Well said. Another way to think about tacit knowledge: Mit chell Jo Jonathan Mitchell Why do you know those refer to the same individual or at least

Well said. Another way to think about tacit knowledge: Mit chell Jo Jonathan Mitchell Why do you know those refer to the same individual or at least highly suspect they do? Now you can begin to explain the rules and logic underpinning that understanding, but for every explanation you give, a counterexample can be shown where you'll go: Ah yes, but in this case... And you'll add more and more rules, yet you'll find that never do these rules and your own judgement are a 1:1 perfect match if you were to test them against yourself, you'll keep finding cases where you concluded differently. Thus what is this knowledge that you truly leverage to make the decision? It seems that you cannot explain it fully, maybe your explanation isn't even anywhere the true knowledge you leverage, but only an approximation you made up when asked how? That knowledge is thus tacit, because you cannot express it fully to others, you won't be able to document it, or to produce a computer algorithm for it, or to communicate it to anyone else. It seems to become your expert intuition. It turns out that Machine Learning has made some breakthrough in that realm, in that the computer can similarly learn some tacit understanding, though it may not be the same as yours, it gets closer than what your rules expressed, and it too cannot be explained back, why the computer comes to its decision is also tacit.