Podcast - Episode 0165 - Fake News, Alternate Facts, And DIKW

8 comments

• 

  • Michelle
  • June 1, 2017 at 1:44 am

  I totally meant tertiary authenticity…oops!

• 

  • Michelle
  • June 1, 2017 at 1:43 am

  I really like the DIKW model (data, information, knowledge, wisdom) but I see it as a spinal stack of four discs with the connecting tissue that we see in a human spine as “understanding”, specifically of the assertions involved and the assumptions placed on the data. The quality of that “understanding” cement between each determines the quality of each disc after data…and how well the “spine” holds up. If it’s a weak “spine”, the cement is weak somewhere, creating a weak disc (or discs).

  I feel like I’m pretty good at this process. I think because of my value-detachment with my primary perspectives and secondary effectiveness (and tertiary effectiveness, yep INTJ). I don’t think you necessarily “lose the battle” because people recognize your authentic handling of the data/info/knowledge/wisdom, especially used with tact and restraint to the edge of what you think they’re ready for. Eventually, despite their annoyance (and maintained disagreement) they will seek you out for your processing of the situation. They respect that process. So despite disagreement they will often come to love working with you.

• 

  • Katie Barr
  • May 30, 2017 at 1:01 am

  Great podcast! You talk about taking ego hits as something that hinders people from accepting new data that alters their position. I would love to hear a podcast specifically addressing how to accept ego hits and harness them for growth.

• 

  • Antonia Dodge
  • April 5, 2017 at 3:42 pm

  I’m with you. Nutrition has become one of the most confusing elements in my life, which is really frustrating as it’s something I have to do daily. I’ve tried a number of different eating styles (I was vegan for a time, paleo for a time, etc) and I’ve simply gotten to the point that I do what my body responds to the best. But it’s a big world full of contradictory information, and a solid DIKW track would be amazing.

  Thanks for the observation!

  A

• 

  • bjmay
  • March 29, 2017 at 11:54 pm

  I used to do experimental physics which tends to have the highest levels of scientific legitimacy and cross-checks and balances for DIK — though not perfect and never complete (science always evolves).

  (This is my reality tunnel:) Medical, nutrition, and particularly psychological/sociological research, however, is extremely challenging to validate and vet. Besides researching a “complex system” using simplistic methods, many times the data sample and gathering methods are at least partially biased or influenced by already known or assumed Information and Knowledge (reality distortion fields). In addition some of these scientists confuse correlation with causation, a basic no-no in science! You can see this in many articles on PubMed. This could be a science publication reality distortion field in which the personal/social value of an interesting “causal finding” is high (with possible popular or scientific notoriety) compared to tentative or negative results.

  My own personal approach with medical and health knowledge is to take self-responsibility for my own body/health (for example with my auto-immune and dietary issues), doing testing and learning about the results, and trying out a variety of things (e.g. diet) on my own system and evaluating the felt and objective results – do I feel better/worse eating X, are my test results okay, etc.

  External knowledge and “authorities” can be a great resource, but taking these as simply pieces of data/information and not as Truth means being self-responsible. Our impulse to blindly follow authority (or charisma or fear) can lead to all manor of human suffering (and sometimes good things per Buddha/Jesus/Gandhi…).