đŸȘŽ Quartz 4.0

Information distribution is diversion?

Dec 11, 20236 min read

I saw the one on >vein and wrote about it on Twitter diversion. It’s great to belong to multiple communities and to Bridging Information. It could be paraphrased as the value of human connections. So, don’t be discouraged there.

[multi-post (as frowned upon in newsgroups and web forums) bans are a relic of the days when the Internet was one with nerd stuff. Multi-posting is justice for multi-communities. https://twitter.com/tokoroten/status/1088088746946248710

I see echoes of this type from time to time myself. Mr. Nakayama’s response this time sees information distribution as a good thing. This is close to my values as an emotion, but not obvious as logic. Interesting issue.

Why do some people resist this type of behavior? I think there is quite a discrepancy in the scope of the specific acts to which “this type of conduct” refers. Why is it misaligned? - Also related to [Copying answers is futile. - At this time, he said, “Simply transferring information as a whole copy does not create value. First, it needs to be abstracted, and distribution of abstractions alone does not create value.” I came to the conclusion that

Then I thought about it a little. image

  • Many people have a left mental model that knowledge is given to them from outside of themselves and they acquire it faithfully.
    • There is no benefit in sharing the information gained with others in this situation.
  • But in reality, there is this other “knowledge that I have acquired through my interaction with the outside world
    • This is more beneficial to those around you if you share it.
    • This “action of helping those around you” can benefit you after the fact.
  • The experience of “sharing the information I have gained with those around me will benefit me,” occurs only to those who share it.
    • Experienced people take it for granted that the right patterns exist.
    • People who are stuck in the left mental model don’t experience and therefore don’t feel the act of sharing is worthwhile.
      • I don’t do it because I don’t feel it’s worth it.
      • We don’t do it, so we don’t visit experiences that we feel are valuable.

What is “diversion?”

  • image
  • Maybe this kind of mental model

Initially, the second half was written as follows

  • But in reality, there are other “knowledge that I have acquired through my interactions with the outside world,” and it is more beneficial to those around me if I share it.

  • However, as pointed out by Jun Kuikei, I felt this was too emotional and a bit off base in logic, so I modified it.
  • K> Whether sharing is beneficial or not depends on where you stand and the literacy around you, though.
  • N>
    • It’s the next step after “do your share and experience success” to be able to tell the difference.
    • Broadcasting everything that comes in without selection and selection will only lead to value in a situation where there are only inferior people around.
      • So, it would normally change naturally to “need to take a choice”.
    • If you don’t output, you don’t get the experience of “you have to translate to get the message across” or “you have to choose the right people.”
  • K>
    • I think we all share from an early age.
    • As a result, people don’t do it because more people don’t find the sharing beneficial.
    • I think there are few situations where the ROI of the sender can be achieved by sharing information, compared to situations where you can arbitrage in the information gap.
  • N>
    • Whether that is a lot depends on the situation, and there are often times when it is more beneficial not to share than to share in the situations you experience, so it is understandable that you don’t want a “leaker without thinking” on your team.
    • On the other hand, programming-related issues often have a high knowledge obsolescence rate, so it is more profitable to be the first to disclose them and convert them into reputation from the masses than to keep them secret and aim for profit opportunities.
    • Well, there is an observation bias. People who have a share strategy are more easily observable, so they appear to be more than they really are.
    • Going back to the original statement, “it’s more beneficial to share” is an oversimplification, and “there are often cases where sharing can create value” is about the extent of it.
  • K>
    • Maybe we can compare them by logic, but I think the more parameters you add, the more the share side is at a disadvantage.
    • There are beneficial cases.
      • I probably run into that too.
      • There are a few conditions that apply, such as the person you’re sharing it with is a worthy partner, or the information can be converted to value.
  • N>
    • I agree that we should distinguish between the two strategies of “A: communicating acquired information to a specific few people” and “B: communicating to an unspecified many people,” and that the former type A and the recipients of that communication need to be chosen. I am not sure what you mean by “value transformation,” but if you mean that we should not just copy what others have done, but that we need to abstract it, copy only the structure, and deploy it again according to the various constraints that the recipient has, then I agree with you there as well.
    • On the other hand, B: I think there is a difference of opinion regarding the value of sharing information to an unspecified number of people. Regarding this, first of all, in terms of ROI, I think that both R and I are small compared to the case where strategy A fits well. However, it is an action with positive expected value. Therefore, for those who currently have zero expected value, they would be told to “do strategy B,” and for those who are in a position to take the more productive strategy A and stay with strategy B, they would be told to “don’t just do strategy B, do strategy A.”
    • Is it also important to note that the R scale is [Not one dimensional. For example, if you post a lot on Twitter and get a lot of followers, you can use that as value in one context, but in another context, it is not perceived as value at all. On the other hand, it could also happen that people overestimate the value of R because they are hungry for approval, for example.
    • Conversely, the natural science researcher is the right mental model because his/her main achievement is to “share with others” the “knowledge gained from his/her experiments”.

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/æƒ…ć ±æ”é€šăŻæšȘæ”ă—ă‹ 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.

Graph View

Backlinks

  • No backlinks found