#901 Future Skills II

Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: when a TV scientist says “I’m certain, probably” in the same breath, is that a red flag you’re trained to catch — and is catching it itself a future skill? In Room #901 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group picks apart a climate-science TV segment sentence by sentence, weighs a McKinsey study ranking problem-solving, resilience, and entrepreneurial judgment as the top future skills, and confronts an uncomfortable follow-up question: even with the right skills, are the jobs themselves moving abroad? Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…

Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.

A very good morning to you. Today we’re continuing with future skills part 2, and we’ll simply pick up where yesterday’s room left off, and see what aspects come together today. Among other things, we said yesterday that we also want to look at the aspects — who actually takes on which role in this context? So parents, educators, then we have school, so teachers and so on. In vocational and further training we accordingly have instructors. And so this runs through the whole of life. We talked yesterday about lifelong learning. And we picked up and discussed quite different aspects yesterday. And yes, I’ve also brought a few keywords for today as a starting point. I’m really curious about that too. On one hand we can pick up where we left off yesterday, by bringing in and picking up a few more aspects we maybe hadn’t thought of yesterday, that are also worth mentioning. On the other hand, it’s not about doing some overall summary of yesterday’s room, but really continuing, to use the time well accordingly. The whole thing is recorded, so that you’ll also have the opportunity, if you missed yesterday’s part 1, to listen in afterward too. And especially the differentiations regarding terminology and such, we went into that yesterday. I’d like to leave that aside today and just make sure we use the time well. Because there’s still, from my point of view, so, so much that wasn’t discussed yesterday, and where we can pick up various things. And especially this question, who’s actually responsible for what, or how should that change accordingly within the framework of future skills and mega-learning? We can pick that up. And before we do that, I’ve brought a few points I’d like to bring in too. Because one of the questions yesterday was, for example, are these new skills we’re talking about, that haven’t existed before? Or is it also about further developing existing skills, I’ll call it perfecting them, further developing them and so on, and we’d connected to that too. And from my point of view, we can certainly put different perspectives on this. On one hand, from my point of view, it’s necessary to further expand skills, abilities and so on that have already been recognized in the past. Especially against the background of the technological developments that exist here too, the increase in speed — social media is a nice example of that. You quickly skim past various posts, can partly leave likes, or usually leave likes, depending on the platform, sometimes also leave dislikes for example. And here we quickly get into areas like anonymity and such, which also make a difference. Do I quickly leave a dislike? There we’re quickly at the example of emotional regulation — do I just let it pass, regardless of whether I like or dislike the post, or do I react accordingly? And whether that’s with a like or dislike, or a comment that’s quickly dropped. And because anonymity, in quotation marks, is increasing especially on such platforms, there’s also a tendency to observe that it happens relatively quickly that things get personal in the comments rather than staying on the factual level. That means, here too you see that aspects that have already played a role in the past, things like patience, respect, appreciation — patience understood, for example, as the ability to wait, respect shown for example through attention, active listening, keeping to boundaries or not crossing them, not getting personal, for example, but staying on the factual level, then appreciation in the form of, for example, meeting each other at eye level and so on — all that reflected in behavior, so to speak, becomes even more significant here. These aren’t new topics being opened up here. But against the background of the changes taking place, it maybe becomes all the more important, and that’s why it’s important to keep an eye on this too, independent of all the other aspects that come in addition. Things like emotional regulation will also keep increasing. So being able to assess or know, for example, how the brain partly works, what possibilities I have for emotional regulation, and to consciously steer that toward self-efficacy, is a topic. Resilience is also a topic that’s constantly on everyone’s lips, especially because, due to many stress factors from outside, health is discussed in this context, resilience, so resilience understood also as adaptability, not exclusively as resistance. It’s often translated as resistance, so to speak. However, you also sometimes have to give way, dodge etc. So not just holding against it, so to speak in the sense of resistance, resisting, which is already in the term — it’s similar to a high-rise building, which, for example, also has to give way to a certain degree in the wind, so that it can juggle a headwind well accordingly, so to speak, and not collapse — it’s the same for people at this point. That means it’s not just resistance, but adaptability at least equally important in this context. Then we’d already talked in many rooms about how questioning techniques and such are of particular importance. The higher the quality of the questions I ask, the better or more diverse, more nuanced answers I also get, which then, ultimately, because more options are there, also means more possibilities for decisions, for example. Then we had examples in the direction of power games too, that was a topic. That means, for example, recognizing nuances in language and getting to know the games of the market in different markets, being able to classify them in meetings, recognizing them in hierarchical contexts. All of that are aspects that of course also need a certain amount of practice and sensitization and practice, to be able to deal with this accordingly. Storytelling was a big topic that we’ve also had in many rooms. Marketing per se too. So there are many, many areas. And of course it’s then not just about learning certain techniques. That’s what makes up these overarching key qualifications. That means it’s not that you basically learn method XYZ, but rather a transformation ability. So also being able to adapt that, being able to establish context, having situational awareness, knowing when it’s better to maybe stay silent or speak up, for example, so dealing with different situations differently accordingly, being able to weigh things again, and against the background of these considerations, again making solutions or decisions that suit yourself, so to speak. And one of the important aspects I’d like to pick up again in this context, we’ve had this often too and I’d like to substantiate it today with quite concrete examples, I’ve also brought a few links, and specifically not just to consume, but especially this ability to differentiate between information and knowledge. And in one of the last episodes, when we talked about the climate topic, a reference came from the audience, so to speak, to that TV program that took place, where a supposedly great climate researcher was present. And we should definitely tune in and listen to that. And of course I fulfilled this task and listened to it, and I was, honestly, almost a bit shocked, because that’s exactly the point — differentiating between information and knowledge — and if you pay very close attention to the language here, you’ll notice one thing — I don’t want to question at all whether that’s a scientist or not who was sitting there, he’s certainly a scientist, yes, but scientists also have opinions, and you have to pay a bit of attention to this person’s language. And if you listen more closely, it very quickly becomes clear, if you look at the language, that this scientist expresses far more opinions than he actually operates with data and facts. And this is where it becomes problematic. That means I can’t just consume this information — and this is then information — and say, that’s how it is, but rather here I may need to go into some research myself. And I’d like to give you one or two examples from this context that you can also look at yourselves. I’ve also brought you a few links that I’ll gladly share in the chat afterward, so that you can get further information and maybe look into this again too. So there were terms like “the danger exists that.” It was about compliance with the treaty on this topic. In one sentence it was said, I’m certain, probably — so really immediately one after the other. “I’m certain” and “probably” in one sentence is a contradiction that should immediately become clear when you listen. And then aspects like, at two percent we assume all tropical corals will die. At 1.5 percent we hope that at least some will survive. I’m now emphasizing the corresponding terms so you can pick them out directly too. So this “we assume,” “we hope” — that’s not scientific language. Those are assumptions being made here. That means it’s not being argued with numbers, data, facts, but rather that’s the opinion of an expert or a scientist shining through here. And when listening you ultimately have to be able to make this differentiation, to some extent, at future skills too, which we can also take into account here. Then it’s about all living beings, and then at the same time a restriction is made again, that need to form calcareous shells, so not all after all, could fundamentally impair our living conditions. “Could” — here too we’re in the subjunctive, that means this too is not a fact. And the decisive statement comes at hour 1, 8 minutes and 45 seconds to hour 1, 9 minutes and 6 seconds. In exactly this time span, please tune in. Of course we won’t save the world with 2% CO2 emissions, we can’t save the world, but we can at least do what we’ve signed up for. Otherwise we’ll lose all credibility on the international stage. Yes, that might be an argument, credibility. But when we talk about climate, I ask myself the question, do we really want to talk about the topic of credibility at this point? That’s a completely different topic, a completely different stage, and per se has nothing to do with the climate topic first, but rather the question is, in order to be able to act accordingly on climate, in order to slow down certain accelerations that are happening — what actually needs to be done for that? And that actually made me suspicious, which led me to start researching a bit online. Not really long either. But I did come across a piece that I found highly exciting. And I’ll just share the link. It’s about an hour. You can listen to it. And there are really examples included that actually question all the ideas that are on the table or being discussed. Against the background that it costs an unbelievable amount and takes an unbelievably long time to achieve anything at all with these proposals, and the impact is far too small. Instead, other ideas are presented that would have an impact much faster and much bigger and with significantly less cost, so to speak, arising here. And in that sense I found that highly exciting. So I’ll share that in the chat again as I said, then you can take a look yourselves too. For those who maybe only listen to the recording afterward, so to speak, you have the option to watch it on YouTube. The piece is called “The Heat is On” by Bjørn Lomborg, “On the Summer’s Record Heat,” and the whole thing is in English. That means, yes, that’s particularly suited for those who also have no great challenge simply following along in English. And then, interestingly, I also found an excerpt. I searched a bit, because I once came across it on another channel, but on this channel on Telegram it’s not possible to just pull the link, so to speak. And so that I could bring you a link, I just searched online and found it on some site — please, I didn’t research further what kind of site that is. That’s not a site I’m usually on or anything, and also nothing I follow. I want to explicitly underline that again. But I just wanted to share this video with you. It’s an ARD report, an Extra Report from 2007. It’s about climate change. I also find that, it’s only a few minutes, very, very exciting. So again and again, also in the past, there have been announcements about how, for example, sea levels will change and so on, and how much of that never came true. And I’ve also brought another link, from Günther Ederer, “Side Effects of the Apocalypse,” which I also find quite exciting. It needs a bit of patience, given that Günther Ederer is already quite advanced in age in this video and speaks very, very slowly, so you need a bit of patience there. But if you’re interested, and I found this mega exciting, because the scientist who sat there at Lanz’s show is mentioned by name in this video, by coincidence. And it’s said there that this Ederer had met him 20 years ago, I think he said, and 20 years ago this person had told him — to put it from his perspective — that our children would no longer experience snow, but would only know it from children’s books, from books. And every one of us knows that it still snows to this day. So I found that highly exciting, and so a nice, interesting circle comes together again. Of course you can, and you should please, critically question everything I’ve just said too, not simply accept it, consume it, but really just take a look. I think this was a nice example though, because it happened here in the rooms. So I thought I’d just bring these links along, hand them to you too. And then on one hand you can listen again to this TV program from a few days ago, I believe it was June 27th if I remember correctly, and then use these further links too, to gladly get into your own research and form your own opinion on it. But it does fit with these future skills — that means here too a wonderful example of not just consuming, but always getting into differentiation. And another example, I’ve also brought you a link for that, now a bit of self-promotion too. I said that hr is currently airing a five-part series on the topic of happiness. It started yesterday. All episodes can already be found in the media library, and I’ve brought you the episode that will actually air tomorrow, tomorrow evening. But you have the option to already listen in now too, if you’re interested. I’m also involved in that, to address the topic of change from a neuroscience perspective, and what that has to do with happiness. And I found that, I find that, fits so well under these future skills too, to raise awareness of that again here too. Yes, most programs etc. are pre-produced, and we filmed for about three hours for my part, and I don’t even know, in the end it was maybe two minutes that were aired. That means a whole, whole lot gets cut here, and of course the producers do that with the best knowledge and conscience. But ultimately it’s not what was originally said. That means there’s very massive cutting, editing together happening here, and that can also lead to mistakes on one hand. Sometimes you don’t even get the chance to look over it again or see it and approve it. Because, I could describe it to you like this, that these programs usually have to be produced so quickly that there’s a certain time pressure. You can’t go through every detail with every expert again and coordinate whether it fits like that. And that of course also leads, also in other contexts with such programs, especially on TV, everything we consume there, to certain connections maybe not being entirely one hundred percent accurate anymore, or a statement originally presented slightly differently maybe sounding quite different again in this edited cut. And all of that are also aspects we may be sensitized to. That doesn’t mean what’s edited together there is entirely wrong. But mistakes can happen on one hand. On the other hand, it’s simply not the complete information. And if you’d had the opportunity to talk about the topic for three hours, a completely different depth would of course have been reached. And that too, I wanted to raise awareness of that again. Yes, those are the thoughts I had after we left the room yesterday. Now I’m really curious who’d like to join and enter the exchange here, to open up further perspectives too, or maybe you have thoughts through what I’ve told you, or your own experiences you’d like to bring in too. And then also connecting again to this topic we already mentioned yesterday, about who’s actually responsible for what — is that a parents’ task, is that an educator’s task, or, or, or, all the way to, how should the whole thing be implemented with future skills etc.? Gladly bring in corresponding examples here too.

And with that I’d like to very, very warmly welcome Marc at my side this morning. Good morning.

Good morning to the group. First I have a question, dear Yasemin, whether I may add something on future skills. I also thought about it, but these aren’t my thoughts, I found something. It’s from McKinsey and the Future Skills Foundation, and I just wanted to say two, three words about it, if I may start with that as an introduction.

Yes, of course.

And specifically, this just helps me structure my thoughts. So I found a study, ten years ago there was already a higher education report, and I found a study, you can also find it online from the Stifterverband, and I found that really interesting. You have to say about this study that only, in quotation marks, only 377 companies and 123 authorities participated, and among others McKinsey was involved, and in order to be able to say anything at all about future skills, I found it quite exciting to find out that in the study, McKinsey together with the Stifterverband, defined that they divided future skills into four categories and developed 21 competencies from that, and among others these were the four categories that describe future skills, which you already reported on — digitalization, then classic competencies, then transformative competencies, and technological skills. And what I found particularly exciting from the business side is that in year 21 this study was expanded to include classic competencies. That was exactly what you said, problem-solving ability, creativity and so on and so forth. And from the companies’ side, from other companies’ side, it was ultimately evaluated that, as things stand today, for future skills, problem-solving ability at 95 percent, and then resilience at 83 percent, and entrepreneurial negotiation at 87 percent, were first assessed as the most important future skills, as things stand today, and from that a question arises for me too, when we talk about future skills — you probably already did this in the room yesterday — which future skills actually exist, and who in the company even has the power to determine that? That means, if it’s problem-solving ability for example, well okay, we can all work on problem-solving ability. If entrepreneurial action is required, that can only be the boss. As an employee I can’t act entrepreneurially at all, at least only in part. And then I also find it totally exciting, if we know which future skills we need — who even has the power for us to be able to exercise them? Because if there are large companies or medium-sized companies, and problem-solving ability and creativity are part of it, then the management sits there, who more or less holds the reins, and then it’s no use if other people also have problem-solving ability that they’re not allowed to apply. I found that quite exciting in the collaboration too.

Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much. Since we now have several hands raised at once, I’ll use the opportunity to first bring everyone in, so you all also have the opportunity to either bring in further points or also connect directly, and then we can gladly draw connections again too. Layla, a very good morning.

A very good morning. First I have a follow-up question, because unfortunately my audio wasn’t so good at the beginning, so I didn’t catch that at all. You referred to that TV program, on climate change. I think I remember being in that room, and that’s why I wanted to briefly ask, how was that? It was about, in the public broadcasters, that an authority argument was named here, that was then repeated in the rooms, and that this needs to be questioned. In what context was that meant, or how exactly was that? Did I get that right?

It wasn’t about public broadcasters or anything, but simply about the topic that everything we see on TV, for example, or read somewhere else too — it’s not just about TV, but quite generally — that we differentiate information from knowledge and that we have to distinguish here. And this is simply a good opportunity to look again, that even a scientist has an opinion, and not everything is numbers, data, fact-based, and I simply had various — I took it from the program, I took it as a task because you brought it up, watched the program, and accordingly brought out examples where it becomes very massively clear in the language that it’s not numbers, data, fact-based here, but rather this scientist primarily brings in his own opinions too. And it’s important that we recognize something like that, also from the language, and also make this differentiation, in order to then get further into research. And you can gladly listen to the details again once it’s published, in this recording too. Definitely take the links I’ve now put in the chat, because there’s also further information and so on, videos etc., to show counter-poles or views too and so on. Also a video piece from ARD from 2007, where maybe a completely different argument is made, or this field of tension is shown in a completely different way, so that you open up different perspectives on the topic here too. But also not to see that as law, but to question that too — so not, because it comes from me now, it’s right or something, but simply to open up different positions here too. I hope that helps you, Layla.

Totally. And I used the term public broadcaster now because I was thinking so authority-wise — I was just considering and thought, well, that was an authority argument. And then I thought, well, and I probably also fell prey to the halo effect. A scientist said something. And that you then ask this follow-up question, and that’s why I find it great that you did that. Thank you for looking at it again and for also seeing that it’s based a lot on opinion and that it has a lot to do with the language. The question I’m asking myself now regarding future skills is actually, how do I get this across, because I’ve now tried to analyze it a bit myself, you’ve now also analyzed it, but how do you teach people to do this, and who can I even still trust? I just thought about that and thought, yes, but the public broadcasters have the duty to inform, that was a scientist. And then I thought, yes, and in this program I probably also focused a lot on looking at someone where I thought, yes, and compared to him he seems very factual now, because the other person I’m referring to didn’t seem factual to me, and there were few arguments for me there. And I think that’s also important, that you look at that too, so okay, who’s the discussion taking place with, and is he better than the other one now, and does that already mean he’s good? And who can I even still trust? That’s the question that arose for me now, whether that’s not also an important future skill. Thank you for taking the effort.

Yes, very, very gladly. And we can gladly discuss that together in exchange a bit more too. I don’t think it’s actually about this aspect of who I can trust, but rather the factual information itself always needs to be questioned too. And I mean, Marc said this so nicely in one of the rooms already, or has said it multiple times already — this aspect of storytelling kept coming up there too. Depending on how I use the data and how I present it, so to speak, I also generate quite different emotions in my listener. And with that, people can do that, and they do, especially people who are often on TV or something, they also have a certain affinity for it. They’re practiced at it, they use it quite deliberately and skillfully. That applies to politicians too. And it’s not reprehensible in that sense either, but rather that we’re able to — and from my point of view this happens through practice, practice, practice — to analyze language, look at it precisely, look at where I might find contradictions, or then also get into my own research, if the topic interests me, to open up different perspectives again too. And I can do that basically with every topic, no matter which program, no matter whether it’s social media, no matter whether it’s here on Deep Talk, because Yasemin said something. Yes, that applies to me too. So always getting into this questioning again and not just absorbing everything, so to speak, because it’s now backed up with numbers, data, facts. There’s a saying for a reason, “trust no statistic you haven’t falsified yourself,” so to speak. And that doesn’t actually have anything to do with it necessarily being falsified, but it has to do with how these numbers are processed and then also presented. That’s why it needs practice here accordingly, to actually be able to analyze language and uncover contradictions and so on. So being sensitized to this. And from my point of view that happens through practice. I’m curious what the others have to say about this too. Jürgen, you also raised your hand. I don’t know if you want to connect directly or first bring in what’s been on your mind, and then we can draw connections again too.

A very good morning.

Good morning, dear Yasemin, good morning everyone in the room. What’s on my mind right now is my — let me put it this way, allow me to say this — also with you, with your remarks about this program, I felt an emotionality, which for me though, in a positive sense, points to a profound engagement. And it’s the same — I’d already positioned this yesterday, that this topic future skills is very close to me and takes a really outstanding position in the overall context, our overall context of education. And you surely know by now, I’m an extraordinary fan of structuring a topic, to find a way to approach the core, the essence’s core, and we were on a good path. We were on a good path in that yesterday we had this topic of orientation — you already addressed it — also today, to differentiate, are we actually talking about skills that aren’t there, that we’ll need in the future, or are they skills we have, but that take on a completely different meaning in the future. That’s, for me, one of the essential meta-levels for clarifying or dimensioning this topic. The second thing we already had yesterday was lifelong learning. If I want to arrive at skills and, building on that, at competencies, or want to convey these as a teacher or educator, then I have to grapple with the question, are the methodologies of learning, as they’re still practiced today in various institutions, up to date and doing justice to this demand of future skills. That was, is for me the second level. I’ll sum it up with one sentence — education begins with the education of the educator. That means this level spans both from, I’ll say this now somewhat neutrally, or hopefully broadly encompassing, from the trainee to the trainer, which expresses that it’s not just the teaching staff at school, that it also concerns the parents, and that it also concerns leadership, or the bosses and their companies, who actually need to become aware of this task. And the third sub-area, which as far as I can remember hasn’t been addressed yet, is this topic that on one hand we have an individual person, the trainee named, but also an individual person who moves, always or almost always — I’ll retract that — within a community. So these future skills, increasingly, and a typical example of that is the development of team competence, which you already addressed, all the way to developing patience, the ability to listen, the ability to accept and, if necessary, tolerate. Everything spans within this, for me, pictorially speaking, triangle. And now please allow me another wry remark — before I’ve clarified the first, necessary step, what for, we shouldn’t talk about the instruments, what’s necessary, but first clarify, what for, what is the future intended use, and there I come very quickly to this distinction between the individual level and the community level, that I need to think, in the future, from our training system, from our school system, that far more, significantly more, the individual abilities and intellectual prerequisites need to be taken into account. I hope I’ve at least gotten across how I see the complexity of this topic, and consequently, deem a structuring and a consistency in approach necessary. Thank you for listening, dear ones.

Yes, thank you so, so much, dear Jürgen. I find that wonderful, and you’re welcome to connect again to this question of “what for” right away, before we continue. I find that even the answer to this “what for” is relatively complex here too. You’ve already opened up the complexity across these levels overall, and I find that even in answering the “what for,” it’s relatively complex too. Relatively simple and simply put, we could say, it’s about self-determination, self-efficacy and so on. That’s the educational mandate. And we’ve already opened that up and discussed it several times, so to speak, from different perspectives. At the same time, though, it becomes clear that something is apparently also changing in the market, which leads to us now needing further skills and so on. That means, keeping an eye on this. And that also has to do with the technological developments — has to do with the labor market changing, that accordingly we maybe can no longer rest on certain training we’ve done, as in the past, but rather need to get into relearning here too. We opened up the topic yesterday that, for example, we’ll also need more on-the-job learning in the future, to also gain speed in implementation. All the way to — and I can now stretch the whole thing further in a political direction, because if we’re talking about self-determination…

…we’d already said it’s not just about individual self-determination, but also about a communally conceived self-determination, in the sense of a society in which we live together, and also of the democratic idea at this point. And in that sense that’s also really important. And if we now bring politics into play too, I could also go quite radically into this and, for example, make a statement like, so that such results, election results, as just happened a few days ago, so to speak, with certain parties, don’t just lead to an outcry and to discussion as a result, but don’t even happen in the first place, in quotation marks. We can gladly discuss that too then. Jürgen, maybe you’d still like to provide an approach for this “what for” too, what your thoughts are on that. Then I’ll gladly bring in Sabine first, and then I saw that Marc would also like to connect.

Yes, gladly. I’ll deliberately keep it brief though, in view of the follow-ups still pending. The use, or the question of what for, should basically clarify the intended purpose. What do I need it for? And maybe it becomes a bit clearer what the second question to answer is, after answering the question of what for, namely for whom. Maybe it’s easier to understand my motivation if I say, would it be clear to you about the intended purpose of the discussion, what skills we need in the future, if you also simultaneously reflect on, for whom? And that’s, for me, one of the really essential levels of distinction — then your specialty, for example, the differentiation of raising our children versus adult education, for example. There, already at the first question, clarifying the “what for,” the intended purpose, it already splits for me, just from reflecting on these two different levels, which are basically the essential pillars of our commonwealth. That’s not differentiation for its own sake, but that’s our given life, that maybe the answering, or the approach, becomes a bit easier if I combine these two questions, what for and for whom. That’s it for this point. I hope I could express relatively clearly what my intention is.

Yes, thank you so, so much. Let’s just leave it standing for the moment right there. Then we’ll bring in Sabine. Marc wanted to connect again too, and then we can gladly draw connections again at the points where you feel like connecting further too. Sabine, a very good morning.

A very good morning. Yes, I watched “Date with Happiness” or whatever it’s called last night, and all the episodes too, because they were very concise, they were laid out very differentiated. Each episode a different background. I can confirm a lot of what you said earlier, Yasemin. I’d expected even more depth, but in six minutes that’s of course difficult too if you still want to open up three, four perspectives. But what struck me, and I actually found that good, is that the subject “happiness” already exists in elementary school in northern Germany. And if you listen to it a bit, of course it’s elementary school, no question, but in the end it was a somewhat watered-down picture of personal development. In the end they were supposed to work on goals, they were supposed to show gratitude every day, they were supposed to point out something they were happy about every day. So that’s already a start. That reminded me, I was recently at a seminar, there was a family with two kids, I’d say about 15, 17 or so, I talked with them briefly, and they were completely thrilled and said, we don’t have anything like that at our school at all. Just that sentence alone was of course very impressive for me, what you said earlier too about the topic of team and so on, that all of that is much more important. And of course the question arises, how do I get that across to people? Do I get it across by teaching it, or do I get it across by experiencing it? Experiencing it, and I think, based on my experiences with my son now, it’s certainly through experiencing it. I was jogging this morning, and I also listened to Gabor Steingart, who had Boris Pistorius on, and it was about whether Mannesmann — don’t ask me exactly what the company is called, MS, something with S — they want to develop submarines, currently apparently doing that for Norway and Germany, and it was about whether it wouldn’t make more sense to create an Airbus equivalent for the maritime sector, meaning all of Europe too, meaning working as a team, meaning making Europe stronger. So if you look for bridges, you find them everywhere. Only, on one hand people talk, and on the other hand the corresponding people don’t sit down at the table and say, let’s…

Yes, thank you so, so much. Marc, you wanted to connect again too.

Yes, two points. I’ll get to you in a moment, dear Jürgen. When we talk about future skills, and I have the feeling that many things aren’t said, not just in Deep Talk, but generally not said — yes, future skills are important, we can define them too. But what you only find in the news if you search more closely or research more closely is, where do these future skills actually take place? And I read exactly this yesterday about the Steingart report, and read it in several newspapers, that, yes, the companies will all stay in Germany, Wolfsburg will always look like it did before, but where are the jobs going? The companies are all currently migrating to the USA. That means, future skills are important, but that doesn’t mean at all that once we have the future skills, we’ll also have the jobs in the future. But that’s a new topic. I also wanted to say to Jürgen, since we exchange thoughts often too — this foundation in collaboration with McKinsey that I just quoted, they came to exactly this point, dear Layla, please don’t feel attacked, this isn’t my opinion, this is a study’s findings, that the actual current state we’re in — they found this — is that both in STEM education, in equal-opportunity education, in teacher education, in quaternary education — I had to look that up myself, quaternary education means supply and demand for further training, both vocational and academic education — all, I say again, all statutory goals were missed. We’re as far behind as you can possibly be. The only field of action where they’re completely satisfied is, there’s also international education — I can’t tell you now which points were examined there, probably with languages and cultural aspects, all of which is important, but we’ve missed nearly all statutory goals set, which doesn’t diminish the fact that we need to talk about future skills. But with many things I always have the feeling, and Yasemin did this so nicely too, when you go deep, when you really go really deep and then say, yes we can — I had the feeling, then I’m also done, when we dealt with future skills, that this then gives hope, okay, if I now have a future skill, which one is it? That’s confidence too — we also had the topic confidence. And then you have to talk even more precisely about where this confidence actually takes place. So where do new jobs arise, and what can we do so that we can even still participate in the new work at all. And while sometimes discussing what might be future skills for us, the big companies are currently relocating the most important jobs, which are also key technologies, abroad in droves. And then at some point we’ll have the future skills here, but the jobs left over for us are maybe just gas stations. But you don’t even need anyone there anymore either, because there are electronic pumps now and so on and so forth. And I only said that not to cause panic, but you notice how complex the topics are, everything that’s currently happening around us at such a speed. And you notice, I’m emotionally moved, but I wanted to bring that in too. Thanks for listening.

Yes, thank you so, so much. And the more we talk about this and exchange thoughts and open up different perspectives again, my impression is — and I’m curious how it is for you — the feeling that we’re already talking a lot about terms that actually aren’t new. So even when we talk about future skills, basically it’s a lot of terminology that comes up and is brought in, that was already discussed very, very strongly with key qualifications too, which from my point of view already — things like collaboration, teamwork ability, I mean, those aren’t new terms. We’ll all nod along to that relatively quickly. Resilience is maybe a newer term as a technical term being used, but when we talk about resistance and adaptability, that’s also nothing new, in quotation marks. Only the significance of these skills becomes all the more important against the background of the developments taking place. That means, before, it might still have been possible to somehow muddle through with one thing or another, in quotation marks, that’s how I’ll put it. In the future these skills will be needed even more, and even more to be able to get by yourself and also find your way in a society in the sense of life competence, to get into this self-efficacy, so to speak, gaining greater significance. Whether really completely new further aspects come in here that you see — gladly bring those in too, if you recognize something there, and nevertheless it becomes very, very clear what complexity is behind this whole topic, especially since you, Marc, picked up these studies and such. And I also find it really important to underline again, that it’s not about, somehow, according to the motto, the teachers or the educators, depending on the context and field we’re looking at, doing some kind of bashing or something, but it also has to do with the training of teachers and educators. So that means the origin needs to be addressed somewhere else entirely. So now we can open up even more points that also show this complexity, all the way to, for example, the PISA study or or or otherwise, or the Bologna process, standardization, certification and so on. All topics we’ve already opened up too. That means, everywhere you have to look very closely too. So Layla could maybe say more about the PISA study than I could, I’m not that deep into it. But here too you have to look, for example, at exactly what’s actually being evaluated. And you can’t just say, we’re doing relatively badly there, but you’d need to look very precisely at what criteria are actually being evaluated there — if it’s simply the curricula being queried, that we say aren’t future-viable. The question came up. I answer that personally with no. We’re not positioned to be future-viable, and that’s already shown today by numerous studies and results, also on the labor market, that we keep coming to the conclusion that the gap is big, and it’s getting bigger too. That means there’s long been a need for action here, and the more days we let pass, the bigger this gap gets, and the harder it becomes to ever catch up on that again, in quotation marks, and that’s why the situation is all the more explosive at this point. And if we look at all these things, how evaluations are made, and we have to look very critically at what exactly is being evaluated there. So just as an example now, and Layla can maybe comment on this in a moment, suppose the PISA study only looked at whether the curricula that were adopted are being followed, so to speak, whether what’s supposed to be conveyed is actually being implemented, then you couldn’t really do much with that, because if we say that’s not future-skills-wise what we need, what does it help me to rank first in the PISA study? And that’s just representative now, you can apply this to all the other things we check and where we conduct studies and so on, that means you always have to look very, very differentiated here. What exactly are we looking at, and what does this study being conducted actually say, or what does it not say? And that’s where most of the pitfalls are, so to speak, the stumbling blocks — that you often discuss things without looking closely at what you can actually derive from the data and what you can’t at this point. Layla, on the PISA study, can you add something to that? Would you like to say something on that?

Yes, I just looked it up again, because of course, what you just said — okay, let me try to express myself factually now. So in the PISA study, the reading, mathematics and natural science knowledge and competencies of 15-year-old students were evaluated, as I see it here. And of course, if you’re now asking whether that’s also an education plan, we need comparison criteria. So I firmly assume that they looked at, okay, what do they need to be able to do and what must the standard be. And then it’s of course also about comparability, which standards were measured there. I’m not that deep into the topic. I know we scored very badly. I know a lot was evaluated. What does it mean, I’m not deep into it? It doesn’t mean I don’t know anything about it at all, but I’m now trying to apply a future skill, and I’ll do thorough research before I say anything about it now. (laughs)

Thank you so, so much. But it does show that it really makes sense to look at that very precisely. And yes, something like, of course, to a certain extent comparability will have been established. But if we just pick up this one point, and as I said, it’s just an example. I don’t want to badmouth the PISA study or anything at this point, but I just want to show, using this concrete example, what I want to express with it. If we say now, for example, reading and math skills were put to the test here, yes, then we don’t just have comparability, but also a prerequisite. That means, somewhere it was also defined which skills the children need to have, for example, in grade 8. And this definition alone, if it’s already, so to speak, movable, it’s not static — but if that’s not what we need future-skills-wise, then the question consequently arises, what does the PISA study actually get me at this point? So what can I actually do with these results? And as I said, I don’t want to criticize the PISA study. I’m not deep enough into the topic for that. This is just an example to show where these problem areas, in quotation marks, are. And we can open this up in all sorts of areas, in completely different fields too. And that shows how precisely we may look at things again and again in these discussions or in exchange too. I’ve now — one person or another might have followed this, might have noticed — that there are currently, for example, discussions about, that the Schufa decided, some time ago they decided, that certain entries would only be deleted after six months and so on and so forth. I was honestly a bit surprised how that came about. But I didn’t research it further, and now a petition reached me via newsletter about this Bonify app from Schufa having somehow been bought up, and that in the future, on a voluntary basis, it should also be possible to look more closely into bank statements, so to speak, account movements, transactions. One person or another might be deeper into the topic, but here too the question always arises, what’s actually happening here? So always questioning precisely again, this aspect too, what are the interests, what does it actually feed into, what’s happening here right now, why these changes and so on and so forth. And it sounds nice at first with this “it’s all voluntary,” in quotation marks, but whoever has looked more closely at Schufa before — these scores, for example, there’s a document that can be issued to you, whether you have a Schufa entry or not.

So, that’s one thing. And the other thing is that, for example, banks work with scores in financing. And interestingly, and few people know this, the scores have nothing at all to do with your personal behavior regarding creditworthiness, yes/no and so on. So whether you’ve messed up in the past, in quotation marks, in some way. Rather, the scores are determined by what the average yields. That means, for example, the more obligations you have — and things like leasing and so on come in here, and all sorts of things, also credit cards you might have that you don’t even use, but just get thrown in because you have, I don’t know, five different bank accounts and each one offers you a free credit card with it — all of that flows into this ranking afterward, so to speak, to then say, are you A, B, C, D, E or whatever score-wise. And the comparison point isn’t the person, so not actually this, how is my personal behavior, so to speak, in all these transactions, have I ever been insolvent somehow, but rather how is that evaluated on average, and if it’s the case that the higher the obligations are, and then there’s a leased vehicle and then there are five more credit cards and so on, you can very quickly, in quotation marks, end up at a score of E, for example, which leads to every bank rejecting a loan, even though you might never have been insolvent even once in the past and also have no entry in the Schufa. So that’s an example from a completely different field now. But that’s why it becomes clear how explosive these topics keep being, and that’s why it’s so important to look at that precisely too. Sabine, go ahead.

The topic triggers me of course. Yes, but I already said that some time ago. The bad thing is, you know it, but someone graduating today at 18 who’s being flooded with credit cards from every side doesn’t know it. So I can briefly give an example with Klarna, with “pay later.” Every time, with every payment, a credit is displayed. That means, if someone does 120, 150, 180, then they have three credits, and those haven’t been reported as settled yet. That means a bank gets feedback, but your customer has so many credits, we can’t finance them. Then I say, in what amount? Yes, here 120, 180, then I immediately said, they have a “pay later” card. Then we proved it, that was — the customer had it, the customer already owed nothing anymore. In the Schufa there were still credits listed. And that’s, I think, a big problem. Schufa is an old organization. Recently there was an attempt to make use of it too — I believe Volksbanken, Sparkassen and major banks split up and increased their shares, so it wouldn’t be sold off to outsiders, because the German credit industry — and that doesn’t just mean credit, but also mobile and leasing and whatever, everyone who somehow plugs into it — retains the truth value. Only, is the truth value still fully up to date today, or is it the way we already thought ten years ago? Another topic is, if you request it, you get a really detailed Schufa report. The banks see nothing at all, they only see credits, they see no institution, they see nothing, they just see symbols, CR for credit card, for something like that, and I think that belongs, for example, in education, financial education in school, at least to inform people about that.

Yes, thank you so, so much, and especially when we briefly pick up this Bonify app again at this point — that sounds harmless at first, when you say, okay, that’s on a voluntary basis, but the question is, what chain reactions can be triggered here too, and then we get to think in connections again. That means, initially it’s voluntary, but if it should later lead to, for example, banks saying at some point, hey, but this flows in with us, if you want financing with us, then we’d like to know that — then that’s through the back door, in quotation marks, and I wouldn’t rule out that that could happen. Then it’s superficially voluntary, but through the back door actually not so voluntary anymore. And at that moment we again have a huge chain of consequences opened up with that. And the question is just whether we want that. So, and I don’t want to discuss that to the end either. That’s just an example. And with that I’d like to build the last bridge, namely to dialogue. From my point of view also a skill that’s totally necessary, so also being in dialogue and also being able to bear opinions, for example different opinions, really opening up different perspectives and so on. I think that’s been mega important in the past too. One of the prerequisites and pillars, from my point of view, for democracy too, and will remain at least equally important in the future, if not even more important, also viewed in this future skills context, because especially against the background of all the polarization happening around these topics. And we experience that too — in the past we often said, according to the motto, that as a business owner I should maybe stay out of political discussions, because that can also have consequences, staying neutral and so on. Nevertheless, I observe, and I’ve partly observed this now in our rooms too, that especially when we pick up current topics that of course also have a certain explosiveness societally and politically, here too there’s really a lot of, so to speak, reserve in how people handle it, even though we actually need this dialogue, in quotation marks. Of course I can say, I discuss that at home with my partner or in a close circle. But how are we supposed to be able to form opinions, do brain juggling and so on, if it’s no longer possible to talk about certain topics at all? And here we come back into the direction of skills too, because it’s about developing the ability — I don’t have to make statements that might later, in quotation marks, bring disadvantages with them, but rather also handle it here with, for example, a certain diplomacy, also let others speak, listen to the other person, allow different opinions, in quotation marks, even if I don’t adopt them, and so on. All of that ultimately makes up a dialogue too. And that doesn’t mean that if I talk about political topics, I have to hammer the point home and somehow polarize, in quotation marks, but rather I can, and that’s also a skill or a competence ultimately, be able to deal with that, to look at how I express myself. And then we’re at expressive ability. So communication also plays a really big role here too. Sabine, you wanted to connect here again.

Yes, I’m in the general assembly too, and it’s the same there. We’re not actually allowed to express ourselves politically. Nevertheless, we have, for example, many freight forwarders with us, and when it comes to transport policy, how is that supposed to go non-politically, when they’re just tearing down the bridge between Mannheim and Ludwigshafen and they don’t even know anymore how to get across, and unfortunately, for those who come after, when they tore it down, they didn’t even have an idea yet what the planning looks like. You can’t help but be political there. But then a lot of politics always gets brought into it, and then there’s an attempt to take it all back again, to formulate it in a way that’s as non-political as possible. I find that a very difficult thing, especially because, I know this from the bank too, when I talk to a customer, I don’t talk about politics and religion, I leave those things aside. But I believe politics is being carried more and more into the personal sphere, and then you simply can’t say anymore, hello, I’m staying out of that, because we see it right now with the gains of a certain party, they don’t hold back either.

Yes, thank you so, so much. Given the time, I’d like to give Jürgen the opportunity again. You haven’t said anything for a while, Jürgen, and then we’ll move together into the closing round. Your question from earlier probably wasn’t really conclusively answered in this round. Would you like to connect to that again, dear Jürgen?

It’s always amazing, dear Yasemin, how deep an insight you have into my emotional life, indeed, and allow me a really emotional statement. I assume we’ve now reached a level in this room where we know we treat each other respectfully and on the basis of acceptance and tolerance, and I ask that what I’m about to say be classified accordingly too. We started in this room today with Yasemin’s question, who’s actually responsible for the context of future skills. Who’s in charge? That was today’s question. And my personal, and in that sense also very emotionally carried, feedback for today’s room is that my expectations in that direction weren’t fulfilled. And through all your contributions, a lot of mental hooks were transported that made it personally difficult for me to really keep my opinion in a structure. Which in turn shows that we’re dealing with an immense complexity, as so often with this topic. But I would have wished — that’s my wish, really as I say it — I would have wished we’d stayed quite consciously with answering, with the attempt to answer, the question, who’s actually in charge? Because I think this question, alongside the “what for,” also represents one of the really essential clarifying positions, before I even talk about what forms of what skills I need. That should also have been my closing word for today. I wish you all a nice day still.

Yes, thank you so, so much, and I’d answer that question relatively simply, actually, from my perspective, against the background that this complexity has become clear again today too. We, all of us, every single one of us, is responsible, and in different contexts, in different degrees. I don’t think any of us can escape this responsibility, if we think both individually and as a people, for a community, for a society, and think democratically. That means, you opened this up so nicely earlier, dear Jürgen, with this aspect — it already starts with the education of the educator. That means it would be far too simple to say here, that person is allowed to do that now, or that’s their responsibility. We have different degrees of responsibility at different levels, and in the end we can summarize relatively simply — we’re all responsible for a united Germany, for a peaceful Germany, for a democratic Germany, to each make our own contribution here too. Yes, go ahead, Jürgen.

Yes, heartfelt thanks, that makes me absolutely happy again now. You’ve hit the nail on the head so often. What has to come to an end is this finger-pointing. Referring to others. I always say, when I practice finger-pointing, four fingers point back at me. And that’s exactly the point. And all of us are, at some point in our lives, beginning as parents, beginning as a master in a craft business, or in a leadership position in a company, who should really have internalized this — namely, not pointing at others, not always pointing at studies or at politics either, but first questioning, what position am I in, and what can I do. Thank you for that.

Yes, I’m absolutely with you on that. Thank you so, so much. Yes, then let’s gladly move into the closing round for today with that. Marc, Layla, Sabine, I’d also like to give you the opportunity to share a highlight or an insight from the room, so to speak. Marc.

Dear Jürgen, you took my closing word right out of my mouth. That’s my first word, finger-pointing, don’t wait, Marc is responsible. And I didn’t want to let you leave the room without an answer either, and you can be sure that these rooms, I, Marc, discuss every weekend with my girlfriend. Because my girlfriend has 800 students, and everything I’ve learned here, I try to pass on, to maybe be able to contribute just one percent to things getting a little bit better. I wish you all a really great day.

Great, thank you so, so much. Layla?

Yes, I just thought about this — I’m sometimes asked who certain topics and things I do are for. And then I always say, well, for people who like to think. And I think they always find each other here. And I find that personally very nice. For me, many questions arose today, which I also find very nice, because that also stimulates thinking. And I want to thank you for the room, because I think it’s simply important to approach it with a certain neutrality, and then look, okay, and what can we do now? And really not point at others then, and then not somehow, but rather consider it for yourself too, and that’s why I’ll try to go into research and just answer the questions and try to contribute my part. Thanks.

Yes, thank you so, so much. Sabine.

Yes, I can only agree with that. I found that a great room again too. Nice, Jürgen, that you summed it up again, that we discussed past the topic today. Nevertheless I find it quite essential, when you see at the moment where we keep coming back to the topic of education everywhere, and in what context that’s to be seen. And then of course we get to what we said, everyone should look at themselves first. Everyone educates others a bit, in some form. We usually then look at school, and who’s changing what there, well, we know that. Only when something will change there, we unfortunately don’t know. And from that side you can really only look at how you can somehow push the whole thing forward around it. I recently saw a little clever saying, I don’t remember exactly how it goes, but it was something like, if a teacher’s students are smarter than the teacher, then it was a good teacher. I was very impressed. I wish you a nice day.

Wonderful, thank you so, so much. Yes, dear ones, I think a whole lot came together, and given the complexity, I think we’ve managed relatively well again to weave the threads back together toward the roof, so to speak, “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” and the connections too, so on one hand showing individual aspects, in order to then bring them back together, and to actually answer, at least to some degree, one question or another that was asked here over time today too. Certainly not fully, but it was also said that a lot of question marks came up too, and that’s also an indicator, in quotation marks, that learning is taking place. I love this sentence from Tony Robbins, who says, among other things, that whenever we’re irritated, that’s a sign of change. It’s a sign of learning. And change is nothing other than learning processes that we keep going through. So in that sense it’s wonderful if you leave with question marks. I remember, I always like to connect back here to my time at university. At the beginning I was very dissatisfied and in a bad mood, because I always had the feeling, but what’s the answer to this now? And the answer isn’t that simple to give in many cases at all. But whenever we start asking questions, we open up the possibility of gaining new perspectives. And that’s worth much more in many places than looking for the right answer in a room. So I’m really looking forward to continuing tomorrow with the room topic WHO. What advantages and disadvantages does global health policy unfold? That’s the question we want to deal with. And yes, and I’m curious which perspectives will come up together there. And in that sense you’re very, very warmly invited to join again tomorrow at 8 o’clock. Thank you so, so much for your intensive participation, and see you tomorrow.