Much of education (even outside of formal education) is built on a paradigm of "Learning From": There is something (knowledge, skill, experience, competence, whatever you want to call it) that some person possesses, and others can learn from that person. This is a one-way interaction with a binary of educator/teacher vs student/learner. There is no possibility or expectation that the person providing the education can be learning from the beneficiary (except maybe a meta skill in terms of how to be a better teacher).
This division is often calcified within formal education. For example, in a school, a student cannot be a teacher - they have to complete school, and complete further education before they can be a teacher.
Of course this feeds into credentialism and supports the scarcity model; indeed it would be hard to imagine that the scarcity model (which is necessary for profit-making) can survive without this assumption.
What does Learning with look like? There's at least two ways of going about this:
- To retain the concept of "transfer", but allow the roles to be fluid. To recognize, for example, that A may learn from B about X today, and B may learn from A about Y tomorrow. This doesn't have to be strictly reciprocal - for example, A learns from B, B learns from C, and C learns from A. It also need not be so individualistic - e.g Many people including A learn from B; many people including B learn from C; many people including C learn from A
- To recognize that there is education that doesn't depend on a "transfer" - for example, A and B (and maybe more people) engage in dialogue where they contribute their thoughts and opinions to construct some new meaning or understanding that none of the participants brought with them
While the above is a description of different ways things can play out, the method need not be decided a priori - and it's perhaps even better to not decide it in advance.
Instead, simply express your opinion and invite others to walk with you on it, and remain open to walking with others who may invite you (assuming it is a conversation you wish to be part of). Some people may engage in dialogue with you (sometimes agreeing and adding perspectives or details, sometimes challenging and contradicting). Others may choose to observe initially and engage later - or not at all. Still others may not engage at all. We just need to trust that each person is participating in a way that makes sense to them.
Sometimes these engagements can be virtual. Sometimes they can involve in-person gatherings. They could be conversational, or they could lead to an action or experiment. Whatever transpires, it is the Swarm Intelligence at play.