Polanyi’s Paradox
en.wikipedia.org
Polanyi’s Paradox
1–10 of 48 posts
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#2This paradox is pretty well explained by Kahneman’s two systems I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#3Poliany was central to my social science master degree thesis. How do you transfer tacit knowledge across international cultural borders?
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#4I prefer Slavoj Zizek classification into knowns and unknowns.
- Known-Knowns: things we know that we know
- Known-Unknowns: things that we know we don’t know
- Unkown-Unknowns: things we don’t know we don’t know
- Unknown-Knowns: “The things we don’t know that we know-which is precisely, the Freudian unconscious, the “knowledge which doesn’t know itself,” as Lacan used to say. “. This is better known as culture.
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#5Next time someone asks me how does a modern artificial neural network really work - I'll just ask them "how do you know that my face does indeed look like mine?". Or "how do you recognize people by their voices?". Or this creepy one: "can you consciously stop decoding the English I'm speaking now?". This Wikipedia page can serve as an extension of the argument.
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#6> activities based on tacit knowledge include recognizing a face, driving a car, riding a bike
As far as I know, there are different classes of tacit knowledge here:
Driving a car, riding a bike etc are learned behaviour, recent in evolutionary time, and might also in a few generations not commonly learned any more, as e.g. riding a horse is uncommon now.
But recognising a face (or not being good at it) is innate in human brain structure, and not recent in evolutionary time.
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#7I prefer Slavoj Zizek classification into knowns and unknowns. - Known-Knowns: things we know that we know - Known-Unknowns: things that we know we don’t know - Unkown-Unknowns: things we don’t know we don’t know - Unknown-Knowns: “The things we don’t know that we know-which is precisely, the Freudian unconscious, the “knowledge which doesn’t know itself,” as Lacan used to say. “. This is better known as culture.
Polanyi's paradox isn't an alternative to that classification — rather, it explicitly states that a surprisingly large amount of knowledge falls into the "unknown knowns" classification, in areas that defy your "this is better known as culture" description.
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#8Next time someone asks me how does a modern artificial neural network really work - I'll just ask them "how do you know that my face does indeed look like mine?". Or "how do you recognize people by their voices?". Or this creepy one: "can you consciously stop decoding the English I'm speaking now?". This Wikipedia page can serve as an extension of the argument.
Those are all great to think about but seem rather lacking as an answer to the question.
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#9I prefer Slavoj Zizek classification into knowns and unknowns. - Known-Knowns: things we know that we know - Known-Unknowns: things that we know we don’t know - Unkown-Unknowns: things we don’t know we don’t know - Unknown-Knowns: “The things we don’t know that we know-which is precisely, the Freudian unconscious, the “knowledge which doesn’t know itself,” as Lacan used to say. “. This is better known as culture.
Is that Slavoj Zizek? I thought it was Johari.
Re: Polanyi’s Paradox
#10This paradox is pretty well explained by Kahneman’s two systems I think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
Those seem to be categories of action, rather than knowledge. Many of the examples of both types depend on tacit knowledge, and are distinguished by type 2 requiring some explicit mental intervention to initiate or sustain (e.g. sustain a higher than normal walking rate.)