Creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson challenges the way we're educating our children. He champions a radical rethink of our school systems, to cultivate creativity and acknowledge multiple types of intelligence.

Why you should listen to him:

Why don't we get the best out of people? Sir Ken Robinson argues that it's because we've been educated to become good workers, rather than creative thinkers. Students with restless minds and bodies -- far from being cultivated for their energy and curiosity -- are ignored or even stigmatized, with terrible consequences. "We are educating people out of their creativity," Robinson says. It's a message with deep resonance. Robinson's TEDTalk has been distributed widely around the Web since its release in June 2006. The most popular words framing blog posts on his talk? "Everyone should watch this."
A visionary cultural leader, Sir Ken led the British government's 1998 advisory committee on creative and cultural education, a massive inquiry into the significance of creativity in the educational system and the economy, and was knighted in 2003 for his achievements.

"Ken's vision and expertise is sought by public and commercial organizations throughout the world." BBC Radio 4

We made the first mistake: There can be justified distinctions that are not discriminatory, yet lately, they tend to get mislabelled “discrimination”.

In its benevolent effort to not offend, Western society adopted a philosophy of acceptance, simplistically exemplified by the 1960s counter-culture as a “peace and love” revolution. Unfortunately ignoring Aristotle’s warning that justice consists in moderation regulated by wisdom, idealists replaced moderation and wisdom with empty buzz words like “toleration”. David Stove, an Australian philosopher, has suggested that this undercuts our ability to resist the subversive elements of society.

Recently, though briefly, Québecers examined their values when a series of hearings evaluating the scope of “reasonable accommodations” swept through the province. At its conclusion, the Co-Chairs recommended “that the government…defend the conception of open secularism adopted and implemented by Québec”.

In this pluralist society, it would be great if we could always allow everyone every idiosyncrasy, no matter how eccentric; and in private – for the most part, unless they are grossly immoral – we do. But in the public sphere, incompatible practices must be held in check. So when a soccer official rules that a Muslim girl may not wear her hijab (as was the case in Québec in 2007) because Law 4 in FIFA’s Laws of the Game states “A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous to himself or another player (including any kind of jewellery)”, he is not discriminating against her religious freedom. He is expressing what he considers to be a justified interpretation of Law 4: the dangerous risk she poses to herself and other players on the pitch. Yet, for putting his foot down, this (Muslim) referee was accused of religious intolerance.

It is easy to apply a rule of thumb – the difficulty lies in determining when to make an exception. Both Moses and Jesus are quoted, “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19.8; Matthew 19.19). But Moses prefaces that though “[y]ou shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbour, or you will incur guilt yourself” (19.17), and even extends this law to include the “alien who resides with you” (19.34). Yet these days, people seem worried about holding a potentially insulting opinion of their neighbour in place of a valid and merited criticism – or, in other words, they feel they had better categorically and indiscriminately tolerate, rather than discriminate and, occasionally, do so incorrectly.

Apparently, Western Society has grown intellectually lazy. Most people avoid critical thinking at the cost of their individuality. They would prefer to take Steve Jobs at his word when he pronounces that Macs are “cooler” than PCs than actually inform themselves of their respective merits. Personal opinions are shared, moulded by public opinion, because propaganda works. It worked for the Sophists who brought Socrates to trial on trumped-up charges. It worked for the Palestinians who convinced the world that Muhammad al Durrah was a casualty of Israeli gunfire.

So, having forgotten how to think for itself, why should we be surprised if the West – after being directly attacked by Islamic extremists, and subsequently fearing all Muslims, neglecting to discriminate between the fundamentalists and the dispassionate (mislabelled “moderates”) – is duped by one of the most successful propaganda campaigns in history? Traditional values were turned upside down with claims that Muslims are simply victims of hatred and contempt. Now, political correctness seems to dictate bending over backwards to “accommodate” such victims of our “insensitivity” – or at least, that is how it has been interpreted. Moreover, the propaganda machine is so effective that one who dares to draw attention to its folly is equally pronounced an offender.

Mark Steyn, one such “offender”, recognised the redirection of Western values. In America Alone, he wrote: “In a few years, as millions of Muslim teenagers are entering their voting booths, some European countries will not be living formally under sharia, but…they will have reached an accommodation with their radicalized Islamic compatriots, who like many intolerant types are expert at exploiting the ‘tolerance’ of pluralist societies.” This, however, seems to be a lopsided social contract, since while the Western World accommodates Islam, the Muslim world does not return the favour.

And it is a favour. This point needs to be emphasised: Muslims in a pluralist and secular society are entitled to practice their faith only as long as it does not conflict with the identity and harmony of the society, infringing on others’ lifestyles and interfering with its established justice. Where private and public practices overlap, local laws ought to intercede. Still Westerners have become so used to such an overly tolerant culture that they even seem to expect indiscriminate tolerance to follow them when they leave the West.

A friend of mine, originally from Montreal, has been living and working in the Persian Gulf for the past couple of years. He does not speak Arabic. He is not Muslim. He is surrounded by fellow expatriates. In fact, you might say he is not truly experiencing the culture of the United Arab Emirates.

But he would disagree. Before he left Canada, he updated his website to maintain an online journal of his new life in Abu Dhabi. Occasionally, he reports on the 45º weather or a new restaurant he has found. Yet the entries that fascinate me the most result from his apprehension of the divergent philosophies of locals and aliens.

Recently, he reported on the Adhan, “one of the most delightful sounds of the Muslim world”. He writes:

While I have heard some expats complain that it wakes them up with the first call just before sunrise, I find that it is actually quite soothing and enchanting. … The mystery for me here is why Western expats come to a Muslim country and complain about things like this. Deal with it or go home!

I was rather surprised to read such a clear-headed appraisal of a too-oft accepted moral negligence.

Just as misguided Western liberals neglect to distinguish between justified distinctions and categorical discrimination at home, they expect the same treatment abroad as they offer the “alien who resides with [them]”: total and indiscriminate accommodation. Western liberals, continually making concessions, and apprehensive of allegations of prejudice, indecency, and insensitivity, avoid drawing a line; unlike the soccer referee who unambiguously put his foot down.

We made the first mistake. However, we can still correct it.

Once More

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

"The self-indulgent man craves for all pleasant things or those that are most pleasant, and is led by his appetite to choose these at the cost of everything else; hence he is pained both when he fails to get them and when he is merely craving for them (for appetite involves pain); but it seems absurd to be pained for the sake of pleasure." -Aristotle (Nichomachean Ethics, III.11)

I feel I need to defend myself from an accusation often levelled against me. It is often said that to believe at once in religion and in ontological truths that are commonly held in contemporary society is conflicting. I don’t perceive an incongruence between my understanding of the nature of the world and my belief in religion.

The Torah is a Mother-Goose-style collection of stories designed to explain how we wound up at (x, y, z) at a given moment in time. I don’t doubt that God, as described in the Torah, is capable of all of that is credited to God. I also don’t believe that it’s necessary to posit God anymore. God is merely a parental character in the Torah, teaching and protecting other characters when they are proving to be less than virtuous. It seems counter-productive for an educated and mature individual to praise God, thank God, and devote them self to God. I believe that in Darwinian fashion, I am descended of a righteous people who prospered by acting virtuously, even when that meant being different from the rest of the people around them. I just don’t see the relevance of believing that everything happened exactly as the Torah describes. I believe religion is an effective pedagogical tool in teaching virtue and righteousness to impressionable, unworldly, and uneducated people, but is an irrelevant obstacle after that.

I welcome your views.

Yesterday, I saw the cover of an old Billy Joel album called Glass Houses and depicting Billy, with his elbow back, rock in hand above his head, facing and standing five metres from a large wall of borderless windowpanes.

Statement: People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Well, I don’t live in a glass house, so I’m gonna throw all fuckin’ the stones I wanna throw! If you got a problem with that, pick up a stone and take your best shot. I’m comfortable in my skin.

The elements that make up a harmony can only be in harmony when they have perfect organization. In another state, these elements are not in tune. (Socrates)

In a philharmonic orchestra, eighty-eight musicians work individually to produce the best sound from their instruments at any given time. However, if any single individual musician isn’t perfectly in tune and time with every harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic structure provided by the composer, as well as with every other musician, the whole sound is noticeably flawed. This is the perfect team. All of its members are producing and are organised in such a manner as to produce the most effective overall result. It’s like a healthy body, an organism. Organs are arranged to work together, each performing its purposeful duty for the greater good.

Without harmony, without agreement, there is discord. In Socrates’ time, the goddess Discord, more commonly known as Eris (and later to the Romans as Discordia), was responsible for disputes and general misunderstanding. We don’t require mythology to explain why the NHL was on strike last season or why people are confused that Michael Jackson could find nothing wrong with letting young boys sleep in his bed. It’s easy to see the results of conflict. The results are easy to comprehend, but the causes are even easier, sometimes. The challenge is explaining why for millennia, friction has sparked battles. From bar brawls to war and discriminatory dismissals to ethnic cleansing, since its appearance on this planet, our species’ so-called animal instinct has overcome its rational distinction from beasts. Congratulations, humanity, you’ve missed the point!

Our customers are not loyal. In fact, they are not our customers at all. We have to work harder to turn browsing individuals into customers, even if they are only customers on that one particular occasion. Because these days, capitalism is approaching a level of competition Adam Smith could have only imagined, the consumer can have anything they want. The customer even sets the price. It’s scary, but these days, the customer is used to getting what she wants when she wants it. But the consumer doesn’t control the market by herself. The producer has found a weakness.

With an increasingly large middle-class of consumers, quality is not an issue. This breed of consumer doesn’t care to have something good, so long as she has something. The product or service must appear to have an extensive list of features and options, the more the better. The consumer wants something, not necessarily something good, but what she doesn’t have. The consumer continues to pay for products and services without concerning herself with quality and creating a disposable society.

This is how the American Dream came to describe a lifestyle of consumption. This capitalist doesn’t recognise what she has—only what she doesn’t have—and what she lacks is what she desires.