Self-awareness, humility, & courage
Awareness is the first key to learning and adaptiveness. However, many people are pressured in to neglecting their own experiences, innate interests, curiosities, observations, and logic. They may be programmed to be ashamed of certain experiences as “negative” (as in socially invalidated). In contrast, self-awareness includes a respect for all experiences as well as respect for the fact that only one experience at a time can be the current priority. Rather than suppressing or avoiding motivations, self-awareness can cautiously explore motivation. With respect for innate motivations and interests, plus for actual experiences and observations, then adaptiveness can develop.
Many youth are also programmed to memorize ideas without verifying or even critically examining those ideas, then labeling that process as something like this: “learning science.” That might be learning doctrines about science. That is certainly not the practice of scientific inquiry (“science”).
Is it a good measure of the accuracy of an idea to only consider how familiar you are with it already? For instance, when you were 2 years old, would you have rejected the concept of gravity simply on the basis that you were not already familiar with the word “gravity?”
Just because you might have been repeatedly rewarded for memorizing and blindly repeating an idea as “science” does not establish it as accurate. Just because lots of other people were also rewarded for memorizing and blindly repeating an idea (such that it is widely accepted by them) does not establish it as having ever been tested, confirmed, or even reviewed for logical plausibility. For instance, consider the plausibility of the idea that cholesterol is a very dangerous substance manufactured by trillions of livers in order to poison the rest of the organism. How reasonable is that?
There may be social institutions that are designed to interfere with self-awareness and natural humility. Instead, the institutions may reward conformity, arrogant presumptiveness, and fixation on programmed topics only.
Critical thinking may or may not be specifically censored, since there is no need to censor it really when the constant ritual is to memorize and blindly repeat ideas. Critical thinking can usually just be ignored or, if relevant, labeled as “disruptive” (and then disruptive participants can be drugged or simply expelled).
Some people may find these statements unsettling or even shameful. However, we can have the courage to find people who are emotionally stable enough to respectfully consider these ideas without panicking or erupting in to contempt.
Systems for governing or ruling human populations exist. If those systems promote certain outcomes, so be it. We do not have to “immediately rescue everyone” from the existence of systems of coercion and indoctrination. In fact, because of the effectiveness of certain systems of intimidation, many people will be extremely anxious about even admitting to the intensity of the social anxieties that are ritually promoted by certain systems.
The courageous option is to stabilize one’s self in self-awareness and overall functionality, then to selectively interact with others. Perhaps we occasionally present someone with a result (like a case study) and then invite them to ask for details if they are interested. If some people are not interested or even seem threatened by a particular idea, that may be of no special interest whatsoever.
As for the programmed idea of exhausting one’s self for the common good, that is a reliable program for self-sabotage. Do we really need anyone else’s gratitude for us? What if we focus more on expressing our gratitude for others than on competing for the gratitude of others?
Courage involves respecting the dangers of certain popular systems and also respecting our own innate interests. Do my favorite practices need to be popular in order for me to be satisfied with the results that they produce? Popularity of a method and my satisfaction with the results not only are distinct issues, but may often be contrary. In other words, if I am attracted to above average results, then average methods (the most popular or publicized methods) may be of little or no interest to me.