Do adults have the skills they need to thrive in a changing world?(oecd.org)
oecd.org
Do adults have the skills they need to thrive in a changing world?
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/do-adults-have-the-skills-they-need-to-thrive-in-a-changing-world_b263dc5d-en.html
96 comments
Emotional control really is the *the* skill. When I was diagnosed with ADHD I learned that emotional disregulation was a part of it.
I had spent years trying to work out why everyone was so especially unkind to me. I thought maybe I was autistic (I'm not), or that I was giving off weird social cues. Turns out that I just have trouble regulating the regular ups and downs of normal emotional life.
Often people talk about task-completion and procrastination when ADHD comes up. That's emotional disregulation too. You sit at a desk, open your algebra book and start working on problem one. As soon as it is slightly difficult the uncontrollable emotions run wild. It feels awful. Now scrolling a couple of youtube videos takes your mind of it. You get a little break from (what feels like) world ending emotional pain.
I still struggle with this years after my diagnosis but the first step to improvement is to label the emotions you are having, when you have them.
I had spent years trying to work out why everyone was so especially unkind to me. I thought maybe I was autistic (I'm not), or that I was giving off weird social cues. Turns out that I just have trouble regulating the regular ups and downs of normal emotional life.
Often people talk about task-completion and procrastination when ADHD comes up. That's emotional disregulation too. You sit at a desk, open your algebra book and start working on problem one. As soon as it is slightly difficult the uncontrollable emotions run wild. It feels awful. Now scrolling a couple of youtube videos takes your mind of it. You get a little break from (what feels like) world ending emotional pain.
I still struggle with this years after my diagnosis but the first step to improvement is to label the emotions you are having, when you have them.
> Emotional control really is the the skill. When I was diagnosed with ADHD I learned that emotional disregulation was a part of it.
I agree. I think emotional control and social navigation are sort of, but not entirely related. My ADHD inspired emotional disregulation meant people often found me difficult to be around, the emotional swings made them uncomfortable.
I became happier and more successful when I started learning to be less toxic, to control my emotions, or at least not make it other peoples problem.
I agree. I think emotional control and social navigation are sort of, but not entirely related. My ADHD inspired emotional disregulation meant people often found me difficult to be around, the emotional swings made them uncomfortable.
I became happier and more successful when I started learning to be less toxic, to control my emotions, or at least not make it other peoples problem.
Reading your post made me realize I may have ADHD
> I had spent years trying to work out why everyone was so especially unkind to me.
It is also possible that you met your fair share of assholes.
It is also possible that you met your fair share of assholes.
Thank you for sharing. I can assure you that there are many people with exactly the same difficulties including me :)
[deleted]
I've seen plenty of people be successful without being able to do algebra, while barely ever reading a book. I've never seen anyone reach great heights without being in control of their own feelings and understanding the feelings of others.
Being able to master new skills is also a display of emotional control.
I think pretty much anybody can master the knowledge within a chemistry textbook, but few people have the skill to self study a chemistry textbook, part of which required emotional control.
Of course it's hard to measure such nebulous skills, but we've all come across it in our day-to-day. We've all met that guy who seems to know exactly what to say in every situation.
I do improvisational comedy. It involved some levels of emotional understanding and storytelling, but I am unsure how to translate it to real life. When you're doing improv, your scene partner is very interested in keeping a conversation going.
Being able to master new skills is also a display of emotional control.
I think pretty much anybody can master the knowledge within a chemistry textbook, but few people have the skill to self study a chemistry textbook, part of which required emotional control.
Of course it's hard to measure such nebulous skills, but we've all come across it in our day-to-day. We've all met that guy who seems to know exactly what to say in every situation.
I do improvisational comedy. It involved some levels of emotional understanding and storytelling, but I am unsure how to translate it to real life. When you're doing improv, your scene partner is very interested in keeping a conversation going.
> Being able to master new skills is also a display of emotional control.
Absolutely, I found this a lot at university. For a lot of kids, especially ones at top unis, this is the first time they've ever done anything actually hard.
I mentioned this the other day. Before uni, I knew all the math and physics I'd ever come across. Like, everything. I twiddled my thumbs at the end of the IB exams. When I got to uni, there were entire question sheets that I didn't understand. As in "what does that lecture I went to have to do with these questions?"
It takes some emotional growth to deal with that situation, and the answer isn't external, in the sense of "hey you gotta ask the prof the right questions" or "the answer is in a particular book". The answer is that you have to really really concentrate hard and stick to it, even when it feels like you're not getting anywhere. (Examiners hate this one trick!)
Absolutely, I found this a lot at university. For a lot of kids, especially ones at top unis, this is the first time they've ever done anything actually hard.
I mentioned this the other day. Before uni, I knew all the math and physics I'd ever come across. Like, everything. I twiddled my thumbs at the end of the IB exams. When I got to uni, there were entire question sheets that I didn't understand. As in "what does that lecture I went to have to do with these questions?"
It takes some emotional growth to deal with that situation, and the answer isn't external, in the sense of "hey you gotta ask the prof the right questions" or "the answer is in a particular book". The answer is that you have to really really concentrate hard and stick to it, even when it feels like you're not getting anywhere. (Examiners hate this one trick!)
You speak a great deal of truth - I found myself learning these skills at the pointy end of a cane at British boarding school, and they have served me exceptionally well, in everything from my career to chatting up a policeman I can barely speak the language of to not pay a hefty fine.
These skills will continue to be valuable regardless of what the future holds.
I would add one related, arguably harder skill to master - pattern recognition. Being able to see patterns where others do not yet is an enormously valuable skill in life, and a key part of my arsenal for a changing world - I am, after all, an elder millennial, and I have watched the world go from smoking on the tube, bowler hats, typewriters and briefcases to… this - and I have anticipated and adapted.
I have found myself thinking a lot about this topic of late - I have a daughter, soon to be two, and I want to ensure that she is well equipped for whatever the world throws at her.
These skills will continue to be valuable regardless of what the future holds.
I would add one related, arguably harder skill to master - pattern recognition. Being able to see patterns where others do not yet is an enormously valuable skill in life, and a key part of my arsenal for a changing world - I am, after all, an elder millennial, and I have watched the world go from smoking on the tube, bowler hats, typewriters and briefcases to… this - and I have anticipated and adapted.
I have found myself thinking a lot about this topic of late - I have a daughter, soon to be two, and I want to ensure that she is well equipped for whatever the world throws at her.
> pointy end of a cane
> I am, after all, an elder millennial
These things do not add up at all.
> I am, after all, an elder millennial
These things do not add up at all.
I think they still had corporal punishment into the early 90s in the UK?
I thought it was made illegal in the 1980's, and indeed it was in state schools, but I stand corrected here, because it was still legal in private schools until 1998.
Yep, and I started boarding in ‘89, aged six. It was mostly extinct by the time I reached secondary school, but at my prep school, it was rife. The place was run by a group of retired Cold War submariners, and while the place had much to be commended, their approach to discipline was not. One learned to avoid consequences for one’s actions, rather than to endure them. That meant learning to lie like your and your co-suspects’ ability to sit or sleep that week depended on it - because it did.
> I've never seen anyone reach great heights without being in control of their own feelings
Steve Jobs wasn't exactly known for being in control of his emotions. Musk, Gates, Ellison and Kalanick also have a reputation for exploding in rage from time to time.
When you look at history's greatest scientists or mathematicians you see a pretty similar picture. Newton? Erdos? Grothendieck? Diogenes? They weren't emotionally stable 9 to 5 guys. Quite the opposite.
People who reach great heights are rarely balanced people. "Everything in moderation" doesn't produce greatness. If history tells us anything it's that we are incredibly forgiving of the flaws of highly accomplished people.
Steve Jobs wasn't exactly known for being in control of his emotions. Musk, Gates, Ellison and Kalanick also have a reputation for exploding in rage from time to time.
When you look at history's greatest scientists or mathematicians you see a pretty similar picture. Newton? Erdos? Grothendieck? Diogenes? They weren't emotionally stable 9 to 5 guys. Quite the opposite.
People who reach great heights are rarely balanced people. "Everything in moderation" doesn't produce greatness. If history tells us anything it's that we are incredibly forgiving of the flaws of highly accomplished people.
I think Steve Jobs et al were in control of their emotions. I’m quite certain those explosions were controlled to achieve some certain effects.
He didn't recognize his daughter for the first 2 years of her life and angrily insisted the child wasn't his because he didn't want the distraction of parenthood. Emotionally developed people don't behave like this.
Both the richest man of the world and the US president-elect exhibit notably low levels of emotional control. How is that not "great heights"?
> I've never seen anyone reach great heights without being in control of their own feelings and understanding the feelings of others.
I think there are enough historical and present-day counterexamples to this, unfortunately.
I think there are enough historical and present-day counterexamples to this, unfortunately.
In essence, the foundations of social skills generally take precedence.
In my experience these are people who make others do the work and never experience the heat of it themselves. It doesn’t scale, at the very least. Confident babbling was always despised by the skilled workers I knew.
I think that the only emotion you have to regulate in this mode is self-cringe, which ignorance helps to mask very naturally.
I think that the only emotion you have to regulate in this mode is self-cringe, which ignorance helps to mask very naturally.
It is probably tempting to associate social skills w/ the vacuous talking heads of the world, but that's not what GP is saying, I don't think.
I think the text was meant to be read "If nothing else, and before anything else, be a good person to be around". Because that will open so many doors for you.
I think the text was meant to be read "If nothing else, and before anything else, be a good person to be around". Because that will open so many doors for you.
You're thinking of a certain type of bullshitter that everyone likes to hate. I will circle back to that.
The basics of emotional control are things like not immediately interjecting when you disagree with someone in a conversation. But also, having some limits to procrastination, eg when you are studying. Or a bit of resilience when life treats you harshly.
Social navigation is understanding other people. Why is this person who arrived at the party alone looking down at the floor? What is a compliment that this person will appreciate? What do people here think, and where does it differ from what I think?
A friend of mine is insanely good at the social part, it's almost like magic. He saw a guy looking at him in a bar, goes over, says "hey man, you're a secret service agent, right?". He wasn't wrong, and he's friends with the guy now.
Now, back to persuasion. People who are actually good socially don't get caught bullshitting. The best people will acknowledge their faults. "I was thinking we could all do {this project}, but I'm not the techie here and you guys might have some input". People appreciate that over "trust me, we can totally do this guys, one team one dream".
It's actually the people who aren't good socially who seem to make progress initially, because at least they aren't anonymous, but they can't actually build the support they need and people start resenting their style.
The basics of emotional control are things like not immediately interjecting when you disagree with someone in a conversation. But also, having some limits to procrastination, eg when you are studying. Or a bit of resilience when life treats you harshly.
Social navigation is understanding other people. Why is this person who arrived at the party alone looking down at the floor? What is a compliment that this person will appreciate? What do people here think, and where does it differ from what I think?
A friend of mine is insanely good at the social part, it's almost like magic. He saw a guy looking at him in a bar, goes over, says "hey man, you're a secret service agent, right?". He wasn't wrong, and he's friends with the guy now.
Now, back to persuasion. People who are actually good socially don't get caught bullshitting. The best people will acknowledge their faults. "I was thinking we could all do {this project}, but I'm not the techie here and you guys might have some input". People appreciate that over "trust me, we can totally do this guys, one team one dream".
It's actually the people who aren't good socially who seem to make progress initially, because at least they aren't anonymous, but they can't actually build the support they need and people start resenting their style.
Thanks for explanation, I understand your idea better now, but still disagree. I don’t think that the described is actually commonly lacking and, back to the original point, that it is first and foremost related to some form of success. There are lots of social people, at least they are the majority at meetings. And barely a quarter of them are that high on that beaten success/thrive ladder. (And it may be just post-factum confidence in disguise). While social is important, as in “don’t be socially disabled”, I find this importance barely meaningful for what was an initial point of subj, cause it’s in no common lack-of category.
I guess that’s where we see it differently.
I guess that’s where we see it differently.
I dont think the poster was suggesting social skill/emotional control are an exclusive requirement, more that these are a prerequisite for any other skills even being fairly useful. at the very least, emotional control gives one the ability to improve other skills that may be lacking as they move through life.
I thought about possible interpretations, but aren’t they pretty clear in the first sentences.
If no, I don’t understand this position then. Having social skills doesn’t magically create learning skills (unless we postulate that learning is social) or real world skills, I mean real world that doesn’t hear you out when you command.
At the very least it should be put together with reality changing skills, not first. Because in the first place it creates talking heads which only change perception temporarily (aka lying).
If no, I don’t understand this position then. Having social skills doesn’t magically create learning skills (unless we postulate that learning is social) or real world skills, I mean real world that doesn’t hear you out when you command.
At the very least it should be put together with reality changing skills, not first. Because in the first place it creates talking heads which only change perception temporarily (aka lying).
Learning how to learn is probably a more root/core skill.
There’s a free and popular course by that name too.
There’s a free and popular course by that name too.
> Skills mismatches call for greater alignment between education and the labour market
with about one-third of workers in OECD countries being overqualified or underqualified for their positions, the misalignment has economic and social implications, particularly for overqualified individuals.
The question here is how to align educational actions with market demands. Skills alignment is only possible at a very granular level, and mass initiatives fail to meet this need. Companies lack the tools to understand people on a very deep level. This is my current obsession.
with about one-third of workers in OECD countries being overqualified or underqualified for their positions, the misalignment has economic and social implications, particularly for overqualified individuals.
The question here is how to align educational actions with market demands. Skills alignment is only possible at a very granular level, and mass initiatives fail to meet this need. Companies lack the tools to understand people on a very deep level. This is my current obsession.
Shouldn’t we be aiming for as broad and as deep an educational capability spread as we can possibly manage, regardless of the market?
I can’t imagine it would be good to have 1/5 of adults lacking in these skills even if it did align with some market demand, for example.
I can’t imagine it would be good to have 1/5 of adults lacking in these skills even if it did align with some market demand, for example.
Sorry for the delay. The problem is that ‘as broad and as deep’ works if we think in terms of a mass operation, but not for an individual. For an individual, these are competing strategies. I’m not advocating against a broad education, but at the same time, if the job market can’t truly see each person’s skillset, we’ll always have a mismatch.
And mass initiatives (like university degrees) are created fastest for the strongest signals -- the loudest hype -- and thus tends to overproduce new people just as demand dies.
What are your thoughts on how we can help improve this alignment?
What are your thoughts on how we can help improve this alignment?
Hey pal, indeed, these anomalies occur mainly due to a lack of signals coming from the hiring market itself. Formation initiatives (and even people’s interests) always lag behind what the market is ready to absorb.
I've been talking to the entire market about skill management and I’ve noticed how flawed our methods for visualizing individual skillsets are. It’s impossible to consider upskilling and reskilling this way. When demand arises, the only possible solution is firing and hiring. This alignment will only occur when the demand provides a granular, specific, and clear indication of the skill gap.
I've been talking to the entire market about skill management and I’ve noticed how flawed our methods for visualizing individual skillsets are. It’s impossible to consider upskilling and reskilling this way. When demand arises, the only possible solution is firing and hiring. This alignment will only occur when the demand provides a granular, specific, and clear indication of the skill gap.
You mean undercertified or overcertified?
No amount of formal education can guarantee whether someone’s genuinely qualified to handle a certain position or not.
No amount of formal education can guarantee whether someone’s genuinely qualified to handle a certain position or not.
According to the study, for those who are overqualified
More than ever basic computer science, economics, political science, and security fundamentals are needed to at least avoid being complete NPCs. Unfortunately intellectual pursuits are looked down upon (perhaps by design)
My brother has none of those things, owns and runs a blue collar business and is married.
One person’s NPC is another person’s thriving.
One person’s NPC is another person’s thriving.
NPC is such a stupid term, it just underlines the us-vs-them attitude. "no I am a Free Thinker, these other people are NPCs!"
Yet, a healthy society is built on the majority of people being content with not being unique. Get a fulltime job, house, marry, have 2+ kids, pay your dues and mortgage, don't do crime, retire, ????, profit. For society anyway. But this boring generic middle-class all-american suburb lifestyle seems to be unreachable for millennials and younger nowadays because someone both pulled up the ladder and increased the barrier to entry to earn enough for a simple lifestyle like that.
But if you work three jobs, sleep in your car and simp on the internet, MAYBE a billionaire will take pity on you.
Yet, a healthy society is built on the majority of people being content with not being unique. Get a fulltime job, house, marry, have 2+ kids, pay your dues and mortgage, don't do crime, retire, ????, profit. For society anyway. But this boring generic middle-class all-american suburb lifestyle seems to be unreachable for millennials and younger nowadays because someone both pulled up the ladder and increased the barrier to entry to earn enough for a simple lifestyle like that.
But if you work three jobs, sleep in your car and simp on the internet, MAYBE a billionaire will take pity on you.
> basic computer science, economics, political science, and security fundamentals are needed
Can you define "basic" for each of these things? The introductory classes in my (computer science then software engineering) degree were all things I'd picked up from Osborne books before I hit puberty, is that standard sufficient for all the other fields?
Can you define "basic" for each of these things? The introductory classes in my (computer science then software engineering) degree were all things I'd picked up from Osborne books before I hit puberty, is that standard sufficient for all the other fields?
I would define basic as at least knowing that I don't know some topic and how to type in google "what is ...?" or "how to ...?". The amount of people outright refusing to do this simple step is honestly frightening.
Knowledge is forgotten when it is not used long term, and it is fine. But we need to acknowledge it and understand where to start getting it if a need arises.
Knowledge is forgotten when it is not used long term, and it is fine. But we need to acknowledge it and understand where to start getting it if a need arises.
Not least by the idiots in power saying STEM STEM STEM and defunding the departments that provide context to the world.
I had a similar argument this morning with friends. Italy has a strong humanities imprinting in its society and school programs, and math/physics are usually taught in a horrible way, with the end result that people saying "I can't do math ahahah" are quite a common thing amongst the non stem people. However, if you say "I don't know shit about Dante" you'll be seen as ignorant (rightfully so, imho). I don't think the guilt is on the people saying they can't understand math, because they probably are right in that they have troubles with simple maths. The school system still lays on the fascist philosopher Gentile.
However, I don't think that stem is inherently less apt at creating citizens than humanities. For some things required today to be a decent citizen, a bit of stem knowledge is required, let alone if you want do dwelve into politics choices. Most engineers I know are pro nuclear. Amongst non engineers, this support is way less present. If I try to talk to someone about digital privacy, chances are nobody is gonna be interested about it except for a few stem people. And yet these are all things that are actual topics in the public discourse. Stem stem stem isn't inherently bad in itself. It's bad if you go stem stem stem and you think you are superior, but I don't think it's bad in itself. I think I've mad a bunch of different arguments and some might be a bit hard to understand, feel free to ask for clarifications
However, I don't think that stem is inherently less apt at creating citizens than humanities. For some things required today to be a decent citizen, a bit of stem knowledge is required, let alone if you want do dwelve into politics choices. Most engineers I know are pro nuclear. Amongst non engineers, this support is way less present. If I try to talk to someone about digital privacy, chances are nobody is gonna be interested about it except for a few stem people. And yet these are all things that are actual topics in the public discourse. Stem stem stem isn't inherently bad in itself. It's bad if you go stem stem stem and you think you are superior, but I don't think it's bad in itself. I think I've mad a bunch of different arguments and some might be a bit hard to understand, feel free to ask for clarifications
I agree, studying STEM doesn't exclude becoming a balanced person. Politcians tinkering with the education system and killing humanities and arts departments because they don't make coders makes it harder to create a balanced society.
The irony of LLMs is that the sorts of modes of thinking taught by art and the humanities are going to be more valuable as we need to evaluate and work with AI and agents. Science and engineering will remain valuable too! But that isn't what's being questioned by these midwit business graduates we call leaders.
The irony of LLMs is that the sorts of modes of thinking taught by art and the humanities are going to be more valuable as we need to evaluate and work with AI and agents. Science and engineering will remain valuable too! But that isn't what's being questioned by these midwit business graduates we call leaders.
One of the problems is that people may have a very shallow knowdledge of Dante (or whoever is the most famous writter in their country) and still claim they know the subject.
What is the question about Dante equivalent to "*Solve x+y=10, x-y=4." ?
What is the question about Dante equivalent to "*Solve x+y=10, x-y=4." ?
STEM / college has been pushed for years by several western countries (I can only speak for those) but there's now a mismatch with e.g. college graduates working in underpaid (relative to the promised wages and debts they put them in) dead-end jobs, and an over-reliance on immigrants to do the jobs that people find beneath themselves (or: jobs that employers don't even want to pay minimum wage for)
have you noticed the trend to turn STEM into STEAM by adding Art?
https://artsintegration.com/what-is-steam-education-in-k-12-...
It's mind boggling that art was crammed in. Ruled by midwits.
https://artsintegration.com/what-is-steam-education-in-k-12-...
It's mind boggling that art was crammed in. Ruled by midwits.
I propose calling the actual curriculum in this case - "vapor" :)
I mean the artist-to-webdesigner or author-to-content-writer pipeline is pretty well known.
Why aren’t arts schools and programs teaching math to the arts students then?
The good ones do.
Art students don't like it though.
Art students don't like it though.
> intellectual pursuits are looked down upon (perhaps by design)
Collective bargaining and knowledge of labour history are definitely discouraged by design.
Collective bargaining and knowledge of labour history are definitely discouraged by design.
> Adults with highly educated parents have better literacy skill levels than those with less educated parents
Lol, not sure about this. I have two young children in private school and most of the kids come from wealth, like white collar/office professions, etc. My wife and I have the hardest time identifying with our fellow parents. They have zero hobbies outside of: social media, bringing their kids to breweries on Saturday, sports, Netflix, etc. Our single friends tend to be far more interesting with eclectic tastes.
Lol, not sure about this. I have two young children in private school and most of the kids come from wealth, like white collar/office professions, etc. My wife and I have the hardest time identifying with our fellow parents. They have zero hobbies outside of: social media, bringing their kids to breweries on Saturday, sports, Netflix, etc. Our single friends tend to be far more interesting with eclectic tastes.
I think you conflated highly educated with wealthy.
At the same time you conflated having eclectic tase with being highly educated. I have really well educated friends who are burgers and beers and having not really sophisticated hobbies while doing really sophisticated jobs.
At the same time you conflated having eclectic tase with being highly educated. I have really well educated friends who are burgers and beers and having not really sophisticated hobbies while doing really sophisticated jobs.
Can't have hobbies when you're busy working to afford that private school
Sounds like my kinda people.
I'd suggest people dig into their specific country's data too (at the bottom)
For the US it is here: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/survey-of-adults-skills...
Though the US is near average, man, that's really hiding some data there. Things that stood out to me:
In literacy, 28% of adults (OECD average: 26%) scored at Level 1 or below, meaning they have low literacy proficiency.
In numeracy, 34% of adults (OECD average: 25%) scored at or below Level 1 proficiency
In adaptive problem solving, 32% of adults (OECD average: 29%) scored at or below Level 1 proficiency.
In the United States, average results in 2022-23 went down compared to 2012/15 in literacy and numeracy
Again, these results are near the average. But still...? I wasn't expecting that ~1/4 or ~1/3 adults had these issues or that we were going in this direction. Yes, the reasons are flamewar-able, of course. Still, these data points are, to me, stark.
For the US it is here: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/survey-of-adults-skills...
Though the US is near average, man, that's really hiding some data there. Things that stood out to me:
In literacy, 28% of adults (OECD average: 26%) scored at Level 1 or below, meaning they have low literacy proficiency.
In numeracy, 34% of adults (OECD average: 25%) scored at or below Level 1 proficiency
In adaptive problem solving, 32% of adults (OECD average: 29%) scored at or below Level 1 proficiency.
In the United States, average results in 2022-23 went down compared to 2012/15 in literacy and numeracy
Again, these results are near the average. But still...? I wasn't expecting that ~1/4 or ~1/3 adults had these issues or that we were going in this direction. Yes, the reasons are flamewar-able, of course. Still, these data points are, to me, stark.
Does the world need to change at an ever-growing rate? From my perspective there's no net benefit here. Just constant churn.
There’s no way to stop either. Change is a consequence of competition, which comes from resource shortage, which is a natural part of logistic map that the nature follows, well, naturally. It’s constant churn by design.
It would be nice if we could agree to stop, negotiate reasonably and relax (and grab those with noses too high and throw them into a deep pit). But it doesn’t seem to happen any soon. Attempts were made but turned out to be a really bad joke. Humans are too stupid for that to work.
It would be nice if we could agree to stop, negotiate reasonably and relax (and grab those with noses too high and throw them into a deep pit). But it doesn’t seem to happen any soon. Attempts were made but turned out to be a really bad joke. Humans are too stupid for that to work.
Need to? No, of course not. Will it slow down? Unlikely
Almost anyone who has a semi-useful technical or trade skill and can manage communications, marketing, sales etc is liable to become extremely rich.
Almost anyone with no skills except they can talk to people and arrange/organize deals is liable to make someone else rich, and might be well-off if they can figure out how to get a slice of the pie.
Almost anyone with no skills except they can talk to people and arrange/organize deals is liable to make someone else rich, and might be well-off if they can figure out how to get a slice of the pie.
Who decided education is the only factor to thrive in a changing world? Literacy? I figure the majority of adults in my neighbour are not literate. My definition of literate is 1 non-fiction book per year OR 1 fiction book per month.
The big problem I see in society, fundamental flaw that's changed significantly in the last 30-40 years. Emotional regulation.
The real root cause problem is that there's a growing group of people(no available label, diverse group) who genuinely believe they are 'empaths' not like Vulcan level, but Betazed like. This group of people believe they are so good at emotions they can accurately sense other people's emotions. In reality, they are so emotionally dysregulated that other people's emotions overwhelm them.
The big problem I see in society, fundamental flaw that's changed significantly in the last 30-40 years. Emotional regulation.
The real root cause problem is that there's a growing group of people(no available label, diverse group) who genuinely believe they are 'empaths' not like Vulcan level, but Betazed like. This group of people believe they are so good at emotions they can accurately sense other people's emotions. In reality, they are so emotionally dysregulated that other people's emotions overwhelm them.
I tried finding why Brussels and Wallonia did not participate, but could not. Any idea?
also, is Brussels included in "Flemish Region" ? I have a feeling Wallonia was not high enough to get on the charts
Brussels is clearly not included.
Slightly off topic - but probably a big reason that Finland has good literacy scores, is the television companies choose to subtitle foreign content rather than dub.
My wife taught herself to read before starting school so she could understand what was going on in Charlie's Angels
It's caused a stir when Netflix dubbed some films into Finnish https://yle.fi/a/3-12275492
My wife taught herself to read before starting school so she could understand what was going on in Charlie's Angels
It's caused a stir when Netflix dubbed some films into Finnish https://yle.fi/a/3-12275492
Finland proving the supremacy of "Subs not Dubs". Noted for future reference.
> After all, no one is being forced to watch the dubbed version of the film.
Yeah, except when we do, but it is too late then. Currently staying not in my home country and last year saw that "Everything Everywhere All At Once" was streaming. I immediately started it, only to discover that it was dubbed in the local language. So I got either local dub, or Chinese+local sub, nothing else. And my level of local language was like A1 or so. Thankfully a year later this issue has been solved, because it is not available for streaming at all today. Yay!.. :)
Yeah, except when we do, but it is too late then. Currently staying not in my home country and last year saw that "Everything Everywhere All At Once" was streaming. I immediately started it, only to discover that it was dubbed in the local language. So I got either local dub, or Chinese+local sub, nothing else. And my level of local language was like A1 or so. Thankfully a year later this issue has been solved, because it is not available for streaming at all today. Yay!.. :)
It took a while to find an actual explanation for the Polish data issues they mention. It's at the end of section 5 of the Reader's Companion document, under "Overall assessment of data quality" [0]. Click saver:
> In Poland, nine interviewers were identified as having a relatively large share of cases with unusual response patterns of respondents, using the same criteria that led to the identification of cases in the other countries. All data from these interviewers (774 cases in total) have been excluded from the data used to estimate the population model, which establishes the relationship between the variables from the background questionnaire and performance on the direct assessment to generate proficiency estimates (OECD, forthcoming[1]). This exclusion enhances the robustness of the model, by ensuring it is estimated based only on the cases considered to be of sufficient quality.
> Moreover, stronger evidence was collected that six of these interviewers in Poland breached data collection protocols throughout the survey. For instance, some of these interviewers were implausibly productive, conducting many interviews on a single day. Others did not record interviews or obtain respondents’ phone numbers, which made validation of interviews more difficult. Yet another interviewer was found to have falsified seven cases during data collection (cases which were immediately removed from the dataset as part of the quality-control process and are not included in the 774 cases under consideration in this note). Twenty-seven other cases collected from this interviewer were, however, validated and remained in the dataset. Since these factors raise concerns about the quality of all cases completed by these six interviewers, the responses to the cognitive assessment items for all cases of these six interviewers were excluded from the database (559 in total). Plausible values for these cases were then estimated using only their responses to the background questionnaire (for which no unusual patterns were detected) and the parameters estimated by the population model.
> In Poland, other cases with unusual response patterns that could suggest possible disengagement or lack of a reasonable level of effort during the assessment were identified. As these cases were not clustered within any particular interviewer, they were left in the dataset and treated as all other cases, given the difficulty of establishing objective criteria to determine whether reasonable effort was exerted, and whether the results of the assessment truly reflect the proficiency of respondents. While similar cases are present in all countries, the number of such cases in Poland can potentially have a significant impact on the estimated proficiency of the overall population. This should be kept in mind when interpreting Poland’s results. For this reason, in OECD (2024[3]) results for Poland are flagged with an asterisk.
[0]: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/survey-of-adult-skills-...
> In Poland, nine interviewers were identified as having a relatively large share of cases with unusual response patterns of respondents, using the same criteria that led to the identification of cases in the other countries. All data from these interviewers (774 cases in total) have been excluded from the data used to estimate the population model, which establishes the relationship between the variables from the background questionnaire and performance on the direct assessment to generate proficiency estimates (OECD, forthcoming[1]). This exclusion enhances the robustness of the model, by ensuring it is estimated based only on the cases considered to be of sufficient quality.
> Moreover, stronger evidence was collected that six of these interviewers in Poland breached data collection protocols throughout the survey. For instance, some of these interviewers were implausibly productive, conducting many interviews on a single day. Others did not record interviews or obtain respondents’ phone numbers, which made validation of interviews more difficult. Yet another interviewer was found to have falsified seven cases during data collection (cases which were immediately removed from the dataset as part of the quality-control process and are not included in the 774 cases under consideration in this note). Twenty-seven other cases collected from this interviewer were, however, validated and remained in the dataset. Since these factors raise concerns about the quality of all cases completed by these six interviewers, the responses to the cognitive assessment items for all cases of these six interviewers were excluded from the database (559 in total). Plausible values for these cases were then estimated using only their responses to the background questionnaire (for which no unusual patterns were detected) and the parameters estimated by the population model.
> In Poland, other cases with unusual response patterns that could suggest possible disengagement or lack of a reasonable level of effort during the assessment were identified. As these cases were not clustered within any particular interviewer, they were left in the dataset and treated as all other cases, given the difficulty of establishing objective criteria to determine whether reasonable effort was exerted, and whether the results of the assessment truly reflect the proficiency of respondents. While similar cases are present in all countries, the number of such cases in Poland can potentially have a significant impact on the estimated proficiency of the overall population. This should be kept in mind when interpreting Poland’s results. For this reason, in OECD (2024[3]) results for Poland are flagged with an asterisk.
[0]: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/survey-of-adult-skills-...
Poland has a different viewpoint on what many other cultures would view as cheating. These paragraphs align with what I often see from Polish coworkers - not outright cheating but making adjustments here and there, even when totally unnecessary.
Which adults?
I think lots of the university educated ones (without professional skills), not really.
The tradespeople and dropouts that figured life out on their own, those ones have a better shot.
I think lots of the university educated ones (without professional skills), not really.
The tradespeople and dropouts that figured life out on their own, those ones have a better shot.
Heh, fun headline to apply Betteridge's law to.
> However, on average across OECD countries, 18% of adults do not even have the most basic levels of proficiency in any of the domains.
This is painful but unsurprising.
> However, on average across OECD countries, 18% of adults do not even have the most basic levels of proficiency in any of the domains.
This is painful but unsurprising.
[deleted]
redblacktree(9)
emotional control and social navigation
I've seen plenty of people be successful without being able to do algebra, while barely ever reading a book. I've never seen anyone reach great heights without being in control of their own feelings and understanding the feelings of others.
Of course it's hard to measure such nebulous skills, but we've all come across it in our day-to-day. We've all met that guy who seems to know exactly what to say in every situation.