Season 1 Top 10 | #1 Embracing Individuality. A Conversation with Todd Rose. - KindlED

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Kindle podcast, Adrian.
How's it going?
How's your summer?

Speaker 2 (00:04):
Well it's, my kids have been in school now for a
couple of weeks.
Well, my third one.
He has a late start this year,so he doesn't start until next
week and he's going to a microschool.
So he's super excited and butyeah, it's been good just
getting back into the swing ofthings.

Speaker 1 (00:22):
Yeah, it's so funny.
Here in Arizona, where Adrianand I are, school actually
starts like the end of July,which seems so crazy, but they
kind of do modified year roundhere because it's so hot or like
why don't we take breaks whenthe weather's nicer?
So we have been in school for alittle while now, but for most
of you all it's still summertimeand that's wonderful and
beautiful.

(00:43):
And this is our very lastsummer re-release.
So in our number one spot, ourfavorite episode and again, we
can't really pick favorites orput them in an actual order, but
this episode was so, so great.
This is episode 25, EmbracingIndividuality with Todd Rose.
Adrienne, what did you likeabout this episode?

Speaker 2 (01:06):
rose, adrienne, what did you like about this episode?
Every single word that came outof his mouth.
I still remember, katie, likewhen he left, we both were just
like we weren't talking and thatis abnormal for the two of us.
I feel like our mouths werelike, oh my gosh, what just
happened?
That was incredible.
Yes, like everyone needs toread all of his books, everyone

(01:27):
needs to like listen to thisepisode to understand that there
is no average.

Speaker 1 (01:33):
Yes, totally.
I think that this, the conceptsthat he talks about in the end
of average and in this heat Imean he talks about all of his
books on this podcast.
It's a great overview.
But the main like drivingfactor here is that we have this
idea that there is a normalcourse of development or
learning and we have all of thestandardized based education

(01:54):
like built up around that andfrom that comes the idea that
you can be behind and from thatcomes the idea that if you're
behind, you're less intelligentand then we can label you.
You know, all of these negativethings kind of stem from that.
The idea that if you're behind,you're less intelligent and
then we can label you.
All of these negative thingskind of stem from that.
And so when you actuallyunderstand that humans, he talks
about the concept of jaggednessand I think that everyone's
strengths and weaknesses andtalents and intelligence they're

(02:17):
all.
It's not a straight line, it'snot easy to measure and it's
very diverse and jagged.
And once you kind of have thatidea, you go into looking at a
child's strengths and theiropportunities for growth in a
very different way.
That isn't comparing their likeI'll say like false or
imaginary, like straight line ofgrowth to someone else's line

(02:41):
of growth.
It's just like you.
That really is franklyimpossible and I think that this
episode and all of Todd Rose'swork really kind of like blows
the cover off of that whole idea, which, once we don't believe
that like a whole, like litanyof other things, have to change.
So those were kind of myhighlights and I can't wait,

(03:04):
yeah, and his personal story.

Speaker 2 (03:05):
If you're not familiar with Todd Rose's work,
you listen to the episode, butdive deep into his work.
His personal story is prettyphenomenal because, yes, he
ended up going to Harvard afterfailing out of high school, but
it's not even that, it's justlike the little details.

(03:25):
And then he was able to takethem and I saw so much grit.
He just kept pushing forward,even though he was treated in a
way that was lesser than becausehe learns in a different way.
So I love that he's taking hispersonal story and he's making a
really big impact in the world.

Speaker 1 (03:46):
Yeah, 100%.
All right, this is episode 25,embracing Individuality, with
Todd Rose and our very lastsummer re-release.
So we will be back with ourfirst episode of season two next
week and we are super, superexcited.
But enjoy episode 25 this week,can't?

Speaker 2 (04:03):
wait.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
A child's uniqueness is not something to be ignored.
It is something to cultivate,because we know over and over
again from our research aperson's individuality is the
greatest source of theirfulfillment, but also their
highest contribution to society.
Highest contribution to society.
Imagine your child coming outof an environment prepared, but

(04:27):
also confident and happy, andable to contribute to society.

Speaker 1 (04:36):
Hi and welcome to the Kindled podcast where we dig
into the art and science behindkindling, the motivation,
curiosity and mental well-beingof the young humans in our lives
.

Speaker 2 (04:41):
Together, we'll discover practical tools and
strategies you can use to helpkids unlock their full potential
and become the strongestversion of their future selves.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
Hi and welcome to the Kindle podcast, adrienne.
It's good to see you today.
How's it going?

Speaker 2 (05:07):
Good, it's so great to see you too.
Katie, how are you doing today?
Super good.
What's going on at your house?
We have been doing someparent-teacher conferences with
my middle schooler and I get tomeet with all of his teachers
individually.
They've done it different waysin the past.
It's like you show up and youjust kind of get like a little
snippets of time.
Last year I sat down with allof them at a table and that was

(05:29):
really interesting because, youknow, my student isn't the most
model student as far as behaviorgoes, but with some teachers he
is and some teachers he's not,and it's all about relationship,
which really with any childright.
And so I went in this time weactually got 20 minutes with
each teacher and I sat downbrand new teacher.

(05:50):
She actually hasn't evenfinished her degree yet.
In Arizona you can teach withoutan education degree, but she is
getting it and she willcomplete it at the end of this
year.
So anyway, she's like you know,I'm a new teacher and she's
older, she has children.
And she said you know, I'mcompleting my degree this year.

(06:11):
And the school kept telling memaster base, like we're doing
master base.
However, they're doing it inthe system.
It is a charter school, thereare certain things that they
have to follow, and it's ahybrid school.
Do you know what a hybridschool is?
Tell me.
It is basically part-timein-person instruction and
part-time virtual learning.
And so, brand new teacher, Imean, she's going to school

(06:32):
right now and it's interesting,she's going to school and has
never heard the concept ofmastery-based learning, which is
, she thought, was kind of funnytoo.
And so she told me, because shesat down and just was showing
us all these very, very creativeways, that she is making it
mastery based within this system.
That is not meant, you know, tobe individualized for the

(06:52):
student.
And so I asked her I was like,so how did you like come up with
this?
And she looks at me and saidTikTok, she's in school, katie,
she's in school to become ateacher and she's learning how
to individualize learning onTikTok, which I thought was
pretty awesome.

Speaker 1 (07:10):
That actually doesn't make me mad, because we're on
TikTok and if someone that wasin teaching school found our
content and figured out how theycould empower kids with
mastery-based learning andinquiry-based learning, more
power to them, right, it'll keepthem on in teachers' colleges,
it'll get there.

Speaker 2 (07:27):
It's pretty amazing, though, because they she
basically like has them takethis quick quiz just to see
where they are like without any,they have no idea what they're
going to be learning like a newtopic and just to see what they
already know so that they canhave a measure.
As soon as we sat down, sheasked him.
She said what do you think yougot in the pre-test?

(07:49):
And he's like oh, like a 60%.
And she said okay, what do youthink you got after we learned
the content?
And he was like oh, probablylike an 80%.
And she wrote it down on asticky and she slid it across
the table.
His face was amazing, because hestarted at 38% and he ended up
after he learned it and theywere collaborating and doing
projects and things like thisbased around the topic.
He had a 90 percent and hisface was like whoa, look how

(08:12):
much.
So, even just seeing hisconfidence of look how much I
learn, versus if he would justtake that test and fail it, oh,
I'm stupid, let's just move on,you know, because that's kind of
how it was when he was in justa traditional learning
environment.
So it's really I'm just amazedat these teachers and educators
that are finding ways to trulypersonalize learning, which

(08:35):
leads us to who we're kind oftalking to today.
He's done a lot of research, onaverage, and what that means.
So, katie, can you tell us whowe're talking to today?

Speaker 1 (08:43):
Yes, I definitely can .
Todd Rose is the co-founder andCEO of Populous, a think tank
committed to a positive, someworld where all people have the
opportunity to live fulfillinglives in a thriving society.
Prior to Populous, dr Rose wasa professor at Harvard
University, where he served asthe faculty director at the Mind
, brain and Education program,as well as led the laboratory

(09:04):
for the Science of Individuality.
Todd is the author of threebestselling books the End of
Average, dark Horse andCollective Illusions.
He lives in Burlington,massachusetts.
We're so excited to talk to DrTodd Rose today.
Todd Rose, welcome to theKindle podcast.
We're so excited to have youtoday.

Speaker 3 (09:22):
Excited to be here.

Speaker 1 (09:23):
So tell us a little bit about you and your
background and how you came todo the work that you're doing
today, and kind of give us alittle insight into how that
might relate to education.

Speaker 3 (09:33):
Sure, okay.
So I would first ask like howfar back you want me to go.
But I'll give you theprofessional stuff and then we
can see how far you want to go.
But my original work researchhas been in.
I was a professor for over adecade.
I led the MindBrain educationprogram at Harvard.
My obsession has been aroundthis idea of the science of

(09:54):
individuality, which is relatedto education, as we'll see, but
not specific to it, which is formost of our history, especially
the last 100, 200 years, we'vebasically just studied groups
and averages, and so my work hasbeen part of the new field that
gets away from that and studiesindividuals on their own terms
and same methodologies leadingto, like personalized medicine,

(10:16):
nutrition, education.
So I'm obsessed about that, andI'm particularly obsessed about
the way we structure learningenvironments, because I feel
like this is the place whereeither we amplify individuality
and potential or we absolutelyjust squash it.
And I think you know it's notjust about batch processing kids

(10:38):
to prepare them forpre-existing jobs.
It's quite literally thecultivation of an entire
generation of potential andfulfillment.

Speaker 1 (10:45):
Yeah, I love that framing.
Take us a little further backto some of your own personal
history and relationships withgrowing up and being labeled
Sure sure I have a mixed trackrecord in education.

Speaker 3 (10:58):
I guess that'd be fair.
So I like to lead with you.
Know, at some point I wasreasonably smart.
I grew up, though, like schooldid not work.
I grew up in rural America.
In the place I was at,everything was about conformity
and that was just not going towork for me.
But I also am just like acurious person and my
personality did not fit verywell with this sit down, shut up

(11:20):
, like you're going to learnwhat we tell you when we tell
you.
And.
And it culminated where I liketo say I dropped out of high
school, but really they justkicked me out.
It just feels better Like I hadsome control.
We mutually agreed that I wouldleave with a 0.9 GPA.
I say that because I actuallythink you have to work really

(11:41):
hard to do that poorly.
Like I didn't even get sociallypromoted, right, um so, and it
was an interesting sort of rockbottom because shortly
thereafter my girlfriend at thetime found out she was pregnant.
Uh, we ended up having two kidsby the time we were 21.
Like, I had had like a stringof minimum wage jobs.

(12:03):
It was bad, we were on welfare,and that was sort of the time
when I realized education wasgoing to play a much more
positive role in my life.
I was really fortunate.
My dad was the first highschool graduate in our family
and decided he was a mechanic,decided when I was in middle
school to go to college at nightand he became a mechanical

(12:26):
engineer and he just retired.
He's.
He's one of the highestachieving.
He designed airbags and he'sinvented so many things that
have saved so many people'slives.
And so I watched educationchange our lives and life
circumstances and realized, okay, well, I mean maybe that right,
which was funny given my pastrecord.

(12:48):
So I took the GED, I enrolledat Weber State University open
enrollment school in Ogden, utah, and we had just enough money
that my family had cobbledtogether that I could get
through one year and if Icouldn't do well enough to get
some kind of scholarship, thatwas going to be it.
And I have to say, just forcontext, this is no kidding.

(13:09):
I mean the last job I hadbefore I did that, it was just
almost out of desperation.
My job was I was a home healthcare aide who traveled around
and gave people enemas.
That was my job.
So I knew what I didn't wantand I knew that I had to do
right by my kids and you know.
But I didn't know where I wasgoing.
I just knew I something had tochange.

(13:30):
And I got to Weber State and,again out of desperation, I knew
that if I did the same thingsI'd done, tried learning the
same way that I'd tried before,it wasn't going to work.
That was my first encounterwith well, maybe I need to know
more about myself and makechoices there.
I actually thought it wasbecause something was wrong with
me and I just had to getworkarounds.
Do you know what I mean?

(13:51):
Like everybody else couldsucceed the standardized way.
For sort of dumb people like me, we got to do extra stuff.
This is the thing that makes meso angry about education.
So a kid goes into astandardized experience that has
no respect for theirindividuality and if they got
through it, we call that success.
Right Like it's.
It's amplifying nobody, butthey got through it.

(14:13):
So I keep failing, failing,failing.
Why wouldn't I assume that it'sme Like what?
What kid's going to be like?
The system is structured wrong.
Right Like, so you internalizea view of yourself that will-.

Speaker 2 (14:27):
I'm bad, I'm not good .
Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 3 (14:29):
Yeah, yeah, and it's like you're just not worthy,
you're not smart, and thenthat's going to affect the
choices you make the rest ofyour life.
You are going to rule outopportunities because you don't
believe you are capable.
It makes me, when we talk aboutthings like personalized
learning and these new models ofeducation, we can sometimes get

(14:50):
caught up in the mechanics ofit, as if that's a no.
This is about like what we oweour children, like these
institutions have the ability touplift or just crush, and so
it's more at stake than justwhether we get higher test
scores.
So back for me.
I'm making my way through it.

(15:11):
I had some good experiences.
I'm learning that like contextreally matters.
I kind of knew the classes thatwere working for me.
I was doing the best I could,and I'll tell you there's one
defining moment that completelychanges my life, and it was.
I was sitting in a historyclass in a big auditorium.
I couldn't get out of it.

(15:32):
That's not a good environmentfor me to learn, but I couldn't
get out of it.
It was just it.
And I'm sitting next to mybuddy, steve, and the class ends
and I'm like this is so boring,like I, this is so bad.
And he says, oh, this isnothing compared to what he got
himself into in honors program.

(15:52):
And I was like I don't, I don'tknow what honors is Like, I
thought it was just more work orwhatever.
And he's like no, no, no, no,no, no, you got it wrong.
It's so much worse than that.
He said there aren't lectures,there's just like these small
groups of no more than 12students, so you can't skip
because everybody knows yourname.
Okay, he's like we don't taketests, we just write essays and

(16:15):
come up with ideas.
And he goes I don't even thinkthere are right answers, we just
debate all the time.
And I'm like Whoa that's, I'dnever heard of anything like
that.
Right, I literally took my bags, skip.
My next class, went right to thehonors program, went in and and
the secretary, a woman namedMarilyn Diamond, who who's one

(16:37):
most important people ever to meI said I want to be in the
honors program and she says,okay, okay, like, let's see if I
can get you in.
Talk to the director.
So they just let me in.
They're excited because it's anopen enrollment school.
They're trying to beef up thisspecial program they've got.
So the director's reallyexcited.
Come sit in front of me, I sitdown in front of his desk and
he's like okay, I'm excited, youwant to be in the honors

(16:57):
program.
Just a few questions what's yourhigh school GPA?
And I said 0.9.
And this is no kidding.
He actually said what 0.9?
Like I left off kind of themost important piece.
And then I am just likemortified where I'm like 0.9.

(17:19):
And he's like like he wasreally nice about it.
He wasn't mean, he just waslike.
And he's like like he wasreally nice about it.
He wasn't mean, he just waslike you can't be in the honors
program, like, and I just I'dbeen.
Just I just rushed therebecause it sounded amazing.
And now I'm sitting there justlike wishing I could crawl under
a rock right Like this is justthe worst.
So I'm just grabbing my stuff,I apologize, I shake his hand

(17:41):
Sorry for wasting your time andI just want to get out.
And as I'm leaving the office,marilyn Diamond's desk is just
right outside the door.
And as I'm walking out, shereached out and grabbed my arm
and she said listen, I overheardthe conversation.
If you want this, don't take nofor an answer.
And I was like I didn't knowyou could right.

(18:04):
So in my mind the authority wasthe authority, like there was
no wiggle room, and I was like Ididn't know you could, right.
So in my mind the authority wasthe authority, like there was
no wiggle room.
And I'm like what do you mean?
And she's just sit here on thecouch and don't leave until he
lets you in.
So I sat there for at leastthree hours as he came in and
out, he went and taught a class,came back and he kept saying
what are you doing?
You know like I'm like I wantto be on the honors program and

(18:24):
he's like you can't.
So finally, what felt like theentire day, but it was just a
few hours, he pokes his head outand he says come in.
And he sat me and he said look,why do you want to be in the
honors program?
Because on paper it makes nosense.
It makes no sense.
And so I explained to him likeyeah, despite failing algebra
three times in high school andnot doing very well, like I know

(18:45):
, it looks like it should bethis linear thing, but I know
enough about myself now, aboutthe environments where I think I
do well and where I don't, andthis seems like perfect.
And he said okay, I can't letyou in permanently, but I'll let
you in provisionally, pick aclass and if you do well, I'll
let you pick another class andwe'll go from there.

(19:06):
So I, I, I.
This was, like I thought, themost important decision of my
life.
I went through Cal.
I looked at every class theyoffered and I picked plagues of
the modern era because I waslike, well, that scares the heck
out of me, like this shouldkeep my attention.
And it was everything I everimagined and I just thrived and

(19:29):
flash forward.
I graduated with a 397 GPA inpsychology, pre-med on my way to
Harvard for my doctorate, butalso as the honor student of the
year for my doctorate, but alsoas the honor student of the

(19:50):
year.
And I say that for two reasons.
One is it absolutely taught methe importance of individuality
and good fit.
It is about fit between theindividual and their learning
environment and there's just notwo ways about that.
How can the same kid failremedial math and succeed in
honors right, if not, for it'scontextualized, it's about fit.

(20:11):
But second and I never want tolose sight of this is this is
like the story of my life, likeI've worked really hard to get
where I am and I'm proud of thateffort I put in.
None of it would have matteredwithout Marilyn Diamond.
None of it.
And here's what's funny aboutMarilyn Diamond I was just back

(20:31):
at Weber State a few years agoto get an award for alum of the
year kind of thing, and she wasretiring that same time.
I thought what a greatopportunity to tell some version
of this story while she's inthe audience.
So I tell it more or less likeI told you.
The dean gets excited.
He's like Marilyn, why don'tyou come up?
They all applaud for her.

(20:53):
She gets to the microphone.
She gives me a hug and she getsto the microphone.
She says well, look, I'm kindof embarrassed.
She said, todd, I don'tremember this and I thought she
was saying I was lying right andI'm like no, it happened.
She's like no, I know, I justdon't remember it.
And for me, I remember it asthis most important event of my

(21:17):
life up to that time.
And what turns out is everyonehad a Marilyn story.
This was how she was and Inever forgot this because it was
so life-changing for me.
But it was minimal effort forher from her own mission and I
think this is how it works,right, like, really getting the

(21:39):
most out of our potential is nota solo exercise, and sometimes
we think that it requiresmassive amounts of our potential
is not a solo exercise, andsometimes we think that it
requires massive amounts of ourinvestment in other people to
truly help them, when it's notreally true.
Right, showing up in thesesmall moments can make all the
difference in the world.

Speaker 2 (21:54):
Wow, so much to unpack there.
As you're talking, my brain wasgoing in all many different
directions.
I was thinking, though, aboutlike the motivation for it to
even matter to you is like oncethere was skin in the game and
you were like I don't want tokeep giving NMS and, and I have
a family and so there'saccountability there too.

(22:16):
It's like, okay, I have skin inthe game, but you still were
like this isn't working for me.
How can I get it to work for me?
I am just I mean, that'sincredible that she was there
and gate and that's I can'tbelieve like she can't even
remember that and she just wasprobably just doing her thing
Like you go and you know andprobably communicates that with
a lot of people.

(22:37):
But then a few things that yousaid that I found that really
resonated with me.
So conformity totally workedfor me.
I loved the school system.
It was a reprieve from not thebest what was happening at home,
and I performed really well.
However, even instead ofthinking I was a bad kid or

(22:59):
something was wrong with me, Iwas obsessed with the grades and
obsessed with performing well.
So it was kind of the opposite.
But then I had a child whoconformity does not work for him
at all.
And every time I got a callfrom that school in kindergarten
I remember feeling like I wasthe one getting in trouble and

(23:20):
then he would come home and Iremember these conversations I
was having with him you have todo better, you have to care.
And because it was about me inthat moment, it wasn't even
about him.
And then, year after year, sowe ended up finding Prenda when
he was middle of fourth grade.
So we went five and a halfyears before we finally left

(23:41):
that system and I got callsconstantly and I mean I do have
to say he had quite a fewteachers that were really good
and could see like there wassomething more in him.
And but that fourth grade yearI remember sitting in the
principal's office, going overhis 504 plan, sitting with an OT
and with the teacher and thisis the principal and the

(24:03):
occupational therapist was likelook at the way his brain works.
This is incredible.
He's able to do these thingsI've never seen a child be able
to do in the 20 years I've beendoing this work.
And the teacher's like he'sdisruptive, he's not, you know,
like just was focusing so muchon the behavior Like I don't
care about what his brain can dohe but I get it.
I can give her a little bit ofgrace because she had 36

(24:25):
students and he equates about 20himself.
His behaviors were very big butwhat's incredible is he did
Prenda for a little while andthen he wanted more friends and
more of a regular environment.
But the traditional system justdoes not work for him.

(24:49):
We found this school and it's ahybrid.
I talked about this in ourintro and even though they're in
the system and they're in acharter, they are so creative
and innovative in how they cando mastery-based learning.
And when he gets in trouble hecomes home.
He's like mom.
He's like I got.
You know I was behaving not inthe greatest way Like he just
gets really big and lots of youknow behaviors.

(25:11):
He's like the principal walksaround the campus with me.
We went and pulled weedstogether and he was like asking
me how I felt.
He's like in my other school,you know, like I had to go and
stand against the wall and beshamed pretty much for having to
move my body.
So so much of your story reallyresonates with me.
There's so many kids out therethat do start to develop this

(25:33):
very limiting belief system atsuch a young age.
These five and six-year-oldsalready thinking they're a bad
kid because they can't sit stillor because they can't.
I mean, they're doing timedmath tests.
You know kindergarten and firstgrade, and these kids can't
keep up.
I mean they're just learninghow to write their numbers.

(25:53):
So so much of what you say Ithink is so important that we
look at what we're doing in thesystem, right.

Speaker 3 (26:00):
Well, that's the thing, and we can talk more
about some of my work in thescience, because it'll be
relevant, but just we can haverespect for public education,
and our ability to commit toeducating the masses is one of
the greatest accomplishments,probably in human history, right
Off of the high school movement, where it really peaks.

(26:22):
I mean, no one had ever donethat, and back then, with our
technologies and our resources,you chose between giving a
standardized experience toeveryone or a bespoke experience
to a privileged few, and so ifwe were having this conversation
back then, I would have beenthe biggest advocate for
standardized education, becauseI want everyone to get something

(26:44):
, rather than a few to geteverything.
What we have to recognize,though and it's of its parents
and, as teachers, and just thegeneral public is that we tend
to think, because we wentthrough something, it must be
the way it should be done andthat it's the right way, when,
in reality, our technologies,our understanding of how

(27:05):
learning happens, ourappreciation for human
uniqueness and even our economyand what it needs and values has
so fundamentally changed thatwe don't have to live with the
constraints of the past like andand and.

Speaker 1 (27:39):
It won't be good enough to say we're abandoning
that system wholesale foranother one-size-fits-all model
right the pluralism, the abilityto are, and the slower you go.
That's lack of intelligence.
Where did that idea come from?
Give us the history of.
Where did this idea that thereis an average, a perfect, a
thing that we should all beattaining to?
How did that happen to society?

Speaker 3 (28:00):
Yeah Well, that's what's funny is like in the book
the End of Average.
That's why I was like peopledon't realize that we're living
in a society that believesthere's such a thing as an
average person and in fact mostpeople hear that go right, there
has to be obviously right.
And you almost imagine a bellcurve and there's like something
in the middle and first of allit turns out that's not true and
we can get to that.
But I thought, before we showthat scientifically, I thought

(28:23):
we should probably explain howdid we get here?
How did we ever think that thiswould be true?
And it turns out it's just thisarc of you know 1835, this
Belgian astronomer, adolfKetelet.
Like, seriously in astronomy,when your biggest problem is
that, let's say, we're alltrying to measure the same thing

(28:44):
and we're in differentlocations, well, look, you're
going to measure it slightlydifferent than I am.
The instrument could bedifferent, just human error.
And the biggest problem theyhad in astronomy was which of
these measurements is true.
And it turns out as long asthey're just sort of random
errors.
If you just average all of themeasurements, the average is way

(29:06):
closer to the truth and that istrue.
Okay, so Ketelay, he's runningthis observatory in Belgium and
he knows how to do that.
The rise of the first big data,where we started doing
demographic surveys because itwas also like revolution and
we're getting rid of Kings andwe got okay.

(29:28):
Well, how does someone govern?
So he's getting a lot of bigdata for the first time and
every time he plots it he seesthis bell curve and he's like
huh, well, wait a minute.
If the average in astronomy iswhat's true, what if there's
this?
What if, like the average ofthe human being stuff, what if
that's actually what God meant?

(29:49):
That's his view.
What if it's like actually thetruth and the rest of it's just
kind of error, right?
So he coins the term theaverage person and people were
like this is so dumb.
At first, like really, reallymocked him.
But it took off because ofinsurance.
So it turns out I don't needfor insurance, I'm just

(30:10):
amortizing risk across everybody.
So knowing averages was reallyhelpful.
And now as a person whetherit's life insurance or I want to
insure a shipment as anentrepreneur or I want to ensure
a shipment as an entrepreneurthis was valuable to me and so
it starts to just seep intosociety.
And that's the first one, now.
Ketelay thought averages wereperfection.

(30:30):
He loved them.
He thought the whole goal ofsociety was to shave off the
edges, get everyone to theaverage.
He didn't think being aboveaverage was better.
He called them, both sides ofthe curve, monstrosities.
So, yeah, he wanted everyone tobe average.
The second guy you got to knowabout, though, and Ketelay was a
decent guy.
He just was genuinely trying toimprove society.

(30:50):
But then this guy, who was aguy named Francis Galton he was
truly a bad guy.
So he's in England and he readsKetelay and he's like this is
this is amazing.
Just one problem Averagesaren't good.
It's above average that youwant to be.
Because he was an aristocrat andhe was watching it.
His in his time, in like the1860s and stuff.

(31:11):
A lot of working class peoplewanting to be able to vote
wanted to participate, and hewas like this is bad, and his
cousin was Charles Darwin.
And so you get evolution comeson the scene.
He's like well, but what aboutthis?
So he's trying to find ways tostart selecting the best from
the rest.
He actually is the father ofeugenics.
That would be about that, buthe needs a tool.

(31:34):
How do I know who's best?
And he knew it was people likehim.
So what's really funny is heinvents a bunch of mathematics
off of Ketelay stuff that westill use today.
So he invented the idea ofpercentiles, because if the
curve isn't just error, I've gotto be able to measure how far
away from the curve.
So basically, he invented, hecontributed to correlation,
regression, all these things weuse, all in the name of like how

(31:56):
do we find the smartest peopleand then, like you know, get the
dumb people to not breathereally.
So these ideas of average andrank is the way he thought about
it get pulled into America inthis age of standardization that
most people don't know about.
This is the last person I'lltell you.
This is getting.
This is probably too wonky, butthere's an approach called the

(32:19):
efficiency movement that startedby Frederick Taylor.
This guy decides wait a minute,yeah, there's.
If we standardized everything,we could be more efficient,
which is true you can.
He was obsessed with the ideas,puts them into practice, but he
puts them into practice at work.
So he he completely changes howbusinesses are run.

(32:40):
He invents the term manager,like he says why are employees
having a say in what they do?
This doesn't make any sense.
So anyway.
Basically, the drudgery of workthat most people experience is
directly thanks to this guy,right, frederick Taylor.
And then it just seeps.
So the last step of this andhow we got to where we are today
it seeps into education.

(33:00):
Not surprisingly, right.
If work is standardized andfactorized, then how do you
prepare people for thatstandardized environment?
So we deploy the same ideas ofstandardization and rank and
selection, and the guy that doesthe most for that is Edward
Thorndike, the father ofeducational psychology.
Ironically, this is a guy who'sa eugenicist as well, who

(33:22):
didn't believe everyone shouldgo to school.
They weren't smart enough.
So he's the one that comes upwith.
He realizes that what it meantto be smart.
This is the longest answer toyour question ever, probably,
but your question of how did weget to this idea of like fast
equals smart and slow equalsdumb?
So Thorndike believed that yourbrain had a speed to it and

(33:46):
smart was just how fast youcould form memories.
And so he was like well,obviously fast is smart and slow
is dumb.
So we actually still follow thisin a standardized education
system when we come up with, forexample, how long we should
give you to take a standardizedtest, things like the SAT.
This is how long it takes theaverage person to finish, under

(34:08):
the assumption that if you'reslower than that, you're too
stupid, have a disability to getit, and so we locked that in.
And now we now have so muchresearch that shows it was
complete garbage.

(34:29):
Like, actually, speed andability have nothing in common
nothing.
And once you realize that, thenyou realize fixed time learning
may be the greatest destroyerof talent and potential that you
could have ever devised.
My good friend, sal Khan, right, he sees this in spades in the

(34:53):
self-paced learning environmentshe has where it's like someone
will look like they don'tunderstand it, and then just pop
right and you're like, wow, ifwe would have stopped their
learning, you know, two daysearlier, they would look like
the worst performing kid in theclass.

Speaker 1 (35:06):
Or if we interject right there and shame them or
make them feel like they're notwinning.
We don't have to do anything,because they'll quit on their
own.

Speaker 3 (35:13):
That's right.
And one of my intellectualidols would be Benjamin Bloom.
You know who's the father ofmastery, learning and what he
does and just proves I stillthink it's the most
underappreciated educationalresearch out there.
So he basically says, well, ifwe just stop for a second and
think, what would be likeliterally the best education you

(35:36):
could have?
And he's like, wouldn't it belike a one-to-one tutor that
knew you really well?
And like, knew the material andcould respond?
And he's like you know, I mean,look, alexander the Great had
you know, he had Aristotle right.
Like this is, you know, not abad tutor, right.
And so he says, well, let'sjust see, right, like, because

(36:00):
he was pushing back against thisstandardized model.
That said, there's a bell curveof talent and some kids are
just innately smart and somekids aren't.
So he does this randomassignment, uh like, not with
just like everyday kids, andputs one group in this same
material in, uh, the normalclassroom fixed time right, one
to many and other kids inself-paced same total amount of

(36:22):
time, by the way, justself-paced in this one and with
tutor.
And what he finds is it becomeswhat's called the two sigma
challenge, which is the it wasso overwhelmingly better in the
tutoring condition that thetypical kid was performing in
the 98th percentile of thisstandardized group.
Like, it is just like, and whathe takes away from it is what

(36:48):
one kid can do academically mostany kid could do under highly
favorable conditions.
And so he gets excited.
But then he's like well, wait aminute, what would it mean to
give everybody that kind ofpersonalized learning?
He gets his economist friendsat the University of Chicago to
run the numbers and it'ssomething like 40 times whatever
any country's ever spent oneducation at the time.

(37:09):
So he's like well, that's justnot possible.
So he instead invents masterylearning, which is how could we
get most of this effect in aclassroom environment?
Right, and it is most of thetime in science, ideas die
because they get falsified,because you just, you know, they

(37:29):
just don't work right.
This might be the only examplethat I know of where it went
away, not because it was nottrue, but because the government
became disinterested in it.
It was that nation at risk, itwas all these things where we're
like oh, the Russians aregetting ahead of us, we just got
to get more engineers and more,and they just stopped caring

(37:53):
about the cultivation of kids.
And then we went obsessive onthese high stakes tests and all
these things, and in partbecause we still didn't really
have the technology to do thatin a, in a, in a very like
cost-effective way.
But we do now.
And there may be the leastcontroversial statement I'll

(38:14):
probably say all day today isthat mastery-based learning is
so ridiculously superior toanything else that it's almost
immoral that we don't providethat for every single kid in
this country, especially when wecan do it at not, it doesn't
cost more than what we'respending right now.

(38:36):
And so I feel, like you know, inmy work on the science of
individuality, the places thatmade the change fastest, when
they realized there's no suchthing as an average person, were
in medicine, where there's amoral imperative right.
But how is the cultivation of achild's personality and
potential any less moral?
As an imperative, we compelparents to send their kids to

(38:59):
school.
And you know what?
John Dewey, who no one wouldthink is center right he was the
most progressive educationalphilosopher at the time wrote a
book I probably will butcher thename.
I think it was Individuality inEducation.
But he said the onlyjustification for compulsory
education in a democracy is thefull development of a child's

(39:21):
individuality, anything else.
How do you justify having thegovernment force parents to drop
kids off at this school, likein Israel, unless you are
committed to the development oftheir individuality?

Speaker 2 (39:35):
Wow, that's really powerful, Very powerful Again.
My brain's going in all thedifferent directions.
So much of what you sayresonate because my second child
is getting a one-to-oneeducation thanks to we have ESA
here in Arizona, and so he has aprivate tutor and it's
incredible the education, justhow rich the education he's

(39:57):
getting.
He doesn't do worksheets, theyjust read this really incredible
like literature, and he lovesdiving into history I think he
does like four or five differenthistories and sciences, and you
know but he has this one-to-oneeducation.
My mind goes, though, that'snot available to every kid.
So what you're saying is thenokay, we have mastery base,

(40:19):
let's do this so that we canprovide that to more kids.
So if average does not exist,then how do we move forward,
like what's next for humanity?
And I guess another question Ihave is like why do we keep
doing things the way we're doingif the research is so sticking
clear?

Speaker 3 (40:36):
That one's easy, right.
Like our brains care aboutstability and predictability,
not flourishing.
The good news is is that, withrespect to education, the
pandemic took away status quo,and this is why we'll talk about
later the private opinion,research we have on where
Americans really are, andparents.
It's pretty shocking, so weneed to talk about that.

(40:56):
But let me tell you, when I sayso, what do you do and say
there's no average?
Let me give you an example,because sometimes when people
hear it, you're like, come on,like there has to be an average,
maybe exaggerating.
Let me give you an exampleoutside of education and show
you why it matters and what wedo instead.
So my colleagues in Israelapplied the same science of

(41:18):
individuality to the study ofnutrition and particularly the
metabolic problems, right?
So metabolic disorders is likeit's basically the biggest
burden on our healthcare systemdiabetes, prediabetes, these
kinds of things.
So the way you normally dealwith this is you use the
glycemic index, right?
Which is supposed to tell youright, this food elevates your
blood sugar this much.

(41:39):
Okay, glycemic index is aboutaverages.
This is what happens on average.
Well, they're assuming then itmust work for most people.
So they asked a simple questionhow many people?
They studied hundreds ofthousands of individuals.
How many people actuallyrespond the way the glycemic
index says they should?
So far, zero, not a singleperson zero I really because,

(42:07):
like, like and I can.
That's one example.
I can give you so many.
It's it's comical, but here'sthe good news.
Okay, you're like well, wait aminute, wait a minute if.
If nobody responds that way,well, first of all, it seems
like a really stupid thing toforce people to do.
But here's's what's cool, andthis is what's possible once we
get our head out of the age ofstandardization, out of this
idea that the only way to scaleis by creating one size fits all

(42:30):
.
Right.
Our technologies make that anirrelevant thing now.
So here's what they did.
They were able to usetechnology, a basic app.
They are able to create, withmachine learning and some AI,
individual level predictions ofhow I will respond, based on
blood work, gut biome, all thisstuff.

(42:51):
So I did it right, because in myfamily, by the way, I was
always worried about diabetesbecause it just runs in my
family, and I went to anutritionist early in my adult
life and they told me oh, youneed to eat grapefruit because
actually, on average, grapefruitis pretty remarkable as a
stabilizer for blood sugar onaverage.
So I had been eating half agrapefruit for breakfast every

(43:15):
morning for most of my adultlife.
So I do this.
I'm just intrigued by, by thescience.
Get my results back and for me,grapefruit is the single worst
food I can possibly eat.
It actually spikes my bloodsugar more than chocolate cake.

Speaker 2 (43:34):
Wow.
So does that mean, that youshould then replace your
everyday meal with chocolatecake?

Speaker 3 (43:39):
With chocolate cake, right, I like that, I like how
you think my friend that did it.
Completely opposite, right.
But what was amazing is itlooks like chaos.
If the average doesn't work,what are we indexing against?
Well, we don't have to.
So with our technologies, wewere able to meet you exactly
where you are and give youreal-time recommendations about

(44:01):
how this food will affect you,even if it affects nobody else
the same way, and in that way wecan actually get
population-level optimal health,one person at a time, whereas
if you rely on average, you areguaranteeing diabetes,
guaranteeing it to people.

(44:23):
Meanwhile they're doing itbecause their insurance company
says you have to.
You know you're doing all thisstuff.
This is what I mean when notonly is there no average, but
the opposite of that is notchaos, it is.
We can actually scale populationlevel solutions this way, and
that's the science that I'vebeen a part of, that's in
nutrition, that's in nutrition,that's in medicine and, by the

(44:44):
way, everybody that's listeningto this, you know you're already
past averages, because if Itold you, god forbid, you got
cancer and I said you couldchoose between gold standard,
average based treatment, or youcan have personalized treatment,
molecular fingerprinting,customized response to you,
which one are you choosing?
And you can have personalizedtreatment, molecular
fingerprinting, customizedresponse to you.

(45:04):
Which one are you choosing?
And you know the answer.
You know it because there'ssomething inside of you that
appreciates that yourdistinctiveness actually matters
.
It's not error, right?
It's not something to ignore.
It is valuable.
So that's true in nutrition,that's true in medicine, it is

(45:25):
absolutely true in education.
A child's uniqueness is notsomething to be ignored, it's
not something to put on a bellcurve and call it error or
select off of it.
It is something to cultivate,because we know over and over
again from our research, aperson's individuality is the
greatest source of theirfulfillment, but also their

(45:47):
highest contribution to society.
And so when I think aboutindividualized, personalized
kinds of learning environmentsyes, they consistently do better
academically, but I don'tactually care we're missing the
point I'm talking about.
Imagine your child coming outof an environment prepared, but

(46:09):
also confident and happy, andable to contribute to society.
I mean, that's what we'retalking about, right?
And what frustrates me, when wetalk about the distinction
between these kinds of models,is we often revert to allowing
us to be judged by the incumbentsystem's metrics, which, if you
think about it, are actuallybell curve tests most of the

(46:29):
time.
Like don't do it, like thoseare garbage assessments, like
you know what I mean.
Like don't let the fight be hadat that level.

Speaker 1 (46:39):
Yeah, absolutely.
I think a lot of parents feellike there's a trade-off between
strong academics and likemental wellbeing and happiness.
And when they look at theaverage and what they believe to
be the only path forward tosuccess for their child, they
think I have to choose thisaverage path, even if it's
mediocre, it's safer, Right.
And what they don't realize isthat we've got the psychology of

(47:01):
this all switched up.
In traditional schools InPrendo we follow something
called self-determination theory.

Speaker 3 (47:08):
Autonomy, connectedness, competency these
basic psychological needs thateverybody has, and we often
think that these things aresomehow at odds.
They're not.
They're not.
You can build deeplyautonomy-promoting environments
that are even more connected andthat allow kids to consistently
master things and grow andimprove.

Speaker 1 (47:29):
Yes, and we see that in our data.
We're talking about scalingthese ideas.
We've helped over a thousandpeople start these really small
schools and we watch all of thedata and we care deeply about.
We call it the child'sempowerment score, where it's
like the kid is telling us areyou feeling in control?
Do you feel like the pacing isright for you?
Do you feel like you have apurpose in learning?
We're tracking their internallocus of control and things like

(47:50):
this and caring more about thatthan their math score.
When you care about that, themath score goes up.

Speaker 3 (47:56):
Let's punch down on this for just a second.
And I well actually I want toput this into bigger context and
why this is so important.
Okay, so at Populous, my thinktank, we have we do what's
called private opinion research.
So, and no one's telling thetruth about their views right
now.
It's just like ridiculous.
And so we can get around allthose distorting effects.
And we've been studying a lot ofthings.

(48:16):
We study what you want for thecountry, what do you want out of
life?
What do you want out of life?
What do you want out ofeducation?
What do you want in criminaljustice?
You know these kinds of thingsto try to understand what do
people want, because that's whatthe institution should do, not
the other way around.
You are not a cog in theinstitution.
In democracies, institutionsshould serve people and so, but
you got to know what they want.
Well, here's the overarchingtheme in America today is it is

(48:39):
the end of compliance culture,this idea of paternalism that
came from Frederick Taylor andthe scientific management which
is there's a few smart peoplewho get to make the decisions
for everybody else.
That is so fundamentallyun-American at its core.
That is literally a countryborn out of self-determination
and the commitment toindividuals being able to live
the lives they want to live.

(49:00):
We took a left turn inAlbuquerque there, like we went
the wrong way down this pathwhere we were promised.
We were promised more materialgoods through efficiency if we
gave up any hope ofself-determination.
Now they gave it.
That we did, we got it and nowwe're sick of it.
And so the thing is is, if yousee this over and over again,

(49:22):
people want control of theirlives back.
They want it back, and you'reseeing that in education.
When man I remember in Virginiawhen Terry McAuliffe put the
teachers union head on stage atthe very end and said parents
shouldn't have more of a say.
This is I'm like we have a lotof private opinion data that
says even like even left leaningparents aren't saying it out

(49:45):
loud right now, but privatelythey absolutely want more of a
say.
And so it's like this shift,this end of compliance culture.
We're also seeing people aredeeply resentful of it.
They hate that people arecontrolling them.
The reason I say that is thatresentment around being
controlled can go one of twoways.
You're seeing it manifest insome terribly destructive ways

(50:09):
right now where you get so mad,just burn it down, that kind of
thing right, and that's whatwill happen if we don't make
this more constructive.
So when people listening rightnow think about something like a
scientific theory of humanflourishing, like
self-determination theory, andrealizing it's more than this

(50:29):
academic concept.
It is literally the gift toyour child of the thing that was
robbed from you.
Imagine a child developing withthat innate sense that they are
in charge of their lives andthat their effects matter in the
world.
There is no greater gift thatyou could give a kid and I would

(50:53):
trade every academic metricthere is for a kid that actually
has this because you can learnanything now.
You can do anything.
So realize what's really atstake there and don't just
default to the way it's beendone, because this is our way
out.
This is how you make the end ofcompliance culture constructive

(51:14):
is that it's channeled intoself-determination.

Speaker 1 (51:17):
I love that we touched on this, but I want to
dig into it a little bit more.
The concept of jaggedness, andcan you just kind of round that
We've touched on it but justlike define it for?

Speaker 3 (51:27):
us.
You might ask so why is no oneaverage?
And I'll give you a quick story, and I did it in end of average
, but I think it's worthrepeating the first time we ever
figured out there's no suchthing as an average person.
It was actually the UnitedStates Air Force, weirdly right.
So the way you design a cockpitfor a fighter jet, how do I

(51:48):
create one cockpit that fits asmany pilots as possible?
So someone had thought well,you know what you do is you take
the average of body dimensionslike height, weight, chest
circumference, and they justbuild a cockpit for that.
And they thought, well, itwon't fit everyone, but it'll
fit most people.
And when we went to jet poweredaviation, they knew there was a
problem.
Someone thought, well, maybewe've gotten bigger, so we need

(52:11):
a better average.
So they sent this guy, gilbertDaniels, who I got to know he
just passed away, but he wasjust out of college.
His job was literally to goaround to thousands and
thousands of pilots and measurethem on a bunch of dimensions of
size, because he's the only guydoing it.
He's starting to see this thingwhere he's like man, people are
pretty variable and so he'slike I wonder how many people

(52:36):
are actually average, like thissays so he's like, are actually
average, like this says so he'slike let's just take the five
dimensions of size, the top fiveheight, weight.
How many people are average ofthese pilots who are picked
because they can fit in thecockpit?
Mind you, he tallies thenumbers and, just like our
nutrition friends, figures outzero.

(52:58):
None of these white male pilotswho are picked because they fit
in the cockpit were actuallyaverage on any of these
dimensions of size.
So he's like wait, I think wehave.
I think we got the problemwrong.
And so off of that researchcomes the field of ergonomics
and human factors, where it'slike maybe it's about designing
flexibility to fit right.

(53:19):
Right Turns out the fighter jetdidn't have adjustable seats at
all, didn't have any movementat all, and they implement very
simple solutions.
The military actually bannedthe use of averages in design.
You cannot design on average inthe military, even though in
education we literallyincentivize designing on average

(53:41):
right now, and so so why theyweren't?
What he did is he plotted it.
It's really cool.
It was declassified researchright before I wrote my book, so
I was able to show it in there.
He plots it and he shows.
If you just take 10 dimensionsof size, in our minds we kind of
think of sizes like big, medium, small, as if it's just

(54:02):
miniaturized versions of thesame thing.
But he's like, if you thinkabout it it's not really true,
like the tallest person you knowisn't necessarily the heaviest
person, you know right.
And so what he found was thatthat, basically, if you said
height, that's one dimension andthere would be an average and
that average would be meaningful.
But size is multiple dimensionsand it turns out those

(54:23):
dimensions don't correlate witheach other like you think they
do.
So every single person is onthe high end on some dimensions,
in the middle on others and onthe low on others, everybody.
So when you plot it and designit, it creates this sort of
jagged profile like everybodyhas that.
And that turns out to be truenot just in body size.

(54:44):
It's true of IQ, which I don'treally believe in.
But whatever you know, iqscores character, like you name
it.
Human beings have multipledimensions and those dimensions
don't correlate like you think.
So if you start with that, yourealize, well then the average
could never represent anybody.
It's flawed from the beginningand so that's the core of that

(55:06):
and it's like every student does.
I guarantee you, when you lookat this on any kind of
performance, this is what you'realways going to see.
So when we collapse performanceinto a single score, you erase
all the information.
That's truly valuable.

Speaker 2 (55:20):
Then, what do you think about the phrase
developmentally appropriate?

Speaker 3 (55:25):
I think it is code, for this is a really bad idea
and because think about it allthat is is a fancy way of saying
what does the average kid atthis age know or can do.
Same problem applies right, andwe know this when you look at
development that is actually mybackground it's tons of

(55:45):
individuality in how kidsdevelop and the rate, the pace,
but also the way things sequenceand integrate, and so it really
makes no sense and it drives menuts.
What's funny about like, say,age appropriate, development
appropriate or grade level kindsof things?
First of all, no one knows whatthat means.
What's funny about, like, say,age appropriate, development
appropriate or grade level kindsof things?
First of all, no one knows whatthat means.
There's a bunch of differentmeasures of it.
They don't actually agreebecause it's not a thing.

(56:08):
And so if you're going to saywhat does the average kid in
third grade know about math, andif you don't know that, you're
behind, it's like it's not true.
Now, by the way, are theretelltale signs when some kid is
genuinely in trouble?
Yeah, right, but being off bylike 10 percentage points from

(56:29):
the average of a representativesample of third graders is
decidedly not that Right.
And here's the problem withthat.
I'll give you an examplespecifically to reading my
mentor, kurt Fisher.
He was one of the pioneers ofthe science of individuality and
he applied this individuallevel modeling to how kids learn
to read at an early age.
And there was one theory.

(56:51):
It was like how you build fromsight, sound, integration and
single word reading and all ofthe education stuff was built
around this theory.
What he found was that therewere actually three stable
pathways to reading.
One was the average pathway,but it only covered about 30% of
the kids.
The other one was different,but it led to the same kind of
outcomes good outcomes.

(57:12):
The third was actually a deadend.
It was bad.
So the way you knew if a kidwas in trouble was not how they
were doing compared to theaverage, it was which pathway
were they on.
You knew if a kid was introuble was not how they were
doing compared to the average,it was which pathway were they
on.
And the sad part was that somany times, if we're only
teaching on this one averagepathway, the kid only has a
couple of options You're ahead,you're on track or you're behind

(57:33):
.
And so kids get behind.
And what do we do we doubledown on remediation, assuming
there's one pathway and when inreality they were pursuing a
completely different pathwaywhich was every bit as viable
and you couldn't see it.
And I believe we've actuallycreated reading disorders
because of our inability torecognize how reading really

(57:55):
happens, and this is true forevery academic subject.
So one of the telltale signsthat I look at when I'm like
this is not a good environmentis when you are locked into one
size fits all.
There's one right way to doeverything and there's no
flexibility embedded in anylearning material or any

(58:15):
sequencing of learning outcomes.

Speaker 2 (58:17):
Where I use the phrase developmentally
appropriate whenever a parent istreating like a two or
three-year-old as if they're anadult.
You know, I'm like well, theyshould be throwing a toy right
now.
They should be yelling andscreaming.
So do you agree that there issome room for that phrase?

Speaker 3 (58:35):
Yeah, I think, if you are because that's a flipped
around version, right, it's notan ideal.
You are because that's a flippedaround version, right, it's not
an ideal.
It is actually saying there's arange of behavior that is
appropriate to the developmentof this kid, right so, and that
makes tons of sense.
And when you look at thingslike Piagetian kind of
development, where you will seequalitative changes roughly in

(58:58):
certain age range, which islargely about biological
maturation, meeting, you know,environment, as long as what
we're doing is saying don'tforce a kid in into an
expectation of certain kinds ofbehavior that is just so wildly
inappropriate to the range of it, like that kid should not be
expected to be like an adult,they do not have the cognitive

(59:20):
or neurological facilities to dothat, and you were expecting
something that they cannot do,then I think that's a perfect
use of it.
When we flip it around and makeit an ideal at a narrow,
specific, literally, like thisthing is what all kids should do
in third grade, we bastardizethat to the point where it
doesn't mean what we think itmeans.

Speaker 1 (59:40):
Yeah, that's a really important differentiation
because we we coach a lot ofparents and educators on having
those expectations and in like,a framing of like, let's be,
let's be overly compassionatehere and realize that this
behavior and you talk a lotabout this context um, in end of
average, you talk about how youwere labeled as aggressive.
Right, it's like wow, or maybewe're just being.

(01:00:00):
Your story goes I mean, you cantell it better than I can,
probably, but you were beingbullied, essentially, and you
were creating coping mechanismsthat seemed aggressive to the
adults that were, that wereobserving you and that really
changed your life trajectory andyour perception of yourself.
And when, really, if someonehad been able to look at that
situation and say, huh, what alogical and appropriate response

(01:00:21):
to that context.

Speaker 3 (01:00:23):
And I think that's right.
The compassion aspect of, likeyou know, look, parents do this
all the time.
Right, you've got a young kid,a toddler, and you've been
taking them out all day.
You've been shopping yourselfand they didn't get their nap.
You are more compassionateabout behavior than you would be
if, in a different context,you're like, no, they have their
nap.
You are more compassionateabout behavior than you would be

(01:00:43):
if, in a different context,you're like, no, they have their
nap.
This is just unacceptablebehavior because you know there
are certain things out.
So same is true when we expectcertain behaviors that are just
developmentally inappropriate toexpect.
Same is true when we thinkabout the context of a kid in an
environment.
I tend to think whenever I thinkabout this because, look,
sometimes kids need discipline,sometimes they make bad choices

(01:01:05):
and they need to be held to thelogical consequences of that.
Whenever I think of a behavior,I always think the first thing
I want to know is can I think ofa scenario where this behavior
makes a lot of sense?
And then I want to rule outthat.
That's the thing right.
Like, is this just an adaptivething?

(01:01:36):
That would make a ton of senseif I were experiencing that, and
if it is, then I have adifferent problem to solve than
immediately going to the kid.
And what's nice about that isit doesn't excuse it, because I
can go find out whether that'sactually the problem.
But we never start withcompassion, right.
We start with blame, we startwith it's just immediately, and
we have a bias toward this sortof naturalism that it's the kid.
It's the kid that's the problem.
Notice how we never start withthe environment's the problem.

Speaker 1 (01:01:53):
The cockpit story you tell how they first blamed the
pilot and then they blamed theflight instructors and they
never blamed the cockpit.
And I think it's so importantto realize that, because when
we're doing to kids in schools,when they are maybe cheating, or
if they're not applyingthemselves or something like
that, it's like, wow, that kidmust have some sort of moral

(01:02:13):
defect.
They're dishonest, they're lazy.
When reality, the world thatwe've created for them and we do
a whole episode on this, theworld that we've created for
them, and we do a whole episodeon this, the world that we've
created for them makes thatbehavior completely logical and
that's not their fault.

Speaker 3 (01:02:25):
That's right.
I think that, like you, gotta,it's just.
Things are more complex thanthat, and if you start with that
compassion and you start byruling out, the funny thing is,
though, is people don't like thethe other answer, because it
means they have to put work inRight, like I'll tell you.
Remember the marshmallow study,like one of my colleagues did

(01:02:48):
what I think is the best versionof this, because that's always
interpreted as some innateattribute of self-control, and
we can plot it on a kid and kidsthat have higher levels, and it
ignores the context completely.
My colleague did a version ofthe study, which I think should
be the definitive one, where sheput kids in this.
You know, you know they timeit's like up to 15 minutes, and

(01:03:08):
you know how long you wait.
Well, randomly put kids in twodifferent groups One, uh, and
what they did was they variedsomething before.
Rather than do the marshmallowtest first, they had them first,
they got crayons and they gotto draw on a mug, and in one of
the groups, the adult said oh,we get to do this, and they
brought in amazing crayons, andthey got to do it.

(01:03:29):
The other group the adult,didn't keep their word, and it
was accidental.
They came back and said I'msorry, we didn't have them,
here's some of the things youcan do.
And then they put them into themarshmallow test and in the
environment where the adult kepttheir word, when you are
promised more treats if youdon't eat the marshmallow almost

(01:03:49):
every kid looks like a rockstar of self-control.
Almost literally, most of themwent the entire 15 minutes In
the group where the adult hadn'tkept their word.
Nobody did.
And so then the question is whatis self-control?
Why in the world would I delaygratification on the thing I can

(01:04:13):
see right here in the hopesthat you will be honest with me
when I have evidence that Icannot trust you?
And I think, do we spend anytime creating the conditions of
trust in an environment wherethe kid can believe that what we
tell them is true, that weactually have their interest in
mind?
And no, here we go, we're goingto give you a test and we're

(01:04:33):
going to assume that this issomething about you, and because
it correlates with some things,we start to pretend like maybe
we know, and it becomes aself-fulfilling prophecy.
And the sad part is is that,like, like the trust in the
environment is something that'sfully within the control.
Of the honors program was like,and in that description.

Speaker 1 (01:05:02):
I just heard you say like this is how we treat kids
when we trust them.
If you're an honors kid, that'sa label that you have.
If you've played the game wellenough to get adults to trust
you, we treat you this way.
And for the rest of you that wedon't trust, this is how we're
going to treat you and thatbecomes the self-fulfilling.
You become an honors kid andyou become a not honors kid,
right?

Speaker 3 (01:05:21):
It is so self-fulfilling, it's
unbelievable and like, if youthink about it, learning is
almost entirely about motivationand relevance and, like boy,
when a kid cares and knows whythey care, it's pretty
remarkable what they'll pushthrough and what they'll do and
it's like, yeah, you can try toguess what will be relevant all
the time, or you can help themacquire that genuine

(01:05:43):
self-determination and have anenvironment for which their
wishes and interests and thingsactually matter.
Right, and a kid that isself-determined has constant
relevance, like they do.
They just they can generatethat and so it's just it's.
It's such a funny thing becauseit's like I do.
I appreciate the educationsystem we've had.
I know why we had it that way.

(01:06:05):
I would have advocated for itat the time, but I know of no
other institution that is so farbehind the science, the
insights, the things we actuallyknow.
It is the equivalent in my mindis medicine was still teaching
the four humors or lettingpeople's blood and using leeches
.
It's like we thought that wasgood at the time.

(01:06:26):
We know it's not and we know alot more.
We have made so much progressin understanding the
environments that foster notonly learning.
We also know that we canaccomplish more than academic
mastery in these environmentsand that kids need more than
that simply to be prepared forour modern society, right?

(01:06:46):
So it's funny that we spendmost of our time in the
incumbent system getting them tograde level not even that,
frankly on a bunch of stuff, andwe ignore everything else that
matters.
And meanwhile you go to theseother places that commit to
mastery learning, because here'sthe thing, it's not just
mastery learning, and then we'redone.
It is so much more efficient,so much more effective that it

(01:07:10):
frees up time to do the thingsthat we actually want, like who
are you, what are your passions?
How do we teach you how toconvert that into a productive
contribution, like the stuffthat you actually want, right?
So it's, it's anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:07:23):
I'm preaching to the choir, I'm sure, but yeah, and
you had said that a lot ofadults don't want to admit that
it's an environment or that theyare the ones that have to
change.
But why is that and you saidthis earlier too is they didn't
get it as a child, and so, butwhat a gift for us to recognize.
Wow, we can change thetrajectory for these kids and

(01:07:45):
give them such a gift that wedidn't get as kids, Because when
we know better, we do better.

Speaker 3 (01:07:52):
And think about this, like we're entering a world
where our technologies havemoved ahead of things so fast AI
, all this stuff.
It could be better, but it'sgoing to be bumpy for a while
and throughout history.
Every time a new transformativetechnology emerges, there's

(01:08:13):
upside and downside, and it isalways that it requires some new
skill or mindset to get theupside of the technology and
until you figure out what it isand get it to people, it's
almost pure downside.
For example, all the way backto the shift from spoken word to
written word, it's prettyobvious that it should be better

(01:08:34):
if we can write stuff downright.
If you trusted Socrates, hehated it, right.
He thought we're going to loseour memory, which you know kind
of.
But you can see the upside.
What didn't dawn on people wasthat to get that upside, you had
to learn this completelyartificial skill called literacy
.
You actually had that taught.
It's not natural, not likelanguage that you just pick up.

(01:08:54):
You have to be taught, and theelites hoarded that skill for
arguably until the Reformationtook an act of God to
democratize access and thenfinally, we unleashed the full
potential of literacy in termsof the written word right and
its ability to spread.

(01:09:15):
I will wager right now which isalways a dangerous thing about
predicting the future.
I will wager right now which isalways a dangerous thing, about
predicting the future.
But when you think about thetechnologies that we face, we
are facing technologies for thefirst time that are trying to
convince you that they are human.
They are trying to be human.
We've never had that before.

(01:09:44):
The single most important skillthat a child could acquire,
that will be the most equivalentof literacy, that'll be so
practical you can't believe init is this gift of
self-determination, because it'snot just words, it's practice,
it's habit, it's a completeorientation to how I deal with
uncertainty, how I set goals, myability to thrive in the world.
And I don't know how yousurvive in a world where our

(01:10:09):
technologies are human.
In a way, they do almosteverything, except for the last
edge of what it means to be ahuman being.
If I am still trapped in themindset of the age of
standardization, where I havebeen taught to be a cog, I've
been taught that some otherpaternalists are the ones that
make decisions for me, it mightbe the worst thing you could

(01:10:32):
ever do to a kid.
You are so thoroughlyunprepared for the world, and so
this gift of self-determinationis not a luxury, it's an
absolute necessity, and thepeople that have to hear that
and know that right now areparents that when you get
nervous that your kid is doingthings different than how it was

(01:10:52):
done, that should be the bestsign that you've ever seen,
because how it was done is anintellectual death sentence for
your kid.
They are so thoroughlyunprepared for the world.
If all you want is I can't riskmy kid being unprepared, right,
we don't have the resources, wedon't have the social resources

(01:11:13):
they need to have the best shotat life.
This is their best shot at life.
It's not luxury, it isnecessity.

Speaker 2 (01:11:21):
Wow.
Well, on that note we are goingto wrap up, and this is a
question that we and I fullyagree.
Katie and I are both on thesame exact page as you and, like
you said, you are definitelypreaching to the choir and we're
so thankful for all the workthat you're doing with Populous
and just love this research.
So, okay, let's catch up andlet's figure how to actually

(01:11:46):
implement these things in school.
So we are in the same fight asyou.
So we ask this question to allof our guests who is someone who
has kindled your love oflearning, curiosity, motivation
or passion?

Speaker 3 (01:11:59):
This is going to be the most wonky answer it's the
only philosopher I ever careabout, which is Karl Popper.
And the reason being is hechanged how I thought about
being a scientist, because Ithink, and I actually think, the
way we teach science to kids isa disaster.
We teach science is fact.
Science is not fact.
Science is provisionalknowledge.

(01:12:21):
That that is the bestexplanation we have right now.
And Karl Popper came up with.
He answered the question whichwas funny, but it puzzled people
for a long time is what's thedifference between science and
non-science?
And he was like well, it's data.
Well, no, astrology uses theexact same data as astronomy, so
it can't be data right.

(01:12:41):
And he said what makes itscience is that it's falsifiable
and that your job is to try tofalsify theories, not prove them
.
And he came up with the ideathat if I had a theory that all
sheep were white, I can keepseeing white sheep till I'm blue
in the face.

(01:13:01):
It doesn't prove it right, itmakes me a little more confident
.
But one black sheep and I knowthat the theory is false.
And so he came up with thisbrilliant insight, which is you
get to truth through theelimination of error.
You don't have to know what thetruth is when you start, you
just eliminate error, and sothere's a humility and a power

(01:13:25):
to science that I don't think weactually impart on people,
right.
We want them to swallow it asif it's just fact and it's not,
and as soon as you believe thatit is that progress stops.
So it taught me not to justtake at face value just because
you're famous, still gotta haveevidence right.
And the idea that we'reconstantly challenging things

(01:13:47):
and that that's progress wasmusic to my ears, and so it
changed how I operate as ascientist and how I think about
the world.

Speaker 1 (01:13:56):
I love that.
That's so powerful.
Thank you for sharingeverything you've shared with us
today.
I've learned so much.
How can listeners learn moreabout your work?

Speaker 3 (01:14:03):
You know you can just go to populistorg and we
publish all of our research onprivate opinion there.
Or you know just toddrosecom ifyou want to see some of my
commercial books and stuff likethat.

Speaker 1 (01:14:15):
Awesome, well, thank you so much.
It's been a true pleasure toget to know you and to learn
from you today.
Thanks so much for coming onthe Kindle podcast.

Speaker 3 (01:14:22):
Thanks for having me.

Speaker 2 (01:14:28):
Thanks, todd.
That's it for today.
We hope you enjoyed thisepisode of the Kindle podcast.
If this episode was helpful toyou, please like, subscribe and
follow us on social at PrendaLearn.
If you have a question that youwould like to ask, all you have
to do is email us at podcast atprendacom.
You can also join our Facebookgroup, which is called the
Kindled Collective, and we havea weekly newsletter called the

(01:14:49):
Sunday Spark.

Speaker 1 (01:14:50):
The Kindled Podcast is brought to you by Prenda.
Prenda makes it easy for you tostart and run an amazing micro
school based on all the thingsthat we talk about here on the
Kindled Podcast.
If you want more informationabout guiding a Prenda micro
school, go to prendacom.
Thanks for listening andremember to keep kindling.

All Episodes

Season 1 Top 10 | #1 Embracing Individuality. A Conversation with Todd Rose.

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Season 1 Top 10 | #1 Embracing Individuality. A Conversation with Todd Rose.