Education and the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Video and Keynote Talk)
From my keynote at the International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Seville, November 2018
Transcript
Good morning. Thank you for inviting me. I don’t know how I’ll manage to follow Emily and Antonio here, but I will do my best. And in some ways, what I’m going to talk about brings the themes together of the first two speakers so I’m very fortunate because they’ve done a lot of the work for me.
A little bit of background. I work in this space pretty much most of my career in different areas. I’ve built fast growth companies in the entertainment, education and publishing sectors. A lot of what I’ve been doing, really, in order to do that is by working out what might happen in the future.
Let’s say anticipatory research and foresight because I don’t believe in the term futurism or futurists. They’re sort of charlatans really, crystal ball gazers. That’s because the future doesn’t exist. It’s not a place. We have agency. I think one of the point’s that Emily was talking about is we have agency in what happens. So what I try to do is I look at lots of different data sets. Transglobal political, social, technological, and economic trends. And try and work out, rather than where, to use an ice hockey term, the puck is, but where it might be going. And that’s where this information’s coming from here. From some research that I did for the Canadian government.
I’d like to start with the quote from one of my favourite political social theorists, Antonio Gramsci, who wrote this from prison in the early 1930s. He was imprisoned by Mussolini. But he said,
“The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”
Now I don’t know about you, but I think he could have written those words today. What he was talking about was the old, the status quo, is dying, and the new, is unable to be born as a result of that old. And we’ll follow his theme as I go on. But I think we’re in the interregnum, a new interregnum.
We are of course on the precipice of what many in the world and the world economic forum call “the fourth industrial revolution”. This is exciting time of technological progress characterised by artificial intelligence, automation, self-driving cars, gene editing, and a variety of exciting new things. With that comes amazing opportunities. Exciting possibilities. Perhaps solving some of the most pressing global challenges. But also, it does bring significant challenges to society, which we’ll be talking about shortly.
So a part of this is dystopian, but there is a happy ending. We face significant existential challenges. We can’t escape this. Climate change is happening at a pace. Population growth will have 11 billion souls by the end of this century. Antibiotic resistance as a result of both of those things combined. And technological risk. Technological risk is that quite often we do dumb things. For example, where many governments, my own included, are looking at autonomous weapons. How insane could you be? We split the atom and then vaporised a quarter of a million people? We do dumb stuff. So we have to think about that and prepare for that so that we don’t make dumb decisions.
So here’s some stuff that I prepared with the United Nations a while back. I mashed up about 40 different data sets based on geographical locations, investment and infrastructure, investment and education, and what have you. To determine which nations would adapt, or not adapt, to climate change. Those that are brown or dark brown are the ones that adapt less. In fact in some cases, don’t adapt at all. It’s catastrophic. Again, as always, it’s the global south. A part of has to do with geographical location, a part of this has to do with lack of infrastructure, part of it has to do with theft. But, nevertheless, there we have it.
Now that’s one look. We also need to look at population growth. Population growth is also growing in those specific areas at a pace. The African continent alone will grow from 1.2 billion souls today to four billion souls. We also have seen growth in Latin America across the Indian subcontinent and beyond. So you can see the trouble here. Difficult to survive. A lot of people.
We have talked about STEM, or STEAM education. And a STEAM crisis, the new crisis is that the capability for solving challenges is not evenly distributed. What might happen in this situation where we see massive population growth because by 2060, maybe 2070, we might have according to the most conservative data, one billion climate change refugees.
Today we have 40 million refugees. And we’re having problems aren’t we? We’re worrying about borders and closing things, and building walls, and everything else. So what happens when we have one billion climate change refugees? Where migration becomes a new normal. These are our fellow human beings. And we know we’re already seeing some of this in evidence at the moment.
The future of work is going to change as we know it. And as Antonio was mentioning earlier, there will be, of course, new employment opportunities. There will also be technological unemployment on an unprecedented scale. Plus migration. Now these things add up to societal issues. And you have seen all these sort of headlines from some of the organisations whom we appear to trust, McKinsey, OECD, and so forth. Typically economic organisations because it’s the economic system that’s deficient.
So the idea is that new jobs will appear. And I’m absolutely confident that they will. We can reconfigure society, as well, to look at these things. But it will take a long time if we don’t prepare for it. So it’s only a dystopia if we stick our heads in the sand and don’t look at this because really if we look at the industrial jobs of the earlier industrial revolutions we end up at this conclusion. Machines will work for free. Humans need something else. But that possibly is a good thing because we could, if we’re sensible, robotize, automate the work and humanise the jobs if only we know how. I guess that’s why we’re at this summit.
But, the challenge of technological unemployment, and we’re seeing the greatest concentration of wealth to a smaller number of people and organisations, is we end up with this: eight men owning half the wealth of the planet. Five of those men are in the technology industry. So this is a rapid, growing chasm of inequality between these elites, financial elites. And it’s not improving. And this latest report shows that it turns out the more money you’ve got, the more money you make. Who knew?
The result of this, of course, is the growth of what we call, when we have lack of social agency and you have lack of income security, “othering” people. And we see a new political class, a politicised class, called a Precariat, as referred to by Guy Standing in his book in 2011. And this was based on globalisation. This happened because globalisation allowed the free movement of capital, but not people. Which meant I could get a child to make my t-shirt in Bangladesh. Wouldn’t matter if she had a PhD, she couldn’t leave because she wouldn’t get a visa.
And the reason we have passports, of course, is so we can have poor people. But the result of that was, because manufacturing jobs, and textile jobs, a whole bunch of jobs, technological unemployment moved because we shifted all those things to other countries, which may or may not have been a good idea. But we forgot about those communities where we removed those jobs. And those communities did not recover. We like to believe they recovered. We like to believe new jobs appeared. But the American rust belt, for example, the north of England, parts of Europe, Spain, we saw this lack of employment. When you don’t have a job, you lack social agency. Whereas before in the second industrial revolution, we worried about the inhumane nature of work. Now we consider inhumane nature of not working, and it creates the problems that we’re seeing globally today.
So here’s the real problem. Now, that quote’s actually wrong because his actual real quote was “we had a problem”. And that’s because Apollo 13 went round the back of the moon, and they fixed it. And we can fix these problems. And I believe education is the key. Because we do live in this tyranny of experts. The economists, futurists, and so forth are very good at telling us the jobs that will disappear. They’re very bad at pointing at the ones that will emerge. And whether people will be appropriately equipped to do the jobs, and whether those jobs will actually generate sufficient, adequate incomes.
Now the nice thing about being a writer or an author is you get to quote yourself. And here’s a clue. The jobs of the future are the ones that machines can’t do. It’s really that easy. And if it’s based on rules or if it’s based on measurement, it will be automated. Doesn’t matter whether you’re an accountant, a lawyer, even surgery. 60 percent of keyhole surgery in the western world is conducted by a robot, or with the assistance of robots. That’s because you don’t want to go under the knife if your surgeon says, “Oh, I had a big night last night with my friends.”
So we are going to see a lot of automation. And it will be across the board. It won’t just be blue collar jobs. It will be across the board. So an entire new revolution. And I still think this is a good thing. For that allows us to think about the future and how we design our education systems. And how society should respond.
Jack Ma from the Alibaba group had this to say at the last world economic forum.
“Education. It’s a good big challenge now. If we do not change the way we teach, 30 years later will be trouble because the way we teach, the thing we teach our kids are the things past of the past 200 years. It’s knowledge based. And we cannot teach our kids to compete with machine. They are smarter. We have to teach something unique. That is machine cannot catch up with us.”
That said, some robots are pretty dumb. Simone is a maker from Scandinavia who makes rubbish robots. To point this out, I don’t know if you’ve seen a Dalek from Dr. Who try to go upstairs, or not but they can’t. And those who point at, for example, the Boston Dynamics robot and everything else. I’ve worked with Boston Dynamics robots. And if you move the table by a half a centimetre, they fall over. So it’s not all bad.
So let’s look at the three areas where humans beat machines that are key to the future, key to the future work and job creation. As we’ve heard from our previous speakers; creative endeavours. They’re not just thinking about creativity in what we might consider to be the traditional sense, painting art and so forth. Though they are extremely important. I don’t believe that AI can do that because AI is always the medium, it’s not the message. But creative writing, entrepreneurship. There’s never been a better time to be an entrepreneur. There’s also never been a better time to make scientific discoveries. So creative thinking, creative endeavours. How do we nurture, how do we foster that within our education systems?
Social interactions. We decided to come here with each other in person. Why not a webinar? Because they suck. And we like to meet each other. So anything that requires social interaction, teaching, for example, counselling, being a doctor, hospitality, and so forth. Those are important areas. And anyone that tells you that you can replace a teacher with an AI or a robot doesn’t understand what teaching means.
Physical dexterity and mobility. Now I can do this, I can do this, I can make you coffee, I can go swimming. Millennia of climbing up mountains, dancing, swimming, having fun and so forth, mean that we are incredibly dextrous and mobile. And I refer back to the people will point at these robots. And yes robots are improving in this area, but only in very narrow ways. We are very adaptable to this planet. So these are the three areas. And I’m sure you can think of more.
So what is school for? Against that backdrop of challenge, it sounded like it’s a pretty rough time, right? So what’s school for? I mean I have an idea. I think the purpose of education is to equip our children with the knowledge and skills to reimagine society, to meet the challenges of their generation and the generations after that. We talk about the 21st century. We need to be thinking about the 22nd century because most of these kids, the 21st century is all they’ve ever known. It’s how they survive into the 22nd century that we need to be thinking about.
So let’s hear from Keri Facer and Seth Godin.
“Okay, so if you design your education system just around the idea that it’s about shuffling kids into the university setting, we’re potentially in all sorts of trouble. The universities as they are at the moment just may not exist in the form in the next 15, 20 years. So if we’re talking about educating kids now, we need to be thinking what education do they actually need. Not how do we simply move them on the conveyor belt to the university and then ostensibly to the job. Because the simple fact is is a university degree, even from the best university in the world these days, does not guarantee you security, well-being, and an income for life. We need whole different measures for how you build that sort of security.”
“We built the educational system to training kids to sit still long enough to work in a factory. That’s what it’s for. To create compliant, obedient factory workers. So the question we need to ask is, what is school for now? We’re not asking that question. Parents, administrators, tax payers are not asking the question what is school for. I have an opinion. I think what it’s not for is to create more factory workers because we don’t need more factory workers. I think what we need to do is teach kids two things. One, how to solve interesting problems. And two, how to lead. And yet if you look at just about any public school in North America or Europe, we’re not teaching that. We’re teaching kids how to do well on the test.”
So we have an education system, as we know, which is very resistant to change. I mean the image there and one that Antonio used earlier by coincidence. You’ll notice is the classroom at the bottom is from 1890, this one is from 1970 something, this one’s from a couple of years ago. And they’re all the same. They’re all the same. Even though that blue one was “the classroom of the future”. And the classroom of the future is typically determined by multinational, multibillion dollar companies that are based on content; the textbook making and measurement industry. And that’s all based around the standard model or traditional model of education, which is based around direct instruction. Designed for the industrial economy. Designed to output, as Seth suggested, compliant office and factory workers. But it’s an industrial economy that no longer exists, or won’t exist by the time these children leave school.
And they’re training students to compete with machines. We’re even seeing technocrats, technology companies, Edtech companies, talking about creating teacher proof curriculums. Can you imagine? I can’t think of a worse thing. Can you imagine a classroom without someone like Emily? Terrible. And nevertheless, this is what’s happening. And the thing about having an instruction based only, and I’m not anti-instruction, sometimes instruction’s very useful. But the whole system, particularly in high school education, but also in university structure, it’s about teaching to forget.
So, what we’re I’m gonna do is a test. I’m gonna pick three people from the audience to come up on stage and do quadratic equations. Who wants to go first? Every single one of you would have done quadratic equations at school. But none of you want to come up here and do it. We have one in the back. One out of how many? Thank you. It was just a joke. But you understand the point that I’m trying to make. It’s as Emily was saying, it’s about the application of this useful knowledge and it’s instruction to the real world challenges that mean something to you.
And educational technology, most of it sucks. And we end up with what I call digital instructionism. And that’s why you end up having this like a child on this little conveyor. The technology will get you to the same place which is an exam or a test of content recall, knowledge recall, memorising. You memorise, memorise, memorise. Vomit it all out at an exam. And again, it’s reactive to a measurement industry that we designed in the late 19th century.
And this thing, teacher proofing. And if you don’t believe me, look at this company. Partly owned by Pearson, supported by Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, and a host of other western governments, operating in the African continent at the moment and Indian subcontinent, but opening up offices all over the world. They don’t think you need to train teachers. They think you can do it in three weeks. Teach ’em how to switch on a tablet and read a script. This is happening. There’s about 600 schools at the moment in Kenya and Uganda, and other parts of the world. But it is also happening now. It’s beginning to happen in a number of charter schools in the United States. The script system even tells you when to rub the board. Is this an education system for the 21st century? Is it an education system for the 19th century? And yet this is happening. This is the use of, some use, of education technology. But it’s not all bad.
So instructionism, direct instruction is thriving, but how are our students feeling? Let’s listen to a couple of kids from London.
“My name is Forest. I’m 16 years old. I’m going to school in Tooting. I’m doing A levels at the moment and I’m studying English literature, film studies, psychology and biology.
My name’s Anukis. I’m 16 and I go to school in south London. Studying chemistry, biology, math and Spanish.
When I’m older, I want to be a script writer and maybe a director. In a way I think my teachers want to set me up for that, but then the curriculum doesn’t really allow them to. It’s all about passing an exam. And a lot of it is just how to answer a question and how to analyse a film, or how cinematography is used in this film. Not really how you can use cinematography to make a film, or how you can use the mise-en-scène to make a film. I think if I designed it, I’d kinda make it about how to make a film and then how you can learn from other films that are made.
I feel like sometimes school is kind of like the lock and key theory. It’s quite like everything is one way. In actuality every child is different. So to teach every child in the same way, and give them the same curriculum, and give them the same examination style is not really correct.
The school just kind of teaches you to pass exams now. It doesn’t really teach you for what’s beyond that. Or they teach you how to get into university because it looks good for the school, not necessarily because they want you to go to university.
Recently, they’ve been changing the exams and they’ve been changing them to apply knowledge. The pass rate was 14 percent out of 100. And they were so shocked at how low it was, but it’s because they don’t teach you how to understand.
I don’t feel like a lot is done to help kids who aren’t very academic because they just want you to do well on exams. They don’t really care that much about the people unless they talk to the people a lot. And even I feel like a lot of those kids then go to college because then they can just choose one subject that they enjoy. So I don’t feel like secondary school especially is really set up to help people who aren’t that academic.
You basically have to rip the school system apart and rebuild it again. I mean you would have to give more independence and trust to younger people. I feel like if you give someone the responsibility, in the beginning they may not be the best at it, but they will … we all learn to adapt as humans and we will pick it up. And I feel like if you give more responsibility to a child, they’ll actually do something with it. But it’s the fact that you are telling them they can’t, is what makes them not want to do it.
I feel like teachers should have more freedom in what they want to teach and students should be able to have more of a choice in what they want to learn. And I feel like they should teach you how to live a life as an adult and how to live by yourself. It’s not just your parents role to teach you that.
If you’re at school for more hours than you see your parents, they need to be teaching you how to live life as an adult when you don’t have the schooling system anymore.”
So that was a view of some teenagers in south London. So how can we design an education system that equips learners with the knowledge and skills to thrive in a rapidly transforming world? I mean that is what this summit is about, no? Though interestingly, we can go back in time for this a couple of hundred years ago to Frederick Froebel. Largely regarded as the inventor of the kindergarten. The term lecture comes from reading and reading was based, because back in the old days, days of Frederick Froebel, you’d have typically a priest who would sit there with the book, the scarcity of the book. Who would then recite the book. And children, as young as two or three years of age, would then have sit in rows, track the teacher, track the teacher. Write it all down to create their own identical version.
Frederick Froebel thought that’s not a great way to nurture creativity. And came up with an entire different way. This idea of the kindergarten. And Froebel’s gifts, of course. Things like the building blocks and so forth. And little did he know that when he was inventing the kindergarten, or designing the kindergarten, that he was also inventing a perfect environment for 21st century and 22nd century learners.
And what I mean is this. And I’ve stolen this from my friend Mitch at the Lifelong Kindergarten group at MIT, who I’ve worked with quite a lot. So take yourself back to your child self, or your children, with those wooden blocks, or little tangram type things that you had. Now you start off, and it’s also, I think Emily was showing this in her example in practise, you start off with an idea. You imagine I’m going to build a house or a castle. You then start creating. You start putting those blocks together. You remember doing this, right? And then you play around with it. Oh, I don’t like this. You iterate, you change things around, you move things about. And then things are much better with more than yourself. Do you know what I mean? So you bring some friends in and you share those ideas and you get feedback and so forth, and then you play together. And you might build that tower a little bit higher. Yeah? And all of a sudden it collapses. And you laugh with your friends. It’s hilarious, right? And then you reflect on what just happened. And you think ah, let’s build a bigger tower. And it starts again.
Now we all do this. This is how we work in real life. On the outside. It’s not how our education systems tend to function. It’s exactly the way that Emily’s class was working, for example. So it can be done. And it’s not about not learning content, learning knowledge. It’s about applying that to these things. So constructionism is an alternative, though there are many alternatives. I don’t think it’s just one or the other. I think you combine them.
So this is talking about learning as a reconstruction of knowledge rather than a transmission of knowledge. Learning through doing, learning through making, experiential, situated learning. And the differences between the two, and the way that technology tends to use, is you’ve got one school of thought that if education is instruction, therefore we can just use computers to improve instruction and then we’ve improved education. Usually, that’s why you see so many drill and kill type applications. Learning by rote applications on computers or MOOCs, or that kind of nonsense.
But constructionism is a different way of looking at it. It’s like if we give kids or people good things to do so they can learn by doing much better than they could before. And we saw some examples of that earlier. And so I tend to think of this as learning by making as opposed to constructionism or social constructionism. And this is particularly important in areas like STEAM because STEAM isn’t a subject. STEAM is an interdisciplinary set of subjects. They only work when you de-silo them and you make them all work together. You cross all of those borders. We only teach in the way that we do particularly in high schools, but also in universities, because of the measurement system, which is owned by the textbook industry who have a vested interest in scarcity of information. Can everyone see the problem with this picture?
So just closing down now, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have direct instruction. I’m not anti-content or anti-knowledge. I’m an author. I write books. I’m a big fan of content and knowledge. What I’m talking about is the way the we distribute that knowledge and the way that we disperse that knowledge within the classroom or higher education setting. It’s that combination and good teachers know this. It’s combining because good teachers work with a repertoire of skills and techniques and approaches to teaching to learners, to personalise their learning. And the computer can’t personalise learning regardless of what technocrats will tell you.
So they do balance this. However, the pressure that our educators are under, both in high schools and universities, is such that they are forced to teach to the test and are unable to allow this mode of expression, this mode of deeper learning that sticks with you. So that not just one person here could tell you how to do a quadratic equation, but we’d all remember it because we’d have applied it to something useful.
So in 1970, and I don’t agree with everything this guy said. I think he was a bit nuts really. But he did write this which was quite sensible. He was saying that the illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read or write, it wasn’t talking that we wouldn’t need to read or write or be innumerate in this century. What it was saying was the most important thing and I think that this is something that both our earlier speakers were saying was this notion about being able to learn, unlearn, and relearn. The skill that we need because the jobs of the future are the ones we don’t know how to do yet. But we have to know how to learn how to do them. We have to learn how to collaborate and work together in order to be able to do them. So the greatest skill that we can have leaving school or university is knowing how to learn because it is a lifelong occupation.
So to leave you with a few things that we can do straightaway. The five, four, three, two, one. So, balancing direct instruction with constructivist and constructionist learning strategies. Again, good teachers do this, but we need to enable them to have the space to do that. So this is a governmental issue as much as anything else.
We also need to trust teachers to be the designers of curriculum rather than simply delivery agents. Like that system I showed you earlier which are teacher proof curriculums. Where teachers are reduced to content delivery drones. We need to take that back. De-silo our curriculum. It’s insane that we have these things as separate subjects. I’ve been into schools all over the world when I did my last book where they’ve de-siloed it completely and had a project based curriculum.
Also, value the small data. We hear a lot about big data. And big data can be valuable as a sort of diagnostic. There’s a lot of evidence to show that the small data is what matters. The personal interactions. Teaching is a relationship between two people. And it’s the small data that is vital as part of that.
We need to reclaim the language of education. We need to reclaim assessment because assessment is not a spreadsheet. Assessment is a conversation. If you want to know whether your children or your child is learning, sit with them, be with them, listen to them. You’ll know if they’re learning. You don’t need a piece of paper to tell you that. Also, again, stolen from my friend Mitch, the four P’s of practise. Give P’s a chance. So projects, we’ve heard some of that earlier. But projects, are not just recipes. A project has to be something that you’re passionate about doing. It has to mean something contextually to you. Something that you might be doing in San Diego will be totally different than you’ll be doing in Accra, for example.
With peers, collaboratively working together. When we’re looking at those challenges of the future, migration and everything else, being able to work together. Because we have global challenges to solve. It’s that earlier image I showed you. The game isn’t about the last person with the last glass of water. If half the world goes down, we go down with it.
Play. Play in terms of experimentation, iteration and so forth. These are the important parts of practice. And also think about the frameworks of thinking and there are many. But the ones that we need to think about, I suspect now for this century and the next, are creative thinking, critical thinking, and computational thinking. And then the great thing about these three frameworks, if you give can embed those in our education practice, is you could do mash-ups and combinations, critical and creative gives you design thinking. Human centred design. Critical and computational, scientific thinking. So these are great ways of approaching challenges and problems together. And all three, I think, are very valuable.
Also, when you’re designing, for example, using technology to support learning or designing projects in the way that we heard earlier from Emily. Think of it in form of low floors, which I mean is something easy to make progress on very quickly. So you don’t lose motivation. So the novice can get going. This applies to teaching as much as learning. But also high ceilings. Would it surprise you to know that I was diagnosed on the autistic spectrum, which means I used to go really deep into stuff, which is why I dropped out of high school because they wouldn’t let me. So high ceilings in a project which can also be very sophisticated.
Also, wide walls. We saw the young lady before talking about building a musical instrument. And through building a musical instrument, she learned about science. She learned about technology and engineering, and arts, and mathematics, and coding, and then got an A in a subject she had no interest in. Wide walls. But also don’t forget that not everyone learns the same way. So sometimes you have to have a closed start, some instruction in the beginning, but then open-ended. So you can get to hard fun. Hard fun is that thing that is really difficult but you’re so into it that you want to fix it like that construction that we saw earlier.
And finally, personalisation. The word “person” in “personalisation” is a clue. It’s about people. Technocrats, bureaucrats, and so forth think because they’ve seen Amazon selection engines, and that stuff, that somehow technology can provide personalisation. Uh-uh. It can’t. Because you’ll never have enough data for an AI to deliver the heuristics to know you. A piece of software doesn’t know whether you’re … what’s happening to you at home, and whether you are unwell, whether somewhat you’re being bullied. All these kinds of things. Personalisation is about people. We’re not gonna need less teachers in the future. We’re gonna need far more. And sometimes learners are teachers and teachers are learners. It’s interesting to hear on what we heard earlier. And it goes back to Paulo Friere. This is not a new idea. This is Friere called the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. Every time with every learner you’re now a learner. You’re a co-learner. So personalisation is something that I think we need to bring back into vogue.
Now finally, I want to leave with this gentleman. This is the gentleman that changed my life. I met him when I was 17. I had converted Logo from a mini computer, Logo is a computer language that he invented, from a mini computer at MIT to a micro computer and then I got a job in the UK because the company I worked for sponsored his tour. He was on speaking tour for a book he wrote called Mindstorms. At the time I was 17 with blue mohawk.
And I made him listen to Sex Pistols, New York Dolls, and all kinds of punk music for two weeks while he taught me about his educational learning series. And he put a total zap on my head because he was fascinated by why I got expelled from school, which is another story. But it has to do with making. And it was illegal. But yet, I became fascinated in his story and what he was telling me about. And that’s why I’m on this stage with you today because he filled me with the ambition that we could improve education radically. And it’s had a few false starts but I think we’re on the precipice. I think we have a reason for change.
Anyway, to end my talk, he was was asked in 1997. If you were to reinvent the system, what three key changes would you make? And he said, “do away with the curriculum. Do away with segregation by age.” I mean why do we stream kids by a dated manufacturer? That’s insane. “And do away with the idea that there should be uniformity of all schools and in what people learn.” There’s no such thing as a standardised human being. There’s no such thing as average. So I support what he says there. Thank you.
(applause)
Follow-up interview
Please touch the 👏🏼 symbol to recommend this story so that others in your network see it and I will feel joy, and don’t forget to follow so you don’t miss further updates. Please share via your favourite social networks.
If you would like to hear this talk at your summit or conference please contact Wendy Morris at The London Speakers Bureau
