OK, I need to clarify what I think has become a confusion. Stephen Downes has written,
“OK, I need to clarify what I think has become a confusion. People like George Siemens and Jay Cross and others are talking about “knowledge that’s stored outside your head”. This is an incorrct depiction of knowledge, one that perpetuates the idea that knowdge is atomic, like ‘facts’, that can be moved and stored, as though it were some sort of object. We can see how ridiculous this picture is when we ask how we can ‘know’ something that is not ‘in our head’. We are being asked to create some sort of elaborate fiction here.”
Stephen has pulled a phrase out of context to make it appear that he is wise and the rest of us missed the cluetrain. Nowhere do George or I suggest that knowledge is atomic. Stephen writes,
“We can see how ridiculous this picture is when we ask how we can ‘know’ something that is not ‘in our head’.”
Stephen, my question was “Why should I learn something if I can look it up when I need it?”
What’s in my head is knowing whom to ask or where to look it up. Were I interested in semantics, perhaps I would call this potential knowledge. As with potential energy, nothing is known nor any energy expended until some neurons light up or an object is pushed off the table.
As I wrote, “The bottom line is performance, not learning.” The author of the New York Times piece noted that for him it was preferable to use the GPS than to memorize directions.
Related post:
Performance support and connectivism
Follow Jay on Twitter
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ve heard, and used, the term “knowledge artefact”. My “outboard brain” contains many knowledge artefacts which I access when I need them. Sometimes I even forget that I’ve made these artefacts and then stumble over them at a later date.
These artefacts may not be knowledge but they sure are useful for me to make inferences, inspire thoughts or take action. These artefacts are stored outside of my head and they are closely (or sometimes not so closely) linked to the knowledge inside my head.
This is not plucked out of context: you write “There is no dishonor in taking advantage of knowledge that’s stored outside your head.”
This is a clear and unambiguous reference to knowledge that is stored outside your head.
I prefer terms like ‘potential knowledge’ or ‘knowledge artefacts’. I know it sounds like nit-picking, but I don’t believe it is. Knowledge mangement theories go off the rails precisely at the point where they think that knowledge can be acquired and stored outside the head, in a library, say, or a GPS.
These things should be noted: the knowledge is not in the word, it is in the combination of reader-and-word; it is not in the GPS, it is in the combination of driver-and-GPS. Etc.
p.s. If I am wise there’s no point in my trying to appear wise, and if I am not wise them I’m sure not fooling anyone. Probably the latter.
If I think you’re wrong, I’ll say so. And if I’m saying so, then I certainly don’t think you’ve missed the cluetrain.Because then I wouldn’t think there’s anything worth saying at all.
I kinda feel like a Lilliput amongst Brobdingnags. But my take on this, and I have to agree with Stephen on this is that knowledge is personal; it is (at the risk of using an industrial age metaphor) the manipulation of information (raw material) into a finished product. This raw material Information is mined or harvested from books, videos, lectures or interviews of subject matter experts.
The fact that these information sources are all the finished product of someone else’s information-gathering efforts and represent their knowledge does not change the fact that to the person gathering this material it is still information. The two – knowledge and information – form a circle always revolving.
For example, one type of information I might manipulate would be another person’s knowledge, such as expertise on performing a specific task. Even though it already exists as knowledge in that other person’s mind, it remains information to me until I internalize and use it for my ends.
If I’m wrong, please correct me.
Dennis, I think knowledge is co-created with others. What I know is personal as long as I am not connected to others. Information and knowledge are not fixed: they are flow.
As to “…it remains information to me until I internalize and use it for my ends,” what do you call what we’re creating in a conversation in real time? My knowledge is changing; your knowledge is changing; we’re shaping one another’s take on things.
As Stephen pointed out, knowledge is not “stuff.” I think of you-link-me as emergent knowledge. You and Stephen (I think) want to consider the link between us mere information, not knowledge.
We may just be playing word games here. I’m too tired to think about it.