How do you define education? Something as simple as learning how to interact with people is something that anyone in the presence of other people (which is most people on the planet) can do. Maybe you can't learn computer science in rural Africa, but that's not really what I'm talking about.
Again, the article contradicts this idea. As the course went on, aggressiveness and threats were used less often in arguments, and the debates became more civil. Interpersonal interaction was one of the skills that these people did not pick up in all their years "on the street", but learned in the class.
So you would say that aggressive and uncivil contact was not a learned behaviour?
If I was without teachers and materials and I discovered the square wheel, does the fact that people with teachers are aware of the round wheel discount everything I achieved? I think not. It is still amazing, even if others can do it better.
I guess I'm just not quite seeing where you are coming from. It's not a question of what kind of materials are available, it's the idea that learning is impossible without them. The fact that these people could carry on any kind of interaction, even if done poorly by our society's standards, speaks to me that learning does occur despite what is available.
> So you would say that aggressive and uncivil contact was not a learned behaviour?
I would say it is uneducated behavior. Yes, everyone learns naturally; that's what it is to exist. Education is eduction--the drawing out--not mere "learning".
