knowledge <> power
prof_braino
Posts: 4,313
The phrase "knowledge is power" has been bothering me. This is a "dumbed down" version of something important, but creates more problems than it solves. Taken at face value, it appears to justify "information hoarding", which in turn seems foolish and counterproductive.
The original sentiment was something like "Powerful people accumulate more knowledge, and knowledgeable people are EMPOWERED, and can exert an influence".
Perhaps "knowledge is like potential energy" and "the transfer of knowledge can result in work being performed" might be better ideas. Just as electricity flowing though a circuit can be made to perform work, knowledge flowing though society can effect a change. More specifically, the transfer of knowledge from the individuals that have it, to the individuals that need to use it, can result in work being done.
Knowledge NOT power; and power is not knowledge. Knowledge in itself is irrelevant until it is applied, and the first step in application is communication.
Any thoughts?
The original sentiment was something like "Powerful people accumulate more knowledge, and knowledgeable people are EMPOWERED, and can exert an influence".
Perhaps "knowledge is like potential energy" and "the transfer of knowledge can result in work being performed" might be better ideas. Just as electricity flowing though a circuit can be made to perform work, knowledge flowing though society can effect a change. More specifically, the transfer of knowledge from the individuals that have it, to the individuals that need to use it, can result in work being done.
Knowledge NOT power; and power is not knowledge. Knowledge in itself is irrelevant until it is applied, and the first step in application is communication.
Any thoughts?
Comments
Sharing knowledge, which is the theme of your post, seems like an important part of extracting full value from knowledge. In almost any society where knowledge is held by only a few, that society is impoverished; both figuratively and literally.
It doesn't pay to teach people your job. The organisation may benefit from that arrangement, rah rah rah, but if you don't get anything out of it then you're going to get screwed.
No one is inexpendable, but some are more expendable than others - and you definitely do not want to "share" knowledge to the point where you can be replaced tomorrow.
information <> knowledge
PJ,
knowledge <> experience
-Phil
This !
Just cause some one has the knowledge .does not make them the same as knowledge with experience .. ( look at Jobs out of college ..
Actually, this is kind of the point, and I disagree with your statement.
I met a guy that would not teach ANYONE the "lambda-delta" function he came up with, "because none of you are smart enough". When I tried to point out, via review, that it was actually easy, just poorly written and documented (from the perspective of interoperability with peers), there was an "issue". Turns out this would threaten his "irreplaceable" status. This guy was the classic nozzle.
I worked for another guy, brilliant guy, who said, "when you figure out your job, write it down, and try to teach it to the new kid. Then I can promote you to something more interesting". Since then, I have always used the policy of "new guy notes". You give the new guy your notes, and he updates them with correction from what you originally wrote down, to what is actually done today. The instructions for the new person are never more than one or two snapshots out of date, and are manageable, for free.
Needless to say, it was MUCH more fun and profitable working for the second guy, after bailing on the first set of (in my opinion) fools.
But I guess the "old school" of thought on this is highly resistant to change, and like communism, maybe we just have to let the old generation "die off".
The United States freely shared the knowledge of making steel and automobiles, and look where that got us.
Bruce
I posted 4 sentences. You focused on the second and ignored the third.
It's nice that the "second guy" rewarded you for your teaching, but that doesn't happen often. Like I posted before, when you give it away then you're screwed - because a lot of people out there don't know $#&@ from shinola, "experience" doesn't account for as much as some range-of-the-moment's misperception of some imaginary bottom line.
When you're part of a union or a guild, apprenticeships and all that, then the OJT is part of the deal, and you're protected, but with free labour it's different. It's about competitive edge.
Being stingy with knowledge benefits the few who hold it but is short-sighted in the long run.
-Phil
we stole it from Europe.
the industry didn't go to china cause we gave Ideals it went there cause GM and FORD wants workers who will work for nothing even though the savings gets consumed in moving the cars from there to here.
I did not say that we created the first automobile or the first ingot of steel, but we definitely shared our knowledge of manufacturing these products with other countries and it was a major mistake. A lot of US jobs and real property were lost to sharing this knowledge.
Sadly this is true ...
Peter
I suppose you would like Parallax to share all their information and designs with the rest of the world. Be for real.
Must disagree here too. You make the common mistake. It was not some "sharing" of some secret about auto manufacturing that only the US could grasp. This is idea is amazing in it arrogance, but was in fact the us auto industry's delusion.
The correct phrase would be "US auto industry ignored Juran and Demming, and look where it got them". The mistake was ignoring quality and process; the folks that were successful already had the same knowledge about manufacturing, they simply applied quality and process.
This why today, when we read process data, it says: "I am Quality, ignore me at your peril".
Excuse me, PJ, I did focus on the third. If you "share" know knowledge to the point you can be replaced tomorrow (by a cheaper individual), you can be prompted tomorrow (for a higher salary).
Also, if I run across a person that's "indispensable" I try to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Better to bite the bullet now replace them at my convenience than to risk losing everything when we really need the person, and said person dies or is otherwise lost.
Like I said, old school of thought versus new school.
I know how much you love patents. But the whole premise of the patent systems is sharing of knowledge "for the advancement of the art." In return for publishing the details of their inventions, inventors receive a limited-time monopoly, after which anyone is free to use them.
Regarding Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and any other models that disappeared, it's only because people didn't want them anymore, probably because they had better options. Would you be happier with the old Detroit, which resisted change, had inflexible upper management, cared nothing for fuel economy and safety unless forced by the government, and produced cars lacking in overall quality? Foreign competition changed all of that, and now American workers have jobs in their factories here in the U.S. that they might not have otherwise. But, better still, GM, Ford, and Chrysler are producing much better cars now in order to compete. It's Detroit's old stodgy ways that ultimately resulted in the collateral damage you refer to, and, no, the unions cannot escape sharing in the blame for helping to promote an "us versus them" atmosphere with upper management. And don't forget that the Japanese were paying attention to our own W. Edwards Deming about how to manage quality, long before Detroit came late to the party to embrace his methods. So I'm firm in my stance that the foreign competition has ultimately helped the American car industry. Remember, "that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger."
-Phil
It may have helped build a much better automobile, but it certainly hasn't helped the automobile industry as a whole or US employment. Additionally, neither you nor prof_braino touched the subject of teaching the steel manufacturing process to foreign competitors, which was our first mistake, because without the steel, they would have had a very hard time producing automobiles that could even begin to compete in our markets.
Bruce
-Phil
Phil posted: "Remember, 'that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger.'"
I wonder if you've ever been in a car wreck.
-Phil
I wholeheartedly agree, but not all knowledge should be shared. For instance, I do not believe it would be in our best interest to teach middle eastern countries how to make long range missles with nuclear warheads. Of course, that is an extreme, but hey it is "knowledge".
Bruce
Play your cards close to your vest.
Keep your powder dry.
Don't cut your own throat.
Help as much as you can without cutting your own throat, however be very leary of helping the guy who wants to trade you some rope for your knowledge, because his ultimate goal is to see you hanging from a tree.