"The Loss of the Creature"

This was a very strange and interesting piece to me; first because of what was actually being said, which is something I've definitely felt before but never really thought about to any great extent; and second because of the author himself, and his own intriguing background from "failed physician" to accomplished writer.
As with some other authors and moral philosophers he seems to presuppose how other people feel and think or claims to know how they should feel or think. He makes sweeping generalizations about human nature without taking things like personality types or intelligence into account. Not everyone looks at the world with his distrust of the institution or want for the "authentic" human experience.
I was interested when i looked back at the preface and first discovered that he had tried his hand at being a doctor but gave it up in the end to write. Sounds like such a classic situation in which someone adheres to pressure about becoming something they think would be good for them, but only because of what it means to have that position, not because it's a passion of theirs.
He seems like an idealist to me with an over active conscience and sense of self consciousness. He appreciates knowledge, but not in order to know facts but to expand his own world-feeling. He appears contemptuous of other types who don't seem as "authentic." Since he naturally gravitates towards leaning, he figured he would choose a practical field like medicine. It was probably a bit rough but he figure it would get easier with time, only with time he was eventually put on the right path towards his own passions.
Some would call this mini-analysis a form of projection from me onto the author but he's seems so similar too me how could i not draw these conclusions? i feel that i can spot a fellow idealist when i encounter one, either in life or through reading. We seem to share similar views; a larrge contempt for any sort of pre-set "package deal" which everyone receives regardless of who the are (i.e. education, tourist destinations, etc.); we want the authentic experience.
What he doesn't take into account is that most people simply just don't care. They are grateful for (or at least take for granted) the package. It's much more convenient that way, much less of a hassle, and less chance of getting lost or something. For them the tour gives them a lot of useless facts they can impress people with and an experience not everyone gets to have. Some people go just to say they went. Some go because it's something for the whole family that isn't too demanding. some glance around contemptuously at their surroundings complaining that it isn't as cool as they expected, and some (myself included) look around, only half hearing, mostly lost in fantasy, seeing everything through the highly romanticized lens of their imaginations, only broken by that which brings them back, painfully, to reality (e.g. other people not sharing the same vision). The more the worse, unless you can somehow separate yourself from them. You answer all the questions correctly. You prove yourself to the natives. You are seen as the one who "understands" and takes this all seriously, while remaining likable the whole time. You are the "enlightened" on of the ignorant pack, waiting to be recognized and raised above.
Maybe the best method of teaching isn't to give students free range, or too much structure. Maybe we should be sorted according to our personalities and be taught accordingly, but does that still incur a loss? I believe so. We can't trust people on their own nor can we force them to do whats "right." So then what do we do?