Hacker News Reader

Comment by stedman_rh | Hacker News Reader

> The wheelwright responds that, at least concerning his craft, he can create what he does only because he’s developed a ‘knack’ for it that can’t be wholly conveyed in words.

This parable sounds like it's less concerned with creativity and more with tacit knowledge.

https://commoncog.com/blog/tacit-knowledge-is-a-real-thing/

View on HN

It's hard to take the author in that link seriously when so many of their counter-examples are mostly hand waving while the rest is just an excercise in opining on the topic for the sake of itself.

>Go find a couple of kids (or adults!) who haven’t yet learned to ride a bike and see if you can teach them — through the power of your explanations alone!<

I did exactly this with a few navy friends whose parents never had the time to teach them, it worked fine.

>how to cycle without scraping their shins.<

This is a shifted goalpost, most people consider falling and getting back up to be part of learning to ride a bike.

>And if you are successful, be critical with yourself: how much of your success is due to the bike rider figuring it out on their own? And how much of it is due to your verbal instructions?<

This applies just as much to tacit knowledge, the difference is that I can give functional instructions to a large group (especially if paired with video material for physical tasks). Further, most students can learn on their own but won't. The point of the instructor is to be motivational by whatever means are permitted in addition to being informative.

> This explanation bit deserves some attention. In pedagogy, this is known as ‘transmissionism’, and it is regarded amongst serious educators with the same sort of derision you and I might have about flat-earth theories today.<

This is true in the same way that it's true most economists today aren't Keynesian anymore. It's because the parts of the theory that worked have been absorbed into broader teaching theories and practices. Learning styles haven't been strongly been supported by science for awhile but educators still learn the approach because it adds another tool to the box.

None of their broader arguments are necessarily wrong but when the given counterpoints are so weak it's hard to feel like the rest of the explanation is more than coffee talk.

> On one interpretation, creativity isn’t conceived as aiming at novelty or originality, but rather integration. Instead of aiming at something new, it aims at something that combines well with the situation of which it’s a part.

It sounds like Richard Loewy's MAYA principle, most advanced yet acceptable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pY7EjqD3QA

My view is that the category error is inevitable, for we still do not have a clear idea of what each of those categories really mean. In this case, what does it even mean to be creative? If there is no consensus yet on an objective definition for creativity, then what stops us from including tacit knowledge as part of creativity?

William Morris, one of the father of modern day design and a medievalist despised industrialization, but considered sincere imitation to be authentic. If we consider authenticity to be an essential characteristic of being creative, can you call imitation a creative endeavor? https://www.raghuveer.net/posts/sincere-imitation-can-be-aut...

That’s what I got out of Tao Te Ching as well - knowledge being dangerous because many consume it without the ability to use it. Tacit knowledge is important vs the abundance of “ability to search google for facts or information” and never do anything more than posture with it.

The way that the Laozi (Daodejing) and the Zhuangzi discuss knowledge is subtly different. The Laozi is secretly a very political text and has to be read in the context of other philosophies which emerged around the same time. These philosophies, including what was later called "Confucianism," argued that a virtuous ruler cultivates himself and, in doing so, transmits his virtue on down to his subjects. The Laozi, on the other hand, argues that a good ruler keeps his people poor and stupid (to totally butcher it, something along the lines of "they'll be happy if they don't know what they're missing out on"). In the Laozi, knowledge is dangerous for the people but not for the ruler.

In the Zhuangzi, knowledge is often discussed in terms of the interconnectedness of all things. The story cited in the OP is one example of several anecdotes which describe a skilled craftsman who is instinctively good at what he does but is unable to describe what he's doing in a formulaic manner. (Again, note the contrast to the "Confucian" texts which are very prescriptive about self-cultivation - in other words, they're all about following precise formulae.)

For background, I have undergrad/graduate degrees in Chinese Literature focusing mostly on ancient/early medieval texts.

>The Laozi, on the other hand, argues that a good ruler keeps his people poor and stupid

This is a bit different from my understanding of Daodejing. Do you know which chapter? I quickly checked the original text and only the 65th chapter mentioned along the lines "commoners shouldn't be taught to be cunning instead of honesty, otherwise difficult to rule" <excuse crappy translation>

Off the top of my head, Chapter 80 is a good example of the "idealized state." (I do think some things are often lost in translation; many of the freely available translations on the internet tend to read into the Laozi what they "think" it means.) There are a bunch of other references too though. It's also worth remembering that these are composite texts - there was no "single" author so if things occasionally seem self-contradictory, that's pretty natural.

That's absolutely true. From the fact that there were so many equally ancient text commenting and interpreting the the original text (later also become canonical sources), it could be contradicting itself too. My views were basically formed via my background and what commonly understood in my upbringing.

Yes, for sure. It's also the case that our understanding of ancient texts has changed a lot over the past 20-30 years as more archaeological finds have been discovered (e.g. Mawangdui). I once had a Professor who tried to discourage me from focusing so much on ancient literature because he joked that all my research would be out of date in 20 years :D

Reply on news.ycombinator.com