reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Regardless of who you voted for, you still have to handle your responsibilities. Maybe dismantling the Department of Education is a good thing, forcing us to ensure our kids get what they need. It could compel us to demand from our state that our tax money is used to give our kids exactly what they need. We don't have to wait for the government; we can do it ourselves. This is now in our hands, and it's going to be tough. If it comes down to survival, you have to take care of what you have to take care of.

Wars, even cultural ones, have casualties and cause collateral damage. We must not let our fear of change harm our children or the potential harm that any fight may cause.

These kids don't know basic math like addition, subtraction, division, fractions, or multiplication. They know about gay and bisexual people, what Diddy did, what kind of gun this is, who sings a song and its lyrics, and what studs and dykes are, but they don't know basic math. Parents are failing their kids, and it's not the teachers' fault because the kids just talk and play around in class. The kids don't even understand why they don't understand.

People can learn things they enjoy, like improving a golf swing, because they pay attention. Different personalities are suited for different fields like math, philosophy, or engineering. It's about finding what aligns with your thinking style, but traditional education, designed by the Rockefeller family, aims to create factory workers and soldiers. Starting education at age five allows for early indoctrination, separating children from their parents and having them taught by people they may not respect. The speaker recalls feeling this disconnect as a child, questioning why people they didn't respect controlled their education.

I've seen footage of children's bodies paid for by my taxpayer dollars. It's time to take action.

Schools are criticized for training people to be ignorant and lacking in critical thinking skills. They are seen as tools for the military industrial complex, producing obedient workers. However, parents can counteract this by providing alternative education at home. Encouraging creativity, reading diverse materials, and watching educational television can help children develop their thinking abilities. Parents should support their children's intellectual growth and not just focus on their success or being well-behaved.

America is not sending their best and brightest to watch. It's hard to believe that these people are making decisions that determine our government. It's actually scary.

We oppose mistreating children and disagree with the SDEM kids position. We believe that some people support abortion because they dislike children and God, who created them. They think murder is cool.

They don't care about us.

Early start, democracy education. In daycare centers, it is important to address this issue because we can see that the exclusionary opinions expressed by parents are influencing the children. Therefore, it is crucial to address this issue early on in our institutions.

What if I told you that every single day kids go to school, they become less intelligent? The speaker argues that there is so much more than just one type of intelligence. While school can increase academic intelligence by teaching subjects like physics, algebra, and calculus, it is diminishing the children's creative intelligence. The claim is that schooling teaches them to think in a particular way, to follow a defined path in life rather than exploring a broader range of possibilities. The argument continues that school promotes a conventional sequence: go to high school, get a diploma, go to a good college, and then find a stable, respectable job. It is suggested that this path is presented as the ticket to success. The speaker questions this premise by posing a rhetorical counterexample: if that predefined path were truly the key to success, how is it that the speaker stands there today? How did the speaker, described as a straight C student, start a technology company at the age of 16? The implication is that there are dimensions of intelligence and potential that academic performance alone does not capture, and that real innovation and achievement can arise from abilities beyond traditional academic measures. From this perspective, the central message is that conventional expectations about education and success may overlook or undervalue nonacademically measured talents and ingenuity. The speaker emphasizes that there must be facets of intelligence—creative, practical, entrepreneurial capabilities—that do not align neatly with standard academic metrics. The claim is that meaningful impact and world-changing outcomes often come from deviating from the standard script prescribed by societal norms about education and career paths. In closing, the speaker delivers a single, pointed takeaway: no one has ever changed the world by doing what the world has told them to do. This concluding assertion reinforces the idea that transformative progress typically arises when individuals pursue paths that challenge conventional wisdom and resist the pressure to conform to a uniform route. The message ends with a simple expression of gratitude: Thank you.

Our education system promotes intellectual passivity. Teachers often discourage questions to stay on schedule, which limits deeper understanding. For example, introducing Shakespeare to 10th graders can be problematic; many students struggle to grasp the material, leading to frustration. This approach seems misguided, as it aims to create well-rounded individuals but may instead stifle genuine interest and passion. Instead of forcing a broad curriculum, we should allow students to pursue their strengths and interests, potentially nurturing future experts in various fields.

The speaker claims that child labor is "in there" and that states are putting children at risk. They state "that's what they'll do."

The education system in Western Civilization was designed to create workers for industry, focusing on conditioning children to be better employees. This approach led to a monotonous public that lacked critical thinking skills and instead regurgitated information. Education should aim to enlighten people and promote freedom, but when thinking is suppressed, tyranny and oppression prevail. The systematic approach to education limits our ability to think creatively and solve new problems. Western culture was built on challenging old norms, as seen in the American Revolution. However, today's education system discourages questioning and conformity is encouraged. To change this, we need to differentiate between training and education, engage in longer conversations, and prioritize critical thinking.

They don't really care about us.

Children's education depends on their parents being wise and healthy. The current education system focuses on indoctrination rather than critical thinking. Historically, the system was designed to control slaves by keeping children busy and obedient. Today's education system still reflects this model, discouraging creativity and independent thinking.

ADHD may be overdiagnosed, with pharma pushing drugs for hyperactive kids. It's unfair to expect all kids to learn the same way. Bobby, who's hyperactive, might be brilliant if taught at his own pace. Not every child fits a one-size-fits-all teaching style. We should focus on each child's strengths rather than labeling them based on a standard curriculum. Let's not miss out on diamonds by treating them like rocks.

Schooling is criticized as a government-controlled system that stifles creativity in children, turning them into obedient individuals. The strict rules and regulations mirror a prison-like environment, conditioning kids to submit to authority. Mandatory schooling is seen as a form of slavery, producing citizens who comply with orders without question. The system aims to create a standardized population that benefits corporations and maintains power structures. The state enforces strict punishments for non-compliance, treating students like factory workers meeting quotas. Until mandatory schooling is abolished, children will continue to be raised as slaves, primed to accept subjugation in adulthood. Translation: The speaker criticizes schooling as a government-controlled system that stifles creativity in children, turning them into obedient individuals. The strict rules and regulations mirror a prison-like environment, conditioning kids to submit to authority. Mandatory schooling is seen as a form of slavery, producing citizens who comply with orders without question. The system aims to create a standardized population that benefits corporations and maintains power structures. The state enforces strict punishments for non-compliance, treating students like factory workers meeting quotas. Until mandatory schooling is abolished, children will continue to be raised as slaves, primed to accept subjugation in adulthood.

The speaker argues that sending children to a government-run school system at age five resembles an institution that trains obedience rather than independent thinking. They describe schools as places with eight-hour days under flickering lights, processed cafeteria food, purportedly fake history, and a focus on memorization over critical thought, urging students to raise their hands, stand in line, and not question rules. The speaker draws a parallel between schools and prisons, suggesting both restrict questioning and enforce authority. They claim the Rockefeller family, historically associated with shaping the medical system, also funded and shaped the modern education system. The assertion is that this influence was intended not to empower children but to create obedient workers who serve the system without question. The speaker cites John D. Rockefeller, saying, "I don't want a nation of free thinkers. I want a nation of workers," and asks whether the school system was created for the benefit of children or for the power and control of its creators. The overall message is a cautionary view of education as a tool for conditioning conformity and maintaining systemic control, rather than fostering independent thinking. The speaker concludes with the disclaimer, "I'm just a conspiracy theorist."

Our agenda being unchecked may corrupt your kids. Funny, but you're right.

The nuclear family is a scam. We shouldn't be doing this alone.

America is not sending their best and brightest to make important decisions for the government. It's hard to believe that these people are the ones in charge, and it's actually scary.

- The speaker argues that college is not primarily for learning; everything can be learned for free, and the main value of college is demonstrating hard work through assignments and providing a social environment for a period of time. They also note a need for evidence of exceptional ability, suggesting that attending college is not itself evidence of exceptional ability and that some highly successful people (e.g., Gates, “Java,” Larry Ellison) dropped out. - Education should resemble a video game: make learning interactive and engaging, and disconnect grade levels from subjects so students can progress at their fastest pace or at their own interest level in each subject. - Much of current teaching resembles vaudeville: a lecturer delivering the same talk year after year, not necessarily engaging, which reduces effectiveness. - Peter Thiel’s view is referenced: a university education is often unnecessary, though not for all people. You typically learn as much in the first two years as you will later, much of it from classmates. For many companies, completion of a degree signals perseverance, which can matter depending on the goal. - If the goal is to start a company, finishing college may be pointless. The idea is that education should not treat people as assembly-line objects moving through standardized English, math, science sequences from grade to grade. - Ad Astra is a small school created by the speaker for their five boys (and growing to 14 now, 20 by September), named meaning “to the stars.” It departs from traditional grading: there are no grades, no grade-by-grade progression, and education is tailored to individual aptitudes and abilities. The school emphasizes teaching problem solving or problem-based learning rather than teaching tools first—e.g., for engines, students start with the engine and learn which tools are needed to disassemble it, rather than teaching about screwdrivers and wrenches in isolation. - Students respond positively: the kids enjoy going to school and even think vacations are too long, indicating high engagement. The speaker notes that education should be more gamified and engaging, rather than a chore. - The speaker critiques conventional education as downloading data and algorithms, implying it’s tremendously inefficient and often unnecessary to learn some topics for future use, reinforcing the need for a problem-centered, engaging approach.

Speaker: Jared Cooney Horvath I am a former teacher turned cognitive neuroscientist who focuses on human learning, and I do not receive funding from big tech. A sobering fact our generation faces is that our kids are less cognitively capable than we were at their age. Every generation has outperformed their parents, and that is what we want: sharper kids. The reason for this largely has been school. Each generation spends more time in school, and we use school to develop our cognition until Gen Z. Gen Z is the first generation of modern history to underperform us on basically every cognitive measure we have, from basic attention to memory to literacy to numeracy to executive functioning to even general IQ, even though they go to more school than we did. So why? What happened around 2010 that decoupled schooling from cognitive development? It can't be school. Schools basically look the same. It can't be biology. This hasn't enough time to change. The answer appears to be the tools we are using within schools to drive that learning. Across 80 countries, as Jean was just saying, if you look at the data, once countries adopt digital technology widely in schools, performance goes down significantly to the point where kids who use computers about five hours per day in school for learning purposes will score over two thirds of a standard deviation less than kids who rarely or never touch tech at school, and that's across 80 countries. Bring it home to The US. Let's go to The US. We have our NAEP. That's our big data. Take any state. Here's a fun experiment you can try. Take any state NAEP data. Compare that to when that state adopted one to one technology widely, and watch what happens. The NAEP data will plateau and then start to drop. And, of course, this is all correlative. What we really want is causation. To get causation, what you need is academic research, and you need mechanisms, explanations for why we're seeing what we're seeing. Luckily, we have academic research stretching back to 1962 that shows the exact same story for sixty years. When tech enters education, learning goes down. In fact, because what do kids do on computers? They skim. So rather than determining what do we want our children to do and gearing education towards that, we are redefining education to better suit the tool. That's not progress. As we go through our discussion today, there will be a lot of talk about smartphones and social media, rightly so. But I’m the voice here to remind you that even in schools, it doesn't matter what the size of the screen is. If it's a phone, if it's a laptop, if it's desktop, and it doesn't matter who bought it. Is it school sanctioned? Does it have the word education stamped on it? It doesn't matter. All of these things are also gonna hurt learning, which in turn are gonna hurt our kids' cognitive development right at the time when we need our kids to be sharper than we are.