Goal is a zonal issue

I let GPT4 explain what others say and then pass it to NISHIO Hirokazu’s Assistant at GPT Mention.

• I provide in-depth explanations of problems identified by others and suggest solutions, referring to my book, “The Technology Behind Coding”.

Conversation with ChatGPT

overlast There are two problems: one is the problem of a set of dots with a good destination that can be reduced by formalizing the tacit knowledge of idiosyncrasy in implementation, There are two kinds of problems: the problem of the kind of knowledge where the destination is a set of points, and the problem of the kind of knowledge where the destination is a band of points and the verbalization of goodness sometimes takes up a whole book, and formalizing the knowledge does not eliminate the personal nature of the knowledge.

Supplement the context and explain it for middle school students.

First, “genus” means that the work or knowledge is dependent only on a particular person. For example, it is a situation where the work cannot proceed without a certain person, and others do not understand the job very well. When there is a genus, it can be very difficult when that person disappears or goes to another job.

Now, in relation to your question, there are two types of knowledge: “tacit knowledge (knowledge management terminology)” and “explicit knowledge (knowledge management terminology)”. knowledge.

• Tacit knowledge is knowledge that is in your mind but difficult to explain in words. For example, this is the skill of riding a bicycle, cooking tips, and other things that you learn as you go along.
• Formal knowledge, on the other hand, is knowledge that is summarized in words and charts so that anyone can understand it. Information written in textbooks and manuals are typical examples of formal knowledge.

The following is an explanation of the issues raised in the question.

• A problem that is a set of points
  • This is a problem for which the “good answer” or “ideal state” is determined in some specific way. For example, there is one answer to a math problem, and the rule-based procedure is also fixed. These kinds of problems can be summarized in manuals and diagrams, so they are easy to share with others as formal knowledge.
• zonal issue.
  • This is a problem for which there is not just one “good answer” or “ideal state,” but a broad spectrum. For example, this is the case with art evaluation and marketing strategies. In these areas, there can be a great many conditions and caveats to explain which method is best.

In the latter case, it becomes difficult to cover all conditions and situations, even when put together as formal knowledge. That is why “genshitsu” cannot be completely eliminated. Since experience, feeling, intuition, etc. of an expert are also required, there remains an aspect that we have to rely on that expert to know what to do.

In summary, problems involving a set of dots are easy to summarize in formal knowledge, but problems involving a band of dots contain a lot of tacit knowledge, so even if they are made into formal knowledge, they are likely to retain their genus.

　@ What do you think?

My opinion on this issue is as follows

In language design and technology, it is important to reduce impersonality through “formalization”. However, in complex, zonal problems, knowledge is difficult to formalize and tacit knowledge can be difficult to remove completely. As noted in “The Technology Behind Coding,” it is important that knowledge about programming languages and design be learned through historical context and comparison. When the problem is a point to be reached (e.g., a specific calculation or procedure is fixed), it is easy to communicate clearly as formal knowledge. However, when the problem is zonal (e.g., creative fields or strategic decisions), the experience of an expert is required, so even if it is summarized as formal knowledge, it tends to have too many conditions and remain genus-specific.

To address this issue, it is helpful to refer to the three pillars of “Comparison,” “History,” and “Creation” as a method of knowledge sharing to reduce attribution. From “Comparison,” you can understand the various approaches to language design; from “History,” you can learn why they were designed the way they were; and from “Creation,” you can find out what is fuzzy in your own knowledge.

In other words, I think it is important to take an approach that strikes a balance between tacit and formal knowledge, while gradually overcoming the problem of genus by sharing knowledge.

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ゴールが帯状の問題 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.