An ounce of information is worth a pound of data. An ounce of knowledge is worth a pound of information. An ounce of understanding is worth a pound of knowledge.
Despite this, most of the time spent in school is devoted to the transmission of information and ways of obtaining it. Less time is devoted to the transmission of knowledge and ways of obtaining it (analytical thinking). Virtually no time is spent in transmitting understanding or ways of obtaining it (synthetic thinking).
The DIKW model (which isn't Ackoff's), is often depicted as a pyramid, and doesn't include an 'understanding' tier.Because I personally like Ackoff's addition of "understanding" in the hierarchy, that's the version I'll refer to here.
My thoughts below aren't in the context of education; instead, I'm reflecting on my morning paper and my concern for its demise.
-------
I still get a newspaper delivered to my home every morning. I diligently read it every day and take the information it contains more-or-less at face value. I can generally tell the difference between what is information and what is opinion, and I tend to trust the information because I trust traditional journalism, its foundational ethics and processes, the professionals who have been educated and vetted before landing at a major paper, the editors who carefully guard against breaches of the rules, and so on.
I believe, perhaps naively, that because all of those people have done their job responsibly, I don't need to familiarize myself with all of the data from which their information was drawn. In the same way, I trust the information my doctor gives me without personally digging into the data, and I trust information about home renovations when it comes from a professional who knows much more than I do about the underlying data and who has personal experience applying the data and the information.
In those other professions, though, I further rely on the professionals' personal knowledge; their processing of the information they've studied and gathered directly from experience. I'll continue to do so, and to build even deeper faith in the individual's knowledge until and unless I see first-hand that their data->information->knowledge conversion is not trustworthy.
From professional journalists, I don't ask for knowledge and they don't claim the right to give it to me. Just information. And opinion that has been clearly identified as such. My newspaper is one source for me in the search for knowledge and understanding about what's going on in the world. It contains (I believe) data and information carefully vetted and explained, and that's all. I trust that, and a few other sources.
So I'm worried - very worried - when I think about the (near) future of traditional journalism. It can't and won't survive the disruption of its business model, resulting from technological change, democratization of publishing, changes in consumer preferences, etc. I can only hope that whatever fills the void will also be built on a foundation of professional ethics that puts the truth first.
The more dangerous development, though, (in my opinion of course) is that so many people are implicitly and blindly short-cutting the data-information-knowledge-understanding-wisdom hierarchy because it's so much easier to do so than to be diligent about each of its layers. I'm comfortable getting my data and information from experts I trust, but I'm careful about who those experts are and I will stop trusting them when they show me that my trust is misplaced. I have a much higher standard for knowledge. And wisdom - to me - comes from my parents (and a lifetime of trust in them), from my religion (and the thousands of years of thought and observation upon which it is built) and from my own personal experiences and insights.
I am alarmed and saddened whenever I see people react to a Facebook post as if they are reading the words of a trusted journalist, when blog posts are shared as if they are thesis papers written after months of careful research, and when people posing as reporters share their opinions as fact and others embrace and share their views as if they are.
It is convenient to believe someone else's information or knowledge when it aligns with your own opinion, and it's also dangerous. Where's the data? Was it responsibly and diligently gathered, analyzed and processed into information? Is the information reliable? Is it based on reasonable conclusions without bias? Who is the source of the knowledge and how did they gain that knowledge?
Without rigour around data, information and knowledge, we won't find shared understanding, and wisdom will be a pipe dream. Because of all of that, it feels like we're headed for calamity.
My newspaper matters to me and I'll keep paying for it until I no longer can. You should consider doing the same (in my opinion).
Final note: Every word that I've written above is directed at people who largely share my worldview, not those who I feel are intentionally spreading "alternative facts". It's on you and me to defend the truth, not our preferred version of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment