Pros of not having all the information

Humanity judges harshly all the time, especially when there's not enough information to come to an informed conclusion. This is often harmful to individuals and harmful to society. However, recently I had an experience when not having enough information was helpful. I went to a particular movie. I didn't expect much. The trailer looked like it would be an interesting premise and contained some suspense. It seemed like it would be fun to go to this show. I ended up LOVING the movie, just loving it. First of all, there was a pop concert element to the movie. It was so involved that I thought the filmmaker was brilliant, that they had almost produced this whole other simultaneous movie due to how far they went to show a good and realistic pop concert.

It certainly seemed like they had done a great amount of research and had spared no expense in producing a believable concert experience while another plot unfolded in the movie at the same time. I was impressed by that. Another thing that I loved was how strong the female characters were. This is very rare. Nobody was calling attention to this fact in the movie (such as the song Speechless in the non-animated version of Aladdin, which cheapens the idea of female empowerment IMO). However, all the good and strong characters in the film are women. These women are smart, thoughtful, interesting, careful, protective, talented, and compassionate. They are believable characters.

The plot feels playful with the viewer as well. You aren't just watching things unfold. It feels like you are personally being toyed with a bit as everything unfolds, all the way through the end of the movie. This is fantastic!

I immediately encouraged others to go see this show, said there was MUCH to talk about. Nobody I talked to did go see the show. My mom tried to see it but by the time that happened, it was no longer in theaters. My oldest son hadn't wanted to see it but kept coming across some buzz online about it and changed his mind, now wanting to see it, but this was also after it stopped being in theaters. It was while I was searching for any theater it might still be in that I came across many negative reviews. I was very curious. As one responder said to these bad reviews, "You DIDN'T like it? Did we even watch the same movie?!"

I indulged in the reddit rabbit-hole. It wasn't long into this that I discovered an interesting fact: The pop star putting on the concert in the movie was the writer & producer's daughter. OH!!! The lights clicked on. When I was impressed with the concert element of the film, it wasn't because the producer researched and put their heart and soul into providing an authentic concert experience to the viewers, it was because the writer & producer wanted to showcase their own daughter's talents.

That really changed things. Now I knew the purpose of the movie was the concert and the rest of the thriller plot was thrown in so that the concert could happen. This shifts everything! Hmmm...well, I was glad that I didn't know this when I saw the movie because I liked seeing everything play out without knowing that the writer/producer and one of the main characters were father-daughter. I liked viewing the show without having all the information. Everything was more impressive that way.

Expert Opinion & Unconventional Education

What makes somebody an expert? I was reading a book recently and the author claims to have worked in the mental health field and have a PhD. Many interested readers did some research and say she didn't attend an accredited college & shouldn't be working with people in this capacity, that she's not qualified. Some readers even claim she's not qualified to share stories and offer opinions (but it was a memoir, not a mental health guidebook). This all got me thinking. The mental health profession is an area where I do think it's more important to be qualified and have a regulated education. Any kind of health profession is justified in having standard requirements.

What about economics though? I have a bachelors & masters degree in economics and a doctorate degree in political economics. I went to an unaccredited college to finish up all of these degrees. Originally, the biggest reason I went to this school was because of the affordability. I didn't care that it wasn't accredited. Finishing my degrees was something that would be meaningful to me personally and this was the best economical choice for accomplishing this. I had 3 years of college classes in accredited colleges beforehand. However, once I started getting back into school at this UNaccredited school, I was blown away with the difference, blown away in a good way. The first thing I loved was that all of the requirements for every degree were laid out and classes were taken online. I did not have to take Economics 4020 for the time period of 1 semester for example.

I knew all the information I had to read to complete the course, all the papers I had to satisfactorily write for the course, and once I completed these requirements, I would receive credit. If I got it done in one month, I would get credit for the course. If it took me a year, I would get credit for the course at that time. Interestingly enough, when working on my bachelor's degree, I knew everything that would be required for getting a masters and a doctorate at the same time. There were certain topics that really lit my fire. If I was having a very intense experience, for instance, learning about the Constitution, its history, and the affect it was having on the financial policies of our country and I completed all the requirements for my bachelors degree (Constitution 3100), I didn't have to be done with learning and put out the fire. I was not officially enrolled in the masters program yet but I knew that I could forge forward, do all the reading and write all the papers for Constitution 5100. I just saved them on my computer and kept learning all about these topics until I felt satisfied and/or ready to move on to something else. I would save all the higher level writing assignments for Constitution 5100, knowing I couldn't submit any of them until I was officially enrolled in the masters program.

Once I DID enter the masters program officially, I had a good chunk of the work completed and the same is true for once I officially entered the program for my doctorate, although there were far more rigorous assignments for the doctorate program and many things I couldn't do until I was officially in the program. Honestly, I spent about 10 hours a day on school at least 4-5 days per week and I did this for about 2 years to complete my bachelors, masters, and doctorate. Here's the thing though: the education I got cannot be beat. It was a true & pure education. I felt so passionate about all that I was learning that I regularly began and completed side research projects on most subjects that I studied. I wrote extra papers. I engaged in additional exchanges with my professor and my thirst for knowledge and my satisfaction for obtaining it was unquenchable. My professor said he's never had anybody complete the programs in the timeframe that I had so I know my experience was not the standard experience. For my thesis, I did not have to defend it in front of a panel. I had to submit it in bits & pieces and would get written feedback and had to revise accordingly until all the parts were acceptable and approved. When it came to some of the writing projects for my doctorate degree, they nearly broke me. I was at the brink of concepts my brain could really grasp and the edge of what I felt capable of academically. There were nights that I cried myself to sleep, not believing that I could finish school after all because of how challenging the subject matter was to me. After submitting many papers that were rejected, I had several very long phone calls with my professor, a man who refused to give me answers to fill in the blanks I was struggling with but would guide me to find the answers myself (which are not published in anything I could find). I'm not saying that because I was frustrated, my degrees were earned. I'm saying that the requirements were not lowered just because it was an unaccredited school. There was nothing easy about getting my degrees. There were no shortcuts.

I did not simply pay for a degree I did not put the work into. I know that this whole process and timeline is all very unconventional. I didn't plan to tell anybody about my education. I didn't plan, directly, to use it professionally. It was just a personal pursuit that was important to me. Over time and partially due to my rigorous study schedule, some people did find out about it. Of those who have found out, some have been supportive. Some have made comments that make it clear they don't believe I got a "real" education. I didn't do it in the traditional way-I understand that. Does this mean I'm disqualified from having an educated opinion? Is an accredited education the only one that qualifies somebody to be an expert? (I'm certainly not saying I am an expert, just simply asking questions about what the qualifications to be one are.) We have access to the best information on all subjects that's ever been available in human history. Are we truly only qualifying education if the information we're exposed to comes from an accredited school? It's more likely that the information we get from an accredited school is manipulated information than the information we get elsewhere. Accredited schools have agendas, sponsors, large payrolls, and so many other things affecting them. They can be amazing as well, considering industry standards, distributing information that ensures employability, and just providing overall educational standards. There are pros and cons.

I do want to mention a change in my approach to eduation, which happened in my first 3 years of school at an accredited college. I was taking history from a professor named John McCormick. He said that he would never teach us or test us on a list of dates and names because a few years down the road, we wouldn't remember any of it and it would not matter. He said he would teach us and test us on the history of ideas because that is hopefully what we'd remember long-term and that is what actually mattered. This changed my personal approach to education. I don't try to memorize the trivial things. I try to learn and incorporate the main ideas and thoughts of a subject. For instance, when it comes to economics, I don't obsess over the formulas. I have no interest in pursuing econometrics, the mathematical analytics for economics. I'm glad some people are into that but it's not for me. I am interested in our nation's views and practices in managing money and in the government's role in those practices. I'm interested in how other countries have approached these same things. I'm interested in state and federal policies and how these affect the average citizen. I'm interested in the history of inflation, not just the rates alone but what was going on politically to change inflation? How did the Federal Reserve come to be and what can we learn from deep diving into their history? They've been around now for 111 years-do they make the nation economically stronger or economically weaker? Knowing the formulas, while helpful in some ways, in my opinion will not have as profound of an affect on worldwide economics as understanding how policies in a country change the economics of a country. That's what I like to focus on.

In theory, I get paid more at my job for having higher degrees but my job does NOT recognize my degrees beyond two Associates Degrees, obtained at accredited schools. I cannot take the same pathway to become a teacher as somebody who got the same higher degrees as I got but from an accredited school. So far, professionally, my degrees do nothing for me. If I were to change jobs and bring my degrees into play, there is no standard way to approach it. In some places, an unaccredited degree is useless. In some industries, it's acceptable. Apparently, in 11 states, it's illegal to list a degree from an unaccredited college on your resume (but not in my state).

There are many offshoots to this consideration. I often go back to the question of "What is an education?" If you believe it's about learning, there is room for unconventional pathways. If you believe it's about uniformity, one strict path, or checkboxes, there is not room for unconventional pathways. If you believe being an expert means having meaningfully explored a subject matter deeply, there is room for opinions that come from people who took unconventional pathways. However, if you believe being an expert means one must have checked off all the accredited requirement boxes, there is no room for somebody with my educational background.