When does 2+3 not equal 5?

Modern-day issues are complex, requiring broad-based thinking, not the single-line approach our education system teaches us to the detriment of society.

ON this last day of 2024, I find myself pondering the true meaning of education again.

It came to mind when I was reading and watching the comments and news condemning the unity government for everything from the appointment of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Sabah to cats and dogs dying, or perhaps being killed, in Universiti Malaya.

Forget about PAS convincing Muslims that helping a slanderer is a cause for a holy war. And, of course, let us not mention the fuss over a Christmas celebration at the Housing and Local Government Ministry.

The question I have been struggling with linked to education is why are issues discussed and examined with one-line thinking? Are there no other interpretations? Is it not important to look at context first? Is it not important to wait for complete information? Why this haste to judge?

Why must one thing be equal to only one result? Why can’t one experiment have three or four other important results and findings? Must we always have only one answer?

I always advise university graduates that the university has no answers, only questions. And I always lecture that in spirituality, even the questions are irrelevant.

The problem is that through our education system, we have created the idea that there must be questions, and that all questions must have only one answer. It must be either A, B, C, D or E. Pick one answer only.

I began to see this problem of one-line thinking during training workshops for PhD holders. I would ask the participants four questions. The first is, what is two plus three? All would answer five.

Then I ask, what is the colour of the flask on the table? They see a red flask and answer accordingly. Then I show a picture of a wooden structure that looks like a table and ask what it is. Again a unanimous answer: table.

Finally, I ask: who is the most important person to you now? The replies are usually a mother, spouse or child.

And then I inform them that they are all wrong – usually to cries of surprise or objections.

For the first question, two plus three can equal 10, 11, 12 or 13 depending on the base number concept. If we are dealing with base four, then the sum would be 11 but if it’s base five, the sum would be 10. Incidentally, 11 is not eleven, it is one, one; and 10 is not ten, it is one, zero.

For the second question, the correct response should be at least two questions (there could be more): What is the source light’s wavelength (i.e. colour)? If the source is green, then the “red” flask will not appear red.

Secondly, what kind of eye receptors are interpreting the light bouncing off the flask? The eye receptors of a colour-blind person would see the flask as grey or greyish. I have no idea what the compound eyes of a cockroach would see, but I bet it would not be red.

The third question about the wooden structure reveals at least one question as a response: What sort of culture would the picture of the object be shown to?

If we show the picture to people with a culture of eating on the floor and that has no contact with any other culture, they could interpret it as anything from an altar to shelter from the sun.

As for the final question, the response should be that whoever is in front of you must be the most important person at whichever moment in time you and that person are engaged.

But no, our education teaches us to think of the most obvious answer without taking anything else into context – one-line thinking, tailored to regurgitate textbooks at examinations.

What is the problem with that? Well, it’s a humungous problem! Because then you have some people saying Muslims cannot greet Christians with “Merry Christmas” or wear a red hat like Santa, or sing non-religious festive songs.

Or others saying the PM has reneged on his promises of reform because Rosmah is free. Or a person saying that helping a slanderer is a holy cause as long as the enemy is the DAP.

And of course, one group of people will always blame another group of people for May 13. There is no other way of thinking. Satu saja (just one way).

So where did we get this one-line thinking from? I believe it comes from too much “pseudoscientific” teaching that ignores the teaching of the arts.

We get it from the type of religious education that doesn’t allow you to question your elders or question anything at all. Instead, you must just follow.

Art usually either has no answer, or it may suggest many answers, or it might not even care about the questions, which can open up a shackled mind to great creativity.

However, there is still the perception that if you can’t do science or accountancy, then you are “only good enough” to go into the arts. Literature and the arts are for people who have no direction and are not productive in society.

Only scientific people create industry, economic progress and innovation. Forget that science also created obesity, stressful lives and pollution that is killing the planet (the battle against climate change is to get CO2 levels down to what they were before the Industrial Age began spoiling the planet).

Literature and the arts are a lot of talk and no action, while science is all action and total mass destruction.

Maybe it’s time to rethink our priorities in education?

Prof Dr Mohd Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi is Professor of Architecture at the Tan Sri Omar Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Studies at UCSI University. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.