The Fragility of Knowledge
Jim HarrisIn his excellent book The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, Nassim Nicholas Taleb explains:
“What you don’t know is far more relevant than what you do know.”
Our tendency is to believe the opposite. After we have accumulated the information required to be considered knowledgeable in our field, we believe that what we have learned and experienced (i.e. what we know) is far more relevant than what we don’t know. We are all proud of our experience, which we believe is the path that separates knowledge from wisdom.
“We tend to treat our knowledge as personal property to be protected and defended,” explains Taleb. “It is an ornament that allows us to rise in the pecking order. We take what we know a little too seriously.”
However, our complacency is all too often upset by the unexpected. Some new evidence is discovered that disproves our working theory of how things work. Or something that we have repeatedly verified in the laboratory of our extensive experience, suddenly doesn’t produce the usual results.
Taleb cautions that this “illustrates a severe limitation to our learning from experience and the fragility of our knowledge.”
I have personally encountered this many times throughout my career in data quality. At first, it seemed like a cruel joke or some bizarre hazing ritual. Every time I thought that I had figured it all out, that I had learned all the rules, something I didn’t expect would come along and smack me upside the head.
“We do not spontaneously learn,” explains Taleb, “that we don’t learn that we don’t learn. The problem lies in the structure of our minds: we don’t learn rules, just facts, and only facts.”
Facts are important. Facts are useful. However, sometimes our facts are really only theories. Mistaking a theory for a fact can be very dangerous. What you don’t know can hurt you.
However, as Taleb explains, “what you know cannot really hurt you.” Therefore, we tend to only “look at what confirms our knowledge, not our ignorance.” This is unfortunate, because “there are so many things we can do if we focus on antiknowledge, or what we do not know.”
This is why, as a data quality consultant, when I begin an engagement with a new client, I usually open with the statement (completely without sarcasm):
“Tell me something that I don’t know.”
Related Posts
Reader Comments (5)
Great post and an incredibly widespread issue I believe.
In my field of Software Development you simply cannot rest and rely on what you know. The technology you master today will almost certainly evolve over time and this can catch you out. There's no point being an expert in something no one wants any more! This is not always the case, but don't forget to come up for air and look around for what's changing.
I've lost count of the number of organisations I've seen who have stuck with a technology that was fresh 15 years ago and a huge stagnant pot of data, who are now scrambling to come up to speed with what their customers expect. Throwing endless piles of cash at the problem, hoping to catch up.
What am I getting at? The secret I've learned is to adapt. This doesn't mean jump on every new fad immediately, but be aware of it. Follow what's trending, where the collective thinking is heading and most importantly, what do your customers want?
I just wish more organisations would think like this and realise that the systems they create, the data they hold and the customers they have are in a constant state of flux. They are all projects that need care and attention. All subject to change, there's no getting away from it, but small, well planned changes are a lot less painful, trust me.
I agree, there are so many things in the world, what we don't know and never will. Things that you can base your activities on are what you know and this is relevant. From these brain schemas we live, we work and make decisions.
However "live and learn" - without (self) education can we reach a progress in our professional and personal life?
Well, philosophy is far from my engineer-brain, but this post is a thought awakener.
"Been there, done that and got the tee-shirt" - in the context of the post is a dangerous stance to hold. It might be a good idea to go there and do it again because they just brought out a new tee-shirt!!
"We are all proud of our experience" and pride cometh before a fall. Those old wives did data quality too...
And to reply (completely without sarcasm) to "Tell me something I don't know"... EVERYTHING.
But you already knew that... (now my head hurts!!)
I agree with this sentence: "Mistaking a theory for a fact can be very dangerous".
Everything that we learn are theories elaborated from facts. But the transition from facts to theory is not straightforward and theories may be wrong. When we have a theory, we think that we have understood something and we use this knowledge to act.
If we don't know that our theory is not correct, then the consequences of our acts may hurt indeed.
Following Descartes, we must always doubt about our knowledge.
Facts in my opinion are relative and usually subjective. I work in a data warehousing environment and often find that the mandate for the content of the data warehouse (being to reflect the sources that we extract from) conflicts with the numbers the client expects.
I believe facts give us a starting point in how things are supposed to work and then allow the client to make up their own facts. This being a fact is only a fact when the client says its a fact.
My attitude in dealing with the facts created by the client is to go in "knowing nothing" and trying my best to separate the mandate for the data warehouse and the requirements of the client. A very careful balancing act unfortunately.