About the harmfulness of knowledge repeaters

People in the transfer of "knowledge" play a big role. More often - negative. A teacher telling about the “X-topic” adds a significant part of individuality to the material. Understands a little differently, interprets a little differently, tells a little differently. Maybe it makes it even better than the original. But more often - much worse. Otherwise . Not like the source he is trying to imitate.

We all know about the game broken phone . But we are not afraid of interpreters and interpretations, although they seem to be.

The media is important - they provide an opportunity to eat the already overcooked information. Quickly and at least something nutritious. The journalist himself could study the topic for several hours, and you learned the main thing from it in a couple of minutes. Actually, this is not bad, but nowadays, many are talking about the usefulness of apples, and about the fact that apple jam is, in general, is also not bad, but with the apples themselves and near it is not worth it. Similarly, knowledge is better in the original. But sometimes you can be content with jam - it's up to you.
')
One news agency refers to another, another to the third, and the third compared the X chart with the Yg chart and got the result that we are all dead. And if you yourself analyze this schedule (source), which, by the way, it may even be difficult to find, you may well come to completely different conclusions. A journalist should try to dig deeper, receive confirmed and reliable information, try not to distort, but to supplement, aggregate information in one place, refer to sources. Provide information from which he worked so that the reader could easily make his way and, perhaps, see the news a little deeper, from a different angle. Moreover, it is sometimes better to remain silent about your own opinion, if the topic is already clear to your audience and they can draw their own conclusions.

To understand God, to try to do this, I think you need to read only the Bible, and not listen to various enlightened ministers of the church. These are repeaters. The Bible is an interesting book, useful, and you should not trust transponders. Why do you need them? You are already able to understand everything yourself on any topic, studying the original or the source as close as possible to it. At least it is worth trying, but it is worth starting with the original.

If you are an expert, the opinion of others will be useful. Note that you will often disagree with him - you have already perceived this knowledge and perceived it differently, so now you have your own, unique, “correct” point of view, unlike those around you. But, of course, communication with others who have studied the topic may reveal a lot of new things for you. Important: only after you became an “expert” in this area, studying the original (I hope you worked with him). Or created their own original, developing their own philosophy or methodology of work.

Some knowledge is based on those that were before him. For example, the writings of Jung would have been impossible without the writings of Freud. Conclusion: we study first Freud, then Jung. Yes, it is difficult, but I think the result is worth it.

We are talking about God without having read the Bible, we laugh at Freud, without having read his writings, we are stewing over the USSR, not having read Karl Marx, we consider tranferfing to be “another chimera” without studying it.

Originals of knowledge. It is important to be closer to the source. Trying to read in the original language, study the primary source of literature, watch a film in the original voice acting, and so on, and not live in a world where everything seems to be known, although no one concerned where this knowledge came from. " I did not study, but I have an opinion " - a monstrous deformation of knowledge.

Did you learn something new from anyone? Thank him, send away and study the original.

Artemy Lebedev - famous designer. He wrote a book about design, he sometimes writes on the Internet about design. His works are beautiful, interesting. From a commercial point of view, it took place. He is respected, and for good reason. Consequently, his knowledge is worth something, since they work for him personally, and we can easily see this. And his entire design studio with hundreds of people works, probably, not greatly violating its canons and principles - otherwise they would not work there. Therefore: you can believe him. Studying Lebedev’s thoughts on design, we study Lebedev’s thoughts on design. Not the topic itself, but the vision of this topic by a certain person. Lebedev himself, when he grew up professionally, did not read his own book on design, but became a good designer, after which he wrote Kovodstvo.

If you didn’t like his works, you would hardly have read his book. If a cook doesn’t cook well, it’s strange to read his “Book about tasty and healthy food”, although if he finds flies in his meatballs, he would hardly have shared his professional secrets. But, unfortunately, we often do not know what the dishes are made at the very turn, and reading his book, it may seem that he cooks perfectly. Although you would definitely not eat this.

PS: Georgia 'under attack' - A fresh note on Habré, which is a good illustration of the topic above.

_____

This is just my opinion.

______________________________

About the author: a journalist, sometimes tries to study something.

Copy-paste from my blog .