Yup, I am familiar with a technological singularity (it was the “sociological” that through me off). Very interesting concept. Snow Crash is an all time favorite.

The camera analogy is excellent. Hadn’t thought about it that way. At least that’s a logical extension and not a fundamental change.

Yup, I am familiar with a technological singularity (it was the “sociological” that through me off). Very interesting concept. Snow Crash is an all time favorite.

The camera analogy is excellent. Hadn’t thought about it that way. At least that’s a logical extension and not a fundamental change.

Consider this: In 1991, I owned my first DOS Personal Computer with a hard drive. It had a 20 mb hard drive and I never dreamed of filling it. A box of 1.44mb floppy disks set me back I believe thirty dollars. Sixteen years later, I purchased a digital camera with a 10.1 megapixel resolution. My first computer would not be capable of storing more than one picture that my camera outputs.

Consider this: In 1991, I owned my first DOS Personal Computer with a hard drive. It had a 20 mb hard drive and I never dreamed of filling it. A box of 1.44mb floppy disks set me back I believe thirty dollars. Sixteen years later, I purchased a digital camera with a 10.1 megapixel resolution. My first computer would not be capable of storing more than one picture that my camera outputs.

“…the future top job in 2010 won’t have existed in 2004.” Seems like a bit of a stretch, but I’d buy 2015. The point still remains, though, at least when it comes to specific jobs. I don’t think that we’ll see a change in basic job categories like engineer, doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc. for a very long time, if ever.

I had no idea about the origins of the educational system. Certainly not in its bias toward societal compliance over learning. I’m assuming that societal compliance is simply fitting in? Or, is it mapping one’s skills to the needs of society?

“…the future top job in 2010 won’t have existed in 2004.” Seems like a bit of a stretch, but I’d buy 2015. The point still remains, though, at least when it comes to specific jobs. I don’t think that we’ll see a change in basic job categories like engineer, doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc. for a very long time, if ever.

I had no idea about the origins of the educational system. Certainly not in its bias toward societal compliance over learning. I’m assuming that societal compliance is simply fitting in? Or, is it mapping one’s skills to the needs of society?

As always, wise words from a wise man.

I like your idea about pushing college entry to the mid-twenties. Karl commented that young people are delaying decisions because they believe that life expectancy has increased so much and they have time. Let’s use that time up front to learn more about ourselves and the world. Once we have that – and some money earned for college – under our belts, then we can take on the formal education part.

As you say, this may become the *only* available route for kids in the coming couple of decades.

As always, wise words from a wise man.

I like your idea about pushing college entry to the mid-twenties. Karl commented that young people are delaying decisions because they believe that life expectancy has increased so much and they have time. Let’s use that time up front to learn more about ourselves and the world. Once we have that – and some money earned for college – under our belts, then we can take on the formal education part.

As you say, this may become the *only* available route for kids in the coming couple of decades.

I had not heard of the Johnson O’Connor Foundation. I perused their site. Very interesting. It seems to me that at a certain age (14 is the minimum age they test, apparently) you have enough life experience that a well-written test could get you into a ballpark, but there are just not enough life experiences early on to zero-in.

I don’t mean that to be negative. On the contrary, I think getting to a ballpark is a great thing. One probably doesn’t want to make too may life decisions given such information at 14 (see Nick’s comment), but using this information at 17/18 seems like a good thing.

I had not heard of the Johnson O’Connor Foundation. I perused their site. Very interesting. It seems to me that at a certain age (14 is the minimum age they test, apparently) you have enough life experience that a well-written test could get you into a ballpark, but there are just not enough life experiences early on to zero-in.

I don’t mean that to be negative. On the contrary, I think getting to a ballpark is a great thing. One probably doesn’t want to make too may life decisions given such information at 14 (see Nick’s comment), but using this information at 17/18 seems like a good thing.