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 hatersâ are
- 1: First of all, Iâm repulsed, âThat kind of ungrounded thinking is not good.â
- 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 âB 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 donât 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 âpersonality denialâ is
- 1: I have accumulated knowledge in different fields and am confident in it.
- 2: Thereâs no buildup of knowledge A, so âB or C?â Iâm not sure if the argument is âAâ or âBâ, but Iâm not happy with the situation
- 3: So the rebuttal is âthe sender who is descending C is evilâ.
- It is because of envy that envy is against the sender rather than a person of âgrowing awarenessâ who has faith in knowledge by descent.
- The original diagram said âPseudo-intellectual personality denial,â but I initially did not understand the âpseudo-intellectualâ part.
- Unlike the âawareness raisingâ crowd, youâve built up a body of knowledge in other areas, after all.
- After a while, I thought, Afraid to say, âI donât know.â I guess Iâm just as immune to âsome things I donât knowâ as I wrote in Afraid to say, âI donât know.â
- So, even if one has accumulated knowledge in a certain field, one lacks the intellectual training to tackle âwhat one does not know,â 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)ď˝Yoichi Ochiaiď˝note Nishio Hirokazu
-
I feel like Iâm a bit short on abstraction and donât understand it well (probably because I donât know much about the âcase of flamesâ that is the premise of this discussion).
-
I thought A and B were âimplicit assumptions not verbalized by the senderâ on the diagram, and that the story could be misunderstood by those who do not share those assumptions, but I donât 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 âthe most recent case that laymen often sayâ and C is âC (which is often said to be B, but if we develop the thought a little)â, but the people who donât understand what has developed are green, and the people who know that âC! The people who donât understand what has developed are green, and the people in orange who know that âC is C based on Bâ are miffed at the people in purple who are making a fuss about âC! Yoichi Ochiai
-
Thatâs 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 âconscious hatersâ, 1: first they are repulsed by âthat kind of ungrounded thinking is not goodâ, 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 âB and C are not the sameâ.
-
Those on the side of personality denial are 1: confident because of their accumulated knowledge in their different fields; 2: unsure for them, âB or C?â but they are not satisfied with the situation, so 3: they have a reactionary way of saying, âThe sender who is descending from C is evil.
-
Am I understanding this correctly? Yoichi Ochiai
-
Thatâs how I feel. Nishio Hirokazu
-
I thought it was simply âjealousy of those who have influenceâ when people with personality denial hit the sender instead of the âconscious personâ.
-
This would be a perfect example of a D person. src
- I see, I hadnât 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 âknowledge is stacked in a pyramid.â
- You canât help but think âI donât need to tell youâ 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 nuanceâ, but I tried to draw it based on my understanding
Pyramid of Knowledge
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ć°ćŚĺżľăŽäźć 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. Iâm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.