When Society Distributes Human Responsibilities Across Institutions, What Happens to the Individual’s Ability to Understand, Represent and Govern Their Own Life?

SHS – HUMAN FIRST | The Education Investigation | Human Self-Representation, Critical Thinking & Civilisational Self-Sufficiency

This is one of the biggest issues of our time.

The separation of knowledge, responsibilities and self-sufficiency across specialised industries is creating circumstances in which people’s critical thinking can become concentrated on what is immediately in front of them, rather than extending horizontally across life’s interconnected systems and longitudinally across time.

People become extraordinarily capable in one area of their lives while remaining dependent on institutions to interpret, organise or defend other areas of their existence.

Many have missed my rise because of this limited field of observation. What they noticed, what they understood and what their institutional responsibilities required them to recognise are questions that can be investigated through the historical record.

And I want to explain why this matters beyond my own experience.

We have developed a civilisation in which almost every aspect of being human has been turned into somebody else’s profession.

Law belongs to lawyers.

Finance belongs to financial professionals.

Politics belongs to politicians.

Health belongs to medical professionals.

Education belongs to educators.

Technology belongs to technologists.

And somewhere in the middle of all these industries stands the human being.

The one whose existence gave every one of those industries a purpose.

Yet the individual may understand less and less about the very systems created to serve them.

How did we reach a point where being a functioning adult can require depending on numerous separate institutions to interpret and organise one’s own life?

And what does that do to the development of human reasoning?

Because I think we’re overlooking something fundamental.

When you continuously delegate the responsibility for understanding your life, you risk delegating the very opportunities through which your ability to understand it would have developed.

That is the investigation I want to conduct.

Not to eliminate expertise.

Not to suggest everyone can perform every specialist task safely.

But to understand how we can organise expertise without depriving the individual of the foundational capacities needed to navigate life independently.

And, more importantly, how we can begin developing those capacities from childhood.

---

1. WE DIVIDED THE WORLD INTO INDUSTRIES. THEN WE DIVIDED THE HUMAN BEING’S UNDERSTANDING ALONGSIDE THEM.

Let’s look at how society is organised.

You have a legal problem.

You go to a lawyer.

You have a financial problem.

You go to an accountant or financial adviser.

You have a political concern.

You approach a politician or representative.

You have an educational concern.

You consult a teacher or educational institution.

You have a health concern.

You seek a medical professional.

You have a problem with your house.

You contact a tradesperson.

On its own, none of this is inherently wrong.

Specialisation has allowed humanity to develop extraordinary knowledge and accomplish things that no individual could achieve alone.

But here is the question.

At what point did specialisation begin replacing the individual’s foundational understanding rather than expanding it?

Because there is a difference.

An engineer can possess specialist knowledge that makes a building safe.

That does not mean everybody else should grow up without understanding the basic principles of how their home functions.

A lawyer can possess the expertise necessary to navigate complex litigation.

That does not mean everybody else should grow up unable to understand their rights, organise evidence, read a contract or explain a grievance.

A doctor can possess the knowledge necessary to diagnose and treat complicated conditions.

That does not mean people should reach adulthood without understanding their bodies, basic prevention, medical consent or how to communicate symptoms.

Specialisation should increase the knowledge available to humanity, not decrease the knowledge retained by individual human beings.

Yet when education prepares people primarily to enter their chosen professions, rather than first preparing them to understand life across its interconnected dimensions, we create uneven development.

A person may know their industry exceptionally well.

But what about everything surrounding that industry?

What about the human being who has to live with the consequences of all those interconnected decisions?

2. THE ECONOMY DOESN’T JUST DEMAND OUR MONEY. IT DEMANDS OUR ATTENTION.

Now add the organisation of the modern economy.

People have to work.

Pay rent.

Buy food.

Meet deadlines.

Manage relationships.

Care for children.

Attend appointments.

Pay bills.

Maintain their homes.

Handle unexpected emergencies.

And somehow find enough time to rest.

Now imagine that person receives a complicated legal notice.

They have a dispute with an employer, a landlord, a company or a public authority.

They may need to examine hundreds of pages, identify applicable laws, understand procedural deadlines, assemble evidence, investigate institutional conduct and formulate a coherent argument.

But when?

After an exhausting shift?

Between childcare responsibilities?

While worrying about the rent?

During an already difficult mental or emotional period?

How much attention can one person reasonably distribute before something starts to suffer?

This is an important part of the problem.

Research into scarcity and cognitive functioning has examined how financial pressure can consume mental resources that would otherwise be available for other tasks.

And we need to understand the practical consequences.

A human being can possess considerable intellectual capability while lacking the time, stability or mental bandwidth to exercise it across every part of life.

So they delegate.

They pay someone else to investigate the legal problem.

They ask someone else to manage their financial affairs.

They rely on another institution to interpret their rights.

They outsource their responsibilities because they have too many competing demands.

And sometimes, that’s precisely the sensible thing to do.

But a consequence can follow.

They may never acquire the knowledge or experience they would have developed by participating more directly.

They may learn whether they won or lost.

But not why.

They may learn what their representative achieved.

But not how.

They may receive a decision.

But never understand the reasoning that produced it.

The problem is not simply that the individual delegated the task. It’s that the process can conclude without returning the knowledge to the individual.

And that is a substantial educational loss.

3. WIN OR LOSE, THE INDIVIDUAL MAY STILL BE LEFT DEPENDENT.

Think about a legal case.

Someone hires a solicitor.

The solicitor investigates the matter, prepares documents, communicates with the opposing side, examines evidence and represents the client.

The case concludes.

Perhaps the individual wins.

Wonderful.

But what have they learned?

Can they now identify the legal foundation of a future dispute?

Can they understand what makes evidence relevant?

Can they distinguish an accusation from a provable claim?

Can they interpret a legal notice?

Can they assess whether a representative’s advice is sound?

Can they explain the reasoning behind the judgment?

Or have they simply received an outcome?

Now imagine they lose.

The same questions apply.

Do they understand why?

Can they distinguish between losing because the evidence was insufficient, losing because the law did not support their position and losing because of a procedural problem?

Can they examine the decision intelligently?

Or are they once again dependent upon someone else to explain it?

A person may win their case and still lose the opportunity to develop their own legal understanding.

That doesn’t mean every client should conduct their own litigation.

It means the relationship between professional assistance and individual education should be examined.

What if legal representation included an expectation that the client be helped to understand the relevant process?

What if institutions explained their decisions in ordinary language?

What if people were taught foundational legal reasoning before experiencing their first dispute?

What if education made self-representation a genuine capability rather than an intimidating last resort?

Then the professional becomes a source of additional expertise.

Not the exclusive holder of understanding.

4. CRITICAL THINKING DOESN’T AUTOMATICALLY TRAVEL FROM ONE PART OF LIFE TO ANOTHER.

Here is where the investigation becomes especially interesting.

Imagine somebody who has been driving professionally for twenty years.

They may be extraordinarily capable of assessing distance, speed, timing, movement, visibility and risk.

They constantly make judgments.

Anticipate changes.

Compare possibilities.

Interpret their environment.

Respond to unexpected circumstances.

Their ability to reason within that environment may be highly developed.

Now place that same person in a complicated legal dispute.

Ask them to examine statutory provisions, challenge institutional reasoning, distinguish assumptions from evidence and construct an argument across multiple legal foundations.

They may struggle.

Not necessarily because they lack intelligence.

But because the knowledge and reasoning methods required in the new situation are unfamiliar.

The same can apply in reverse.

A highly trained barrister may construct sophisticated arguments in court but lack the practical knowledge required to repair a household problem or organise food production.

A financial professional may understand investment risk but be unprepared for a serious relationship conflict.

A medical professional may possess deep clinical knowledge but struggle to navigate an unfamiliar political or economic system.

Human intelligence can be highly developed within a particular field without becoming equally developed in every other field.

And this brings us to something educational researchers call transfer of learning.

Learning a skill in one situation does not guarantee that the learner will automatically recognise how to apply it elsewhere.

Transfer often has to be deliberately taught and practised.

That is immensely relevant to SHS.

Because I don’t simply want people to become good at critical thinking while performing one activity.

I want them to learn to recognise the underlying principles of reasoning and carry those principles into unfamiliar circumstances.

If someone knows how to assess risk while driving, can they recognise the equivalent reasoning process when assessing a contract?

If they know how to compare evidence in a science lesson, can they apply that discipline when encountering a political claim?

If they know how to communicate a need in childhood, can they later express a boundary in a relationship?

If they understand responsibility when caring for an animal, can they identify how responsibility operates within parenting, employment and governance?

The environments differ.

The required knowledge differs.

But relationships between the principles can be examined.

That is what I mean by developing horizontal and longitudinal critical thinking.

Not merely responding competently to the immediate situation.

But recognising the relationships between situations, the histories that produced them and the consequences that may follow.

5. THE MOST DANGEROUS FORM OF DEPENDENCY IS NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW.

Imagine an individual who has always relied on others to handle their finances.

They receive a salary.

Their bills are paid.

Their investments are managed.

Their taxes are prepared.

Everything appears to function.

Until something goes wrong.

A payment disappears.

A contract changes.

An adviser makes a questionable recommendation.

A company collapses.

Suddenly, the person discovers how little they understand about their own financial position.

They were functioning within the system.

But functioning is not the same as understanding.

Now apply that to politics.

A person votes every few years.

They follow headlines.

They form opinions.

But can they examine how public money is allocated?

Can they assess whether a policy is likely to produce the outcome being promised?

Can they recognise when different government departments create contradictory consequences?

Can they identify who has legal responsibility for an institutional failure?

Again, the individual may be participating without fully understanding the organisation in which they participate.

A civilisation can appear highly functional while its population remains substantially dependent on institutional interpretation.

And that creates an imbalance of power.

Those who understand the systems can influence them.

Those who don’t must rely upon the explanations provided by those who do.

What happens when those explanations are incomplete?

What happens when the institution makes a mistake?

What happens when the individual’s interests conflict with those of the professional representing them?

What happens when the institution itself is responsible for the harm?

These are precisely the circumstances in which foundational self-representation becomes valuable.

6. THE QUESTION OF MY OWN DEVELOPMENT

I have a personal reason for investigating this.

Throughout my development of SHS, I have approached numerous individuals and institutions whose expertise, resources or services could have supported particular aspects of the work.

Many opportunities did not materialise.

And part of me is grateful for what that required of me.

Because I had to examine matters myself.

Understand what I was asking for.

Investigate systems that were unfamiliar.

Develop arguments.

Trace institutional histories.

Question decisions.

Identify legal principles.

Learn the language used by professionals.

And connect things that I might otherwise have left for somebody else to interpret.

But I want to correct something about my own story.

I was already questioning institutional foundations when I began those conversations.

The work did not originate simply because people declined to assist me.

I entered with what now appears to have been the tip of the iceberg.

And through continued investigation, I’ve discovered an increasingly extensive structure beneath it.

Perhaps I’m somewhere around the middle.

Perhaps not.

I don’t yet know how deep the investigation will go.

But the difference is that I value self-representation enough to continue developing my understanding regardless of whether professional assistance becomes available.

What happens to someone who does not have the circumstances, capacity, time or emotional stability to do that?

That person shouldn’t have to endure years of struggle to develop the abilities I have been cultivating through my own circumstances.

Their education should already have provided a foundation.

Their institutions should be intelligible.

Their representatives should help them understand what is happening.

And they should be able to participate in decisions affecting their lives without carrying every burden alone.

This is why I’m investigating the problem.

Not merely to criticise the existing system.

I want SHS to anticipate the weaknesses that the existing organisation leaves in people and provide the education necessary before those weaknesses become emergencies.

7. WE NEED TO START TEACHING SELF-REPRESENTATION IN CHILDHOOD.

And I mean early childhood.

Not by teaching six-year-olds to behave like barristers.

Not by placing adult responsibilities upon children.

But by recognising that the foundations of self-representation already exist in ordinary childhood experiences.

A child wants something.

A child needs something.

A child disagrees.

A child experiences frustration.

A child feels misunderstood.

A child notices that something seems unfair.

Each of those moments offers an opportunity for learning.

Take a six-year-old who wants a particular toy.

The toy isn’t available.

Instead of simply saying no and ending the conversation, imagine asking:

“What is it about that particular toy that you like?”

“What would you want to do with it?”

“Is there something it can do that your other toys cannot?”

“How do you think having it would make you feel?”

“Is there another way we could do what you’re imagining?”

“Would you like to save for it, make something similar or choose another activity?”

Now think about what the child is practising.

They’re identifying a desire.

Explaining their reasoning.

Examining their motivation.

Considering alternatives.

Understanding limitations.

Anticipating satisfaction.

Learning that another person may have a different perspective.

And discovering that they can participate in decisions rather than simply receive them.

That is the beginning of self-representation.

It is also the beginning of self-assessment.

Because the child is not only explaining what they want.

They are beginning to understand why they want it.

However, we need to distinguish wants from basic needs.

If a child needs the toilet, water, safety or essential care, we do not make those things conditional upon constructing a convincing argument.

The child should be encouraged to communicate their needs, and adults remain responsible for responding appropriately.

The lesson is not that every human need must be justified before it is met.

The lesson is that human beings should gradually develop the ability to recognise, communicate, understand and advocate for themselves.

And the development of that ability must never become an excuse to deny care.

8. FROM “I WANT” TO “HERE IS WHY”: THE DEVELOPMENT OF REASONING

Consider how the same skill could progress through different stages of childhood.

At first, a child may simply say:

“I want that.”

Then:

“I want that because I like it.”

Later:

“I want it because I can use it to build something I can’t build with my other toys.”

Later still:

“I understand it costs money, but I could save part of my allowance or wait until my birthday.”

And eventually:

“I think this purchase is worthwhile because I would use it frequently, it would help me develop a particular skill and there are alternatives I’ve already compared.”

Notice what is happening.

The individual hasn’t simply acquired a larger vocabulary.

Their reasoning has become more extensive.

They are considering circumstances beyond the immediate desire.

Resources.

Alternatives.

Time.

Responsibility.

Consequences.

Other people’s interests.

And eventually their own patterns of decision-making.

The objective is not to train children to win arguments.

It is to teach them to understand themselves and the world well enough to construct sound arguments.

There is a considerable difference.

A person can be highly persuasive while being wrong.

They can construct an impressive defence of harmful behaviour.

They can manipulate language to obtain what they want.

So self-representation must develop alongside integrity, empathy, evidence and accountability.

The child should learn not only:

“How can I make my case?”

But also:

“Is my case reasonable?”

“What am I overlooking?”

“How might this affect somebody else?”

“What evidence would change my mind?”

“What should I do if I discover I’m wrong?”

That is the difference between developing argumentation and developing human judgment.

9. HOW SHS COULD TEACH SELF-REPRESENTATION ACROSS THE STAGES OF LIFE

The precise curriculum would need to be tested and adapted to children’s development, abilities and circumstances.

But this is the educational progression I would investigate.

EARLY CHILDHOOD — UP TO AGE 5

Foundation: recognising and communicating the self.

At this stage, the focus is on supporting children to identify emotions, express basic needs, make simple choices, recognise boundaries and begin understanding other people’s perspectives.

They can learn through play, storytelling, gentle questioning, imitation and everyday experiences.

They should be able to say:

“I need help.”

“I don’t like that.”

“I’m scared.”

“I want to try.”

“I changed my mind.”

And experience adults treating that communication seriously.

The goal is not independence from caregiving.

It is the development of confidence within safe, responsive relationships.

AGES 6–9

Foundation: explaining needs, desires, choices and consequences.

This is where the toy example becomes particularly useful.

Children can begin constructing explanations, comparing alternatives, recognising simple responsibilities, resolving disagreements and evaluating everyday decisions.

Why do you want something?

What could happen if you do it?

What would happen if everybody did the same?

How could you solve this problem?

What would be fair to everyone involved?

These questions can be integrated into meals, play, classroom arrangements, gardening, simple household tasks and peer relationships.

The objective is to make reasoning a normal part of daily life.

AGES 10–12

Foundation: evidence, perspective and interconnected consequences.

Now the learner can examine increasingly complex situations.

A school rule.

A household budget.

A disagreement between friends.

An advertisement.

A news report.

A change in the local environment.

They can begin learning to distinguish facts from assumptions, examine different explanations, identify credible sources and recognise longer-term consequences.

They might investigate how one household decision affects money, health, time and the environment simultaneously.

This is where horizontal reasoning becomes increasingly deliberate.

AGES 13–15

Foundation: independent investigation and applied self-representation.

Learners can progressively practise reading accessible contracts, understanding consumer rights, constructing evidence-based arguments, recognising manipulation and navigating institutional procedures.

They can examine hypothetical legal disputes, practise mediation, organise a small budget, understand consent and relationships, learn practical household maintenance, and develop emergency-response competence.

The emphasis should remain on realistic, age-appropriate responsibilities, with guidance and safeguarding.

They should practise asking:

“What do I know?”

“What do I need to verify?”

“Who is responsible?”

“Who might be affected?”

“What can I do myself?”

“When should I seek assistance?”

And:

“How do I know the assistance I’m receiving is appropriate?”

AGES 16–17 — THE SEPARATE TRANSITIONAL GROUP

Foundation: preparing to manage adult responsibilities.

Here, self-representation becomes increasingly practical.

Employment rights.

Housing arrangements.

Banking.

Taxes.

Public institutions.

Travel.

Healthcare choices.

Digital privacy.

Relationship boundaries.

Sexual health and consent.

Civic participation.

Emergency preparation.

Communication with professional bodies.

Learners could practise responding to realistic circumstances through supervised simulations.

Receiving an employment contract.

Questioning a financial charge.

Preparing for a formal complaint.

Organising a journey.

Handling a household emergency.

Resolving a disagreement without unnecessary escalation.

The objective is to develop competence before the learner faces these circumstances without support.

AGES 18–19 — THE HISTORICAL CONTRIBUTION BRIDGE

Within the already proposed SHS educational architecture, this stage examines twelve historical human contributors across the Universal Bar domains.

It can also become a particularly valuable opportunity to investigate how the systems surrounding the learner were developed.

Who created them?

Which historical problems were they intended to solve?

What contributions did different civilisations make?

Which harms resulted?

Which limitations remain?

And what would the learner choose to contribute?

At this stage, the person should be increasingly capable of recognising that professional systems are human constructions with histories, purposes, strengths and weaknesses.

They are not simply things to obey.

They are organisations to understand, participate in and, where justified, improve.

ADULT COMPAE — CONTINUING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

Adult education should not assume that reaching a particular age means every capability has already developed.

Nor should people be penalised for having lacked earlier educational opportunities.

The foundational adult pathway can identify knowledge gaps and strengthen capabilities through practical application.

An adult might be financially competent but unfamiliar with legal self-representation.

Another might be excellent at managing a household but lack confidence in political participation.

Another might understand professional systems but struggle with emotional communication or relationships.

They should be able to develop those capabilities without having to begin an entirely new professional qualification every time.

Education should remain available wherever the person’s understanding can expand.

---

10. WE MUST TEACH TRANSFER, NOT SIMPLY COLLECT SKILLS.

Here is the part I consider most important.

It is not enough to teach someone gardening.

Then teach them legal vocabulary.

Then teach them budgeting.

Then teach them relationship communication.

Then teach them plumbing.

If the person experiences those as unrelated lessons, SHS risks reproducing the fragmentation it intends to challenge.

The learner must also understand how the reasoning practised in one activity relates to another.

Imagine one learning day organised around a garden.

The child plants vegetables.

That’s agriculture.

They investigate soil and water.

That’s environmental science.

They calculate the amount of water required.

That’s mathematics and resource management.

They discuss how to distribute the harvest.

That’s ethics and social welfare.

They calculate what the produce would cost in a shop.

That’s economics.

They examine food-safety practices.

That’s health.

They discuss who is responsible for maintaining the garden.

That’s governance.

They resolve a disagreement over shared responsibilities.

That’s communication, negotiation and a foundation for legal reasoning.

They examine what happens if the harvest fails.

That’s contingency planning.

One real-life experience. Multiple systems. Interconnected understanding.

Now the student is not merely collecting isolated facts.

They are learning to recognise relationships.

And those relationships can be revisited in other environments.

A family.

A workplace.

A court.

A hospital.

A community.

A government.

That is how I would want SHS to build the ability to reason across life’s systems.

Not by assuming transfer will happen automatically, but by deliberately teaching learners to recognise, test and practise those connections.

11. HOW DO WE KNOW THE EDUCATION IS WORKING?

Not simply by giving the learner a written examination.

I would want SHS to observe what happens when the individual encounters unfamiliar circumstances.

Can they recognise what they know and what they don’t?

Can they describe the problem clearly?

Can they identify reliable information?

Can they compare possible actions?

Can they anticipate consequences?

Can they distinguish between a task they can undertake safely and one requiring specialist assistance?

Can they explain their reasoning?

Can they revise their conclusions when evidence changes?

Can they advocate for themselves without dismissing the rights of others?

And can they transfer methods of thinking developed in one area to another?

For example, give learners a new problem involving a delayed service, an unexpected expense or a disagreement about responsibility.

Do not tell them which school subject it belongs to.

Observe how they approach it.

Do they recognise the contractual question?

The financial implication?

The communication problem?

The possible health or welfare consequence?

The relevant evidence?

The available alternatives?

Can they see the whole situation before deciding how to respond?

That’s the kind of capability I would want to measure.

And I would evaluate SHS itself too.

Are members becoming more capable over time?

Are they increasingly able to understand their circumstances?

Are they making informed decisions?

Are they using professional assistance more effectively?

Are they able to challenge SHS where necessary?

Can they leave SHS without becoming incapable of navigating life?

If members become increasingly dependent on SHS for matters they could reasonably learn to manage themselves, that should trigger an examination of our educational model.

Because the purpose isn’t to transfer dependency from existing governments to SHS.

It’s to reduce unnecessary dependency itself.

12. THERE IS ONE CRITICAL DISTINCTION: SELF-SUFFICIENCY IS NOT SELF-ISOLATION.

I want to be clear about this.

The objective is not to create human beings who refuse assistance.

Who believe they must know everything.

Who feel ashamed when they need a specialist.

Who cannot trust anyone.

Or who carry responsibilities beyond their abilities simply to demonstrate independence.

That would not be healthy self-sufficiency.

It would be another form of pressure.

Human beings are interdependent.

We rely upon one another biologically, emotionally, economically and socially.

And that’s not inherently a weakness.

The weakness emerges when interdependence becomes an arrangement in which one party possesses knowledge or authority that the other cannot meaningfully question.

So the balance matters.

Learn enough to understand your circumstances.

Develop enough capability to act where appropriate.

Know enough to recognise when assistance is necessary.

And retain enough autonomy to participate intelligently when someone else is assisting you.

That is the relationship I want between the human being and the institutions that serve them.

Not permanent helplessness.

Not compulsory independence.

But informed participation.

An individual should be able to delegate without surrendering their understanding.

They should be able to receive care without surrendering their dignity.

And they should be able to access expertise without becoming subordinate to the professional providing it.

13. THE REAL CHALLENGE TO THE INDUSTRIES

Imagine a civilisation educated this way.

More people understand their legal rights.

More people understand public finance.

More people can interpret institutional decisions.

More people can perform basic household repairs safely.

More people know how to grow food.

More people understand health prevention and when to seek medical assistance.

More people recognise unhealthy relationships and understand consent.

More people can evaluate political claims.

More people can recognise when professional advice requires further questioning.

What happens to the industries surrounding them?

Some services may become less necessary.

Others may become more specialised.

Some professionals may face better-informed clients.

Some institutions may have to communicate more clearly.

And some business models built around unnecessary complexity or informational imbalance may become harder to sustain.

This would not necessarily eliminate the legal, medical, financial or educational professions.

But it could change their relationship with the public.

Professionals would increasingly be valued for capabilities people genuinely need, rather than for exclusive access to understanding that could have been made widely available.

And perhaps that is the greater challenge.

Not whether the existing industries can survive a better-educated population.

But whether they are willing to be transformed by one.

---

THE BIGGEST LOSS ISN’T SIMPLY CRITICAL THINKING. IT IS CRITICAL THINKING THAT NEVER LEARNED TO TRAVEL.

We have trained people to become competent within segments of life.

To perform their jobs.

Manage immediate responsibilities.

Solve familiar problems.

Respond to the circumstances placed directly before them.

And then we wonder why so many struggle to investigate the larger systems organising their existence.

Why they accept institutional explanations without examining their foundations.

Why they find it difficult to connect decisions made in finance with consequences experienced in health.

Why they don’t recognise how education affects political participation.

Why they overlook how governance affects individual autonomy.

Or why they assume that someone holding a professional title must necessarily possess a better understanding of every question within that profession.

The human being has become surrounded by specialised knowledge without necessarily being taught how to connect it.

And that is the educational gap I want SHS to address.

Not by pretending that everyone can become an expert in everything.

But by ensuring people possess an increasingly developed understanding of life as a whole, together with the practical ability to investigate the unfamiliar.

Teach the child to explain what they need.

Then why they need it.

Then how their needs relate to other people’s.

Then how decisions produce consequences.

Then how to assess evidence.

Then how to identify responsibilities.

Then how to examine institutions.

Then how to represent themselves.

Then how to recognise when another person’s knowledge can help them.

And through all of it, teach them to return to the same foundational questions.

What is happening?

Why?

What do I know?

What don’t I know?

What are the relationships?

What came before this?

What might follow?

Who is responsible?

Who may be harmed?

What can be done?

And how will we know whether the solution worked?

That is the educational development of a human being capable of meeting life, not merely a worker capable of performing a particular task.

I don’t want SHS to raise people who can only function within SHS.

I want SHS to raise people capable of functioning wherever life takes them.

Whether our institutions are beside them or not.

Whether a professional is available or not.

Whether circumstances are familiar or completely unexpected.

And when help is needed, they should have the confidence and understanding to seek it without surrendering their agency.

Because the greatest educational success of an institution should not be producing people who need it forever.

It should be producing human beings who are increasingly capable of living well, thinking independently, collaborating responsibly and recognising when the institution itself needs to change.

And if that makes certain forms of institutional dependency redundant?

Then perhaps the institution has finally accomplished what it should have been trying to accomplish all along.

SHS – HUMAN FIRST

Foundational Human Education | COMPYE & COMPAE | The Universal Bar | Directing Integrity & Continuity

Teach the human being to understand the whole of life, so they are not forever dependent on separate institutions to explain its individual parts.

The human being first. The institution in service of the human being. Never the other way around.

…..

I added this at the top ( This is the biggest issue these days, cause the split of self-sufficiency is creating the circumstance of whicj critical thinking is only applied to the extent of what’s in front of the eye and not horizonatally. Many have missed my rise because of it, their legal liability kept track though.) and we want to write a full explanataion of how When we build industries and make it so that only the industry can represent itself, for example, only the lawyers can represent legal, only the finance guys can represent finance, only the politicians can represent politics. We are basically stripping those aspects out of the masses because the masses will then only go to those individuals to suffice on those needs instead of finding their own ability to do it themselves. And especially when we live in an economy that is so demanding and there’s so many distractions, it makes it so easy for everyone to just be distracted, to not have the time to even self-represent, for example, and investigate on their own cases. So they assign their own cases to other people and they are able to do, in doing so, they’re able to spread their own responsibilities where someone else is taking care of their legal case and they, I don’t know, continue working or whatever the case might be, you know. But when it comes to it, when it comes to the abilities of the individual, the individual will still be deprived no matter how much, no matter how much they win, no matter how much they lose, they will still be deprived of the skill to actually understand how to self-represent themselves and not just that, they will be deprived of the skill of reasoning that would have allowed them to understand how to thoroughly represent themselves. The reason why I am partially grateful to all those who didn’t give me an opportunity is because it allowed me how to represent myself through all the services and things that they could have provided themselves. If the legal industry had started to, well actually I’m lying because I came into all those conversations with the tip of the iceberg to now what I’m assuming only being the middle of the iceberg. We haven’t even reached or touched the bottom of the iceberg. But so it would have still come out from me in challenge of them. But that’s only because of how much I value self-representation, of how much I value self-sufficiency. But to someone who delegates, to someone who doesn’t want to deal with things because they have so much on their plate or their mental state or circumstances are so dire that they genuinely cannot add anything else to think about, especially not to an extent, to an extent of fully, selffully representing themselves. It’s understandable that critical thinking longitudinally would decrease because people only apply it to what is in front of them. For example a driver might only use critical thinking when it comes to like how they turn into like spatial awareness, like speed coordination and timing coordination and whatnot. And if you put them in a circumstance where they have to represent themselves through expression, for example a debate, then their critical thinking is not going to be as developed simply because, because they’ve not practiced self-representation beyond their day-to-day. I mean that was really just an example, like a very whatever example. But there is so much more to that. And we want to speak upon the effects of having such a dissected, spread out, divided governance and society and the impacts of that on one individual. And the reason why we do so is because I want to personally learn more about it so that I can provide for it in advance. I’m already providing the basic infrastructure of it through SHS. Well, I want to be able to integrate that in the development of our education so that we also can figure out the better way to structure, okay, when do we teach someone how to self-represent? And how in, how many, to which degrees as well? Because obviously we might teach a child, a six-year-old child to represent their own needs. So for example, they want to go to the toilet, raise your hand, say it, and then go. Or they might want a toy but that toy is not available. Okay, well make a case. Do you want this toy? Yes? Well, okay, how are you going to justify for us to go out of our way to get this toy? Like whatever the case, like it’s really to bring it into their day-to-day lives so that they literally develop reasoning and critical thinking. And in doing so also develop the ability to self-assess because we’ll have them think, well, why do you need the toy? Why can’t you use the other toys? Why or what is it about that specific toy that you want? What type of feeling do you want to feel? Or how does the toy make you feel? Which is a feeling that you’re trying to chase or the feeling that you’re trying to accomplish, like providing to? Like really get the kid to think because the biggest loss at this current moment in time is critical thinking