Something like 80% of communication is just body language,
All those years listening to parents, teachers, lecturers, etc was all a waste of time. They could have just mimed it all !
Not mimed, but heres an example.
Some one says, jump off the cliff with a grin on their face, how do you interpret the instruction? A joke perhaps that you know to ignore, because you recognise the same grin that breaks out on your face when playing a joker?
Some one says, jump off the cliff with an angry/serious face in a uniform that holds a psychological position of authority over your general conciousness, especially military uniforms, then you would probably do it.
Same instruction, but different body language, helped along with a uniform.
Ergo, perhaps you discounted the significance the of the body language employed by the parents, teachers, lecturers etc, teaching in a calm and collected manner, not letting their negative emotions (anger) get in the way which can raise stress levels and hinder learning in some circumstances. Perhaps teachers could be more effective at certain age's if they wore a uniform?
Some people learn somethings more from experience than being dictated too, others learn somethings more from being dictated to than from experience. Within those two domains, ie dictated to and experience, you can break that down to into:
dictated to, could mean, being spoken to & reading
experience, could mean, finding parallels already experienced, and doing an experiment.
Identify what "somethings" can be as well would be useful.
And having done all that, just because it can be recalled, perhaps even rehashed to appear to give a reasonable informed answer, doesnt mean its really sunk in.
Plus if concentrating on something(s), doesnt mean something previously taught will come to the fore of consciousness when needed/expected by the parents, teachers, lecturers etc.
Case in point being, driving to work, the act of driving becomes so engrained it becomes an autonomous function especially when its highly routine, statistically more accidents happen in this situation and other short journeys to/from the home, so I could argue some laws obeying speed and other rules cause more accidents because it causes the routine, which kind of defeats the object of the rules in the first place, if their intention is to provide safety to all around?
This is in part backed up by experiements where road markings have been removed and pedestrians have right of way, in some towns/cities in Europe where accident levels have fallen. Of course in time, think maybe decades, it might have to resort back to lines on roads and rules as people get need change to keep them alert.
Naturally its complex. <--- Now how do you interpret that? You cant see my face, so you dont ultimately know the intention behind that statement. Just how much do you read into things? When should we read more into things and other times just take the literal meaning?
I sometimes think an AI would be an excellent teacher, certainly from the logic point of view I think it would be, but due to its limits of not having emotion generated by chemicals, I wonder if these emotions could be emulated/modeled sufficiently and if so, would it have a better idea of humans in general, in order to be a good teacher, on hand to guide when needed. I sometimes see examples of computers preventing some actions online that could be interpreted as such, but I also cant help but think maybe its just human operated.