Reading Time: 2 minutes

The recently graduated; The disillusioned worker has had a negative experience in the working environment. In contrast a recent graduate in the sciences with a fresh diploma, quite often, is in the opposite situation desperately trying to obtain a career in their chosen discipline. Many do succeed, with good grades and some knowledge of interviews they find research jobs, technical positions and programming jobs that require no previous experience. However the bulk of students even with a degree have huge difficulties. It usually requires 2 years experience to get a programming interview, and nothing is more common than finding trained and qualified scientists or programmers working as managers, accountants and businessmen. A compounding problem is debt most students at present leave education with crippling debts reducing their mobility and not allowing them the opportunity to travel, to get apartments and take chances and risks that are inherently necessary at the beginning of our careers.

Taking time after university to live in the community will help in a number of ways firstly there is the benefit of ways. Firstly, there is the usage of practically applied skills (work) from the first month. Giving the graduate much needed real-work experience. Secondly, there is the benefit of money, payments directly into savings accounts means that two or three years in the community could pay a large percentage or all of a students load, give him vital experience, do remarkable good to their health and confidence.

Dialectic techniques, teaching skills and mandatory lesson taking will also improve spoken skills, living on a strict diet with regular exercise will no doubt go towards some recovery of the usually destructive lifestyle of university. Finally there is the opportunity of networking with other transitory members of ones chosen profession  and remaining in touch with the community as an aid to finding jobs and work long after leaving it behind.

In short they will get practical experience, money, improved technical skills, personal development training and much more.

About the author


  1. smitten by your concept of teaching dialectic techniques, teaching skills & mandatory lessons. Curious to learn more as to how you plan to do so. This is not only interesting but important too in my opinion to delve deeper into the nature of reality and nature of thinking.

  2. Well I do go into more detail about dialogue in entry 115 (yet to be typed up) and in a number of other entries, but the ideal system would be to have a persistent routine of learning and improvement for all members of the community. The idea is to instil the community with a constant sense of progression towards self-actualization coupled with personal self improvement. In its raw sense the community is "citizen based" driving individuals towards their best possible selves rather than economically based toward their best material situation. Now unfortunately the economic system of modern civilization and interaction with the realities of complex external social structures makes a completely isolated meritocratic system extremely unreasonable. Ultimately however I believe that having a pool of confident, actualized and constantly improving citizens all striving to be the expert and understand their field through mandatory training would itself produce an economically viable pool of people to support the community.

    Part of this self improving nature in the back of my mind was rooted in the idea that the community would flourish better if there was a set of deliberate rules and training in the dialectic method to teach each other and resolve conflicts in thought. It would be just one of the variety of forms of cultural oil that would allow discourse and disagreement between experts creating huge rifts in communities.

    As I'm sure you know dialectics is different from debate, where the debaters are often committed to their points of view, and there is a sense that one or the other is 'right', the purpose of a debate therefore is to 'win' either by persuading the opponent, proving their argument correct, or proving the opponent's argument incorrect — to finalize this win/lose situation there must either be a judge or a jury who decides. Now while there is little or no doubt that there will be resolutions and peoples natural biases will mean that most dialogues will become a kind of debate it should stop us for reaching for an ideal.

    The ideal I would say of a dialectic method is calm, logical, reasoned dialogue between two or more people who wish to establish the truth of a matter by dialogue. There is a huge wealth of literature on dialogue types and dialectics https://www.dougwalton.ca/papers.htm is a good place to get an idea of some of the methods that could be taught to the citizens to aid disagreement resolution. At its essence it should be instilled to members that you shouldn't always assume there are winners and losers but view everyone involved as curious students. Both expressing their views and using logic, maths, science and data to reason out the truth.

    The mandatory lessons would be a far simpler matter with each member spending an allotted time to work on his subject and an allotted amount of time teaching his subject to other members. Discourse or disagreement would be held (and recorded) using the formalised dialogue method. The requirement of everyone being a teacher and student in the community necessitates that everyone should have teaching skills and probably some public speaking and presentation study as well.

    I hope that goes a little way to describing what's in my head but I am still struggling myself to accurately and clearly define all the structures that could exist in this hypothetical community. In fact later in the entries I decide I shouldn't or cannot define every detail and should merely create a framework on which to lay the greater details. Thanks for taking an interest and don't hesitate to ask for more details or clarification :).

  3. Thank you so much. It was wonderful. Resonates. But I think when we are in a dialog 'logic' and 'maths' might impede rather than help. This is because logic excludes the 'excluded middle' and maths suffers from the problem of 'Axiom of Choice'. Nonetheless it is a great thought, which I believe might only become a reality through persistent trials on the ground.

  4. Well logic especially when reasoning is pretty useful. Have a read of https://www.fallacyfiles.org/ for some examples of logical fallacies that can disrupt of confuse good discussion on that note I'd always preferred the concept of "Negation as failure" over the "excluded middle". I'd agree that mathematics does help when considering only particular subjects (certainly not all), however a regular occurring topic is the discussion of odds (i.e. 1 in 10), statistics or logarithmic change at which point human brains which are not trained are generally awful at visualising the results or what is being discussed.

    To clarify with an example; humans are awful at perceiving exponential changes or predicting them without mathematics. For instance if I gave you a piece of paper and ask you to fold it in half and then again in half, and asked you to repeat this process over and over, if it were physically possible, how tall would the folded piece be after 50 folds?

    Most people say around 30cm or a brave person might claim the height of the house. However mathematically (try and guess before you look 😉 https://raju.varghese.org/articles/powers2.html I'll leave you to read the graph but it is a *lot* further than most people realise.

    I think one cannot discount any reasoned method that stops the people in dialogue falling prey to their built in faulty intuitions or blatant bias. Notably in the context of debating hard facts of probability, but even in ethical situations our instincts fail us. Take the example of diminishing empathy, to quote S.Harris

    "The work of the psychologist Paul Slovic and colleagues has uncovered some rather startling limitations on our capacity for moral reasoning when thinking about large groups of people—or, indeed, about groups larger than one. As Slovic observes, when human life is threatened, it seems both rational and moral for our concern to increase with the number of lives at stake. And if we think that losing many lives might have some additional negative consequences (like the collapse of civilization), the curve of our concern should grow steeper still. But this is not how we characteristically respond to the suffering of other human beings.
    Slovic’s experimental work suggests that we intuitively care most about a single, identifiable human life, less about two, and we grow more callous as the body count rises. Slovic believes that this “psychic numbing” explains the widely lamented fact that we are generally more distressed by the suffering of single child (or even a single animal) than by a proper genocide."

    So if we can't trust our instincts to me moral we must at some point use reason, maths and logic. But as you say this is academic until put into action and at that point trials and assessment would be required ;).

  5. I agree to what you are saying. Having used maths and science extensively in my career I don't deny the usefulness of maths and science. They are useful but what I took time to realize are the limits of their application and to understand where to stop from being fully indoctrinated and being taken over by dogmas. This is what I suggested. May be a balance is needed and the students need to be aware of this dichotomy right from the beginning before being blinded and blighted by this path or that only to see everything through their ingrained 'assumptions' of 'one right way' and be polarized for life. Taking a balanced approach, I think, might help people to be in touch with their self awareness a necessary skill to observe their own thought in the making to save themselves and the world. Thoughts?

  6. Okay I think I see what you're trying to say. You're suggesting that science and maths are dogmatic and are based upon principles that they dictate as being incontrovertibly true. By giving students these tools we blind them to other possibilities and avenues of thought that may occur to them?

    I have to say I disagree with that hypothesis on the basis that science and reason are not dogmatic. Dogma is any doctrine or established belief laid down by an authority. An example of dogma would be that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. The prerequisite of a dogma therefore is an authority figure, but if one looks closely there are simply no authority figures in science.

    Certainly, science has its celebrities, and influential thinkers, but they are never unquestioned. It would be wrong to think that evolutionary biologists today defend every word written in Darwin’s influential work, On The Origin of Species. Any biologist will tell you that Darwin was indeed wrong on more things than he was right. Einstein was adamantly against quantum physics but that didn't stop it becoming the most revolutionary science of the 21st century.

    The fact that science can change its mind, and does so frequently, is its biggest strength, thus severing any ties to the idea of dogmatic science, or that it requires blind faith. The trick is to be open minded enough to accept new ideas but not so open minded that our brains fall out.

    Mathematics is possibly more fixed on certain things the use of say imaginary numbers like Pi, but these have been shown to work on real world examples and well. If someone were to show a system of numbers that worked better practical experimentation and data would successfully convince someone who rationally looked at the evidence without bias.

    Perhaps if you described a situation where the use of mathematics or science is dogmatic that would help us debate it. Or a situation where self-awareness, as you put it, would improve a dialectic debate over logic. For instance even the most logical person would see the benefit in improving themselves and saving the world no?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: