Seek Practical Knowledge

Reflecting on some of what I learned in school, I feel that often the material was either not practical, or the case was not made for how the information could be used practically.

If we examine aboriginal societies, I can only imagine that they would laugh in amusement at any ideas that would not be concrete and immediately applicable. Their societies are concerned with daily survival and needs, so it would probably be seen as a waste of time to speculate on ideas that are not easily testable or which cannot be applied for some benefit.

Aboriginal societies may be guided by the actual stars in the sky yet likely be unaware of their chemical composition. A schooled adult from the West, however, is much more likely to know that stars are mostly made up of hydrogen yet have no understanding of how to navigate using the night sky.

I enjoy the world of ideas and abstractions, but perhaps we need to focus on the information we can use more practically.

Practical knowledge can help with many different aspects of life, such as survival, developing useful skills, achieving more of a big picture understanding, finding meaning in what we learn, and developing an understanding of how to approach a variety of problems.

Surely more themes could fall under the umbrella of practical knowledge, as the key point is that this is information that you can use to help yourself or to help those around you. The understanding is not simply theoretical but applicable. And of course, practical knowledge should be shown to work through experience – if it does not work as expected, it is ultimately not practical.

In school, many topics are split up – such as science, reading, math, etc. But in real life, you may face problems daily which intertwine with a variety of topics. It can make sense to learn some of these topics independently in school to master them. But when we face real-life problems which are more complex, we may find that we lack awareness on how to approach them.

School is meant to prepare us for life or at least work, but both domains involve practical and applied situations for most people.

Growing up, my father often made comments about “common sense” – he would say that people don’t have it anymore. I suspect it’s not something that was ever taught. Likely it was a way of thinking and learning that people needed to succeed at home, life, and work – especially as my father grew up in Mexico in the 1950s (and his young adulthood was spent in the US in the 60s).

Basically, it seems that in a prior era, people learned how to deal with a variety of life problems - and this type of skill has largely been lost. We are now highly specialized. For the most part, people are satisfied with only knowing how to do one job (or how to operate within one main field). But in the past, people needed common sense to be more self-reliant - small communities could figure out typical problems on their own without needing to call a specialist.

To me, Common Sense and Practical Knowledge essentially mean the same thing.

Keep in mind that if we go to school and learn how to deal with artificially constructed “book” problems, then that does not necessarily mean we will be ready to tackle real-world problems.

As a basic example, with a book problem, the resources are irrelevant. Yet, in real life, resources are fundamental. For example, if I know that I need a screwdriver to construct a piece of furniture, then if I don’t have that screwdriver, I must acquire one, or at least consider alternative resources I could use. With a book problem, it is usually assumed that the resources do not matter or that you have all the resources you need to solve the problem. Also, perfect circumstances are generally assumed for book problems, but in real life, while you’re working on one problem, new and sometimes bigger problems develop. And you must react in real-time or risk causing even bigger problems.

When I was growing up, my father sometimes asked me about the simplest of life problems. His tests were not theoretical. They would involve an actual problem right in front of us, something in the house or the backyard, or that involved some piece of equipment not working properly, perhaps.

Inevitably, I would not have a clue as to how to resolve the problem.

Then he would show me a simple solution that had not occurred to me. The problem wasn’t really that I didn’t know the answer – but that perhaps a schooled child or young adult should have built a framework for dealing with unexpected problems. Yet, this way of thinking or “common sense” seemed to be lacking.

What is the value of only knowing how to solve clearly explained problems in one specific domain? Real-life does not work that way. Often, there is a problem, and no one has properly defined it. So we must define it for ourselves. To me, that is a simple skill that was never taught. Perhaps it can’t be taught – but somehow, I doubt that.

Any time someone has said that something could not be taught, instructors or academics ended up designing training programs that showed you could probably teach anything. Likely, people become convinced that something cannot be taught when the domain has not been properly articulated – through research, books, or training programs. Imagine trying to learn about body language in a time before anyone had actually explicitly identified the main patterns of body language in humans. Having to teach yourself is much different than being able to learn from someone who knows.

Perhaps some students do well when learning about artificial problems, but others could learn much better by examining real-life problems. The problems could have already been solved by others but which the students have never solved for themselves. If it’s a new and practical problem for the student, that is all that matters.

As a basic example, some students may prefer to learn math and physics by playing with clocks or machinery. This would be more interesting, engaging, and practical than working on book problems.

If a teacher is reading, I am sure you may think that you did make it a point to tell your students how your topic applied to the real world. However, sometimes this is not enough. Students who are learning may need to directly apply their knowledge to the real world for it to have meaning.

A variety of studies show that students forget most of what they learn. Perhaps what people learn should have personal meaning to them. And for it to have personal meaning, perhaps it should be practical and applicable knowledge.

However, I understand why teachers and the educational system in general stick to book problems. It is more practical for them – as they can cover more topics in less time and not have to add resources to the budget.

Sometimes my book learning has even interfered with my understanding of something in the real world. This has been a recurrent mantra in my life, where I have received messages like this: “What you learned in school won’t help you here,” or “What you learned in school was wrong. Actually, it works like this….”

Of course, there is no reason we must choose between school and seeking practical knowledge. Perhaps we go to school to learn how to deal with “book problems,” but then we need to spend some of our own time gaining practical knowledge outside of school. The best way to do this is probably to learn from people who have acquired a lot of practical knowledge themselves.

Sometimes we view practical problems to be at a lower level, but this is a mistake. If you spend enough time in school, college, or graduate school (as I have), practical problems are often cast aside as being irrelevant. Today, if a practical problem arises, or if you see someone working on one - take some interest and see if you can learn something new.