Propagation of new concepts
2019-01-17 I thought about why people start to burn after being cut out of context on social networking sites (updated as needed) | Yoichi Ochiai | note and saw myself drawing a picture. 2021-11-23 The link is no longer visible without billing. Thinking half a step ahead p.42 has the original diagram.
- Knowledge is piled up in a pyramid.
- Suppose a person (sender) comes up with knowledge C, which is one step advanced from existing knowledge B.
- Time is limited, so only disseminate information about newly created
- Those who have the knowledge B to accept that knowledge C can understand it (the understanding person).
- Also, some people can accept C and then suggest another D (developmental discussion).
- On the other hand, there are those who believe in C in a descent way without sufficient knowledge (increased awareness).
- Developing topic: they need to be an understanding person to be happy: To be an understanding person.
- Related: how to give knowledge to those who lack knowledge.
There are two patterns of people who are offended by this blind faith.
Conscious haters" are
- 1: First of all, I'm repulsed, "That kind of ungrounded thinking is not good."
- 2: They are supposed to be the ones who understand C because of their knowledge build up to B, but because of the emotional backlash first,
- 3: Thinking ends with "B and C are different.
- For him, B is grounded knowledge and C is not, so he thinks B is correct.
- Or, they are satisfied if they can deny what they don't like and are not interested in furthering the discussion.
- Good thing they hit the original source and not the granddaddy information, but they are losing money by not having that attitude!
The "personality denial" is
- 1: I have accumulated knowledge in different fields and am confident in it.
- 2: There's no buildup of knowledge A, so "B or C?" I'm not sure if the argument is "A" or "B", but I'm not happy with the situation
- 3: So the rebuttal is "the sender who is descending C is evil".
- It is because of envy that envy is against the sender rather than a person of "growing awareness" who has faith in knowledge by descent.
- The original diagram said "Pseudo-intellectual personality denial," but I initially did not understand the "pseudo-intellectual" part.
- Unlike the "awareness raising" crowd, you've built up a body of knowledge in other areas, after all.
- After a while, I thought, Afraid to say, "I don't know." I guess I'm just as immune to "some things I don't know" as I wrote in Afraid to say, "I don't know."
- So, even if one has accumulated knowledge in a certain field, one lacks the intellectual training to tackle "what one does not know," so it is reasonable to call it pseudointellectual. Related: Ph.D. can be in any field.
- Personally, I would be concerned that that labeling might lead to a personality denial battle.
Yoichi Ochiai, January 17, 2019
Written (discussion welcome)
I thought about why people start to burn when they are cut out of context on social networking sites (updated as needed)｜Yoichi Ochiai｜note Nishio Hirokazu
I feel like I'm a bit short on abstraction and don't understand it well (probably because I don't know much about the "case of flames" that is the premise of this discussion).
I thought A and B were "implicit assumptions not verbalized by the sender" on the diagram, and that the story could be misunderstood by those who do not share those assumptions, but I don't understand the intent/context of why you divided it into A and B. Yoichi Ochiai
B looks like the most recent case, as amateurs often say. Nishio Hirokazu
B is "the most recent case that laymen often say" and C is "C (which is often said to be B, but if we develop the thought a little)", but the people who don't understand what has developed are green, and the people who know that "C! The people who don't understand what has developed are green, and the people in orange who know that "C is C based on B" are miffed at the people in purple who are making a fuss about "C! Yoichi Ochiai
That's it. Nishio Hirokazu
I understood the first half to mean this: https://gyazo.com/7f548298e5065bde88e1964cb940f9df
And this is how I understood the second half: https://gyazo.com/4e138d48a8c4d7d8cd0cc8f7129a2a4a
When people see a conscious person and "conscious haters", 1: first they are repulsed by "that kind of ungrounded thinking is not good", 2: they are supposed to be the ones who understand C because they have accumulated knowledge up to B, but they are emotionally repulsed first, so 3: their thinking ends with "B and C are not the same".
Those on the side of personality denial are 1: confident because of their accumulated knowledge in their different fields; 2: unsure for them, "B or C?" but they are not satisfied with the situation, so 3: they have a reactionary way of saying, "The sender who is descending from C is evil.
Am I understanding this correctly? Yoichi Ochiai
That's how I feel. Nishio Hirokazu
I thought it was simply "jealousy of those who have influence" when people with personality denial hit the sender instead of the "conscious person".
This would be a perfect example of a D person. src
- I see, I hadn't thought of this case itself in this framework (since I thought the emphasis was on the second half).
- If we consider this case in this framework, the information that the sender did not mention is that "knowledge is stacked in a pyramid."
- You can't help but think "I don't need to tell you" that you need prerequisite knowledge to understand things.
- I used the Accumulated Knowledge metaphor a lot in my book The Intellectual Production of Engineers, so it was easy to verbalize this.
- As for the difference between A and B, I feel that there might be a slight nuance", but I tried to draw it based on my understanding
#Pyramid of Knowledge
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/新概念の伝播 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.