watching, they learn by doing.

People only learn by participating in a practice they have to learn.

To learn something, one needs to be immersed in a practice one is learning.

Learning is not about how intelligent one is. Place a baby Einstein in jungles and let him be raised by monkeys. He will become the smartest monkey in the jungle. But he will remain a monkey. 

To learn how to talk one needs to talk. To learn how to swim one needs to swim. 

To learn how to design a solution to problems one has never solved before one has to be designing solutions to problems one has never solved before.

Teaching as a human practice that has been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years. The first type of teaching was a face-to-face demonstration of specific operations a master would show to a student - how to operate with given things, objects and then student would be practicing with operating those objects, and the master would be guiding, correcting student’s actions. This type of teaching is very well known and a still is broadly spread everywhere around the world – it’s called coaching, or a master class. The invention of writing, and then printing allowed masters to describe all their experience and detach that description from their personality. Books could represent knowledge, like names and pictures of things use for specific operations, the description of the steps in such operations leading to achieving specific goals. Such texts would be basically a collection of a recipes for specific actions in activities. Using words and diagrams would allow students to learn some skills without a face-to-face interaction with a master. Books allowed to significantly scale up the process of knowledge transfer. That has led to a significant increase in the speed of human progress.

One of the functions of education as a human practice is to establish sustainable transfer of knowledge from previous generations to a current generation. One of the main reasons for inventing education was simply to keep people from reinventing the wheel.

Let's say that everyone in the world is the absolute genius, but at the same time, every person is absolutely illiterate, meaning knows nothing. Since they all are geniuses, theoretically they could reinvent all the human knowledge. But that would take way too much time.

Over the period of decades, hundreds or even thousands of years, education practitioners streamlined the process of transmitting  knowledge; made it much more efficient than the process of reinventing that knowledge again. And now, the vast majority of educators spend the vast majority of time on making students to memorize facts and practice specific skills. Proponents of knowledge economy want teachers to focus their effort on training students how to manage information (e.g. how to search, organize, classify information).

But for the future economy, for a design economy, that is far from sufficient.

Since an ability for designing a process that will lead to achieving a specific goal will be becoming much more important than an ability to retrieve knowledge or to demonstrating a specific skill, educators must change the way they teach. And for that, teacher professional development field must also be transformed; at the minimum, it has to set aside significant amount of time for a teacher to practice in Professional Designing.

Learning has to lead to development of a strong ability for designing solutions to new problems.

As for any ability, the development of an ability for designing solutions to new problems has to start early. Sport coaches know that for many people starting late is too late (that is why many parents bring kids to a tennis court, or a swimming pool at a very early age).

This is because any human practice involves specific organs in a human body, and every human practice inevitably result in the use and development of those organs.

When one starts running, his/her legs get stronger, lungs get larger, a hart gets stronger. And, in turn, this allows one runs faster. There is a feedback circle between using body organs for some activity and developing those organs during that activity.

This shows another extremely important role of a learning process, i.e. to expand abilities of people via developing abilities of organs involved in those activities.

In part, learning expands an ability to learn.

Learning is happening in a brain (among other organs). Learning is affecting a brain, its structure. Essentially, learning is changing states of existing neural elements and connections, and making new neural connections between existing elements (more on that is in "Three Lessons From Neurology To Science Teachers", and "What Does a Teacher Need To Know About a Brain?").

A brain is a physiological basis of learning (like legs are physiological basis of running); it acts like a muscle, it evolves like a muscle, it improves like a muscle, it can be damaged like a muscle, it ages like a muscle.

The process of learning affects how brain functions, affects its structure.

Different learning exercises, different learning activities advance a brain in a way, similar to how different physical exercises advance physical state of a human body, affect different organs of a body.

This role of learning is absolutely crucial for the development of a design ability.

At an early age, during the first fifteen to twenty years, child development goes naturally fast; all organs in a body, including a brain, can be easily formed and developed. With an age muscles, bones, and brain become stiffer and stiffer. Developing all organs, including a brain, becomes harder and harder; most efforts go into keeping organs in a good shape, preventing organs from regression, degradation.

A mental activity of designing a solution to a problem one has never solved before, and representing that solution in textual and/or symbolic form, inevitably involves manipulating with a variety of mental objects, including creating and assessing various possibilities for future actions. That activity simple cannot be conducted in a brain, by a brain that is incapable of manipulating with several mental objects at the same time. 

When after a third statement a student  forgets what was the first one, this student will not be able to design a complicated train of thoughts. 

Another important professional ability - multi-tasking - is also based on the highly developed brain structure. Multi-tasking is merely an ability to switch between different mental tasks. When a brain is processing information related to one task, the regions in a brain devoted to another tasks remain idle. When needed, one can make a switch, make another region idle. But that is possible ONLY when a brain has such a capability. If switching to another task erases information about the previous task it only leads to a growing number of incomplete tasks.

And the ability to become a moral person is also available only to people with a developed brain. In order to follow "The Golden Rule" one needs - at the minimum - to be able to place himself/herself in someone else's shoes. That requires imagination. Imagination requires developed brain. In general, imagination is the most important mental ability of all. No type of designing is possible without imagination. Unfortunately, mass education not just ignores development of imagination, it stifles it. And watching TV shows, movies, or paling video games do NOT help ID (imagination development). The best three practices for ID are (1) reading, (2) writing (or story telling), (3) games required role playing (e.g. a theater).

Every healthy person, if starts learning early, can learn how to juggle with two or three balls. Learning that at an old age is much harder, and for some people even impossible.

Every healthy person, if starts learning early, can learn how to juggle with many mental objects. Learning that at an old age is much harder, and for some people even impossible.

The 9^th Law of TeachOlgy states: “If the only exercise students had been doing for 12 years is squats, they will not be good at push-ups and pull-ups. Do not expect from students an ability to think if all the had to do for 12 years was memorizing facts and rules.” 

That is why schools must start teaching students how to design solutions to new problems at a very early age. If it’s late, it is too late.

Education for the future must begin today.

Nowadays only elite schools can offer the type of education required for succeeding in design economy.

In regular schools the main learning practice is memorization, and because of that a brain does not get to develop structures required for ability to design solutions to new problems (on the TOP of required knowledge and skills, not instead of those).

In elite schools, children may be involved in many different activities, including learning how to play a music instrument, participating in a school theater, joining a fencing team, etc.

The more different activities – the better for a brain development. It’s no coincidence than many famous physicists also plaid some music instrument.

The race for economic prosperity will be won by a country with the best system of mass education. And that system must teach students important facts and skills, but also should help them develop an ability for designing solutions to new problems.

As I mentioned in The Road To World Domination Lies Through Mass Education; Part I, the central figure of such education system is to be a good teacher; i.e. a teacher who himself/herself possess the knowledge of important/required facts and skills, but also has a developed ability for designing solutions to new problems.

Dr. Valentin Voroshilov

P.S.

By the way: the obsession of our Earthy billionaires with a space exploration only proves again the fact that they always focus their attention only on simple problems, at least simple in principle. Because they all have a very primate view on education (“Learned” = “Heard”), they just cannot envision the complexity of the education system. If they could, they would share some of their attention to at least one of the projects critical for reforming education.

This is also a proof of the fact that “rich” does not necessary mean “smart”. As Bill Maher said once: “People have to get over this idea that because the guy is rich he’s that smart”.