I worked in 'educational technology' for years trying to solve 'issues' in education, training, and general Human learning. We called the field advancing Human

I worked in 'educational technology' for years trying to solve 'issues' in education, training, and general Human learning. We called the field advancing Human Potential. During this time, we tried out all sorts of concepts, worked with world leaders and world class theorists and researchers. We built all sorts of systems, and products, simulators, interactive games, expert systems, individual tutors, and other things of blended nature. These products were built for governments, research institutes, and commercial companies. Some of the 'products' had empirical results that surprisingly showed that they were 'useful', too. However, there weren't ever any revolutions in education or learning or educational theory, while I was there. I eventually dropped out from this field from burnout. Why? Because of the people. This area of interest seems to attract people with very similar personality traits. Reading this article and the subject reminds me of the type of people who want to 'solve' education. It is not at all unusual to work with people in this field who complete advance degrees while still in puberty. I worked with a guy who ended up the chair of mathematics at world-class university before he was 20. These are all 'geniuses', as they have been taught and trained to think. And, interestingly they all seem to clamor around this tall flag of solving education. I believe the failure of this field is actually that most of these people running it are very 'left brain' analytical thinkers. They think that they can solve these very dynamic, chaotic educational systems by decomposition and reductionism. It's kind of funny actually. Smart people get addicted to being smart, and they want to encourage the use of the systems that gave them the personal 'high' to begin with.