Explicit Vs Implicit Knowledge
Micropoast explaining a common concept
Administrative Note:
I refer to this concept a lot. When it comes up I either link to this one hour video, to one of my other multi-thousand-word posts where i half explain it at some point, or just re-explain it in the middle of the new multi-thousand-word post that is already way too long. This seems suboptimal. So I’m going to try something new: explain it here and link here in the future. If this ends up being a better system, I will do this for other common concepts I refer to.
Explicit knowledge is our typical understanding of knowledge. It is developed via “reason” and “science”, and is “conscious”. It is generally the result of lots of “how” and “why” questions.
Implicit knowledge in contrast is developed from “doing” and “evolution”, and is “unconscious”. It doesnt really care about “how” or “why”, it just cares about “what” and that it works.
Humans are the only animal (we know of) who can engage with explicit knowledge. All others rely exclusively on implicit. Easy examples of implicit knowledge in humans would include how to breathe, how to walk, the desire for food or sex, etc.
Some “implicit” knowledge in humans can be overridden, at least for a time. Such as intentionally going against your hunger instinct on a fast. Most anything that requires the use of “willpower” is a result of using explicit to override implicit.
Some implicit knowledge in humans cannot be overridden. For example, if you put a snake in a glass cage, you will still recoil if it strikes at you. It’s literally impossible to override this startle response. Your limbic system “knows” the snake is a threat—and it has never heard of whatever this weird Zoomer shit called “glass” is—and it will act accordingly.
Explicit knowledge can be turned implicit. For example, how to drive started out explicit and now has become implicit. Someone explained it to you and you had to think about it but now it “just works” without thought.
And implicit knowledge can be turned explicit. For example, through therapy or self-exploration we can make unconscious behaviors conscious. And then we can use the above process to consciously train ourselves to perform a “healthier” behavior. And after enough time that new behavior can again become “automatic” and unconscious.
(We are unlikely to “forget” the explicit information after it’s made explicit, but even if we did it would not “break” the implicit behavior. This is because explicit and implicit are two separate systems, and they store their “knowledge” in two separate locations. This also explains why you have the experience of “knowing something is bad for you but doing it anyway”—because you only explicitly understand it not implicitly—or “know something is good for you but can’t do it”—such as in the case of procrastination).
This same situation applies to grander things as well. This “discovery” process—of making the implicit explicit—is what science aims to do.
For billions of years animals have “implicitly understood” things like gravity, drag, mass, etc and thus were able to run, swim, climb, jump, fly, etc. Even a child today can map the trajectory of a ball flying toward him and catch it despite that he has not been taught the theory of gravity or fluid dynamics or how the Higgs Boson creates mass.
The necessity to take effective action for survival is only rarely benefitted by explicit knowledge about the why and how of things. Evident by the fact that humans are only perhaps one or two orders of magnitude more successful than all other animals.
(This is also why “humans are stupid”. The ability to perform explicit thinking—”intelligence”—is extremely costly. Exceptions are made at the tails of course but clearly: if there was an advantage to higher intelligence that outweighed its cost, the median cognitive ability would be higher than it is.)
There is some ambiguity in this concept. For example it is not a binary. Is it a “spectrum”? A “hierarchy”? “Relative to an objective”? Probably all three and more.
If you want to devise a plane you will need to have explicit knowledge about lift, drag, speed, air resistance, etc. But you will need to know nothing about the things “below” that such as Quantum Physics or the origins of the universe. And actually, you don’t even need to know any of that other shit either.
The Wright Brothers were high school drop outs. Did it matter? Not at all. If anything, it’s the only reason they were able to devise a plane. All the bookfags who “knew all about physics” were absolutely certain the Wright’s ideas would never work.
A cursory review of this, or a dozen other examples—such as the confusion Quantum Physics creates for most people (probably because it’s wrong, but that’s for another time)—and it becomes clear: having more explicit knowledge is not always superior.
Eventually, after it’s been thoroughly attacked for a few centuries, it is generally more accurate. But until the explicit knowledge can meet all the needs the implicit knowledge met, it will be lead to worse outcomes. Because implicit knowledge is always a byproduct of keeping its host alive, and so must prove itself viable. Explicit knowledge on the other hand can often avoid confronting reality for decades or even centuries.
The plethora of ridiculous things humans have done in the name of science—from blood letting to low-fat diets, COVID vaccines to climate alarmism—are examples of the shortcomings of explicit thinking.
The naïveté of the flaws of explicit knowledge is also a major contributor to the fall of Modernity. A core—if not the core—tenet of Modernity is the idea that explicit knowledge is always better than implicit knowledge. This is obviously wrong. And our failure to grasp this lies at the root of our Post Modern crisis.
But that my friends, is for another time.
edit: Here is something approximating part two of this post: Rationality is Dumb and Wrong.