This all reminds me of the HBR classic "The Parable of the Spindle"
in which academics from several disciplines each look at a human
relations problem in a restaurant from their respective perspectives
and all arrive at the same solution.
Chris poulson
>Ah, but you KNOW the difference, so it doesn't matter to you. What
>about the person who is learning there is a difference? I am not a
>sailor, but the reference makes sense.
>
>First, let me say thanks to Conna and Esteban, for your insights, which
>often inspire.
>
>Both of your analogies help clarify this issue for me. I believe there
>is a difference between a rope and a line...determined by its use.
>Likewise for information and knowledge. There is more to this than just
>semantics, or a repackaged label.
>
>When we have "knowledge", we have information from a variety of
>contexts, and have the ability to choose which is the more appropriate
>application of that information in a particular context. Recently, they
>did some brain scans on experienced and novice chess players to see if
>the game really required a different thought process. It turns out that
>expertise really isn't superior thinking, but superior practice. The
>player who has practiced more moves is in a better position to know the
>implications of a particular move in a particular context. Being able
>to understand the context and make the proper application (from a wealth
>of background information and experience) is a lot different than being
>taught the correct choice or move.
>
>The dynamic nature of "knowledge" stands in sharp contrast to the static
>nature of "information". It comes from a lived experience. It is not a
>rope, it is a line. As an educator/trainer I find it difficult to say
>that I impart "knowledge". What is knowledge from my experience becomes
>information to others as I "teach".
>
>Then there is the analogy of the cultural archaeologist (my term for
>your description). If a future archaeologist were to come upon a
>repository of current information (book, disk, or whatever format),
>would s/he not be in the same situation as you describe ("we should be
>able to know and correctly interpret what cultures knew from what they
>left behind, but we know very little of what they meant without the
>proper decoders or translators.")?
>
>The tools (words in this case) we use today become the artifacts for
>future generations. How we used these tools would be conjecture for the
>archaeologist. S/he would have to make assumptions about the context in
>which the tools were used. No doubt, this might be an educated guess,
>and perhaps be quite accurate. But it would definitely lack certitude.
>How I and an Eskimo might use the word "snow" has already been
>described.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Conna Condon [mailto:
gandolf@cyberverse.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:35 AM
>To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: Ropes and Lines: Re: Decision Making thoughts...
>
>
>Romie says:
>
>"I see great value in calling the twisted fibres on a
>boat deck ropes when not in use and lines when in use.
> Probably saves time and lives at sea. "
>
>Conna asks:
>
>What value?
>How does the label of the object save lives?
>
>When I "sailed" through a gale with hurricane gusts in 1962 in didn't
>make an iota of difference what we called the twisted fibres. In 8
>summers of living on that sailboat and 8 years of racing it, not once
>did it make a difference.