4 ms·
- We have instant access to pretty much all of humanity's collective knowledge, practically for free We have access to an overwhelming amount of knowledge, but
by TuringTest 4y ago
- We have instant access to pretty much all of humanity's collective knowledge, practically for free
We have access to an overwhelming amount of knowledge, but the problem is that this by itself is not enough to use it. All that knowledge is in a format that is difficult to assimilate and largely lacks the social aspect needed to transfer it effectively.
Humans assimilate knowledge by participating in social groups, most of us acquire it largely by imitation; only some complex academic subjects benefit from isolated personal study, and even then you need a mentor to guide you through it.
The wealthy remain wealthy because they maintain exclusivist institutions, devoted entirely to transmitting such limited social knowledge to their families. It is practically a requirement in order to improve your social standing; people with access to unlimited knowledge but without having the tribe to guide them in its assimilation cannot harness it in a way that is more effective than the people they are competing against.
- overgard 4y agoI'm not sure that's true, I think people learn by doing more than through social means. I mean, I went to college and got a bachelors, and I remember... practically none of it except the things I use day to day. I would honestly say that other than giving my a scientific viewpoint, most of the "general education" stuff was a complete waste of time. I really can tell you nothing about geology or biology and just the basics of chemistry, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Right now one of my hobbies is robotics/electronics/makerish stuff, and most of what I've learned has come from youtube/reference documentation/blog posts (I bought a few textbooks as well, although most of them are collecting dust). There's a bit of a social aspect in that I'll ask friends with actual EE degrees for advice sometimes, but even then I mostly get "ah I haven't used that in forever, I don't remember". Most of my learning is by setting a goal, and then more or less learning the skills along the way. I don't know if it's efficient or not, but it's not costing me anything other than time. The other thing I've been teaching myself is art techniques, and you probably guessed it, I've learned those things in the same way and through practice developing my own style. Again, no institution needed. Don't get me wrong, I think institutions and the social aspect of them can be tremendously useful, but if you want to learn a skill and you're interested there's practically nothing stopping you, you don't need them, it's just a bonus.
- TuringTest 4y agoI didn't mean that you acquire knowledge by hanging around people (though that happens a lot as well, specially for all knowledge that is not deemed 'academic'). I meant that knowledge acquisition is mediated and guided by your social context; if you're on your own, resorting to YouTube tutorials and online forums will only get you that far, as you will not acquire competence on what are the most useful and practical ways to apply that knowledge. You need feedback to know that you're orienting your learning in the right direction, to provide a practical overview of the field, and to correct you on the vices you may develop. None of that can be achieved without evaluation of your progress, and that requires belonging to a stable social group that can check your advances beyond isolated interactions. Again, avance on more academic disciplines can be cheated by reading books, which compile some of that socially transferred content. But practical application of those learned skills requires talking to people who will guide you on what constitutes 'practicality' for other people. In your art example, you may develop your personal style on your own, but you can't know that it will be liked by others unless you exhibit it and listen commentary on how people perceive it.