Polanyi-like Paradox
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
↑ (C. W. Eriksen, and J. L. Kuethe. (1956). “Avoidance Conditionoing of Verbal Behavior Without Awareness."
A Polanyi-like Paradox is a paradox that humans cannot convert tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge.
See: Knowledge Acquisition-Bottleneck.
References
2014
- (Autor, 2014) ⇒ David Autor. (2014). “Polanyi's Paradox and the Shape of Employment Growth." National Bureau of Economic Research, 20485.
1966
- (Polanyi, 1966) ⇒ Michael Polanyi. (1966). “The Logic of Tacit Inference.” In: Philosophy, 41(155). doi:10.1017/S0031819100066110
- (Polanyi, 1966) ⇒ Michael Polanyi. (1966). “The Tacit Dimension. Doubleday & Co.
- QUOTE: … Another variant of this phenomenon was demonstrated by Eriksen and Kuethe in 1958.[1] They exposed a person to a show whenever he happened to utter associations to certain "shock words." Presently, the person learned to forestall the shock by avoiding the utternace of such associations, but, on questining it appeared that he did not know he was doing this. Here the subject got to know a practical operation, but could not tell how he worked it. This kind of subception has the structure of a skill, for a skill combines elementary muscular acts which are not identifiable, according to relations that we cannot define.
These experiments show most clearly what is meant by saying that one can know more than we can tell. This is prevented here by the division of roles between the subject and the observer. The experimenter observes that another person has a certain knowledge that he cannot tell, and so no one speaks of a knowledge he himself has and cannot tell. …
- QUOTE: … Another variant of this phenomenon was demonstrated by Eriksen and Kuethe in 1958.[1] They exposed a person to a show whenever he happened to utter associations to certain "shock words." Presently, the person learned to forestall the shock by avoiding the utternace of such associations, but, on questining it appeared that he did not know he was doing this. Here the subject got to know a practical operation, but could not tell how he worked it. This kind of subception has the structure of a skill, for a skill combines elementary muscular acts which are not identifiable, according to relations that we cannot define.