Factual knowledge is worthless

I read an article by Esther Dyson in a 1992 edition of WIRED magazine about where to find value in the information economy. The article was so good that I still have it. It turns out that in an information economy, information itself is essentially worthless. The rules of supply and demand remain the same, and, thanks to the internet, there is a grotesque surplus of information. So where is the value and how can we educate our children to prosper in the 21st century?

I have a friend who likes to participate in a weekly trivia contest at a pub. I've gone with her a couple of times. I've enjoyed it and I've been a valuable addition to the team because I have, over the past 50 years, accumulated a lot of information. I'm interested in a lot of different things and so I have learned about a lot of different things, and I read a lot and talk to people, and information tends to stick to me. As a result I kinda have encyclopedic knowledge. Or, at least, I once did. Friends and family used to call me and ask questions with confidence that I would have the answers - and I usually did.

They don't call me so much anymore. Now people just Google anything they want to know. In a wired world where information is readily accessible, where I can get the facts about anything as soon as I need it, where I can reap the benefits of just-in-time education, having the facts is of no value. That huge body of knowledge that I worked so hard to amass? Worthless. But I still have something that does have value. The value is in having a context in which those facts have meaning.

I'll tell three stories that will illustrate and illuminate what I mean.
  1. I used to wonder things or try to remember things and I would mutter out loud something like "What was the name of the actor in that movie?" My daughter, hearing the question, would respond "Tsk. Google it." I was grateful for the reminder that Google is there to satisfy my every idle curiosity, but I could really do without the little whipcrack "Tsk" that came first. Eventually she trained me to not mutter the question out loud and to go straight to the internet with every little question.
  2. She is really good with that. She didn't need any training. We were riding in the car and I was telling her about this scooter that I wanted, an Aprilia Scarabeo 200. I was telling her that it's kinda funky looking, that it doesn't look like a Vespa, but that I had not only gotten used to the looks, but had come to really like them. Within moments she says "Wow. Yeah, I see what you mean, but I think it looks cool." In the few seconds that we had been talking she used her phone to find an image of the scooter and was looking at it. While we were driving in the car. In just seconds. And it was, for her, the natural thing to do. She did it without hesitation or any moment when it had not yet occurred to her to look online for the information. It was a perspective shifting moment for me.
  3. I was helping my daughter with her math homework and it was some Geometry that had to do with triangles. There were these three different ways to find the center of a triangle and three different kinds of centers. I took geometry over thirty years ago as a high school freshman. I remember some things from the class, but the three methods for finding the center of a triangle was not among them. So I went to Google and got my just-in-time education on the three methods and how they worked. My daughter also reviewed the three methods as I learned about them. Then we turned to the specific questions in her geometry homework. They were things like: Side AB is 4 meters long. Angle CAB is 30 degrees. What is the length of Side CB? I could answer them, but she could not. We both had the same information, but I also had a context in which that information had meaning. I didn't just know the information; I also knew how to use it. I knew how to use what I knew about the triangles, and what I knew about the relationships between the measures, to solve for the unknowns about the triangles.
In the 21st century, when the facts are readily accessible at a moment's notice from anywhere, carrying the facts around in your head is not going to be a particularly valuable asset. The value is in context. That value isn't going away. We live in a world in which the media presents increasingly de-contextualized information. We live in a world in which everything is becoming more and more de-contextualized. Producers and consumers don't meet or know each other. Stories appear in tiny capsules. Political ideas are soundbites inside bubbles. As it gets easier and easier to find facts, finding context is getting harder and harder.

What will be of value will be the ability to put those facts in a meaningful context. This does, of course, require some resident factual knowledge, but, more than that, it requires the ability - as much a skill as a talent - to aggregate facts, to weave them into a coherent network of meaning. This is not any great or novel discovery. This is a well-known and commonly accepted idea, but, ironicly, people haven't realized its meaning. For one thing, it means that the focus and aim of education has to shift. There is little value in teaching facts or getting students to learn facts. Education should no longer be about filling heads with facts (if it ever was).

So how is this well-known and commonly accepted idea reflected in our schools? How are our schools preparing students for college, career, and life in the 21st century when the value isn't in the facts but in the context? Where are students being taught to think about the facts and their relationship with other facts?

Also, I need to wonder if this isn't a sort of elitist question. Isn't there still a digital divide with technology haves on one side and technology have-nots on the other? Or do we live in a world in which a smart phone is within everyone's reach, kids are digital natives, and the technology have-nots are mostly those over 60?

Comments

Pondering Monkey said…
So, when you were a freshman in high school you had to learn the three methods to find the center of a triangle. For the next thirty years you didn't need to know how to do that until you were helping your daughter do her homework.

Will either one of you ever need it again?
Patrick said…
Charlie's daughter will use it when it's time to teach her child about triangles :)
Charlie Mas said…
Actually, Pondering Monkey, I didn't learn it in high school thirty years ago. That wasn't part of the class back then.

Here's what I do remember clearly from my high school geometry class: my teacher, Mr. Mooko, told us that learning how to bisect an angle wasn't the point of geometry. He knew that it was highly unlikely that any of us would ever have to bisect an angle in our adult lives. The value of the geometry class, he told us, was in learning how to make a proof - how to progress from one deduction to the next in order until we reached the conclusion that we needed to reach.

And that is what I knew how to do for my daughter. I knew how to leap from fact to fact. If we know the length of this side and we know this angle, then we can figure out the length of this line segment here. And once we know that, then, combined with our knowledge of this angle, we can determine the length of that side there.

It is also the basis of a lot of my logical discussion of things other than geometry. Geometry, Mr. Mooko taught us, isn't about lines and angles, it is about logic, deduction, and building strong arguments.
Jan said…
Interesting thoughts, Charlie. Your post made me think a couple of things. For starters, unless you are part of the "classical education" group (where LOTS of memorization goes on), I don't think schools have been about memorizing facts for a long time; but there are two exceptions that I can think of right off the block:

1. There is a difference between "memorizing facts" and attaining skill mastery in things like reading and math. This, I think, has been one of the failings of discovery math -- not realizing that unless kids have mastered a base level of computational skills and algorhythms, my impression is that they cannot move through more advanced problems that may require analysis and completion of 20 or 30 computational steps. Somewhere -- one will go "wrong" and they will not be able to get the correct answers to problems. Not a problem if it's just a "problem set." A big problem if you are an engineer, and architect, or a compounding pharmacist. And the same is true of reading. If kids can't decode and fluently read -- they get so bogged down trying to read (or they make so many mistakes and miscomprehend) that they cannot access higher level reading content. So -- the capitals of the 50 states may be one thing -- but core competencies in skill/fluency based areas is another thing entirely.

Second -- even where information is available on the web, it is useful (and I suspect may be necessary) for people to have a core "fact" basis in some areas in order to achieve the contextualizing that you are talking about. Maybe it is just the problem I was trying to define above (without some "fluency base," you get so bogged down that you cannot proceed) -- but at higher levels, the issue is a general "fluency base" in broad subject areas. It is difficult to discuss British politics, or the British response to the 2008 recession, with someone unless they have some knowledge of parliamentary systems and British political and economic history. They simply lack sufficient facts to understand, to place in context, new facts. Thus -- they have no ability to reliably analyze meaning, or predict consequences.

Closer to home, my family cannot talk to me about car problems, because I utterly lack any basic knowledge of how internal combustion engines work (I am equally bad on brakes, drive trains, suspensions -- you get the drift). I know how to check and fill the oil, the coolant, and the windshield wiper fluid. I sort of understand spark plugs. I can change a flat tire. But when I read something the other day that stated that cars with fuel injection systems no longer have carburators, I was astounded. And while I could google this, it would make virtually no sense to me and would be quickly forgotten, as I simply lack enough "knowledge" of car engines to do anything with it.

But you are right -- trivia masters will never have the same status. Search engines have made trivia masters of us all.
Charlie Mas said…
Yes, Jan, on both points. Some factual foundation is necessary, particularly in math.

Also, most schools (in this country) haven't been focused on filling up heads with facts, but our standardized tests certainly have been about measuring how full the heads are. We need to be vigilent to oppose any move in the direction.

More to the point, how much instruction - and I'm asking - is really about intentionally showing kids how to make those connections?

How many times are we asking them - what else is like that? What is the opposite of that? Where does this make sense and where doesn't this make sense? How does this have meaning in your life? How does this have meaning in the lives of people you know?
"As it gets easier and easier to find facts, finding context is getting harder and harder."

This is what is troubling - easy answers. You can find the "answer" but do you understand the context? Is anyone reading for content and not just to support their own view?

As for trivia, well, Jeopardy is still going strong as are trivia contests (Charlie and I know this) so it's still useful at sometimes. I watch Jeopardy with my no-grown sons and it's a race between the elders knowing the answer (and trying to remember a name or date in time to spit it out) and our youth (who are irritated that we still know more than they do).
Jan said…
Charlie -- your points on proofs were great. I worked with my son through a geometry course (in lieu of SSD discovery geometry). Lots of proofs. WAY more than I EVER did in high school (but then, the wrestling coach at my school taught geometry -- and all I recalled 30 years later were angle relationships, and hating proofs). My child disliked (and struggled with) proofs almost as much as I had in high school -- but by the end, he was actually capable of doing them adequately most of the time. And I do think it transferred over into his understanding of how to construct a cogent, defensible argument (how not to skip steps, how to identify assumptions that are being used, but are not, or cannot be proven, how to identify when one point does, or does not, justify the next, etc.

If all of us took refresher courses in geometrical proofs every four years at election time, it might improve the quality of political debate (at least among those actually seeking solutions.)
Anonymous said…
The Core Knowledge premise is that teaching content is teaching reading. You can't develop critical thinking skills if there's nothing to think about. You need content knowledge. And the more you know, the more you can learn.

There was a great study about reading skills of "poor readers" vs "good readers." Both groups were given a passage about baseball. Those that had little knowledge of baseball, even in the "good reader" group, didn't perform as well as the "poor reader" with knowledge about baseball. Having the background knowledge made the passage make sense.

What Do Reading Comprehension Tests Mainly Measure? by E.D. Hirsch:
http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2006/hirschsb.cfm

How We Neglect Knowledge and Why by Susan B. Neuman:
http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2006/Neuman.pdf

reader
Anonymous said…
(meant to include this article as well)

How Knowledge Helps by Daniel T. Willingham

reader
Anonymous said…
Our current high-stakes tests emphasize facts and content over reasoning and critical thinking. The Common core standards that are coming out are also very fact-based/content heavy, and the high-stakes tests will be based on/geared towards the standards of the common core.

CT
Jan said…
Thanks for the articles and websites, reader. I think this is what I was trying ineptly to say.
Pondering Monkey said…
Whenever I think I know something or that someone else is stupid I just read this:

Why Smart People Are Stupid

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06/daniel-kahneman-bias-studies.html

Of course, if I think I'm smart by thinking I'm stupid, am I smart?
Anonymous said…
I love being able to look things up quickly. But you need a prompt to look something up. To create something, you start with what is in your head. Connections you've made among the things you've learned and experienced in life. You can't look something up if it's never even occurred to you.

And I loved proofs in Geometry. The most important thing I learned that year is that I was actually pretty good at math. That was never obvious to me until high school and a really great teacher. It changed how I looked at my self and my potential.

Musing away
Anonymous said…
Don't buy the Aprillia Scarbeo. We have several scooters, we like "big wheel" vespa-type bodies, but hate our Aprillia. It is temperamental and stalls out all of the time. It is not a battery issue. We love our old Honda Passport C50, and we have a yamaha vino, chinese made, that is a super trooper, NEVER has any problems. You can park it outside for a full year and never touch it, and it will start up for you the first time you put the key in. Seriously, the Italian bikes are sexy, but frustrating and utterly unreliable. Just trying to save you grief: you do a public service with this blog, so I don't want you to get saddled with a lemon. I will say the dealer Aurora is a very nice person, and his dog Hoffa was sweet.
- fellow Rider who says this isn't off topic since you brought it up
Maureen said…
Thank you reader I was going to make the same point (but less usefully). I read something by Willingham and what stuck with me was the way content knowledge creates a base for students to build on. The more comfortable learners are with a subject the more able they are to add to their knowledge. I have always called that having 'hooks' in my brain to hang things on. I am generally great with remembering names, but I am awful at remembering Asian names (unless I am already acquainted with someone with that name.) I just don't have any context to support the memory.

When I am surprised at how difficult it can be for some of my kids classmates to remember things they learn, I remind myself that this might be the first time they have ever heard anything about the subject. If a factual foundation doesn't exist, it's easy for the new knowledge to just fade away. Fortunately for my kids, The Simpsons and Liberty's Kids seem to help.

I think this is why building a strong vocabulary is so important to learning. The more ways you have to connect new concepts to one another, the more you can learn. I also think it is rare for a student to have enough confidence to question and fill in their gaps if their vocabulary (verbal or mathematical) is weak.
Charlie Mas said…
Thank you, fellow rider.

I'm afraid the story is a bit old. I've had the Scarabeo for a year and I love it.

I used to work in town, but now my daily commute is from South Seattle to South Bellevue and the Scarabeo takes me right across the I-90 bridge.

I am, by myself, over 200 lbs, but I can ride two up with my daughter (who is not petite) and all our gear on the Scarabeo with no problems.

I chose it for these two features - freeway legal and strong enough to carry the two of us - plus the reliability that comes with a brand-name scoot. I didn't like the look of the big wheel scooter at first, but then I got used it and then I came to really like it.

It may not be, in the end, as reliable as the Japanese nameplates or possibly even the Taiwanese scoots like SYM or Kymco, but I expect it to be in that league, and not like the Schwinn nameplated Chinese Vino clone I had before.

It is likely that I inherited from my father a weakness for Italian vehicles. He owned Alfas and Lancias and it was, in fact, a weakness. They were elegant, but delicate. I learned to drive in a 1967 Lancia Fulvia HF coupe and, as a teenager, drove a 1966 Lancia Fulvia sedan. This is a car that looked like a FIAT 131 and had a 1.1 litre engine - with twin carbs. Elegant, but delicate. The last car he owned was also a Lancia, but that was after they weren't really Lancia anymore.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
dan dempsey said…
So I am thinking about the demise of Geometric thinking ... i.e. facts and logic to make a proof or even a point.

"If all of us took refresher courses in geometrical proofs every four years at election time, it might improve the quality of political debate (at least among those actually seeking solutions.)"

It seems that many editorials in the Times have neither the correct facts nor any logic.... "The ST Excuse being that they are opinion pieces" ... so how does the Times opinion so many times have nothing to do with reality? .... (answer = few facts and little logic) .... Few facts and little logic => Many School Board Action Reports written by Staff.

It seems the demise of logical thinking produces a populace that is very easy to manipulate (School Board and SEA Union members included).

The charter initiative is an absolute farce. $6 million dollars buys signatures (no facts or logic required) ... the coming election on charters may be no better.

E.D Hirsch with his core knowledge movement has it spot on. Without a knowledge context in which to operate learning is far more difficult. ..... Nation of Sheep is coming if not already here.
Lara said…
I'm reading a lovely book right now about math education that pinpoints (in very concrete ways) the relationship of conceptual and fact based learning in math. Liping Ma (http://amzn.com/0415873843) distills all the propaganda into an intelligible and eloquent assessment of how this dichotomy (at least in the case of elementary mathematics) is a false one. It's a cross cultural study of how Chinese and American teachers conceptually and procedurally approach math education via 4 examples of math problems. Can't recommend it enough. Importantly, it relates to the "proofs" point above and inspires us to think about what types of things we need to memorize in order to facilitate critical and conceptual thinking and what things we don't need to memorize. I guess if you are in Texas (see other post) this is not allowed. :)
Scrawny Kayaker said…
Not everyone will use a lot of math as an adult (at least overtly--I agree with the points above about the value of understanding how math logic can train you in, you know, logic), but if you fail to get it early enough in school, you'll be more-or-less permanently shut out of many careers.

May I suggest:
http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2012/07/book-review-worthless.html

It's hard to predict to which youngsters this will apply: As a kid, I was considered quite smart, and thought from about age 10 that I wanted to be an engineer. I had a friend a year or two younger who was not considered particularly bright, and it wasn't clear what he wanted to do when he grew up. However, I quit the U. ov Colorado engineering school after the first year (didn't like the look of the job description any longer; it hadn't got hard yet) and he got through an engineering degree at a somewhat less selective school.

Also, you learn a lot of things in various math classes, and at least a few may be useful some day. I was not a real whiz at trigonometry, but I do find I think about the basic trig functions pretty often in such obvious technical fields as woodworking, skiing, driving, etc. I could do those things without knowing trig, but I like being able to apply it.
Jan said…
Lara and Scrawny Kayaker: thanks for both links. Very, very interesting stuff.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

First Candidates for Seattle School Board Elections 2023