Nope. This is a combination of propaganda and the known psychological effect where the more time you spend on something the more confident you are about it, even when your actual skill level doesn't change.
Teaching as a skill is CAPPED by your social skills.
Most people have ABYSMAL social skills and #mindset: their fundamental approach is geared towards passing as "normal."
Consequently, most teachers, having low social skill, cannot achieve high levels of teaching skill.
To some extent they do improve over time, but I'm not sure that this improvement beats the average. A 50 year old has more social skill than a 15 year old, and this is not limited to teachers.
What they gain is confidence, and confidence helps, but it is not the same as skill.
I have literally taught people better than their teachers while not knowing the subject and having to look up articles on it.
How?
The students trusted and respected me, and didn't fully trust the teacher.
TEACHING SKILL IS CAPPED BY SOCIAL SKILLS.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It always intrigues me when people who have discovered that modernity is bad still use "feudal" pejoratively. That is how complete the modernist brainwashing is.
Romney would have garnered a lot more respect if, when called out on the depredations of Bain Capital, he had hit back with stories of Mormons getting slaughtered and chased out of places, and said that he wanted to take back everything.
Obviously money can't make the dead come out of their graves.
But that sentiment is respectable and universally relatable.
We live in a weird inversion world where those who climb up to power are doubly expected to be nice and not make waves -
"This new way of making more money than I touch in a year is definitely wrong somehow. I did my 5 minutes of research and it looks like it uses electricity? So it's definitely bad for the environment. Now that I found a reason to reject it I can go back to doing what I'm doing."
"Isn't it too convenient how everything you're not into or that would require you to put in effort or get outside your comfort zone is found by you to be morally suspect somehow?"
"Hm. Well, I'm just a good person. I have good instincts!"
"The fact that dating apps are giving alphas a larger share of matings does not bode well for society."
In the short term, no. On the 10,000+ year horizon, occasional bottlenecks where only 10% of the men manage to reproduce are necessary and probably healthy.
1. What truly matters is offspring produced (and raised to adulthood.) Those figures are catastrophically low, to the point where officially encouraging all billionaires to form harems of 500 each would not be enough to turn our abysmal birth - death rates around.
2. The presence of selective pressure is generally healthy.
An astute reader points out that the nature of this selective pressure is unlike that of previous selective pressures; true, but I'm not fully able to say if it's healthy or not.
An expert marksman is to be respected with or without a rifle in his hands, but he sure is immediately useful and more obviously to be respected if he has the rifle.
The same goes for status and social skills.
3. Fall in love with the idea of woman if that is what genuinely moves you to love.
As long as 1 and 2 are met, you are not weird, only "eccentric." People keep giving advice on how to chop off parts of your personality to fit what is acceptable in a person of normal status.
There was a town in China famous for its beautiful lakes, which drew a lot of tourists. This inspired a local gang leader to try to kidnap some foreigners for ransom.
As happens sometimes when conducting international negotiations for large sums of money, the deal fell through.
This resulted in a dead foreigner, which was COMPLETELY unacceptable to the government's plans to develop the area.
The Red Army was sent in. The commander was told to fix the problem. He was not told to respect anyone's rights. He was told to FIX THE PROBLEM.