Data, Information, Intelligence, Knowledge and Wisdom

A conversation with a friend led me down the path of wanting to clearly delineate the following concepts: Data, Information, Intelligence, Knowledge and Wisdom. The first fascinating learning from researching these words is that none of them have a universal definition and they all have multiple meanings depending on context. For the purpose of this exercise I am seeking to articulate how humans and computers interact with these concepts.

The Mirriam-Webster Dictionary defines data as the “facts about something that can be used in calculating, reasoning, or planning”. It is more accurate to say data is the expression of something that can be used in calculating, reasoning or planning. The difference is that the existence of data does not make it factual.  A lot of data is incorrect and therefore not factual. Data exists independent of whether it is processed or not – attributes, characteristics, judgements and qualities are added as it is processed.

Yes; the tree that falls in the forest when one is there to hear it creates the data that provides sound. There is no one or thing to process the data but the data is there for the time that the physics of the event create the sounds resulting from the event. 

For a computer, data must be in alpha or numerical format prior to being processed and ultimately it is translated into numerical data for processing. The human brain uses a different system for the receiving, recognition, translation and processing of data then computers.

The moment we represent an object/subject/target with data what we are dealing with is no longer the thing itself and the process of representation introduces a high probability for small or large errors that then propagate and multiply over time through computer or human systems. To recognize this, remember playing a game of password with your friends when you were young and how fast a simple word passed from one person to another changed as it went around the circle.

The beginning of the cognitive process is to recognize and/or see data, catalog it and store it. This part of the process requires operational intelligence. Intelligence in this exploration will be the processes that take data through cognitive processes. Cognitive processes take data from recognition; transform it into information then knowledge and finally wisdom. Each of these is a higher order of processing data then the preceding one.

This process in and of itself is independent of the variety, velocity and volume of data. These characteristics of the data in a specific scenario being will directly impact how the data is processed both by computers and humans.

It is worth noting that there are varying levels of intelligence in both computer systems and humans. (You may have noticed this in your own life from time-to-time :).  A good definition of intelligence that takes this into account is that the level of intelligence from dictionary.com is the capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. A high level of intelligence in one area does not automatically create a high level of intelligence in another area. For example intelligence whether computer or human based may be exceptional at working with logical systems and quite poor in more qualitative areas such as art, music, social skills and/or writing.

According to businessdictionary.com Information is data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty. This definition is the definition of high quality information. The weaker the characteristics described above; the higher likelihood that the information provided is low quality information. Information of varying quality is quite common both in the information taken in and provided by both computers and humans.

A more universal definition of information may be thought of as the characteristics or quality of the data. In other words, is a number small or large on an absolute and/or relative basis? Is a word or string of words highly emotional or not as thought of by most people?  Is an image or part of an image in focus or blurred?

Information may be generated from a single data point or from large amounts of data or any volume in-between. Information as defined is independent of the amount of data.

Data and information may be thought of as different levels of labeling or naming “what is”. They are an interpretation of what is but at this level of processing; conclusions have not been drawn from the data and/or information. It is important to realize that data and information is most often presented in a way to influence a decision to be made in the future even if that decision is a judgement about the past.

In other words, it is rare or possibly impossible to see data that is purely objective. Some of the contributing factors to this are that even how data is collected will influence the information derived from it. Data is collected and information is developed from it by humans with agendas and perspectives. Even most computer applications and systems are produced with human agendas in mind. Caveat Emptor!

When we come to conclusions or decisions based on data and information we create knowledge. Knowledge is defined as the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered or learned by freedictionary.com. We perceive data, we discover information and we learn knowledge. Knowledge does not have to be accurate or correct. Knowledge is simply the process of knowing.  

The word knowledge has a cultural implication of a high degree of certainty about the conclusion(s) reached or what has been learned. There are varying qualities of knowledge. An example of low quality knowledge would be when you say in a less then confident voice “I think I know how to get there from here”. An example of high quality knowledge is “I know the fastest way to get there from here “. There are of course, in-between levels of confidence in knowledge or “knowing what is known”.

Wisdom is defined as the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment by the Oxford Dictionary. If we are able to cognize data, information and knowledge in a way that we are able to generate positive outcomes we are perceived as wise. In popular culture Warren Buffett is perceived as a very wise man. He is famous for deriving knowledge from publicly and widely available economic data and information sets that produce far above average economic returns.

The same attribute of wisdom is ascribed to principals who turn around schools, coaches who produce winning athletes and teams, business executives who regularly deliver above average results. It seems to me that Wisdom is more then just being successful on a quantitative basis. For example, prior to the personal scandals that engulfed Lance Armstrong and Tiger Woods both of these high profile, successful and charismatic athletes would have been referred to as wise by most of us. Unfortunately, for both of them (and us) in pursuit of success they were engaging in extremely unwise self-destructive behaviors.

Going back to the example of Warren Buffett, some of the reasons he is considered wise in that he seems to be able to generate his success while adhering to understandable ethical and moral standards and seems to be a compassionate, relatable person.

To be considered wise, it is necessary for the wise person’s actions, behaviors and communications to meet culturally appropriate ethical and moral standards.  Below  is a list of fifty influential people in history who demonstrated powerful levels of wisdom during their lives. I put forward this list as a way of providing some sense of an operational definition of wisdom. It is critical that we realize wisdom can be brought forth and realized in all human endeavors. We can be wise without being perfect whatever being perfect would be.

Dante Alighieri, Muhammad Ali, Maya Angelou, Susan B Anthony, Aristotle, Simon Bolivar, Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Confucius, Marie Curie, Charles Darwin, Walt Disney, Frederick Douglass, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Henry Ford, Benjamin Franklin, Sigmund Freud, Galileo Galilei , Carl Jung, Abraham Lincoln, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Thich Nhat Hanh , Thomas Jefferson, Helen Keller, Vince Lombardi, Jackie Robinson, Leonardo Da Vinci, Martin Luther King, Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, Nelson Mandela, Abū al-Qāsim “The Prophet” Mu?ammad, Pablo Neruda, Issac Newton, Pablo Picasso, Plato, Knute Rockne, Meyer Amstel Rothschild, Rumi, San Jose de Francisco San Martin,  William Shakespeare,  Socrates,  Pat Summit, Leo Tolstoy, Sakicho Toyoda, Harriet Tubman, Desmond Tutu,  Lao Tzu, George Washington, Thomas Watson Jr. and John Wooden.

I am sure there are many others across many other cultures and geographies who should be mentioned in this list.

Many of these wise role models i.e. people with deeply held ethical and moral beliefs that informed their lives operated outside the laws of their time. In other words it is not uncommon for wise action to be in conflict with the social mores and norms of the time as expressed by law and the in-power legal system. That being said the most common expression of criminality in these cases is categorized as non-violent civil disobedience.  A few were involved in violent uprisings against colonial / imperial rule by a foreign power. Yet, if a criminal is defined as someone who breaks the law – a healthy proportion of them were criminals.

To be considered wise - data, information and knowledge needs to lead to a deep understanding of not only situational awareness but human nature as well and that knowledge must be used to lift others around you up towards an aspirational ideal that is greater then any one person, family, community, country, system or economic unit.  

This seems to preclude computers and computer systems in and of themselves from being wise in this day and age as the need to integrate such complex and subtle context into conclusions drawn from available data is beyond the processing power and schema of computers today. That is not to say that computers and technology are not inspirational and/or motivational but that is different then wisdom.

We can be wise in some areas of our lives and not others. A common example would be an exceptional business executive who does everything he or she can for their team and the company to create long term value for stakeholders but in doing so perhaps gives short shift to their family at home.

None of us is going to become wise without practice. Practice means failing. Most importantly practice means starting and continuing.  Practice is never finished. Wisdom is something to be aspired to and difficult to achieve and not necessarily permanent.

We can act with wisdom and be wise in one situation and shortly thereafter we can act unwisely in a different situation. For example, we handle a complex communication with our spouse well but turn around and are un-necessarily short with the children. Or vice versa. Those among us considered the wisest act more frequently and often from a place of wisdom both when it is easy and difficult to do so.

The value in aspiring to wisdom is what happens when we orient in this direction. We all know with extreme confidence that we need all the wisdom we can get in the world today. My most sincere hope is that this examination helps you develop more wisdom in your life for the benefit of others.

Epilogue

Most of the people who I mentioned as wise are not contemporary figures. History has raised them up. Their well-documented accomplishments are focused on far more often and with much greater vigor then their human failings. Please keep in mind they were all human and thus they had weaknesses and made mistakes.

Below are some other role models who I think of as wise, none of whom are perfect i.e. they try and sometimes they succeed and sometimes they don’t but they have also demonstrated great diligence and persistence in moving forward no matter the outcome.  It is important to understand I can find at least one thing if not more to disagree with that every person on this list has done or said. This is not about a person’s political or societal views. Wisdom is about trying to do great things with grace and succeeding in a world that makes accomplishing great things extremely difficult.

Queen Elizabeth, Pope Francis, Phil Jackson, Michael Jordan, Ban Ki-Moon, Jack Kornfield, Aung San Suu Kyi, The Dalai Lama, Angela Merkel , Elon Musk, Edson Arantes do Nascimento -“Pele”, Barack Obama, Mary Oliver, David Petraeus, Colin Powell, Sheryl Sandberg, Russell Simmons, Bill Walsh, Earl Warren, Elizabeth Warren and Ai Weiwei.

By the way if any of the people listed above are reading this…dinner is on me…call me, maybe :).

About 40% of the people on the list of wise role models in the body of the post operated outside the laws of their time. About 20% of the people on the list above operate(d) outside the laws that apply to them in their country of origin.

I would like to believe that this is because our international power structures and legal systems are slowly evolving to become more in-line with a wise way of living thus reducing the need for ethical and moral leaders to demonstrate through civil disobedience. However, I have no additional data to back up that conclusion, so my confidence in that statement is quite low.