Embedded Files
It's easy for us to think that our generation knows more than those that came before us and that those which follow will build on our knowledge and as such, know more than us. Just as we, as individuals, will know more tomorrow than we do today, which is the bases for one of the 7 lean Software Development principles of Defer Decisions.
“If I have seen further it is
by standing on the shoulders of Giants”
- Isaac Newton 1675
But is this always the case?
What is Knowledge Atrophy?
What is Knowledge Atrophy?
"Knowledge atrophy" refers to the gradual decline or deterioration of knowledge over time. It's the idea that if you don't actively use or reinforce what you've learned, you may forget or lose that knowledge. This concept is similar to the idea of muscle atrophy, where muscles weaken and shrink if not exercised.
So in fact, it's easy to see that, unless significant measures are taken to preserve knowledge, and furthermore to be able to effectively harness knowledge, it does indeed atrophy and decay. This is true for us as individuals but also for teams, communities and societies.
atrophy
/ˈatrəfi/
to waste away.
gradually decline in effectiveness or vigour due to underuse or neglect.
Food for thought
Food for thought
We refer to "drawing from a body or knowledge, or adding to it" but maybe it is better to consider it a body of memory. We draw from and contribute to a body of memory.
How do we prevent it?
How do we prevent it?
As an individual, it's pretty straight forward...in theory. In the context of learning and memory, knowledge atrophy suggests that without regular review or practice, the information you've acquired may fade away or become less accessible in your mind. To prevent knowledge atrophy, it's often recommended to engage in regular review, practice, and application of what you've learned. This can help reinforce the neural connections associated with that knowledge and improve long-term retention.
But as a large group of people it's harder. In fact the larger the group, the harder it gets.
Its negative impact on innovation
Its negative impact on innovation
Research on the effective use of evidence use has repeatedly confirmed how hard it is to spread even the best ideas. Social influences are more important than logic in explaining why new ideas are taken up (or more often not). Doctors listen to other doctors, teachers to teachers, but not to others. Ideas spread if there is an existing structure to incorporate them. And they persist if they are integrated into training and development.
Recent research on innovations shows that even ones that achieve significant gains in performance do not naturally spread, or even survive where they first emerged. A forthcoming study from the US shows that the key factor determining whether high impact innovations persist is whether they can be easily fitted into an existing process. In other words, we are naturally lazy and only stick with ideas if they can be made easy -or if we are given no choice.
Professor Geoff Mulgan posits that a theory of knowledge atrophy and forgetting might include the following dimensions:
How, other things being equal, knowledge atrophies
How it atrophies less if there is a well-curated structure for knowledge – random fragments don’t survive – which is done by professions, movements of ideas, or disciplines
How it atrophies less if scarce time and resources are devoted to reproducing it and repeating it, otherwise known as training and learning
How it atrophies less if someone has the job of systematically organising the memory – and here incentives matter: most academics are more incentivised to generate novelty than to synthesise the current state of knowledge.
An interesting, related read (6 mins):
https://www.geoffmulgan.com/post/a-theory-of-knowledge-atrophy
Related pages:
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse