Prosumer as Sage

[Spocksleftball]

I didn’t find a forum to put this in, so the lounge will have to do.


As the "information age" envelopes us all to greater degrees, making access to information appears to be the prime focus, with instant gratification a close second, is there an eventual decline in cognitive function per individual? Or the inverse perhaps? Are depth and breadth mutually exclusive? Are new discoveries with meaningful benefit affected in a positive or negative way since the immediacy and brevity of rapid information intake precludes the ability to build upon the work of previous experts within a given field. As information becomes faster, it often takes on newer forms of communication such as visual and audio resources (eg youtube).


The breadth of knowledge grows per individual at what cost?


1. Depth of knowledge?

2. Esoteric specializations?

3. Peer reviewed sources?

4. Hard sciences' role?


At what point do we simply forgo any/all of the four above for speed and generalities?


Note: None of this is formulated. I am asking openly. I work at a small college and see what appears to be degradation in all four areas. Much of the decline is centered on the use of the Internet as a primary resource. I am not personally opposed; I am curious however what others think.

 

[redbaron]

I suppose the potential is that ingenuity in fields requiring depth is squandered, in favour of more, "efficient" means of processing and finding the information one wants. This mostly comes to mind in relation to the hard sciences.

That said, it seems as though that die-hard contingent of scientists who aspire to depth of knowledge will likely always exist in some form or another. People naturally seek depth when they find a concept or idea that really fascinates them, or encapsulates their wildest imaginations. It seems to me that with or without the internet, many great minds will exist who understand the benefit of the four things you specify.

If I could be bothered I'd start linking to various studies from young researchers in the hard sciences fields, but it's 3am and I want to be in bed soon. So to answer the questions.

The breadth of knowledge grows per individual at what cost?

Maybe it negatively impacts on people's collective ability to really dig deep into ideas and concepts in an individual and unique way.

At what point do we simply forgo any/all of the four above for speed and generalities?

It seems that whenever it appears most practical, and one's personal preferences are not involved. I think there are still and will always be people who for example obsess and simply love chemistry - and that person will dig deep into the world of science, produce peer-reviewed works and will have the passion to continuously expand their own understanding and possibly, that of others too.

Though I think that more than in the past, there's the option for speed/generality granted by the internet. In the past, people couldn't really even be that way if they wanted to - they simply had to follow that route of depth and specialization. No pre-determined shortcuts, as it were.

Too tired to write more.

 

[pernoctator]

I work at a small college and see what appears to be degradation in all four areas.

You're seeing dilution, not degradation. Easier access to information makes research a more common activity, lowering the average quality of research but not the quantity of high quality research.

 

[Spocksleftball]

You're seeing dilution, not degradation. Easier access to information makes research a more common activity, lowering the average quality of research but not the quantity of high quality research.

I will give you a point here, as I didn't consider commonality as a universal. Still, degradation is also implied through the lack of depth of understanding is it not? If a larger number of students have less understanding, this is a degraded of understanding; a dilution would be, I think, understanding that is confused with other extraneous data. Your point that more research is taking place is possible, but, I contest, not entirely accurate. While those, as RB suggests, purposefully deep into a subject will continue to be so, I think the average student with average interest more easily avoids any depth of learning in order to comply minimally with assignment requisites. That minimal effort could be call research, or scanning. My observations infer the later. Cut/paste/reference without and originally beyond conjunction and coma placement seems to be the norm. How this behavior has changed for average student over time (pre net to now) is another factor I have no data for.

I do acknowledge that the breadth of subject matter familiarity is wider. And honestly I have no conclusions on the subject. Curiosity makes this a constant for me at work.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Inverse. Information availability results in increased functional capacities and more filled/full real capacities. Functional capacity is increased due to more information and complexity being available during development. Real capacity is filled after development is complete.

Devolution is at play in that information isn't static because individuals aren't static. Information is lost/forgotten over time. Thus this progress is actually made by slowing the process of devolution, by increasing connectivity, which prolongs the life of any given piece of information within the boundaries of the system/population of individuals. Higher information retention = more coherent targeting mechanisms for the process of exploration; information continues to grow. It'd be logistic pending evolution of intrinsic human properties.

(hmmm... that would actually be pretty cool to model in terms of physics, subbing friction for devolution/information loss)

Depth and breadth aren't mutually exclusive. On the individual level they're essentially a bipolar gradient, but at the population level, they form a synergistic godzilla neapolitan sundae with megaquark sprinkles.

All discoveries are neutral. Discovery frequency increases, discovery application speed decreases.

"the immediacy and brevity of rapid information intake precludes the ability to build upon the work of previous experts within a given field."

This I don't agree with at all. It applies to individuals, but nothing above the individual level of organization.

The breadth of knowledge grows per individual at what cost?"

Remaining empty capacity/space within that individual. Social Darwinism, basically. Ants. Specialization. E.O. Wilson.

Otherwise:

1. Unaffected at higher levels of organization.
2. Specializations/niches increase.
3. The entire way information is published will change. Peer-review will become more democratic, automated, and reliant on perception/agency for acceptance.
4. Realize the boundary defining hard science is meaningless. It's actually little more than a barrier to scientific literacy.

Big data & metastructural networks, coming soon to a town near you!

 

[pernoctator]

If a larger number of students have less understanding, this is a degraded of understanding;

Yes. But where did I say "a larger number of students have less understanding"?

a dilution would be, I think, understanding that is confused with other extraneous data.

I was talking about dilution of the group versus degradation of the individual.

Your point that more research is taking place is possible, but, I contest, not entirely accurate. While those, as RB suggests, purposefully deep into a subject will continue to be so, I think the average student with average interest more easily avoids any depth of learning in order to comply minimally with assignment requisites.

You say you contest my point, but the statement that follows doesn't contradict it. As I said, the average quality is lowered. Your mistake is in equating this with an overall drop.

How this behavior has changed for average student over time (pre net to now) is another factor I have no data for.

Huh? How is the change over time "another" point? That is your point. Your claim of degradation directly implies it...

 

[Spocksleftball]

Functional capacity is increased due to more information and complexity being available during development. Real capacity is filled after development is complete.[\quote]

I think you need to expand here. Capacity of students remains constant, but information diverges from relevant with additional possibilities, so functionality is offset by malformed cognition based upon erroneous information.

Devolution is at play in that information isn't static because individuals aren't static. [\quote]

Information produced is static until recast by subsequent prosumers in divergent molds.

(hmmm... that would actually be pretty cool to model in terms of physics, subbing friction for devolution/information loss)[\quote]

Agreed.

Depth and breadth aren't mutually exclusive. On the individual level they're essentially a bipolar gradient, but at the population level, they form a synergistic godzilla neapolitan sundae with megaquark sprinkles. [\quote]


Tasteless to be sure.




[quoteOtherwise:

3. The entire way information is published will change. Peer-review will become more democratic, automated, and reliant on perception/agency for acceptance.[\quote]

Democratic peer review? yikes!

I was talking about dilution of the group versus degradation of the individual.
[\quote]

I was talking about the degradation of the information available.

Huh? How is the change over time "another" point? That is your point. Your claim of degradation directly implies it...

Not verses then yes, however this statement was meant to indicate I do not have a relationship continuum of students propensity over time as opposed to my supposition of data quality.

 

[Spocksleftball]

Eh, I can get quotes to work...don't drink and post....

 

[pernoctator]

I was talking about the degradation of the information available.

Again it's dilution, not degradation. All the quality information that existed still exists today, as do the quality researchers who know how to find it. The internet is a tool that makes their job easier when used properly, as well as making it more accessible to amateurs who would not otherwise have bothered. The net result is actually enhancement; the dilution just gives the illusion of the opposite.

BTW, there is a similar thread here.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Eh, I can get quotes to work...don't drink and post....

Wrong slash. You need / vs \. And definitely not this douchebag.

I think you need to expand here. Capacity of students remains constant, but information diverges from relevant with additional possibilities, so functionality is offset by malformed cognition based upon erroneous information.

I'm a little loopy and can't think straight for the life of me (the pieces are there, but it's disorganized), but here goes...

(Super reductionist->) For the most part, capacity remains constant after it's fully formed except for what's lost due to apparent age-related physiological changes. I'm basically equating functional capacity to Spearman's g. Completely nonscientific case studies:

Some attributes that guide response to information are intrinsic, like creativity/synthesis:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onPY24g2grM

Some are... just irrational:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLUE45C6vOo
http://osaseye.blogspot.com/2014/01/mystery-lake-of-miracles-in-nigeria.html#.UyTpScRDuel

Ultimately more complex things within the same field can only be learned after the less complex basic things; algebra before calculus, etc. Final capacity would be higher if one had access to information in the correct order throughout development (non-subject specific; encompasses all information). But this differs per individual, and it's impossible to micromanage to the degree of every shred of information. So instead we rely on intrinsic properties of individuals and frequency of random interactions with information to provide the right info at the right time. This is in line with Perceptual Control Theory which essentially states that perception functions like the selectively permeable membrane of a cell.

Initially, relying on PCT in the information sea is going to throw society into a profound clusterfuck. But then it functions as an evolutionary selective force. Moreso, it'll be fast, within a few generations. Punctuated equilibrium. Cells undergo apoptosis in response to external stimuli. But not all of them.

Information produced is static until recast by subsequent prosumers in divergent molds.

These are big words to a hobo obsessed with measuring squirrel testicles... (I'm assuming we're going with this definition).

Does information exist if it's not recognized/memorized? Recasting is akin to synthesis, which can produce transfinite combinations. I suppose we could argue that even during synthesis/recasting, information remains static; the synthesizers are moving within an information matrix.

Agreed.

So let's go with some weird physics and say that time = subjective experience of motion through space and space doesn't exist because of the fractal nature of the universe. How would an information black hole like human consciousness/perception work? (Hawking's latest idea that a singularity may not actually exist seems a lot like memory to me in that not all knowledge is retained after it's accumulated).

Spoiler

So now devo/friction/info loss has meshed with black hole theory. I need a nap...

Tasteless to be sure.

orly?

At the level of the individual agent, increased niche diversity = increased flavor profile/complexity. Factoring in relativity, does it make a difference to the subject though?

Higher level... does some property of the sum (like variance) change or do they all cancel out? Does variance matter in a holographic universe? Can an individual agent taste the flavor of the collective? If it can, is it able to discriminate to a degree that would identify a change?

Democratic peer review? yikes!

As opposed to shadow cabal peer review and informally recognized biases? (The Princeton PEAR is a good case study here. Who's qualified to review that stuff? ).

The flaw in peer review is that "importance" is determined by those already deemed to be important. It's hermetically sealed and masturbatory.

I'm thinking more like automated peer review that separates data from conclusions. Do the reported data and conclusions match the existing database? If not, sent it to an actual human. Conclusions are more democrazy friendly than data/sadisticsstatistics. PCT applies here also.