TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Tacit knowledge is more important than deliberate practice

344 点作者 shadowsun7将近 5 年前

51 条评论

travisjungroth将近 5 年前
I figured out something very similar in flight school. When I did my instrument rating, I realized my instructor, Sean, wasn’t perfect. No pilot is. But, I believed he could pass an instrument check ride. I could not.<p>I decided that rather than figure out if everything he did was the best way or “worked for me”, I would just do my best Sean impression. I still had the opportunity to get even better by learning from other instructors or coming up with my own ideas. That could wait until after I got my rating.<p>He actually noticed. At the beginning of an early lesson he showed me his check routine during taxi. He flowed through all of the instruments and controls. The next flight, I did my best impression. It wasn’t perfect, but it was close. When I was done he told me no student had ever gone through the whole thing the next flight. Most don’t even try. Even the better students just grab a few things and end up with a routine close to his by the end of training.<p>It all ended up working. I passed my check ride with just about the legal minimum amount of training time.<p>Writing this all out and talking about what a great student I was feels pretty egotistical. Ironically, that’s the opposite of what this method is about. Just copy the closest person next to you who is better than you. They don’t even have to be that great. Then, find someone better, and copy them. Save breaking new ground for later in your journey.
评论 #23484561 未加载
评论 #23483058 未加载
评论 #23485562 未加载
评论 #23484368 未加载
评论 #23481185 未加载
Wistar将近 5 年前
Wow. I have never really given this subject much thought.<p>In thinking about it, it seems an important part of teaching tacit knowledge is to establish, or cause, conditions that encourage the learning — the experiencing — of the specific things you want to teach.<p>Thinking back, I realize my own example of successfully teaching tacit knowledge was when I taught my son the first part of how to drive a car with a manual transmission: getting the car moving without killing the engine or burning up the clutch. I took him to a large level area, a huge parking lot, and told him he can do whatever he wants as long as he never touches the throttle. It only took a couple of hours before he had mastered knowing exactly how to modulate the clutch &quot;bite&quot; so that he could get the car moving without stalling, even with the engine at idle. That the car was an older Toyota Corolla with very little torque only helped him better master the finesse required to release the clutch exactly as needed.<p>We then moved on to modulating the throttle and clutch together, shifting, starting out on hills and all that but, by then, he already knew how to deal with the dark art of the clutch.
评论 #23480885 未加载
lifeisstillgood将近 5 年前
&gt;&gt;&gt; He gave me a long explanation about software engineering principles. I waved him away and asked how he did it in five seconds. He said “Well, it just felt right. Ok, let’s go to lunch, you can fix it afterwards.”<p>Yes. I do a lot of coding on feel, and just today was explaining why something could be done one of two ways but one was better. It took about 30 seconds for my concious brain to work out why it was, even though my unconcious brain knew it straight away.<p>Weird. Try getting that in an expert system (which might be why they never took off).<p>And of course try getting that into a CDN without equivalent of twenty years practise.<p>How do we label good and bad business decisions? Every day?<p>(side note: actually this is a serious thing I am hoping to work on next year. I think the next big stage of human computer work is computer coaching or feedback on our behaviour. Easy things like our spending habits but heading towards coaching on interpersonal actions - could we for example film a great manager day in day out and identify their activities - and then get them to label the actions - who they spoke to who they encourage why they took that negotiating stance. Do it enough times and you have a real training base.)
评论 #23484599 未加载
评论 #23481340 未加载
xrd将近 5 年前
So many amazing thoughts in this article that apply to the world of software engineering.<p>If tacit knowledge is as important as the author makes out, then hiring &quot;young guns&quot; is always going to have a cost over hiring people that have done it before. As an older developer, that&#x27;s interesting to me. A contrary point, however, is that maybe all businesses are new domains of exploration, so you might as well pay the cheapest person to develop your domain specific tacit knowledge.<p>If tacit knowledge is not something you can get by reading, then training and mentoring is much better (dare I say vital!) than documenting it all in a wiki, or just making sure everything is done asynchronously in a well written pull request.<p>If tacit knowledge is that important, then getting it is a privilege. If you are in a position where you can be paid to develop those skills and don&#x27;t just have to read up in the evenings after your kids have gone to bed. Many people don&#x27;t have that privilege but the software industry prides itself partially on the idea that you just have to self teach yourself; if you aren&#x27;t doing that, you won&#x27;t be successful in your job. Tacit knowledge is not that.
评论 #23478938 未加载
评论 #23482074 未加载
评论 #23483867 未加载
omarhaneef将近 5 年前
It seems we rediscover Gilbert Ryle&#x27;s knowing-how vs knowing-that distinction every few years.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gilbert_Ryle" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gilbert_Ryle</a> or if you are so inclined<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;knowledge-how&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plato.stanford.edu&#x2F;entries&#x2F;knowledge-how&#x2F;</a><p>Note: if you have a computer and it can be &quot;told&quot; once and forever remember it, then converting know-that into know-how by teaching it 100s of if-then rules was, at one point, considered a worthy research program.
评论 #23482379 未加载
bwestergard将近 5 年前
If, in a mood of theoretical reflection, you make articulation in written or spoken language the criterion for &quot;knowledge&quot;, it comes as a disappointment to think of all of the cases where we speak of someone knowing something (e.g. how to ride a bike) even though they are unable to train someone to do so entirely verbally (e.g. by written instruction, or over the phone).<p>But adding the epicycles of &quot;tacit knowledge&quot; and &quot;rules followed unconsciously&quot; clarifies nothing. The mistake was in the overly restrictive definition of &quot;knowledge&quot;.<p>I&#x27;ve surveyed some of the critiques of the &quot;tacit knowledge&quot; concept in this article:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ieeexplore.ieee.org&#x2F;stamp&#x2F;stamp.jsp?arnumber=8267598" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ieeexplore.ieee.org&#x2F;stamp&#x2F;stamp.jsp?arnumber=8267598</a>
评论 #23478018 未加载
评论 #23477431 未加载
评论 #23480116 未加载
dragonwriter将近 5 年前
Misleading title: the thesis is more accurately “Tacit knowledge is why NDM methods are more useful than deliberate practice”.<p>It also doesn&#x27;t actually do much to explain that thesis, dismissing delivered practice with the quick an for shallowly-addressed claim that it only works in field with established pedagogy, which may be the case, but most of the fields that it dismisses deliberate practice for on this basis have established pedagogy (with, sure, some pedagogical controversies, but that&#x27;s true if the field that it acknowledges have the requisite established pedagogy for deliberate practice, too, so it&#x27;s not at all clear what, if anything, the distinction being drawn is), and doesn&#x27;t actually do much to establish that NDM methods are particularly useful for developing tacit knowledge. Basically, the piece is an extended discussion of the idea of tacit knowledge, with the whole primary argument, to which most of the piece is only tangentially relevant, rushed through at the end as if it were an afterthought.
评论 #23480464 未加载
scott_s将近 5 年前
Teaching college students how to program my first year of grad school, I realized that it&#x27;s not possible to <i>make</i> someone understand something. In a real sense, I could not <i>teach</i> them to program. Learning how to program is learning a new way of thinking, and there was no way I could force them to start thinking in this way. I was more trying to guide them to have many personal epiphanies - through a combination of socratic method style questions and giving them specific actions to try with the hope it would improve their mental model.
评论 #23481731 未加载
TopHand将近 5 年前
Tacit knowledge is what I&#x27;ve always thought of as &quot;intuitive feel&quot;. As you grow in experience in a field, you start getting this feel for what will work and what won&#x27;t work. This can be a great advantage, or a great disavantage. I had occasion to work with a fairly bright scientist. He said the reason that most great discoveries were made by relatively young people is because they hadn&#x27;t developed these prejudices yet, so were unaware that it wasn&#x27;t suppose to work this way.
aardvarks将近 5 年前
Nice article! I guess it&#x27;s obvious in retrospect, but I hadn&#x27;t known of all the systematized study devoted to this topic. I&#x27;m happy to learn about it because I&#x27;ve found myself thinking about effective teaching and learning pretty often (I&#x27;m an academic), and what to do about &quot;the stuff where, when you try to explain it concretely to someone else, your explanation doesn&#x27;t really make sense unless the other person already knows what you&#x27;re talking about&quot;.<p>In subjects I&#x27;ve tried to learn and teach, my experience is that talking to someone with a lot of such knowledge really only gives you an idea of the sub-topics and considerations you should try to understand better on your own. It is helpful in narrowing down what you should prioritize and maybe giving you a useful point of view to organize your thoughts from, but that doesn&#x27;t save you from doing the thinking and understanding for yourself.<p>I agree that emulation helps somewhat by forcing you to make choices that are reasonable even if, as a beginner, you lack the knowledge to choose wisely yourself. But if the ultimate goal is to come up with new ideas using the knowledge, I think there&#x27;s such a thing as too much emulation. You don&#x27;t want to become a carbon copy of your mentor either.<p>I agree that deliberate practice and acquiring tacit knowledge are not the same thing. To me, deliberate practice is about repeating a certain activity -- one that you typically <i>can</i> describe in words to someone who doesn&#x27;t already know it -- enough times that it&#x27;s available to you as a tool, eg playing scales as a musician, times tables in elementary school math. Tacit knowledge has more to do with how you decide to apply those skills to best effect.<p>But my experience has been that they have kind of a symbiotic relationship. If you didn&#x27;t have some tacit knowledge to begin with, you wouldn&#x27;t know what to practice, or when you had practiced enough to be good. At the same time, it may not be possible to acquire enough tacit knowledge to become an expert if you don&#x27;t have an immediate command of certain skills developed through deliberate practice. I.e. there&#x27;s feedback -- more tacit knowledge should make your deliberate practice more effective, and better skills make it easier for you to acquire tacit knowledge.
woodandsteel将近 5 年前
The reason tacit knowledge exists and is essential is because the brain is immensely complex, and most of what it does is outside consciousness.<p>To take just one well-studied example, in vision photons hit visual receptors in the retina, and then go through the optic nerve which is a complex computer that analyses the signals in stages, like picking out points, then lines, then shapes, and so on, and then it is sent to several different visual areas of the brain, each of which pulls out different features, like motion, colors, 3d shapes, faces, and emotional expressions, and then finally it arrives in consciousness. Something similar is true for every other sensation, and how they are integrated to give us our perception and understanding of the world.<p>As a consequence, children from birth learn all sorts of things without explicit instruction and often even much focal thought, include the great majority of the rules of language itself.<p>All of this is subjectively experienced as a sort of feel or intuition. It is described by philosophers such as Michael Polanyi and various phenomenologists. I studied with one of them, Eugene Gendlin, who developed a method called experiential focusing for helping people make use of their tacit knowledge (he called it felt meaning). You might want to take a look at his book Focusing.<p>One more point. The idea that all knowledge can be clearly explicated is an example of the denial of human finitudes that is common in much of Western philosophy, but that are affirmed by other schools Western philosophy, such as pragmatism, existential-phenomenology, and post-Wittgensteinian analytic philosophy.
hailwren将近 5 年前
This is interesting. Wittgenstein argues that this idea of &#x27;tacit knowledge&#x27; has no meaning. What the article describes is practice.<p>&#x27;My point is that their explanations would not lead me to the same ability that they had.&#x27; is a very Wittgensteinian thing to say. See i.e. the parable of the wayward pupil in the Investigations on what role understanding&#x2F;practice even play in the context of a statement like &#x27;would not lead me to the same ability that they had&#x27;<p>&#x27;But the more I pushed, the more exceptions and caveats and potential gotchas I unearthed.&#x27; W argues that this is a result of our concept of what it means to understand. Can you name an idea where this doesn&#x27;t hold? W uses a great example of your knowledge of the Natural Numbers. Just because you hadn&#x27;t thought of the number 10324 beforehand, does that mean your knowledge didn&#x27;t encompass it? Before you attempt to foist the problem onto mathematical logic (it doesn&#x27;t work, but the answers become longer than an HN comment) consider your concept of the color &#x27;red&#x27;. What shape is it? Did you a prior have in your mind the shape of red? Is there a color that I could show you which you might consider red and someone else would not?<p>The core problem is this idea that &#x27;explanations&#x27; in the source are implicitly able to be fully specified or that any knowledge exists without practice. See i.e. W&#x27;s theory of language for a mind blowing explanation.<p>I think the real question I would pose to the author is, what knowledge do you think qualifies as &#x27;explicit&#x27;? I think you will find your answers supremely unsatisfying. If you don&#x27;t, try Kripke&#x27;s &#x27;Wittgenstein&#x27;s Paradox&#x27; and Goldfarb&#x27;s (admittedly much more dense) &#x27;Rule Following&#x27;
Alex3917将近 5 年前
&gt; Tacit knowledge is knowledge that cannot be captured through words alone.<p>This definition is slightly wrong. Tacit knowledge can&#x27;t be described in words alone, but it can be captured through words alone.<p>One of the reasons we built FWD:Everyone (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fwdeveryone.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fwdeveryone.com</a>) was to capture the tacit knowledge contained within email conversations. When you can see the entire conversation, you learn how people interact with one another and you can learn to model your own communication based off of that. That knowledge isn&#x27;t contained in any individual sentence, paragraph, or message, but rather as an emergent property that&#x27;s only apparent in the context of an entire conversation or many conversations.<p>There is a ton of value in this that can never be captured in a wiki, for example.
评论 #23482543 未加载
quickthrower2将近 5 年前
Been waiting ages for literally anything posted on commoncog.com to get traction on HN, because it&#x27;s all interesting deep writing about meta-human issues, useful for &quot;us lot&quot; and invokes good discussion.<p>When I see a new post from commoncog, I don&#x27;t read it right away. I think &quot;right need to carve out half hour of quiet uniterrupted time for that later&quot;.<p>It&#x27;s one of the few I have on my mobile phone RSS reader, the others being quanta magazine, and another interesting blog I found through HN.<p>So that&#x27;s my praise, I recommend you add it to your readers too :-)
tener将近 5 年前
We have neural networks in our brains which for some reason cannot be trained without practice in real world. No amount of reading about riding will train those real-time feedback loops that operate on much lower latencies then you can formulate conscious thoughts.<p>This is a limitation of our brains and not fundamental property of knowledge or information.<p>In AI neural networks which can ride bikes or recognize objects are easily introspected and copied. In humans this isn&#x27;t implemented ;)
评论 #23484324 未加载
knightofmars将近 5 年前
I believe this is how you learn:<p>* I watch you do it. * You watch me do it. * Then I do it.<p>I have to watch someone else undertake a task to understand it. After, I attempt to undertake the task and receive feedback from the individual whom I watched first. Then after I&#x27;ve gathered the knowledge I can do the task. The context I learned about this approach was when I learned to use a chainsaw. But it has served me extremely well in both learning and teaching other topics over the years.
ncfausti将近 5 年前
Does anyone know of a service or website that matches mentors with apprentices?<p>I know there is <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.apprenticeship.gov&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.apprenticeship.gov&#x2F;</a> but I am thinking something more informal and online, e.g. a marketplace where you can match and pay $X&#x2F;30 min. of quick and focused Q&amp;A.
评论 #23479452 未加载
sojournerc将近 5 年前
&gt;&gt; The process of learning tacit knowledge looks something like the following: you find a master, you work under them for a few years, and you learn the ropes through emulation, feedback, and osmosis — not through deliberate practice.<p>I feel fortunate to have stumbled into an organization where this was the case as a junior engineer. The company wasn&#x27;t ever wildly successful, but I feel lucky to have worked with very smart people when I was very green, and couldn&#x27;t make heads or tails anything.<p>Patience was certainly needed on their part I&#x27;m sure, and such frustration is likely what leads people to become pedagogical at times.
JamesLeonis将近 5 年前
As a bit of a thought experiment; would Simulation be the closest we have towards &quot;Transmissionism&quot;? I&#x27;m not arguing that it is or isn&#x27;t, but whether we can approach those non-verbal and tacit knowledge as encoded through programs and data?<p>To throw out an easy counter-argument, we could say that Simulation&#x2F;Programming is like comparing Words to an Image, aka nothing of the sort. Additionally, there is the difference between Simulation and Reality, where simulation simplifies or glosses over many elements of reality. Looking up the definition indicates that Passivity seems to be the key, and simulations are anything but passive.<p>To give a concrete example of what I mean, in my early career I worked at a defense contractor building a training simulator for a weapons platform. The training was to mimic the same training on a gun range. Soldiers were graded by the simulation as if it were the instructor with a sharp eye and a stopwatch. It tested everything from how long you held the trigger (at least three seconds), how you swiveled your head to scan for targets, identifying targets and relaying them to your vehicle commander, etc.<p>I would argue that it goes beyond Transmissionism, as it now corresponds far more to an actual reality than mere metaphors and words. However it does make me wonder where the line might be, if it even exists.
memexy将近 5 年前
In high school physics class there was one kid that seemed to be really good so one day I asked him what his trick was and he said, &quot;I just pretend I&#x27;m the teacher&quot;. I thought that was a really clever trick. During class he was figuring out ways of how to copy the teacher and it seemed to work. He would consistently get top marks on tests. He was accumulating tacit knowledge whereas everyone else was copying formulas and drilling problem sets.
unixhero将近 5 年前
I wrote my master&#x27;s degree on innovation management. Tacit knowledge was termed by Michael Polyani and Nonaka and exploded this sub genre of knowledge management and innovation management. I recommend reading their seminal papers.<p>But it&#x27;s all down to the type of knowledge involved in skills you have acquired such as biking or walking, and things where you can extoll an intuition versus explicit knowledge such as a pizza baking recipe.
rramadass将近 5 年前
This is actually how knowledge was transmitted traditionally. As an apprentice&#x2F;student you just copied the master who would steer&#x2F;nudge you in the right direction occasionally. Otherwise you just did the activities blindly until slowly you self-regulated and moved onto deliberate practice stage. This can be most clearly seen in the study of martial arts. Musashi called it <i>Heiho&#x2F;Hyoho</i> in his <i>A book of five rings</i>.<p>I believe the key here is to focus learning on the overall activity (i.e. systems view) rather than the constituent individual pieces. Focusing on the latter just overwhelms you with too much detail leading to doubt and confusion. For example, in Software Development, if you try to focus on every single aspect like Correctness, Error handling, Generalization, Optimization etc. in the beginning you simply will never get anything done. Instead focus on just getting &quot;a program&quot; done using whatever knowledge you have. Once that is ready, then modify it deliberately for meeting all your other criteria.
ericmcer将近 5 年前
This is why language&#x2F;framework design is so interesting. After enough time spent with one a developer will be running off tacit knowledge.<p>Extending&#x2F;patching that doesn’t fit in with tacit knowledge is also dangerous. React has done a great job of that, it looks much different than a few years ago, but the changed behaviors never felt “wrong” internally.
TehShrike将近 5 年前
When I finally learned how to ride a bike, I was annoyed that nobody had told me &quot;to keep the bike balanced, if you start to fall to one side, turn the steering wheel in that direction&quot;.<p>---<p>It&#x27;s a good exercise to frequently try to verbalize your tacit knowledge. The alternative is to constantly be appealing to your own authority.<p>Lots of people have faulty tacit knowledge.
评论 #23478680 未加载
ploubus将近 5 年前
Michael Polanyi&#x27;s &quot;The Tacit Dimension&quot; is a good starting point on the concept.
obvthrowaway2将近 5 年前
Tacit knowledge sounds like an untestable phenomenon, and simply lacking the words to describe certain neuromotor techniques doesn&#x27;t mean that it cannot be communicated explicitly in theory. Perhaps in the future we&#x27;ll have a way to stimulate the brain in exactly the right way in order to communicate how to keep your balance on (aka &quot;ride&quot;) a bike.<p>Furthermore, articles that downplay the importance of practice, to me, seem like a bad idea. In my experience, people who claim a high level of general comprehension (but not technical) tend to lack the ability to implement any facet of their &quot;tacit knowledge&quot; at even a basic level.
phkahler将近 5 年前
Dear bloggers. I hate it when you spend several paragraphs explaining your personal reasons for wanting to write about a topic, particularly when those reasons have nothing to do with the topic at hand.<p>Don&#x27;t talk about it, be about it.
评论 #23480565 未加载
__tg__将近 5 年前
A long time ago in a philosophy of math class, our professor offered this problem: upon hatching chicks have to be separated by sex. Experienced poultry farmers know how to tell them apart from feel but it&#x27;s not a process they can describe. The problem then was: how would they teach it to a new hire? The solution offered was that they have the rookie hold the chick in their hands and guess while the experienced farmer corrects them. This was a great example of how tacit knowledge is acquired.
elchief将近 5 年前
And explicit knowledge (that you can explain to others) is more important than tacit knowledge, if you&#x27;re trying to coach or teach someone<p>Isiah Thomas was one of the best of all time, but was a disaster as a coach <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sbnation.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;5&#x2F;5&#x2F;8553115&#x2F;isiah-thomas-new-york-liberty-knicks-raptors-pacers-cba-fiu" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sbnation.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;5&#x2F;5&#x2F;8553115&#x2F;isiah-thomas-new-y...</a>
评论 #23482214 未加载
评论 #23482307 未加载
评论 #23482170 未加载
emmanueloga_将近 5 年前
&quot;When I pushed these people on their judgments, they would try to explain in terms of principles or heuristics. But the more I pushed, the more exceptions and caveats and potential gotchas I unearthed.&quot;<p>It is a popular believe that being an expert on something doesn&#x27;t mean you will be an expert on teaching that thing, but in this case it could also be that any number of implementations was possible, and the seniors had more clout or were more pushy.
评论 #23482377 未加载
dorkwood将近 5 年前
It seems as if I&#x27;ve been using a different definition of deliberate practice to the author. They seem to imply that deliberate practice requires a regimented study program, but I&#x27;ve always seen it as &quot;identify the things you are weak at and drill those things, rather than repeating tasks you are already comfortable with&quot;. Is there a name for the type of practice I&#x27;ve been doing?
评论 #23478529 未加载
hugozap将近 5 年前
I believe deliberate practice can work in the same direction if the practitioner is aware of the fact that there will be huge gaps in the knowledge acquired through practice.<p>I like the idea of discarding the results of exploratory processes that GeePaw Hill elaborates very well. It removes the incentive of trying to reuse artifacts that were created &quot;while learning&quot; and just bring back the lessons learned.
ChrisMarshallNY将近 5 年前
Most of my software design is &quot;wordless.&quot; Part of it is because I have a brain that is wired a bit &quot;funny.&quot; I&#x27;m sort of &quot;on the spectrum,&quot; and get into a &quot;fugue&quot; when I code.<p>In fact, after coming out of the &quot;fugue,&quot; I can have trouble with verbal articulation.<p>But when I am in the &quot;fugue,&quot; I can actually design a pretty intense system, without writing down a thing.
atdixon将近 5 年前
One very helpful thing to understand wrt this idea of &quot;tacit knowledge&quot; especially in terms of understanding and managing personal relationships...<p>You or someone you know may very well become aware of (i.e., _come to know_) what are your personal defects (insecurities, unproductive behavioral predispositions, etc) -- but this is in no way _at all_ means that you will be able to _change_.
darkerside将近 5 年前
The John Boyd example is super interesting. My understanding is that he essentially built a framework for thinking about dogfighting, the OODA loop. Very similar to how the author put kids on tiny bicycles. You can&#x27;t tell someone what to think, but you can _design a system_ that makes it so that they think about the right thing at the right time.
评论 #23483051 未加载
inanutshellus将近 5 年前
“For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them.”<p>― Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.goodreads.com&#x2F;quotes&#x2F;4184-for-the-things-we-have-to-learn-before-we-can" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.goodreads.com&#x2F;quotes&#x2F;4184-for-the-things-we-have...</a>
roywiggins将近 5 年前
This is why every attempt to &quot;systematize all human knowledge&quot; cannot succeed.
评论 #23482364 未加载
durmonski将近 5 年前
Amazing post! I didn&#x27;t know such type of knowledge existed. Eager to learn more.
leoc将近 5 年前
See <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;user&#x2F;troygrady" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;user&#x2F;troygrady</a> . Troy Grady is an extremely successful externaliser of tacit knowledge.
thisisbrians将近 5 年前
I kinda think he&#x27;s talking about intuition. It&#x27;s the non-verbal understanding that underpins mastery in any domain. If deliberate practice is the means, then tacit knowledge is the end.
评论 #23483081 未加载
product1087将近 5 年前
&gt; “Because we want to use it as a database layer. Quite risky ah.”<p>Singapore represent!
lihaciudaniel将近 5 年前
I&#x27;m agreeing with the idea of the article, but I believe that Tacit knowledge which can&#x27;t be attained with practice would call Talent or In-born gifts. For example, no matter how much chess I&#x27;ll play and deliberately practice for 20 years I can&#x27;t beat Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov etc.. since they are talented (Tacit knowledge) that doesn&#x27;t mean they can&#x27;t open their talent through books like &quot;Bobby Fischer teaches Chess&quot; or books about chess by Karpov (but who would do that during matches of chess). Deliberate Practice is the best way and most fast method for acquiring a skill
keeptrying将近 5 年前
Deliberate Practice leads to Tacit Knowledge.<p>Or rather the former trains the acquisition of the latter.
Shugarl将近 5 年前
Is having a mentor necessary ? Can&#x27;t it be gained in other ways ?
jvanderbot将近 5 年前
Deliberate practice builds tacit knowledge. Uninformative article.
评论 #23479838 未加载
nednar将近 5 年前
Tacit knowledge is the result of deliberate practice.
wellpast将近 5 年前
Isn’t there already a long philosophical analysis of this phenomenon — know-how vs know-what?
sebwi将近 5 年前
In general, I agree with the notion that tacit knowledge is often more important than explicit knowledge - and that it may actually be the very essence of human expertise. However, it seems the author mixes some things up.<p>First of all, deliberate practice rests to a high degree on a) pre-existing knowledge on the structure of acquiring a skill and b) an established feedback standard that allows to evaluate your performance. These are obviously crucial aspects. If you don&#x27;t know what characterizes expertise and if you don&#x27;t know why you&#x27;re not doing well - then it&#x27;s difficult to make actual measurable progress. That said, it doesn&#x27;t mean you can&#x27;t become an expert at all in a field that does not have those elements currently available. It may just be that you need to put more effort into doing it, seek a mentor known for relevant skills or develop feedback mechanisms to evaluate your performance [1].<p>Thus, I don&#x27;t think the distinction made between tacit knowledge and deliberate practice is really helpful. From my understanding, the concepts of &quot;tacit knowledge&quot; and of &quot;deliberative practice&quot; operate on two different levels. Tacit knowledge (or originally tacit knowing) refers to the implicit character of some knowledge. Its counterpart is explicit aka codified knowledge. Conflating deliberative practice with (the acquisition of) explicit knowledge seems counterproductive to me. It seems to me that the author wants to argue that deliberative practice only contributes to explicit knowledge.<p>I get that explicit knowledge may be needed to create learning environments (and gained before through codification of tacit knowledge) that respond well to the principles of deliberate practice. From my reading of Ericsson that does not mean, however, that deliberate practice only works to build up codified knowledge. Tacit knowledge is in itself a vague concept that is hard to grasp. I wouldn&#x27;t be confident to assert that building up tacit knowledge happens without building up codified knowledge. Maybe someone knows more about that?<p>Another aspect of the article that concerns me represents the part about the acquisition of knowledge and expert systems. There seems to be another conflation of concepts. It is referred to Klein who (in reference to humans) warns about the overreliance on fixed procedures for decision-making. I agree with that but nevertheless I&#x27;m having a hard time with the argument in the article&#x27;s context. For me this seems to be more of an argument about having a human making a decision than about the superiority of tacit knowledge over deliberative practice or even codified knowledge applied by a human. I get it, humans can build up tacit knowledge and therefore have an advantage over expert systems in previously unknown situations ... I just don&#x27;t get the relevance for human acquisition of knowledge here which the article wants to be about.<p>A similar issue I have with the argument about the scope of deliberative practice and NDM as better alternative. Now I have to say I heard about the term NDM for the first time today (and I&#x27;m glad I got introduced, thanks!) but from what&#x27;s written down in the article, it doesn&#x27;t really seem to be in conflict with - or even that much qualitatively different compared to - deliberative practice: &quot;you find a master, you work under them for a few years, and you learn the ropes through emulation, feedback, and osmosis&quot;. This seems to be possible under the concept of deliberate practice as well.<p>To get a better understanding, I&#x27;ve read another article from the same author [2] but I&#x27;m a bit confused. In the end, NDM just seems to offer more concrete procedures to acquire effective and adaptable mental models (in terms of deliberative practice) that help you to make better decisions. But that can&#x27;t be the catch of NDM, is it?<p>[1] I&#x27;m currently reading Ericsson&#x27;s book &quot;Peak&quot; and he mentions the Top Gun academy of the US Air Force as an example for the possibility to develop a &quot;deliberative practice&quot;-like environment.The program was designed to enhance figher pilots&#x27; performance by having those pilots surviving the initial air fights in Vietnam to become teachers to new pilots. Establishment of good practices took place through the constant exposure of the teachers to new recruits and constant training on usual fight situations.<p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;commoncog.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;putting-mental-models-to-practice-part-5-skill-extraction&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;commoncog.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;putting-mental-models-to-practice...</a>
评论 #23484743 未加载
评论 #23487257 未加载
cambalache将近 5 年前
Blog posts are like youtube videos, you have to skip the first 30% to see the &quot;actual&quot; start.
troughway将近 5 年前
&gt;[...] every time I touch on the topic of tacit knowledge, inevitably someone will pop up on Twitter or Hacker News or Reddit or email and protest that [...]<p>One of these is not like the others.
Kednicma将近 5 年前
Tacit knowledge is the lowest rung of understanding. It&#x27;s the understanding that cats and dogs form, unable to talk but able to listen and consider. The main difficulty is that, because one cannot express tacit knowledge, one cannot reform or improve it.<p>Part of why operationalization is so important in the hard sciences is because it gives us access to otherwise-inacessible things, including tacit knowledge. The only knowledge that is tacit for the typical person is the knowledge of how to move muscles. For example, to whistle, the tacit portion is the pursing of the lips, but the rest of it is music theory which can be communicated and taught using language.
评论 #23478481 未加载
评论 #23477717 未加载
评论 #23477729 未加载
评论 #23477577 未加载
评论 #23477624 未加载