There are basically two approaches to learning anything you'd like to learn. Well, maybe not anything at all, but it certainly applies to a lot of things. You can shoot for skill or you can shoot for knowledge. They aren't the same and generally you have a good reason for wanting one or the other.

Definitions
Knowledge is the academic, theoretical part of the picture. It is knowing what, and why. Knowledge is about knowing your field well in a structured way. It's about knowing the concepts, the terminology. It's about being able to use concepts from one field to another, to spot patterns between things. It's being able to discuss your field with a peer, or read technical papers about it. You could say it's a way of organizing what you know in a way that makes it possible to keep track of it and talk about it.

Skill is the application oriented, practical avenue. Where knowledge is about knowing, skill is about feeling. It's about knowing how. Skill is all about being useful, it's only about being able to do things. Skill isn't about knowing why things are as they are or what exactly they are. Skill doesn't demand you be able to explain how to do something, just that you can do it yourself. And you don't have to know how it is you know how to do it either, you can be born with a talent for something and find it so intuitive that you're skillful without really learning what it is.

To take an example, consider driving a car. Knowledge is knowing the structure of the car, the physical processes that take place, knowing what all the instruments do. But even if you don't know any of those things, skill is about knowing how to drive. Not knowing that the left pedal is called the clutch does not preclude you from driving, it's a piece of knowledge, it's not a piece of skill. But being able to press in that pedal, at the right speed, and release it just when it needs to be released, that is skill.

Or if you take mathematics, knowledge is knowing what differential equations are, how they work, why they are useful, and where they can be applied. And if you see one, you know what ways there are of solving one, what formulas and strategies exist, and where to find them. Skill is being able to solve them, even if you know nothing else.

Argument

In a sense, knowledge is the absence of skill and skill is the absence of knowledge. They are complementary. You might say there is most to gain from adding skill to knowledge or knowledge to skill (think MacGyver). If you're good at doing something, and you add knowledge, you will learn how to talk about what you know, how to describe the subtleties of your skill, and even (if you so wish) how to teach someone else how to do it as well as you do. On the other hand, if you have knowledge and you add skill, then not only will you be able to discuss what you know in a precise and accurate way, and read about it to add to your knowledge, you'll be able to apply that knowledge to do something concrete.

I think that most people are biased towards one of these. That means in most cases they will prefer one over the other. And it makes sense, because it's hard to cover both. I certainly find a great deal more satisfaction in skill, and I think that's probably subjective. It may be because skill is more tangible, it's more about having a feel for something rather than knowing a lot about it. It's also that skill is a way to eliminate thinking. If you know how to do it, you don't have to think about it, you can do it quicker.

But above all skill is about perfecting your ability. The more skilled you are, the more expert you are in the thing you do. And skill tends to study that thing in greater detail than knowledge does. Not through academic discussion, but through trying and failing so many times that you know how to do it better than any theorist could work out for you. Skill is expert knowledge that cannot be communicated, because it's too complicated to do so. Theoretical knowledge can be communicated.

Thus, in knowledge, everything can be taught, in skill not everything can. If you're learning a skill from a teacher, you will never get the exact solution, you will only get guidelines. The rest.. you have to figure out yourself. For instance, say you're learning to ski. The instructor will tell you how to move your body, how to shift your weight from one side to the other, how to approach a turn, how to brake etc. But however much he may want to, he will not tell you exactly at what angle to lean into a turn, and what amount of tension to apply in a muscle at a particular instant, how many milliseconds after one turn to take the next etc. And even if he were able to tell you exactly how he does it, it would not help you anyway, because everything you have to do depends on the precise circumstances in that instant, circumstances that are not known in advance.

In theory, it is possible to work out all these details. But even if you had this knowledge, it would be so incredibly complicated that you wouldn't be able to use it. Only a computer could calculate all those values in time to do what you have to do.

Conclusion

So skill is self taught. Perhaps you were given guidelines and tutoring on how to learn a certain skill, but no one can tell you exactly what to do, this you have to determine yourself. So, as a logical conclusion, the way you do something is not the way that someone else does it. Because you both learned that particular skill through different paths. And by that you could argue that the way you do it is unique, no one else does it exactly that same way.

Perhaps that uniqueness is why I find skill more satisfying. Isn't that also what you're thinking when you're skilled at something? "No one can do this exactly the way I do." Not consciously thinking it, but I wonder if that isn't the conviction we all have.

Ever wanted to be a moviestar? Ok, you'll love this then. You are the star. For this blog entry anyway. You are the star, everyone wants to see you. You live in a mansion in Santa Monica (or wherever you wanna live, up to you). You go to New York for a weekend of shopping. The minute you show your face on the street, people are all over you. They want your autograph, they want to take your picture, they want to be around you, they want to be seen with you. You can't beat them off. You would, but you have an image to keep up, you have to be nice. You go to Paris and people come out to the airport to see you. They follow you around town, you actually need people around you to put some bodies between you and the fans. That's how much they love you. You're the one they want. Everywhere you go the photographers are all over you, they're dying for those pictures. Pictures you won't see, cause you don't buy those magazines, only fans do.

Do you ever think any of this is a bit.... strange? Of course you do, these people are possessed. Some of them really are nutters, but most are just very, very enthusiastic. About you. And they've never even been in a room with you, never even talked to you.

Indeed, this has come suddenly. Three years ago you were a struggling actor playing in second rate commercials, plays no one ever saw and jumped on every audition you could get. You came to Hollywood to be a star, to play in movies, to be on magazine covers. Yeah, you and thousands like you. You would walk down the street and no one would pay you any attention. People wouldn't look twice at you, you were a regular guy, what's there to see?

Then you finally caught a break. You got that audition for a proper movie and through a stroke of luck and divine intervention, you got the part, the main role. It wasn't a big movie, but it was an actual movie, and that's how you got noticed. You got a couple of similar parts until someone thought you'd be great in this year's blockbuster. That's right, big budget, expensive special effects, a corny Hollywood storyline, the whole nine yards. Up to now people would sometimes stare at you in the supermarket, thinking they may have seen you somewhere before. But now, with the movie coming out, they hooked you up. They set you up with a stylist, new clothes, new hair. To promote the movie you have to give interviews, you have to go on talkshows, you have to go to social events, you need to be seen. And you got a nice boost in your finances, didn't you.

So now you're the star. And everyone wants a piece of you. Well, maybe you look a little better, stylists exist for a reason. But on the whole you haven't changed much. You look about the same, you talk the same, you still believe in the same things, you're the same. And people are crazy about *you*. That's funny. A couple of years ago those same people would never notice you. And now their world revolves around you.

Yes, I mean now, not later, right now! There are several reasons why you should do the dishes as soon as you finish using them, during cooking or right after, before you sit down to eat:

1. Most food tends to wash off the easiest right after you're done cooking. Most cooked food is at least a little greasy and that grease will come off right away with almost no detergent, but if you let it rest and cool, you'll be pumping detergent into that pan and scrubbing several times before you're satisfied that it's gone. Grease gets nasty if you let it settle, so don't. Btw this is just as true for fruit.
2. You are not keen to look at food, and especially leftovers, after you eat. Food is the last thing on your mind after a meal, and doing the dishes is a little icky (and the level of ickyness increases the longer you wait), even though you know you ate this a little while ago. If you wash dishes right after you stop using them you're still in the spirit of making food, so it feels natural.
3. If you get into the habit of doing dishes as part of cooking, you don't have that extra chore to do later.

Not to mention that time-to-clean-dishes is greatly reduced, because they get washed right after use and don't contribute to stacks in the sink. Everyone wins.

Do you know what computers are really good at? You know, but I'm going to tell you anyway so what when you see it you'll be like "yay, I knew all along". They are really good at this:

1. read number a from memory
2. add to number x
3. read number b from memory
4. add to number x
5. ....

Computers are so immensely good at this that there is no reason why you should try to compete. A computer can perform the operation of adding two numbers a million times and not make one mistake, can you? No, so stop trying.

See, computers are stupid. Everyone says that, I know, but it's true. Computers can do smart things, but only if you manage to tell them exactly what to do in a very specific way. Imagine that you want to make someone win the Nobel Prize for advances in astrophysics and to do that you have to give him instructions like "open the door", "walk through the door" etc. Yes, that's how dumb computers are.

But you aren't. If you compare the most sophisticated things that computers do compared to what goes on in your brain, it's a blowout. The computer uses a primitive algorithm to compare two words and count how many letters are missing from one compared to the other, while you can do this instantly just by looking at them. Yes, the computer is faster, but only because it does these really primitive things really fast. While your thinking is at an immeasurably more advanced level, even if you're not that fast.

So when you degrade yourself to doing the kind of work that is meant for a computer to do, you are losing your whole advantage. Not only that, the mind is just not precise enough to repeat the same thing over and over without making mistakes, it's not a machine, so don't use it as one.

Don't hand edit your document to replace all occurrences of Bonn by Berlin, use the Search/Replace tool. Don't manually count up the cells in a spreadsheet, use a formula. Don't open a file and manually read off 1's and 0's into a new file, use the copy function. Don't repeat the same simple action over and over if you can help it!

So you say "yeah, but I can't get a computer to paint my house". Unfortunately, that is a necessary evil. But try to save your sanity, play music (or listen to an audiobook), or get someone to paint with you so you can talk.

Our minds and bodies are not optimized for machine operation. Oddly enough, there are people who try to imitate machines and do so quite successfully. (One could ask oneself why they bother.) There are people out there who have trained themselves to remember thousands of decimals of pi.

Working out at the gym also approximates this kind of behavior. This is actually an interesting example, because most of what goes on at a gym is constant repetition of incredible simple muscle motion. Your muscles are actually capable of far more complicated things, in orchestra. For instance, the first time you turn on the light in your room, you have to look for the switch, if it's dark you fumble for it. But the 5th time you do this, you know where the switch is, so your motion is far more efficient. It's not just that, it's also not focused. You know this motion so well that you can synchronize it with walking, with thinking about something else. Now, if you're lifting weights you are focusing all your attention on flicking that switch. On. Off. On. Off.

Running and swimming are examples of this as well. Although both far more complex than lifting weights, because they require more muscles to participate, they are inherently completely obvious. There is only one ideal in running, and swimming, and once you learn to do that "correctly", you're no longer learning anything new, you're just pushing down that button, waiting for the spring to recoil, and pushing it down again. This is why it's more satisfying to play sports that, even if they are entirely repetitive, are hard to master, so the learning process constitutes that variety we're looking for. (Admittedly, swimming is of this category, if you aim to learn all the various styles, rather than just peddle water and stick with that.) Don't get me wrong, if you lift weights in some kind of way that allows for variety and improvisation, then you are being less of a machine than someone playing football, whose idea of the sport is limited to 6 fixed scenarios and never tries anything new. It's more about how, than what.

But don't act like a machine. Try to bring some variety and improvization into everything you do, where possible.

There is no better starting point for learning than to be a child. Actually if you had known, you may have been quite stressed. You have all the potential and you haven't made one single mistake yet. Can we make it a flawless game? Kids need a lot of guidance. They know nothing, and they are about to learn everything.

When you're a kid your parents will guide you in all sorts of ways. They will try to shape your behavior, whatever it may be in its most natural, unfeathered form, to something they believe is correct with respect to the society they live in. They tell you to respect people, to be nice, to shake hands, to say goodbye when you leave, to be unselfish, to not abuse people's trust in you, and so on. These are all very simple rules, and you will choose at some point which ones you are going to follow. It's entirely up to you.

But that was then, you aren't a child anymore. What have you decided? Do you have it all figured out, or do you think you could use some more guidance? Do you think you've outgrown that kind of influence? Would it be possible for someone to exert an influence on you that would make you behave more good or more evil?

I believe that studies have shown that people are very susceptible to outside influence. I also feel this to be true from experience. But one thing in particular that has concerned me for a long time is how it is that people decide to be decent and to what extent to be decent.

This is something that's very easy to observe, because wherever they are people they are exhibiting what is their standard of decency to that particular situation. And I believe we have a general standard as well, that covers every eventuality, to which we refer in cases of uncertainty.

What I'm implying here is that there is a range of behaviors we allow ourselves. You will allow a different standard when you're fighting with that guy at work you just positively hate (and you're being attacked), compared to when you're dealing with your parents.

Another point to consider is group influence. It isn't just the person you are dealing with that is affecting your decisions on how to behave, it's also people around you. Just being an observer already attunes you to the standards of interaction that are the norm in this environment. Observing one conversation between two people has a direct influence on your next conversation with someone from that same group.

Eventually, through all of these influences, we set the bar for ourselves somewhere. And I feel the urge to ask where and how. Why are people so classless sometimes? Why do they laugh at the most base jokes?

Every person has their standards, but people, if they can co-exist, tend to balance each other out, to fit into the social context. So if you think racist jokes are bad, and your coworkers love them, the only way you'll fit in is if you'll accept them, at work. It's also very clear to me that people, as a group, can choose to raise their standards or to lower them. One person's choice affects the next, but if one person or part of the group decides to move the bar, the rest tend to follow.

Influence is possible, but is it a good thing? This goes back to the very well established question of whether it's right to influence people because we know what's best for you. Are you an adult who makes all of your own decisions or do you need some guidance yet? Without that influence people will work out the balance among themselves. And that outcome tends to be fragile. An influential person (without any conscious effort to influence the group), a person people pay attention to, can tip that balance up or down.

Of course, if I were more serious in any of my endeavors I would actually research the subject at hand instead of just plainly talking about it. I would grab that relevant book in sociology or group psychology or whatever the exact term is, read the conclusion and say "so that's the way it is". But that would be denying myself the satisfaction of being able to figure out something for myself, even if it is a well established scientific truth since 1873. :P