How AI Exposed A Hidden Weakness In Education And Work

Join our Skool community: skool.com/thethinkinglab

Artificial intelligence didn’t break education, work, or leadership.
 It revealed a gap we avoided teaching.

We map the shift from answer-getting to judgment-making and name the unease many students and leaders feel when certainty disappears. We explain how AI exposed the gap, why identity gets shaken, and how to practice critical thinking as a teachable discipline.

• naming the unease across education and work
• shift from correctness to judgment under uncertainty
• how structure disappears as responsibility arrives
• intelligence versus judgment under pressure
• adaptability as identity revision, not bravado
• AI as clarity engine exposing where value lives
• education–work mismatch and its real costs
• a clear definition of critical thinking and habits
• building spaces to practice public reasoning
• invitation to a free community for judgment practice

Please comment what you think are possible answers to the question I expressed earlier
Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe
Also, follow us on our social media
And please join our Skool community
It's free, and I'm sure we'll have a great time there

Chapters

• 0:07 Host Introduction And Context
• 0:38 Naming The Unease In Education
• 1:45 From Answers To Judgment Under Uncertainty
• 3:18 When Structure Disappears
• 4:30 Intelligence Versus Judgment
• 5:19 Adaptability And Identity Shifts
• 6:25 AI Clarifies Human Value
• 7:20 Education–Work Mismatch
• 8:30 Defining Critical Thinking Clearly
• 9:35 Building Tools And Spaces For Judgment
• 10:59 Introducing The Community And Invitation
• 12:17 Closing And Calls To Engage

Transcript

SPEAKER_00: 0:07

Thank you for listening to Thinking to Think. I'm your host, Mike Aponte, also known as M.A. Aponte. For some of you that don't know, I am an educator by trade. I've had different careers, lifestyles in my life, but currently I am an executive director of a uh charter school. And I've been reflecting a lot on education as a whole. And I worry about our kids. When I say our kids, I'm talking about all of our all the children in the education system, even in homeschool. And today I want to talk specifically about something that many people are feeling, but few have been given language for. There's is quite an unease showing up in education. In early careers and in leadership, not panic, not outrage, just a sense that something important is missing. People are working hard. They're intelligent. They're credentialed. And yet when certainty disappears, many feel unsteady, unsure how to decide, unsure what matters, unsure whether hesitation means caution or incompetence. Artificial intelligence, AI, didn't create this feeling. It actually revealed it. AI accelerated a shift that was already underway, a shift from a world where success depended on knowing the right answers to a world where success depends on judgment under uncertainty. And the uncomfortable truth is this we rarely taught that skill directly. And if you're a student, a recent graduate, an emerging leader, an educator, or someone responsible for making decisions without clear guidance, this conversation is for you. Because this isn't about technology. It's about how we prepare human beings to think when the map disappears. Before we even go into the depths of AI, we need to talk about something more basic. What happens when structure disappears? For most of modern history, success followed a predictable pattern. You learn the rules, you follow the framework, you demonstrated competence inside a stable system. Schools reward clarity. Early careers rewarded execution. Then something changed quietly. Responsibility arrived, and the rules disappeared. I've heard the same story repeated by students, young professionals, and first-time leaders across different fields. They say things like, I'm doing what I was trained to do, but it doesn't seem to be enough anymore. Or I'm waiting for feedback that never comes. Or I don't know if I'm hesitating because I'm thoughtful or because I'm unprepared. In school, clarity is a feature. In leadership and real work, clarity is often absent. That absence creates anxiety, not because people are weak, but because they were never trained for this part. And instead of being told this is a normal development transition, many internalize it as a failure. Then internalization is damaging because it confuses exposure with incompetence. This is where many people misunderstood the problem. So let's slow this part down. Most high-performing graduates aren't struggling because they lack intelligence. They struggle because intelligence was measured narrowly. For years, intelligence meant answering questions correctly, applying known frameworks, following instructions accurately, optimizing within clear constraints. These are valuable skills, but they're not sufficient because judgment shows up when the problem itself is unclear, when the data conflicts, when values collide, when consequences are real and delayed. Judgment is not the same as intelligence. It's what intelligence does under pressure. And judgment was rarely practiced explicitly. Instead, we assumed it would emerge naturally. Sometimes it does, often it doesn't. And when it doesn't, people hesitate. Not because they lack ability, but because they were never shown how to decide without permission. At this point, people usually say, so you just need to be more confident. That's not quite right. See, adaptability is often described as confidence or resilience. That description misses the deeper issue. True adaptability is not about being comfortable. It's about being willing to revise your thinking without losing your sense of self. Many people struggle with adaptability because their identity was built around being right or being competent or being reliable inside a known system. When the system changes, identity is threatened. That's why early leadership feels destabilizing. You're not just learning new skills, you're renegotiating who you are. No one tells you this part, and without language for it, people interpret discomfort as danger. In reality, discomfort is often evidence of growth. Now we can talk about AI because AI didn't create the problem, it exposed it. Much of the conversation around AI focused on fear, jobs, automation, relevance. That's understandable, but incomplete. AI didn't reduce human value. It clarified where human value actually lives. When execution becomes fast and cheap, what remains scarce is judgment. Choosing what matters, choosing what not to pursue, choosing when speed creates risk, choosing between competing goods. AI didn't replace thinking, it removed the hiding places. For years, people could rely on execution as a proxy for value. That era is ending. The people who adapt will not be those who know the most tools, but those who can reason clearly when the tools disagree. This feels frustrating on both sides. There's a reason. Employers often describe frustration with hesitation. Young professionals describe leadership as unclear. Both are telling the truth. Educational systems reward correctness. Organizations reward judgment. We trained people inside stable systems, then asked them to lead inside unstable ones. This mismatch creates friction, burnout, and disengagement. This is not a generational failure. It's a design failure. And we and until now we acknowledge that, we'll keep blaming individuals for systemic gaps. And until we acknowledge that, we'll keep blaming individuals for systemic gaps. Critical thinking is one of the most frequently used and least clearly defined concepts in education. Critical thinking is not cynicism. It's not constant doubt. It's not intellectual posturing. It is the discipline of deciding well when certainty is unavailable. That discipline includes slowing conclusions, separating emotion from reasoning, identifying assumptions, weighing trade-offs, honestly, and tolerating ambiguity without panic. These skills are teachable, but only if we stop treating them as personality traits. This is where the phrase critical thinking gets used and used and usually misused. I want to be clear and why I'm spending time on this. I work in education and leadership inside imperfect systems where decisions carry real consequences. Alongside that work, I'm building tools and spaces designed to address the judgment gap directly through writing, this podcast, an AI-supported thinking app that's currently in beta, and a small private thinking community, which I'll mention later. This work isn't about predicting the future, it's about preparing people to think clearly in environments where certainty no longer exists. So here's the question that stays with me. The question isn't whether AI will reshape education, work, and leadership. It's already, it already has, it's gone. The real question is whether we will continue training people to perform inside stable systems or finally teach them how to think when stability disappears. Because the future will not reward certainty, it will reward judgment. And I have a solution that can help you with this. If the world no longer provides clear instructions. If certainty keeps disappearing faster than we can replace it, then where do people actually practice judgment? Not theory, not slogans, practice. Most spaces today either push answers or reward performance. Very few are designed for thinking in public, asking better questions, challenging assumptions, and learning how to decide when the map disappears. That's why I'm opening a small school, S-K-O-O-L, community focused on that exact thing. It's a space for students, emerging leaders, educators, and professionals who want to develop judgment, adaptability, and critical thinking. Not as buzzwords, but as skills. The community itself will be open and free to join. Within it, there will be deeper tracks for people who want more structured practice, guided discussions, and higher level training when the time is right. But the foundation is simple: a place to think clearly together without noise. If this episode resonated, you'll find the space linked in the description. Don't need to commit to anything, just show up curious. Because the future won't reward certainty. It will reward judgment. And judgment is something we can still learn. If we're willing to practice. Thanks for listening. Please comment what you think are possible answers to the question I expressed earlier. Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe. Also, follow us on our social media. Links are below. And please join our school community. It's free, and I'm sure we'll have a great time there. Take care. I'm looking forward to connect with all of you. And until next time, think carefully and have an amazing day.