Imagine someone learns to paint or draw. They are likely to pick up on the art in the World around them and be influenced by what they see, hear, and perceive.
Imagine a person that has studied medicine learns to draw. Imagine an economist learns to draw. Each stroke on the page, each design has potential to look like a different medical term, or potentially look like a different graph for an economist.
Concepts and topics we learn have potential to reinforce in ways that are hard to fully appreciate. That has the potential to be both good and bad, and it is difficult to predict when learning will be value added versus value subtracted. Learning is generally considered a good thing, more knowledge generally helps versus subtracts yet I believe there is possibility for new knowledge to subtract in combination with other knowledge.
Knowing that combinations, combinations that might be awful might not be fully versed by students, those that learn might lead to greater appreciation that complexities that are compounded in combination might not always be versed. Just because they are not always versed does not equate to some might not know how they act in combination. The combination has potential to change original intent perceived as trying to hurt rather than help, and that in combination is consequential. A researcher might learn knowledge from a study and might not provide data they find that is unsettling or might be misused by others. Just because the researcher does not declare the problems, or information does not equate to the problems do not exist.
Nobody is a perfect, ideal teacher. Teachers learn and then convey that knowledge via learning (which is also a less than ideal system) to others. There are better students than other students, there are better teachers than other teachers and in combination that equates to not fully deterministic results. The best student could become brilliant with the worst teacher, and the best teacher could make a student brilliant does not equate to the teacher might have time to make all students in the world brilliant.
If I know knowledge might be misused am I likely to provide it to others? I don’t teach people to add so they can say, I was supposed to oppress 10 people today, and since I have only oppressed 9, there is still work to do. Teaching others is a bit taken on faith, and teachers will know what knowledge to convey and not convey is taken on faith as well. Taken on faith might not equate to ideal value established or delivered.
If someone teaches others to paint, it does not require them to understand all medical terminology or all economic terminology, and two subjects is far from all subjects.
Row humanity A’s mins or A’s comprehend with learning? For A students or F students?
People in Danger, at least perceived Danger (doesn’t matter if threat is real or not, perceived and comprehended as such matters) have potential to paint shark fins on the wrong people. Creative problem solving and value to useful under stress and pressure might not deliver ideal value in certain cases.
I don’t want anyone oppressed. Texas border is far less than ideal and Cartels exist. Cartels are part of problem does not equate to Cartels are source of the problem always yet have potential for up sold to such. Causality if-ed is far from all value added for more than self. People that think not bearing false witness is just a given, is just easy likely haven’t felt the full weight of leverage and oppression. Add in drugs and fear, good data far from always guaranteed to be good.
People don’t row A level data under A level of oppression, not fixing the border seen as zero problem, non-consequential would be unwise. I don’t want people oppressed stopped from immigrating does not equate to not fixed in the right way will be ideal safety for current citizens, or those immigrating. Might mend weighed not fully grayed?
Politicians of planning on getting around to that, set to no cost? Politicians of A C, A See we don’t have to factor that in not all free of mins. O C, Owe C, Owe See may min, may min comprehend. Row Hs issues alongside of A C don’t have to factor that in, don’t have to factor that in while establishing fins – Golden rule, how I really wish to be treated?
If-ed causality and strategic ambiguity gets set to weightless is not ideal direction, Golden Rule delivered. Leaders of go north south, east west is not weightless, is not problem free. If you go east they can say we told you to go west, if you go south, they can say we told you to go north? Know may fin, know may win, know may less than ideal comprehend, know gets set to no mins?
My Tech Blog 