Week 7--Tacit Understanding

Deja vu, Instinct, and observing the unconscious.

Since learning about the unconscious and the notion of studying it I have thought long and hard. I've always had what I would call very strong instincts or hunches that I could not fully understand or explain. In a book I read, the author described these hunches as possibly her unconscious making some observation that she couldn't full articulate or understand, but nevertheless felt. I think that this goes back to the idea of knowing w/o being able to tell what you know that these readings seemed to suggest. Nancy's question above about whether deja vu plays into this is also an interesting one to consider. Remembering what was said about body language I think about people-reading, which I have been told I am fairly skilled at. Perhaps there are things that I don't know that I know;-).

"We know more than we can tell".  This stuck with me through the entire reading and for some reason I never fully understood what it meant.  I understand it interms of using examples like recognizing a face amoung a crowd, but when asked to draw the face we cannot.  The unconscious is one of the most interestig things to me because how can we go about our every day lives, performing such complicated actions etc, and not even recognize some of the things we do unconsciously.  Only when you sit down and think about it or watch someone else do you realzize how much of your day to day life is unconscious.  Even the most simple thing to us, speaking/having a conversation, is mostly unconscious.  We dont think of each and every word to say before we say it, the words just come out in the right order.  The way that our brain allows us to do this unconsciosly is so extreme. 

My mom is a fashionista.  She probably has a sixth sense to pick up the cheapest, best clothes in stores.  Dragged by her for my entire life, I became good (sort of) at choosing 'what my mother would probably like.'  When my right hand tries to reach a 80's skirt, my left hand that deeply sensed my mom's grimace stops the action.  Such repeated practices, however, do not work when I am alone.  I panick when I have to buy like a prom dress by myself.  I consciously remind myself that I have to choose a good one, but at the same time my mind goes totally pitch-black.  'What is the style that my mom would recommend me?" I can't think.  Though I have shopped with my mom numerous times in my life, I can't define what my mom's style is.  Here, two tacit understandings can be found:

 

1.  my mom's skill at choosing a good wear

2.  my ability to grasp my mom's style when I'm with her.

 

The second one works because I don't consciously think I have to choose a good one, and I know somehow in the presence of my mom beside me what she likes maybe by sensing her glare, or body gesture, or facial expression.  

 

The other example of tacit knowledge is language.

Speaking English as a second language, I personally have somewhat different English lexicon than other native speakers.  According to someone(who was it?) in class, if a person consciously thinks what she is speaking word by word, then he/she will never learn a language;  this represents how native language dictionary, or lexicon, is innately there in human's brain. (So, I decided not to be conscious while talking. )

 

Lastly, as I mentioned in class, test skill is also a tacit understanding.  First attempt of choosing an answer of multiple-choice test is usually better than the second attempt which is a conscious thinking.  Such instinct cannot be taught easily in words, and gets better through repeated practices. 

 

Or rather, a simile:

Tacit knowledge is like the ground we stand on.

I was trying to imagine what the world would be like if there was no such thing as tacit knowledge, as we defined it-- it would be like trying to live without anything to put our feet on. Picture us getting around by flapping our (imaginary) wings and trying not to fall... we would have to do all the work the floor does for us and we take for granted. It keeps us from sinking to the center of the Earth, it provides traction, it stabilizes us, and if we fall, it's there to catch us. The ground frees up energy* that we would otherwise use just to stabilize ourselves so that we can move.

Similarly, tacit knowledge, our unconcious processing of the world around us, the things we know without knowing we know them, frees up room in our brains we would otherwise be using to conciously analyze every aspect of our environment. It keeps us from sinking to the pure stimulus-response of our reptilian brains, it provides traction for higher thought, it stabilizes us, and if we fall, it's there to catch us.

Last week we talked about if a universe can exist without you in it. This topic brought us back to the idea of the tree falling in the forest and whether or not it made a sound if no one was there to hear it. Because what we experience is a function of our bodies it is very difficult to imagine a world without ourselves in it. 

I felt like I had to wait until after our class discussion to post on this week’s topic. I found the point in class today where everyone went around and said what they thought “tacit understanding” was extremely interesting. Hearing definitions such as “understanding a concept, but not knowing why” was very helpful to me in further understanding this weeks’ reading. I personally spoke of guilt and the more I think about it, the more I truly believe that there is a significant overlap between the mind and body. And although this isn’t directly related to our discussion of tacit knowlegge, I felt it what Audra talked about in the beginning of class was very important. Just because there is a scientific way and spiritual way of analyzing everything that happens to us, does not take away from the actual experience itself. Anyway, I’m really excited to brainstorm project-topic ideas…

I have to say, I really enjoyed “The Tacit Dimension.” I can’t honestly say that I understand it completely, but several of the author’s points are incredibly interesting stories. I like the distinction between the “knowing what,” and the “knowing how” as I understand it.
I couldn’t help but thinking of vision as I read this work- can this tacit knowing be equated to peripheral vision (as opposed to focused vision)? My reasons for asking this question is that, we observe things peripherally that takes no concentration or “indwelling.” Nevertheless, we are still observing things. To understand them more clearly, we can shift our eyes and focus on them – “interiorizing” -(both purposely and involuntarily), but, in doing so, our perception of the object we are gazing at is changed- it changes from the blurry picture in our peripheral to a clearer image. The reading says “scrutinize closely the particulars of a comprehensive entity and their meaning is effaced.” If you are willing to momentarily equate meaning with perception, then this example, I think, fits nicely.
I also thought of the kind of tacit knowledge that I use when I play sports. My coaches often chastise me for “overthinking” things on the volleyball court. Just like the concentration on a repeated word changes its meaning for us temporarily and we lose sight of its definition/use, when I focus exclusively on how to pass the ball, I tend to (somehow) make myself less likely to successfully pass it. In a sense, the meaning/practice of the pass is erased. What I have found to help in these situations is to focus on something else. I sing a song, work out a math problem in my head, plan my weekend- in terms of the vision example, I move the act of passing the ball from my mental focus to the periphery- then I am able to let my body do what I have taught it to do.
I don’t know if anyone else relates to this at all, but I think it’s similar to “letting an idea come to you.” “The Tacit Dimension” talks about how scientists, when they look for the answer to a problem, they have “tacit foreknowledge of yet undiscovered things.” I take this to mean that, on some level, you know what you want to say- maybe it’s in the peripheral, but it’s there. Sometimes, trying so hard to “come up with an idea”- focus on it- can be just as unproductive as my overthinking on the volleyball court. Rather than hunting down the answer, sometimes it may be more helpful to relax, “un”focus, and let the answer hunt you down. [I hesitate to say this because it seems like I am advocating scientific laziness, so please do not misunderstand me- I am merely suggesting that exegesis of a situation or problem can be more successful than isogesis- that is to say, vigorously following the data to where it will lead.]
More later on analysis and meaning…

In reading the Tacit Dimension, the beginning thoughts and words were the ones that provoked me the most. The idea and history that an entire human belief system and society could change is still astonishing to me. Communism has always been incredibly intriuging because of the sheer power it had over so many people. It was not merely a belief system or a government, but a metamorphosis of twisted philosophy.

Our previous conversations in these readings lend themselves to Communism as well, not in the Dictatorship style, but the re-thinking of humanity and what we percieve. Which 'story' is correct? Is the popular idea the correct one? I'm not saying anything about Mao, but about me. What do I believe?

It was a spur of the moment decision to not have a takeout lunch, but instead find someone to sit with that I did not know in the least. I did find someone, and we had a rather interesting discussion about a paper she was reading on race relations. I forgot about some of the things we had discussed until I read Philosophy in the Flesh. During the discussion on “the inescapability of categories,” I suppose, I was predisposed to think about how this idea related to interpersonal categorical relationships.

ie race relations. I wondered how a phrase like, “We do not, and cannot, have full conscious control over how we categorize.” fits into the diversity training that I received in my childhood. It was a very noble venture, eliminate racism by eliminating the differences that we see in each other. However, Lakoff and Johnson might have said that we cannot unwrite our software of categorization. We are all like amoeba separating everything it encounters into food and nonfood.

So perhaps my teachers were mistaken in thinking that our class or anyone else could entirely stop being aware of differences within humanity. Yet, I do not believe that this justifies allowing cultural prototypes ( or stereotypes) to pervade out interaction with our environment. Humanity has traveled a long way since the amoeba. Unlike the amoeba, who moves towards food and away from all else instinctually, we have the ability to choose to investigated those things that fit into the categories we create. Humanity, can explore its environment less selfishly.

Then maybe the way to combat racism, stereotyping, and so forth is not to cut off the discussion and hope it goes away, but to learn about and appreciate the differences in ideas, cultures, and ultimately the INDIVDUAL MINDS of those we encounter. Move towards nonfood, it may prove just as useful in the long run.

 

(A second posting) After a night of tossing and turning, dreaming of Philosophy in the Flesh (all of 3 hours), all I really want to know is…

is unconscious memory inheritable?

 

“Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real” (17).

I cannot help but think especially of the “interactions with our environment” and, if it changes the functioning of the brain…especially in regards to interpersonal relationships and as in Darwin’s theory, if this change would begin to be passed down to the future generations…I do not know if I am understanding this reading correctly or if I am “telling what I feel like I cannot tell” properly, if that makes any sense at all.

 I am wondering if there is a change in the brain chemistry and can tacit knowledge be passed down like other inherited traits?

Anyway…I am still trying to wrap my head around this reading.

I considered this an interesting reading because of its wide applicability to what we’ve discussed in class. Every time we have a conversation in class we’ve touched those boundaries of tacit knowledge by asking how we’ve come to accept stories as part of our basic knowledge in any and all aspects of life. I find this approach particularly engaging because it seems as if we are not necessarily expending on the topic, but instead digging down deeper in order to see why we think this way and learning more in turn. That is what the function of the readings seemed to be, but it was applied even more broadly in order to lead us to thinking about thinking.

I found the Lakoff and Johnson readings more interesting than The Tacit Dimension mainly because I found it very confusing. The Lakoff and Johnson readings seemed to have a theme of the unconcious in each othe the sections. Before this reading I only associated the concious with Freudian theory and dreams. The readings further extended on the unconcious stating that it had a larger rols in our thoughts and reasoning. I don't understand how reasoning could be unconcious since you are concious when you reason and you are aware of it. Also, reason develops from past experiences and understanding which are reached conciously. The only time that I can see reason dealing with the unconcious is when one does not know the reason for a given answer but knows the answer. Unconciously, the person knows the answer but cannot think of it conciously. I agree with their agruments for thoughts mostly being concious.