Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi on Humanistic Education’s Necessity

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/27

The Peace School is new in Canada, founded and accredited by the Ontario Ministry of Education in 2023. Currently, the school has five children with a capacity of 120 and is well-financed and supported by the parents whose children attend. The school’s pedagogy has attracted the attention and support of UNICEF, UNESCO, and UNHCR, which strongly encouraged Dr. Nasser Yousefi, the Principal of The Peace School, to share his pedagogy and learning environment with other countries. Canada was Dr. Yousefi’s first choice for the next Peace School. Dr. Yousefi began his career as a child psychologist, studying in Sweden and earning a Master’s in Education in Childhood Growth and Development. In exploring the best pedagogy and learning environment for children, Dr. Yousefi completed a PhD in Educational Approaches at Madonna University in Italy and a PhD in Educational Psychology at Northwest University in the USA. This training combined humanistic and cognitive approaches to education. For many years, Dr. Yousefi was an educational consultant for UNICEF. He has conducted educationaland research activities for various groups of children, including immigrant children, minorities, street children, and children with special needs. Dr. Yousefi was the Principal of the Peace (Participatory) School in Tehran, Iran, from 2005 to 2023, graduating 500 students from kindergarten to high school, with graduates accepted at universities in Europe, America, and Canada. Dr. Yousefi is passionate about creating the best future for children and is dedicated to creating safe and nurturing learning environments based on holistic principles. 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Round 3 with Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi. Hello. How are you today?

Dr. Nasser Nasser and Baran Yousefi: Good. How are you?

Jacobsen: Thank you. I’m good. I had a nap, coffee, and Diet Pepsi, and I’m doing well. I was listening to Nelly. He’s a decent rapper in some of his songs, so I’m doing well. Let’s talk more about humanistic education. What is the importance of humanistic education today? When I say this, I’m being trite because humanistic education should be valuable in any era. So, in the contemporary period, what is the appeal of humanistic teaching? And in the Canadian context, where educational outcomes are generally good, what areas could humanistic education improve even further? Those are the more relevant questions I have.

Yousefi: Thank you for giving us this time to talk about this. Humanistic psychology started shortly after World War II, so it’s been almost 70 years. It has opened many doors around the world and introduced various new subjects.

It has made significant contributions to healthcare, sociology, and industrial psychology. However, it still needs to enter education or promote itself within the educational system. It has influenced other fields, but education and schools are still needed. The humanistic approach, in general, has found its way into evolutionary biology, digital science, technology, and evolutionary anthropology.

Developmental psychology, economics, and other disciplines have also been impacted. But it hasn’t fully entered schools. Behaviorist education, established before and after the First and Second World Wars, continues to dominate schools.

The behaviourist model has long been entrenched in the educational system, and the schools that promote this approach are very powerful. This causes a contradiction between the expansion of the humanistic approach in other fields and its stagnation in schools.

It’s interesting and surprising how humanistic psychology is developing and expanding rapidly in various sectors, yet schools remain resistant. Many philosophers argue that humanistic psychology is changing the world and making it a better place. Still, schools have closed their doors to it. Behaviorist schools claim, “We’re fine; we’re working.”

We’re doing very well. We don’t need that. It’s not a matter of time. We can work that out. Even in Canada, they’re saying that our schools are good. Why do we need that in other schools? Schools are doing very well. Not just in Canadian schools but in all schools worldwide that are influenced by the behaviourist approach to education. In these schools, everything—the curriculum, the lesson plans—is predetermined for students.

Specialists decide what students should learn, what they should study, and even what they should not learn. Sometimes, they even predetermine the resources students should access or not. It’s essentially saying, “What I define as learning is what you should consider learning.” You will only succeed if you learn what I’m telling you. You have to study the material thoroughly and memorize it to pass.

This approach applies to all levels of education—from preschool and kindergarten to university. Some individuals decide in advance what students should learn. However, they never ask students what they think, what they want to learn, or how they perceive different topics. What I, the teacher, tell you is more important than what you think.

In this system, the teacher enters the classroom with a predetermined lesson or program and simultaneously delivers the same content to 20 or 30 students. Behaviourist education claims to contribute to public knowledge by teaching everyone the same subject or content. However, it is more about imposing information on students, whether they want to learn it.

While teachers deliver the same material to all students, they expect each student to practice and internalize it individually. Students are required to learn it on their own and then take tests or quizzes by themselves. The emphasis on individual grades and assessments forces students to work in isolation.

They are taught to keep their knowledge to themselves. Even though we teach one thing to everyone, they must practice and master it on their own. The grading system, specific to each student, encourages them to address issues or subjects individually, leading to competition. Students aim to achieve the highest grade alone, without collaboration.

This system fosters individuality, not individualism. It tells students that only they can learn the subject and help themselves succeed or pass the grade. Those students who achieve the highest grades often receive more benefits, whether through compliments like “You’re smarter” or other rewards.

You’re more intellectual. But we don’t interpret this as “This student did what I wanted them to do.” Behaviourist education says that if a student does what the teacher wants, it means that the student is smarter.

We also see students who, for various reasons, may not want to engage with a particular subject or may not spend as much time on it as others. Behaviourist teachers or schools often label those students as not smart or underperforming.

When students are taught to study alone, focusing solely on themselves and their success, they lose sight of the collective good or the needs of others. They are conditioned to believe that their success is only about them.

Humanistic education is the opposite of behaviourist education. Since every student is unique, we introduce various topics and programs tailored to each individual. We ask students what they think and want to learn—not based on what we want as educators but on their interests and needs.

We ask the students and gather input from teachers, parents, and others involved in the student’s life. We then design a program specifically tailored to that student. Something interesting happens in this process: although the learning experience is individualized, we encourage students to share what they have learned with others.

We ask them to share their thoughts, explain where they are in their learning journey, and discuss what they have gained from it. If they need help, they can ask for it. We promote a culture of sharing among students. Hence, they learn not just from their own experiences but also from the experiences of their peers.

In this way, education becomes a collective process; what one student learns individually benefits everyone. We move forward together, helping each other develop our knowledge because we recognize that no one can achieve everything independently.

This is the main difference between humanistic and behaviourist education. Behaviourist education begins with a general topic for everyone, often leading to individualism and isolation. In contrast, humanistic education uses individual needs and interests to contribute to the community and support others.

While humanistic education focuses on individual needs, interests, and characteristics, it teaches students how personal growth can help others. In contrast, behaviourist education doesn’t allow students to discover their interests or needs because no one asks them what they think or want. They are told what is important and what they should study, which leads to standardization.

Eventually, in behaviourist schools, all students become the same. They end up listening to the same music and following the same path because individuality is lost. It’s a form of educational standardization which limits personal expression and development. They wear the same clothes and eat the same food. When you go to different countries, you notice that young people seem similar. They all look the same, listen to the same music, and watch the same movies. It’s all part of standardization.

It’s a result of behaviourist schools, which emphasize standardization over personalization. These schools focus on making everyone conform but only care about superficial conformity. In humanistic schools, however, we emphasize personalization. While we encourage students to align with others and think about others, we also emphasize the importance of moving forward together.

In behaviourist schools, students are constantly told to think about themselves and be individualistic. Over time, students can become narcissistic because they receive the message that they need to be successful above all else. They are taught that if they are successful, they are good people.

As students compete and compare themselves to one another, they develop narcissistic tendencies. They believe that the grades they receive reflect their worth as individuals and that achieving high grades makes them inherently good people. The schools, however, forget to teach compassion.

Erich Fromm discusses this in his work. He points out that behaviourist schools don’t nurture love in students; instead, they nurture narcissism. Selfish people don’t truly love themselves—they have a distorted view of themselves, which was shaped during their school years. They don’t have real self-love.

A person who doesn’t truly love themselves cannot love others. How can someone who doesn’t love themselves help or care for others? They may appear successful in university or society. They may even become doctors, but a doctor who doesn’t love their patients won’t communicate effectively or care for them with empathy. They might become a successful engineer, but they won’t care about the person who uses their product. Their focus is solely on selling their product, not its impact on people.

These individuals are constantly thinking about their interests. Around the world, people suffer at the hands of physicians who don’t care about their patients or others who provide services without compassion. For services to truly benefit people, the provider must care about those using the service.

That’s why we see products and services being developed that don’t truly benefit people. In some European countries, those involved in human trafficking are often also involved in organ trafficking. And who performs these organ operations? Prominent doctors—highly skilled professionals.

It raises questions. Which universities did they attend? The people involved in making chemical weapons or atomic bombs are among the best chemists and scientists in the world. Yet, they use their skills in ways that harm humanity. These are the best in their fields, but their focus is purely on their professional success, not how their work affects others.

Where did you go to school? How could you create something that works against humanity and humans? This results from an education system that needs to place more emphasis on individualism and individuality. Schools aren’t doing well—not just in Canada, but everywhere. This is exactly where humanistic education can help future generations. We need to help humanistic education enter schools. The humanistic approach has a direct connection to peace. The more the humanistic approach develops, the closer we get to peace.

Steven Pinker also agrees with this theory. He supports the idea that peace grew and developed when the humanistic approach expanded to other subjects and areas. We should evolve education in schools to help students think about and help others. In that case, we can see significant changes in the world. But do we need to overhaul the entire system?

The world, as it stands now, needs this humanistic approach and this testing. A country like Canada could be the first to adopt this and advocate for other nations to follow. We can transform the educational system by fostering a loving and compassionate approach to education. If Canada takes the lead, many other countries will follow. My current lifestyle only works for some. We need to help people feel better and live better lives. The humanistic approach always supports this theory. It focuses on both individuals and others at the same time. As teachers, we can carry this philosophy to the next generations and help them thrive.

Jacobsen: Just a quick follow-up to the previous question. There are three systems at play in practice. One is more secular, meaning no religion is involved. If we take big countries like China, they use a particular political ideology as the metric for success. Students are expected to follow the party line in certain subjects, and the entire education system is geared toward conformity with the state. The focus is on creating engineers and scientists who serve the state. At the same time, they must align with party ideology in the political realm. It’s a form of looking out for oneself, but it’s out of fear and in service of the state. Another system is non-secular—it’s religious and theocratic.

You might even find someone like Harun Yahya, also known as Adnan Oktar, who wrote The Atlas of Creation in the educational curriculum. You’re learning about intelligent design and creationism from an Islamic theological perspective. In that case, you’re in a similar system, but it’s bound to religious ideology. You see this in small Christian cults in different parts of the world. So, it’s not limited to a particular religion—it’s just a faith-based version of an education system.

Another version, which you described precisely, is where individualism isn’t developed, but individuality is. That individuality is based on competition between people and fits well into any rank-ordering system. If you get an A, you’re a good person; if you get a D, you’re a bad person. Your self-esteem, self-worth, and self-concept become tied to your grades, extracurriculars, and your school’s prestige—whether it’s an Ivy League institution or not.

In this last example, you see the development of narcissism. I need to conduct formal research on connecting these ideas. Still, I’ve spoken to experts and read works that suggest there has been a rise in narcissism in North America and probably in Western countries in general over the past few decades. As for the first two examples—the secular, dogmatic education system and the religious ones—I’m not sure if there’s been a similar rise in narcissism. However, there’s a common thread in all three, which is deindividuation, something you noted earlier.

Everyone becomes more or less the same. There might be reasons for this: it could be framed as social cohesion or harmony, ensuring everyone believes in the correct faith and the right God, or ensuring everyone becomes self-sufficient in society. These outcomes may be helpful to the individual. Still, they seem more beneficial to the country’s dominant ideology.

So, within a humanistic model, what is the main proposition differentiating it from these three systems, which lean more toward a behaviourist approach? What are the core differences, aside from that the person in the humanistic model isn’t developing their individuality for more intangible things like healthy emotional development? As you would know better than I, people who slide into higher levels of narcissism are often emotionally, developmentally, and maturationally stunted.

You could summarize all that by saying that, in each case, people follow a faith-based system with the “correct” religion and political dogma or worship the Self.

Yousefi: I think those directly involved in policymaking, particularly in education, don’t necessarily love human beings. What they share, regardless of the system—whether secular, communist, religious, or capitalist—is that they don’t truly care about humans. It doesn’t matter which ideology they follow. For me, it doesn’t matter what policy a government follows if it doesn’t care about humans. Any system that lacks compassion for people is inherently corrupt.

Love for humanity is not just a simple feeling or perhaps a curiosity-driven sentiment; it is a deep respect for the historical journey of human life. Modern humans are the result of billions of years of evolution. Astonishing events have occurred for us to reach this point. Billions of humans and living creatures have made evolutionary efforts to achieve this position. Today’s human is the product of the pain, suffering, and hardships of all their ancestors. They are the result of the incredible struggles our ancestors endured to survive and overcome diseases. We are even the outcome of all the efforts our ancestors put into learning skills and enhancing their abilities.

The genes that today’s humans carry have a long history of health, wisdom, and awareness. This is how we can truly speak about love for humanity. When a human is killed in war or violence, a treasure of wisdom and knowledge is left incomplete. In this way, it’s impossible to look at humanity without feeling immense respect, gratitude, and love for nature, evolution, and life itself. How can one look at a human and not view their background with admiration and love? How can one work for humanity and not let this love flow into action?

If we love human beings, everything changes. Everything changes. I believe we need to focus more on this concept of love than on the specifics of education or capitalism. The policymakers and people in charge are confusing us with these titles—secular, non-secular, communist, capitalist, and so on.

They are causing suffering by using these titles as labels, which goes against all our evolutionary and societal progress. I considers himself committed to promoting love for human beings and teaches students and children how to love others. I believe that if we learn to love others, we can improve healthcare and the economy. We can make everything better. And now is the time to do that.

Jacobsen: I should clarify. Is it hatred of people? Or is it an incomplete understanding of the people leading to this suffering in all these different cases? That’s an important distinction.

Yousefi: Yes. So, he generally believes that love can solve any problem we face. When I asked him why he thinks we don’t love other humans, he said we were never taught to love others. In schools, we weren’t even taught how to have compassion, empathy, or love for others. As Erich Fromm would say, even love requires learning. Carl Rogers also expressed this idea—that we must learn how to love to have good policies and structures and help each other.

I sometimes thinks the world needs policymakers and leaders who are more like caregivers than traditional politicians. We need judges, leaders, or teachers who act as caregivers and can truly take care of us. Perhaps the world needs good parents—people who can help others grow, learn to love and feel compassion and empathy. 

Jacobsen: This leads to a question about contingency or a dependency on prior conditions. The idea of narcissism, for example. Individuals who have strong personality or psychological profiles in the narcissism scale, based on an expert reporting recently, do not have any potential cures at this time, at least widely accepted. So, if we have created a culture, even in wealthy and well-educated countries, of narcissism, and if there is no immediate cure or fix for this condition, and if these people are characterized by the inability to love both themselves and subsequently others, how do we implement this widely in a society where a hunk of the population who, by definition, will be unable to partake of this?

Yousefi: The idea is that humanistic psychology believes people can change. If we have logical and well-structured policies, the new generation can change. They can change just like we’ve learned many new things compared to four decades ago.

For example, people’s views on feminism and women’s rights have evolved significantly in the last five decades. The perception of the LGBTQ+ community has also changed over the past few years. How we approach the environment has also shifted—we are more environmentally conscious than we used to be. Groups of people have been working hard to teach others, encouraging change and growth.

People are much more compassionate and understanding toward individuals with disabilities than 50 years ago. We’ve changed; we’ve learned how to change and become better. This same principle can apply to other areas of society—we can learn and change together. It takes time, but it’s not impossible. But that’s not all. Especially in our market-driven world, if we focus on loving people, empathy, and compassion, everything will eventually improve. It’s heartwarming to see that people are constantly learning and changing. We are better than we were 100 years ago.

Things will improve in the next 100 years if we take action and plan for it. Many specialists believe that humanity is moving toward a better future. However, this improvement has only been possible because many people have worked hard to create a better world. Now, more than ever, we need more people to contribute to this progress. Education, in particular, has the power to make a significant impact. If humanistic principles enter the educational system, we will see a major revolution in how we love, live, and strive for peace. I hope for this revolution. I truly hope.

Jacobsen: In faith-based ideologies, the idea is typically to mould someone into a utility for worship. In secular political ideologies, the focus is often on perfecting someone to be useful to the state or the common good. In capitalist and individualistic societies, the orientation is around consumerism, individualism, and turning people into utilities to generate capital. Each of these systems has pathological elements to varying degrees.

From your perspective, it’s less about perfecting the person and more about developing the person within a human community. That’s an entirely different orientation. Is that the core difference in the humanistic model?

Yousefi: No, it’s not just about developing the individual. It’s about building a society that works for the development of all humans. A healthy society leads to healthy people, just like healthy people can lead to a healthy society.

Let me explain it this way: societies change through healthy individuals, and healthy individuals contribute to a better society. They have a mutual interaction—healthy society, healthy people; healthy people, healthy society.

Jacobsen: That directly answers my question. The three examples I gave—faith-based, secular political, and capitalist systems—each have an idealized version of a person in mind. However, your approach focuses on the dynamic interaction between the individual and society. The humanistic model works more from the bottom up. It asks, “Where is this person at? How can we develop their capacities based on their temperament?” There’s a constant feedback loop between the individual and society. Are there any other aspects of the humanistic model in the 21st century that we should cover?

Yousefi: Not for now.

Jacobsen: What do you think Pink Floyd got right in their commentary and song The Wall about the British education system in the 1970s? What did they get right?

Yousefi: What was correct about their critique? It was Pink Floyd’s take on how the system had become almost a disaster. Britannia. You can still see it—standardization. They showed how students don’t need what’s predetermined for them to learn. It’s a system of control. The controlling state wants to control everyone simultaneously, and that’s one of the criticisms they addressed.

Yousefi: He believes that sooner or later, schools will change. We have no other choice but to change; otherwise, societies will collapse from the inside. Education systems try to shape humans, but human evolution won’t allow that. The system is already devalued, and we will eventually rid ourselves of it and develop new systems and approaches. He’s waiting for that day.

Jacobsen: That’s a good final note.

Yousefi: Right.

Jacobsen: Thanks again for your time today. I appreciate it.

Yousefi: Thank you.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.