RU "Knowledgeable" or an ill-informed "Believer"

I love the quote in Ken Robinson's video, attributed to Jeremy Bentham, that "the world can be split in to two groups:  those that split the world in to two groups and those that do not!"

I am in the former group.

I think the world can be split in to two groups:  "The Knowledgeable" and the ill-informed "Believers".

• "The Knowledgeable" are people who "know" what is known, have a good idea of what is not known and are prepared to update their knowledge as new evidence becomes available, whereas
• "The Believers" are people who are not interested in what is currently known because they are convinced that they they know all there is to know already.  They suffer from the "tyranny of dogma", as Ken Robinson calls it.

Take a look at this article on the BBC Future article on the Dunning-Kruger effect entitled 

"The more inept you are the smarter you think you are".  This is essentially the difference between "The Knowledgeable" and "The Believers".  "The Believers" understand so little that they do not have any comprehension of their level of their ignorance - they have no idea what they don't know.

• "The Knowledgeable" are open-minded, whereas
• "The Believers" are close-minded.

• "The Knowledgeable" understand that uncertainty is an inherent part of understanding complex systems and embrace the concept of probability to take in to account the uncertainty, whereas
• "The Believers" see uncertainty as weakness and probably don't understand probability!

• "The Knowledgeable" are curious, which means they care ("curious" and "care" have the same Latin root), whereas
• "The Believers" are not curious, because in their minds they already have the definitive answer.  Does that mean they don't care?

• "The Knowledgeable" are constantly looking for evidence that might disprove their current hypothesis, otherwise known as "the scientific method", whereas
• "The Believers" are constantly looking for anything that will confirm their beliefs, otherwise known as "cognitive bias", in this case confirmation bias.

However, many scientists have also been trapped by "confirmation bias".  Beware.  That is one of the reasons I enjoy teaching.  The students with no pre-conceptions ask the most awkward and innocent questions, usually beginning with "why?".

• "The Knowledgeable" are prepared to be wrong, whereas
• "The Believers" are convinced they are right.

So . . . . do we all have to "know" everything to make a contribution to society?  No, we do not.  None of us can possibly know everything.  What we need to know is when to admit that we don't have the necessary expertise and when to defer to "The Knowledgeable" for expert advice, and "acknowledge" that you understand them.

We then need to accept the judgement of "The Knowledgeable", or put in comparable effort in research and analysis to become equally knowledgeable.

This is especially true in the 21st century when our knowledge-base is expanding so quickly.  As the number of researchers increases exponentially and the technology they use also increases exponentially, mankind will generate more new information and knowledge in the next year than we have created in the whole history of mankind.

Which one are you?

Catching Up With The US

I have just watched a great video by Hans Rosling who uses his Gapminder software to show how wealth and health have evolved around the world since the mid 1800s.  Take a look: The World Converging on the US

It is amazing to see how Europe and the US took off with the industrial revolution and how the Far East is now accelerating to catch up.  What is even more interesting is Hans' assumption that we can all comfortably coexist in the "top right hand corner", with the same level of wealth and health.  However, if we all aspire to that level of consumption, then we need another 4 planets!  There just aren't the resources.

All of these trends are converging, resources are running short and yet we are still relentlessly pursuing growth.  Watch Al Bartlett to find out what 2% growth actually means.  2% means we double our consumption every 35 years (divide 70 by the percentage - simples!).  In the next 20 years we will consume the same volume of natural resources as humankind has consumed in its entire history!

This problem is also compounded by population growth, currently standing at: just under 1.2%  Fortunately this rate is declining, but at this rate the population will still double in approximately 58 years.  So, as David Attenborough says, we need to get the population growth rate to 0.  How do we do that?  Education . . . . . . but that is another story.

Collaborative Learning

Instead of sitting and listening to some grey haired old guy reading out Powerpoint slides, how would you like to attend a course where you create your own technical manual, using collaborative technology.

In the 21st century, technology and the knowledge are changing so fast that it is very difficult to keep up.  Bulky technical manuals are no longer the way to deliver technical content for courses, because almost as soon as they are handed out, they are out of date!  It makes much more sense to use a digital, preferably online resource, and what better way to learn than to create the resource yourself.

The scenario I envisage is a classroom in which we start with a learning agenda but no content.  The first thing we do is create a structured wiki, using something like Google Sites.  Then we set about researching the technical content on the web, discussing it, understanding it, experimenting with it and linking to it.

The key is to find good, reliable sources of online information, and this is where the experience of the grey haired old guy comes in (if he knows how to use a computer).  The Trainer then becomes a facilitator to help trainees filter out the good sources of technical information, understand and discuss the subject, capture the essence of the technical information and make the links to the source.  Let the expert editors of the source maintain the details and keep up to date with the latest developments in their particular field.  Maybe there is some relevant technical information on Wikipedia, but it needs improving.  Now is the time to improve it and in doing so make life easier for everybody else.  Hopefully then we should reap the benefits of other people's shared contributions.

A further benefit is that instead of working as individuals, colleagues could also work together in teams compiling the course wiki, and thereby create a single resource which far exceeds the sum of the parts, and has a life after the course.  We could even start the wiki up before the course and start to capture the key areas which trainees struggle with, so that the discussions can be focussed on those key areas.  Colleagues who are not on the course could also contribute from their desks.

The possibilities are only limited by our imagination and willingness to try something new.

Reality is Broken - Time to Collaborate on a Better Design

One of the most inspiring reads I have had recently is "Reality is Broken" by Jane McGonigal.  This book got me in to the whole concept of "Gamification", the process of making boring things at work more like games and hence more fun.  In particular I am interested in turning day-to-day business systems in to more engaging "gamified" systems which are more fun to do.  Take a few minutes to listen to Jane's potted version on TED.

The amazing thing that caught my eye was that there are more than 11 million World of Warcraft (WoW) players who have collectively played more than 5.93 million years of WoW between them since 1996.  That is around 10,000 hours each, which is about as much time as you spend at school between 6 and 16.  Malcolm Gladwell will tell you that anybody spending 10,000 hours doing anything must be a virtuoso, but a virtuoso at what?

Jane decided to find out with her PhD research.

Her conclusion was that the WoW players were experts at collaboration, namely cooperation, coordination, and co-creation.  These are just the skills we need in my workplace, so why aren't they so common?  Basically because my workplace is not designed to make it easy to be cooperative, coordinated and co-creative.  It is assumed that these things will somehow happen, by virtue of the fact that the building is filled with intelligent people with degrees, and that is what they do . . . . . isn't it?  Ironically, the degree has probably trained us to learn independently and keep things to ourselves - sharing is called cheating in education circles!

This has to change, and it is changing.  And the workplace needs to be better designed!  So lets get on with making the work place work more effectively, and be more engaging and more fun.