The downside of Open Culture and Monkey see Monkey do in academia

[Kriminal99]

The usefulness of openness

 

There is a certain trick I use to more quickly disseminate information to people with less critical thinking skills. It involves not emphasizing my creation or ownership of an idea when I share it with others, so that the person does not perceive acceptance of the idea as acceptance of some kind of superior ability on my part. I may even deceive the person into believing they came up with the idea on their own, by stealthily laying out a simple example and walking with them along a path of reason to the goal.

 

These people then share the ideas with others as if they came up with it on their own in hopes of helping them achieve their goals of getting attention from others.

 

The reasoning is that it is more valuable to have people understand and stop doing stupid wrong things than it is to have them recognize me as the source of this understanding.

 

This is opposed to keeping this information to myself and using it to manipulate others or achieve greater things than people without this knowledge would be able to - perhaps using it to spite others for not listening to me when I tried to explain the idea to them, or perhaps using it to their benefit against their will. This highlights an alternative to Open Culture, where a intellectual dictator or group of them holds the knowledge and decides who gets to share or contribute. In this case it is hoped that extreme intelligence allowed those people to rise to that position, because our state of knowledge would be limited by their abilities and their disposition.

 

Monkey see, Monkey think?

The phrase "Monkey see monkey do" was originally meant to refer to a situation where someone copies a physical capability without really understanding how it works. It is a derogatory phrase that is meant to indicate the danger that the "monkey" will no longer be able to replicate the act in novel conditions, because the monkey does not understand which of the conditions are important to it's functioning.

 

However, it seems that the phrase applies just as well to conveying formal models to other people, without communicating all the reasoning about how it works. For instance, I can teach someone some calculus approaches, and they may be able to go through the motions and come up with accurate answers to problems similar to the ones I have shown them. But that is a far cry from being able to solve truly novel problems and inventing new mathematical techniques. It is a far cry from being able to reinvent the discipline, based on understandings of various pieces of the puzzle like, "what is a number?".

 

It has been recognized that any question of why can be followed by infinitely more questions of why, and thus there is no final answer to "why something works". Yet there can definitely be relatively more or less knowledge. I believe that there are people who hold much greater knowledge of why things work and of the world around them than do most people.

 

If a person with that greater capability were to teach the most general ideas they knew, and others listened if only to replicate the knowledgeable person's abilities, wouldn't they then be just as capable as the knowledgeable person?

 

It seems the answer is yes, and thus the ultimate validation of Open Culture arises - Everyone becomes as capable as the most capable person. However in practice there seems to be obstacles that would prevent us from ever getting to this point.

 

A pitfall of Open Culture

 

My issue is that Academia seems to favor the least amount of knowledge that allows someone to accomplish some "trick", and reject people with those much greater levels of understanding who try to include that greater knowledge in the explanation of the trick. Many professors seem more skilled in the use of persuasive fallacies, manipulation, and minor refinements of other people's formal models, than of truly advancing our state of knowledge.

 

It is impossible for a person coming up with a new idea to explore every implication of it, so it stands to reason that such people are needed. But is there a danger of the truly creative no longer being recognized for what they are? I think it has already happened.

 

In open culture it is often understood that someone else came up with an idea previous to the person who published it, but the person who published it is still recognized in association with that idea.

 

It stands to reason that the publisher receive credit, since we have no way of verifying what anyone but the publisher of an idea knew when, but many people seem to misinterpret this to mean that being able to communicate an idea to others is more valuable than actually being able to understand the situation and come up with the idea.

 

A validation of Open Culture was that people would learn higher and higher level knowledge in order to do what the knowledgeable could do. However, this process is limited by people's willingness and ability to recognize what the knowledgeable are capable of. The higher the level of knowledge held by the knowledgeable, the more abstract the capabilities it affords.

 

By failing to place emphasis on from whom an idea originated on, we are failing to recognize a capability of the knowledgeable person and thus denying such people the attention needed to communicate their highest level of understanding.

[Little Bang]

Dogma generally promotes dogma and will fight to the death to keep it going.

[Erasmus00]

I don't understand at all what you are getting at- its always proper to cite the original source of an idea in an academic paper. Even if someone is refining or expanding that idea, they should (and usually do) acknowledge the original author.

[BrianG]

You can accomplish much if you don't care who gets the credit. -- Ronald Reagan

 

It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry S Truman

 

The way to get things done is not to mind who gets the credit for doing them. -- Benjamin Jowett

[Kriminal99]

You can accomplish much if you don't care who gets the credit. -- Ronald Reagan

 

It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry S Truman

 

The way to get things done is not to mind who gets the credit for doing them. -- Benjamin Jowett

 

And I totally agree with this in most cases. As I said, I often use similar tactics as a tool just to get people on track and doing the right thing. I often have to downplay my own abilities and pretend not to know things to give other people credit for things that they figure out and do so they remain motivated. People might take ideas from wikipedia or a textbook and present them as if they came up with the idea, and I might play along so that they will remain motivated to share information with others. All of these tactics work much better as leadership skills than being realistic in this messed up world of self-deception we have created for ourselves.

 

At some level however I find this disturbing, and I know this system can never be as efficient as one where everyone ACTUALLY is equally capable, because they faced the reality of the situation (Who is actually capable and who is just the monkey who sees and does) and learned how to be as capable.

[Kriminal99]

Dogma generally promotes dogma and will fight to the death to keep it going.

 

Yes but only the titles in my threads are dogmatic, basically just as a way to increase readability. The actual text always outlines a formal model. Almost everyone does this, it's just a way to get people prepared with some idea of what they are going to be reading in a single phrase. If someone sees the word monkey and immediately gets offended without any clue what it's about, then that person is too stupid for me to care what they think honestly... The "Monkey see Monkey do" effect, though perhaps labeled differently in some mediums, is an important observation in sociology of animals and a similar effect exists for humans.

[Kriminal99]

I don't understand at all what you are getting at- its always proper to cite the original source of an idea in an academic paper. Even if someone is refining or expanding that idea, they should (and usually do) acknowledge the original author.

 

And this fact that it is ALWAYS done is exactly why it is never perceived as any kind of indication of who came up with an idea. You just cite someone who said something in the field you are working in, and find a way to relate it to your work in a way that identifies it as some kind of stepping stone. Even if you came up with the idea in isolation completely on your own and are just going back after the fact to try and find something to relate it to. Even if the idea really is light years beyond what you are referencing.

 

Oh and also if the idea actually is very closely related to things that have already been done, you make sure and address that with references as well. I wouldn't know much about that, I don't do that kind of thing.

 

The whole thing is rather contrived IMO, but I do recognize that you do not want a bunch of people going in their own direction ignoring each other.

[Erasmus00]

And this fact that it is ALWAYS done is exactly why it is never perceived as any kind of indication of who came up with an idea. You just cite someone who said something in the field you are working in, and find a way to relate it to your work in a way that identifies it as some kind of stepping stone.

 

If you are expanding someone else's model, you cite them. i.e. you always cite the author who had the original idea. That way they get credit for their idea. If your idea is truly new, then people will cite you. In academics, your only currency is ideas, so people care very much (perhaps too much) about who gets the credit. Its to the point that people churn out papers as fast as possible, in the hopes that 1 or 2 turn out to be pretty good.

 

That is why I don't understand at all what you are getting at.

[Qfwfq]

My perception, from back when I completed my studies, was that in journal publications citing is very much a matter of efficiency, as well as ethics. You are using a result someone already reached, you don't need to do it from scratch, so neither do you need to repeat it for your readers when you can simply show them where to look if they so choose. An article is brief and concise anyways and need only be "conditionally convincing" in the sense that a reader might consider all statements supported by a quote as being valid by good faith and what is explicitly written in the article itself is sufficient for a fully competent reader to follow the argument, perform computations and understand the conclusions. The references enable the reader to check (rather than trust) the good faith, as well as perhaps improve or facilitate comprehension.

 

A textbook has a different purpose and is a less frequent production than an article; mostly, it is meant to be much more self-contained and coordinated so it's up to the author to provide arguments and computational guidelines at least for the things most in the main line of the topic and most essential for overall comprehension. In short, it should be possible for a reader that has the propeduetic topics to go from beginning to end without severe doubts. In this case references are certainly ethical but remain a good thing for the reader to go into further depth.

[Jman8564]

By failing to place emphasis on from whom an idea originated on, we are failing to recognize a capability of the knowledgeable person and thus denying such people the attention needed to communicate their highest level of understanding.

Within small groups of people, that would be true, but generally it's a question of personal taste / preference.

 

Besides, you just ripped off the idea of collective unconscious with what you called "open culture", from Carl Jung.. CARL FREAKIN JUNG MAN!

 

/sarcasm

[Kriminal99]

If you are expanding someone else's model, you cite them. i.e. you always cite the author who had the original idea. That way they get credit for their idea. If your idea is truly new, then people will cite you. In academics, your only currency is ideas, so people care very much (perhaps too much) about who gets the credit. Its to the point that people churn out papers as fast as possible, in the hopes that 1 or 2 turn out to be pretty good.

 

That is why I don't understand at all what you are getting at.

 

What I am getting at is that the citation system has absolutely nothing to do with who actually came up with the idea. Not just who had any hand at all in publishing it. The academic system also facilitates the theft of ideas in various ways.

 

I have met completely incompetent professors who simply leech off of students and other academics hoping their credentials will lead people to falsely believe they are responsible for ideas they could never have come up with on their own. Why should these people be allowed to receive any credit? Let them be recognized as worthless and ejected from the system.

[dieadderalls]

What I am getting at is that the citation system has absolutely nothing to do with who actually came up with the idea. Not just who had any hand at all in publishing it. The academic system also facilitates the theft of ideas in various ways.

 

I have met completely incompetent professors who simply leech off of students and other academics hoping their credentials will lead people to falsely believe they are responsible for ideas they could never have come up with on their own. Why should these people be allowed to receive any credit? Let them be recognized as worthless and ejected from the system.

 

Even then the citation system isn't related in particular to this topic. It is a problem which springs from it, and is a part of the natural human way of categorizing concepts. In my own way I came to an understanding of determinism before I had even heard the word, if I tried to explain that to someone else does that mean I'm stealing the idea? Anyone is capable of having the thought, ownership of thoughts is just stupid, litigious and - above all else - simply childish

 

(Note: In Judaism there are concepts which are only taught to certain people at certain stages of theological understanding. Some passages were even banned up to a certain level of education so that the information would not be misinterpreted. In Buddhism they don't even teach you anything at all, but encourage the development of your mind with koans, leading to satori. These concepts of one-on-one education stopped it from being misinterpreted at the highest levels, but unfortunately leaves the masses in denial and confusion... or maybe not, that's just one way of looking at it.)

 

What follows for me is that mass information is misinformation, if you try to communicate data in a meaningful way in more than a dyadic relationship (one-on-one) you are going to have problems with interpretation. Idk if you agree with this concept Krim, but I kind of see this as the point you're getting at, simply stating an idea isn't enough, it must be communicated in a "meaningful way", which can be achieved by making it self-less; pretending someone else came up with it.

 

I remember a friend telling me (while I was particularly drunk and high) that "You know man, scientists found that DMT crystals are in every living thing, man, they're like, in your brain. The neurotransmitter tryptophan, which is caused by DMT, are released in your brain at birth, when you sleep, and when you dream. It like, causes reality as we know it bro!" upon further investigation I found that this statement was massively flawed.

 

So even this dyadic relationship can be flawed, because people pick up stories and make them fit their world-view, confusing them with reality, and thereby confusing others. Idk where this leaves us in terms of which one is more acceptable, but at least one-on-one allows argument, whereas in a mass-situation argument can be criticized for "wasting the rest of the group's time" e.g. in a classroom environment.

 

I hope this is relevant at all :3