In this day and age, the way learning is being transformed dramatically. We are going through a transition from "exam-based learning" to "crime-solving learning".
In the past, the categories of knowledge were fixed and the questions were clear. Whether it's the solution of a mathematical equation or what the theory of relativity is talking about, all the questions are clear, and this knowledge has been systematized and written exactly in the classics, you just need to learn it.
Therefore, your intellectual curiosity should be diligent, specialized, and systematic, and the learning effect is measured by a variety of exams. This mode of learning is known as "exam-based learning".
Source: Visual China
The English philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously called the "Hedgehog and the Fox Theory": the way of the hedgehog is consistent (monism), and the fox is cunning but multifaceted (pluralism). Traditional society obviously needs hedgehog-like experts more, and it is enough to do one thing well in a lifetime. For example, if you are a digital engineer and your hobby is playing Go. But no matter how well you play Go, how will it help your competitiveness in the workplace? If you don't do it, you will end up with a plaything.
But today, the traditional learning model is being challenged enormously. The reasons are very simple: first, the total amount of human knowledge is already too large for any one person to digest in any way, even if it is just one category of knowledge; second, the certainty of knowledge is being lost, and knowledge itself is being updated frequently. More and more knowledge is in the ambiguous zone between disciplines. There are more and more questions, but there are fewer and fewer definite answers. As a result, "exam-based learning" is unsustainable.
In his book "The Great Transfer of Knowledge," the American writer William Poundstone proposed a solution: You have to be a fox who knows a lot of things, and you just know a little about it. In addition to expertise, you have to grasp as much as possible and fragmented the surface of some knowledge, without systematization and depth. This is perhaps the best way to learn in the future.
Poundstone saw a key change: the relationship between knowledge and learners changed. The knowledge of the past is solidified, and the relationship between the learner and the knowledge, like the relationship between people and wealth, is a relationship of possession, and the more possession, the richer the richer. But right now, there's so much knowledge you can't even have.
For example, in the past, there was very little water, but your own container is very large, and the more water you fill in your own container, the better. And now, there is so much water like the sea, you don't want to fill your body with water, just learn to swim in it.
Knowledge is not for possession, but what is the point of possessing half-understood and inaccurate knowledge? No matter what kind of knowledge, it becomes a stepping stone for you to step into the unknown world. A fragment of knowledge will become a reinforcement on your way to knowledge, and it is a response that you don't know when it will work. It's not the answer, but it's a clue to help you find the answer.
In the past, playing Go was just a hobby, but now, because he knows a little bit about both sides, he may have developed the artificial intelligence Alpha Dog to beat human chess players.
In this era, the "blind spots" of knowledge are not terrible, but the "blind dimensions" of knowledge are terrible. That knowledge of the scales and claws may not be useful in isolation. But precisely because they are scattered, fragmented, and unsystematic, in the network effect of knowledge, they are very likely to fill a blank dimension of your cognitive world by chance, so that one of your cognitive blind dimensions suddenly shines into a glimmer of light.
Source: Visual China
A famous example is when Holmes first met Watson, who he immediately judged that Watson was a military doctor who had just returned from Afghanistan. Why? Because Watson has the demeanor of a medical worker, and he has the spirit of a soldier. The stiffness of his left arm indicates that he has just been injured. So where was the war just over at that time, and where could a military doctor be wounded? Afghanistan. So, the conclusion comes out.
You see, Sherlock Holmes only needs a fragment of knowledge - Afghanistan has just finished the war, which is enough for him to complete a whole set of reasoning. He didn't need to know the war in deep detail.
This is known as "crime-solving learning". The learning of the past is the learning of the known, and the learning of the present is the learning of the unknown. Everyone is Sherlock Holmes. For example, if you want to start a business, you want to know whether your business plan is reliable or not, where can you find the answer? In the unknown ocean, any small branch is a lifesaver, you have some small clues, even if it is not accurate, it doesn't matter, using Internet tools, using the intersection between clues and clues, it is not difficult to find the answer.
There is an interesting conclusion about income in "The Great Transfer of Knowledge": in the case of equal professional ability, who knows more messy chores, who earns more. Like geography, history, and unpopular sports terms, people who know more earn tens of thousands of dollars a year than those who don't.
Why? It's because people have more keys to unfamiliar places.
Source: "Reader"
Editor: Wang Na
Editor in charge: Niu Dong