Institutional Education vs Self-Education
For people that have read my blog posts, you may think that I have an issue with institutional schooling. However, that’s not the case. I’m just a bigger proponent of self-education. Institutions teach the masses how to become employees. After all, no one—with sense--goes to college to learn how to start a business. Now, of course, most people will never be business owners; most will be employees. However, despite the intentions of institutions, most students only learn how to regurgitate information that was explained to them countless times.
Furthermore, this information is only stored long enough to pass the class in question. Afterward, the brain dumps it because the information isn’t considered vital. Think about it. For the scholars that read my posts, how much of the information that you were taught in school do you use on a practical basis. I’d say 98% of the information isn’t used.
Now, let’s look at self-education. By the way, when I say self-education, I’m not talking about studying information that pertains to classes. I mean learning information of your own accord. This is the information that we learn to ease our movements in life. At least 50% of this information is applied regularly in some capacity.
Now, this brings me to points that I want to discuss, research and evidence. There are various types of research and evidence. However, outside of formal studies, most of the research and evidence provided is anecdotal. Below is the definition of anecdotal evidence; it ties into the research as well.
“Anecdotal evidence is based on hearsay rather than hard facts.”
Formal research that discusses things that anecdotal research talks about is usually qualitative. Below is the definition of qualitative research.
“Qualitative research is a scientific method of observation to gather non-numerical data.”
Below is the definition of qualitative evidence.
“Qualitative evidence provides richer, deeper, and broader information based on a few individuals or case examples.”
Now, scholars dismiss anecdotal evidence due to the lack of sources available to legitimize the findings. This is reasonable. However, the issue that many scholars have is that they dismiss practically all research that lacks enough sources to be accepted as qualitative research and evidence. So, they reject the concept of pattern recognition. Many of my posts rely on pattern recognition.
Moreover, in Black society, we can’t rely on formal research to discuss our situations because the greater society is staunchly against us. Thus, most “research” is overt propaganda aiming to create a negative stereotype against us. So, we have to rely on critical thinking, informal qualitative research, and pattern recognition to reach our conclusions.
Thus, this is my issue with many scholars. I noticed that—since most only rely on formal research—they’re always behind the curve on current events. One can’t afford to live his/her life continually picking up the rear in a rapidly changing society. I’ll estimate that most of the propaganda aimed against us by the dominant society takes scholars 6 months to definitively disprove. This creates an endless cycle of trailing behind while disproving blatant lies aimed against us. To maximize our chances of thriving in this society, we have to be laser-sharp with our intuition, critical thinking, and pattern recognition abilities. In short, we have to place more weight on our findings through empirical evidence. Below is the definition of empirical evidence.
"Empirical evidence is the information received utilizing the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation."
Comments
Post a Comment