David’s comments got me thinking. There is an emerging argument with which I disagree that goes something like: “Some of you are saying that computer games teach. If you say computer games teach, aren’t computer games teaching violence?” My argument back is saying: We all must increasingly look at content through the lenses of linear, systems, and interface/cyclical. The reason is not just that we should think of teaching that type of content, but that we are teaching that type of content. This gets to the whole school issue as well. Consider: Every day, in every class, students learn interface/cyclical skills. Again, these are the highly precise skills they learn through constant repetition. Here are some examples of the types of cyclical content that our K-12 experiences have taught, and we refine in corporate classes: Classes also inadvertently teach students a tremendous amount about the system in which they are. This is where I would like to also quote John Taylor Gatto:Until we get a handle on these different content types, we will teach mostly the wrong stuff, even/especially if people test well.