Korva is a scroll of the internet’s best ideas.
Real knowledge versus surface knowledge
Deep versus shallow
Real knowledge is flexible and dynamic. Because the topic is truly understood and not just memorized, it can be leveraged in different ways. It is only acquired through hours and hours of working on a specific craft.
Surface knowledge is the opposite: rigid and fixed. It can look the part well enough to pass muster at a cocktail party or ace an easy exam, but it fails under any degree of scrutiny. All it takes is a simple question from the crowd.
Why surface knowledge spreads
There is a big difference between truly knowing something and just sounding smart talking about it, and right now it has never been easier to just sound smart. Social incentives push toward breadth. People are encouraged to have an opinion on everything, and saying "I don't know" or "I don't have a perspective on that" has been collectively frowned upon in almost any social setting.
A lot of the world's problems can be read as second-order effects of people with surface knowledge masquerading as people with real knowledge: policy makers building campaigns around issues they barely understand, financial pundits who seem unaware of historical precedents, and executives who can recite the strategy on a quarterly call but can't explain the mechanics of how it will actually work.
Why does explaining something expose shallow understanding?
Yale psychologists Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil named the illusion of explanatory depth in 2002. They asked people to rate how well they understood things like zippers and flush toilets, then to write out step-by-step explanations. Ratings dropped sharply after the attempt, because people had mistaken familiarity with an object for knowing how it works. The gap showed up most for things that have visible parts and a clear purpose.
What does deep knowledge look like in an expert's head?
Studies of chess players by Herbert Simon and William Chase in 1973 found that masters do not calculate more moves than novices. They recognize thousands of familiar patterns on the board and see meaningful groups of pieces where beginners see scattered ones. Psychologist Anders Ericsson later argued that such pattern libraries are built through years of deliberate practice. That library is what lets an expert handle a position they have never seen before.
Why did Feynman distrust knowing a name for something?
Richard Feynman recalled that his father taught him to see the difference between a name and an understanding. His father pointed to a bird and noted that it has different names in many languages, yet knowing all of them says nothing about what the bird does. Feynman carried the lesson into his teaching and into his own habit of rebuilding ideas from first principles. He described it in his 1985 memoir Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!
More from Curiosity Chronicle
