sharp observations, wild guesses et cetera
Jump to navigationPKM and "cues to knowledge"
I like the term that Heiko brought up: Pieces of information can (only?) be "cues to knowledge" which means they give us hints to the knowledge in our head. Reminder notes are an obvious example. Or old family pictures. You might see any information under that perspective.
What I consider interesting about this view:
Depending on how information is used - in a more PKM or more OKM way - it may be either very rough and undetailed and personally understandable only or has to be exact, understandable, reconstruable, detailed, complete...
In my personal notebook I can draw rough sketches with abbreviations and short notes. Writing the same idea into a weblog and thus aiming at a larger public I will want to chose my words carefully, write complete sentences and in english language, provide links for further information and so on.
I get to a dimension like this:
Which leads to very soft borders between KM for individuals, small and large groups of people.
(Writing notes to myself that I might only read two years later makes the "later me" show up somewhere between "me now" and people I know well.)
We can map this to language used or way of thinking (which is about the same to me). With language I mean: A set of symbols that denounce (?) meaning. Examples: Colors in area maps, special words, abbreviations, insider jokes, names, shapes of traffic signs, words at all...
A language can be used by one person only (ex: my own markup signs for note taking), by a small group of people (ex: experts for a small field, group of friends) or a larger group of people (ex: chinese people, skat players).
Seems like there are other dimensions behind the one above... like these:
"Shortness is possible" results from
- usage of special codes (that both sender and recipient understand) --> same language
- shared context (between sender and recipient) --> not neccessary to explicate it
- trust / shared values (between sender and recipient) --> little amount of defense/justification neccessary
?
Well I think I should think about that further but I blog this unfinished thing now so I hopefully get some feedback. ;-)
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
What I consider interesting about this view:
Depending on how information is used - in a more PKM or more OKM way - it may be either very rough and undetailed and personally understandable only or has to be exact, understandable, reconstruable, detailed, complete...
In my personal notebook I can draw rough sketches with abbreviations and short notes. Writing the same idea into a weblog and thus aiming at a larger public I will want to chose my words carefully, write complete sentences and in english language, provide links for further information and so on.
I get to a dimension like this:
Which leads to very soft borders between KM for individuals, small and large groups of people.
(Writing notes to myself that I might only read two years later makes the "later me" show up somewhere between "me now" and people I know well.)
We can map this to language used or way of thinking (which is about the same to me). With language I mean: A set of symbols that denounce (?) meaning. Examples: Colors in area maps, special words, abbreviations, insider jokes, names, shapes of traffic signs, words at all...
A language can be used by one person only (ex: my own markup signs for note taking), by a small group of people (ex: experts for a small field, group of friends) or a larger group of people (ex: chinese people, skat players).
Seems like there are other dimensions behind the one above... like these:
"Shortness is possible" results from
- usage of special codes (that both sender and recipient understand) --> same language
- shared context (between sender and recipient) --> not neccessary to explicate it
- trust / shared values (between sender and recipient) --> little amount of defense/justification neccessary
?
Well I think I should think about that further but I blog this unfinished thing now so I hopefully get some feedback. ;-)
Comments
Matthias Melcher wrote:
I linked to your very plausible analysis.
01/15/05 2005 14:10:10
Lloyd Davis wrote:
I think what's important here is recognising that we're always dealing with assumptions about how other people will understand what we're saying in exactly the way we intended them to when we said it. I think that I narrow down the chance of you misunderstanding or misinterpreting what I've said by using clear and correct language, but I may be wrong. Indeed, it's important for me to recognise that I'm not the only one who decides what it is that I've said - only what I intended to say.
The other interesting dimension for me is time. You've noted in your diagram that you may come back to something with different eyes after a period of time. Of course, so does everyone else in your diagram - and the time (or amount of contextual information) needed for someone to move from being new to a topic towards knowing the topic well is dependent on their personal knowledge as well as the complexity of the topic itself. Aaaaargh, my brain hurts. Thank you!
The other interesting dimension for me is time. You've noted in your diagram that you may come back to something with different eyes after a period of time. Of course, so does everyone else in your diagram - and the time (or amount of contextual information) needed for someone to move from being new to a topic towards knowing the topic well is dependent on their personal knowledge as well as the complexity of the topic itself. Aaaaargh, my brain hurts. Thank you!
01/16/05 2005 20:08:44
magdalena wrote:
Hello Lloyd,
I intended to say that "clear and correct language" differs from person to person. Something that is understandable and logical to you may sound cloudy and strange to someone who is "far away from you in communication space". I think it might help
- going into detail, telling examples,
- using words consistently,
- saying the same thing all over again in different ways
- ?
> Aaaaargh, my brain hurts. Thank you!
;-)))
I think we could dare reducing complexity here by using the metaphor of "distance in communication space". People who are close there
- use similar words
- and concepts
- know same people / info sources
- tend to use same means of communication
- share similar values
- and interests.
(I made this up but probably someone else did it before. Glad for hints.)
See also: http://www.25uhr.de/weblog/... (german).
I intended to say that "clear and correct language" differs from person to person. Something that is understandable and logical to you may sound cloudy and strange to someone who is "far away from you in communication space". I think it might help
- going into detail, telling examples,
- using words consistently,
- saying the same thing all over again in different ways
- ?
> Aaaaargh, my brain hurts. Thank you!
;-)))
I think we could dare reducing complexity here by using the metaphor of "distance in communication space". People who are close there
- use similar words
- and concepts
- know same people / info sources
- tend to use same means of communication
- share similar values
- and interests.
(I made this up but probably someone else did it before. Glad for hints.)
See also: http://www.25uhr.de/weblog/... (german).
01/17/05 2005 02:00:11
Piers wrote:
Hi Magdalena
I like where you seem to be headed.
One quick thought is the idea of the pragmatic web. Level one is whether you can string together the symbols in a way that makes any sort of sense. (Syntactic); level two is whether the sense you make can be cross-checked for "truth"(semantic) (and your group's cultural assumptions begin to come into play here); and level three is whether the contextual bits of the message make sense. (pragmatic) - which is at the far left of your scale. That's one not very clear thought.
Another is have a look at Zaltman's ZMET technique - it's an interesting way of trying to unearth what people really think through pictures.
I like where you seem to be headed.
One quick thought is the idea of the pragmatic web. Level one is whether you can string together the symbols in a way that makes any sort of sense. (Syntactic); level two is whether the sense you make can be cross-checked for "truth"(semantic) (and your group's cultural assumptions begin to come into play here); and level three is whether the contextual bits of the message make sense. (pragmatic) - which is at the far left of your scale. That's one not very clear thought.
Another is have a look at Zaltman's ZMET technique - it's an interesting way of trying to unearth what people really think through pictures.
01/18/05 2005 00:23:33
Max Völkel wrote:
Hi, das fasst genau meine Sicht der Dinge zusammen! So klar war sie allerdings noch nicht. Für mich impliziert das ganze im Rahmen von "DenkWerkzeugen" noch einen Prozess, der quasi von links nach Rechts läuft, je klarer ich meine Gedanken formal strukturiere.
03/14/05 2005 15:33:05
Add Comments
This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it
;
