First let me say that if you read between the likes of my original post and some of my follow up posts, you will see that you and I agree on the idea of teaching people how to think (I call this disciplinary approaches to learning). The issues is the path. As such....

> but the worst attitude you can come across from a student or a person in general is the question "When am I ever going to need this?"

If you can't answer this question convincingly, you will get low learner engagement and virually no learning. It's not an attitude, it's a reality for many parents and educators.

> The most important point of school isn't accumulating facts or skills but teaching students _how to think_.

Actually, I largely agree with this.

> How to reason, how to solve problems, the absorption of a diversity of ideas and topics.

This is largely deferred to the community's beliefs on these topics. Most people actively avoid seeking out diverse viewpoints.

> [you go on to say a lot of things that are relevant for people who exist in educated communities]

I agree that these things are great for people who exist in educated communities. For most communities, challenging the standard ideas is a good way to get ostracized from that community.

> and what YOU want to do is optimize for an even worse metric, myopic utility.

Hmmm... I think you're putting words into my mouth here.

First, we largely fail at fundamentals of literacy and numeracy in the US for large swathes of the population. You might call this "myopic utility", but I call it mastering the fundamentals.

Second, I totally agree that we need to teach people how to think (i.e., disciplinary approaches to learning), but the question is in what context. Right now, we largely do not tailor education to the learners' contexts -- I think this would be a move in the right direction, but standardized tests get in the way. We currently teach people what to think (e.g., evolution over creationism, this art versus that art, this interpretation of history versus that interpretation of history, etc.), and this just doesn't go over well with people who don't already believe it.

We also try to force the high-brow canon of art and literature down people's throats, while at the same time denigrating contemporary forms of art (e.g., the small-minded English lit teacher saying that rap isn't poetry/art/music -- it happens).

Third, you seem to believe that utility in education is a bad thing. Why is that? I mean, it's great if a learner is open to being exposed to new and challenging ideas, but that does not describe most learners. That said, teaching utilitarian skills like literacy, numeracy, and communication have a high value for both the learner and society. Add fundamental ways of thinking about science, history, and art through the exploration of one's environment makes that person a massive winner in my book -- we just don't get there with many people these days.

Check out Robert Kegan's model of adult development The Evolving Self -- his Wikipedia page has a decent summary. Most people are in the imperial or interpersonal stage, while few are in the institutional or interindividual stages (fwiw, I like Loevinger's labels better). This is especially true when people are younger. Thinking about learners and learner contexts in terms of these stages presents some interesting perspectives/challenges.