Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom?

Monday, November 29th, 2010

Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom -
Just a think-piece really.

(I was recently visiting the office of the awesome design website Swiss Miss. Over snacks, they asked me to christen their “lunch guest wall” with a scribble. Caught in the headlights and feeling the pressure to be clever and impressive, my mind, of course, went blank. Spotless white. All I had was a noodle in my notepad about the increasing organisational structure of information and how it might relate to visualization. It had been a *long* flight to NY.)

I got kinda stuck with it. So I wanted to open it up and see what you thought.

This is by no means original thought. This structure has been around for a while. (In fact does anyone knows who first came up with it?). The only new thing is relating it to visuals. And giving it a nice font.

One interesting thing. If you visualise information without designing it, you often end up with a mush or a meaningless thicket. So if you can only really ‘design’ information, rather than visualize it, then maybe the term ‘information visualization’ is a bit of a misnomer?

Anyway, how does it look to you? Does it seem logical? Truthful? Do the definitions ring true? What could be the word for the visual depiction of wisdom? Does greater verticality imply greater meaning? Or can errors creep in?

Look forward to your ideas, feedback and corrections!

Books and Store

Our Beautiful Books - Information is Beautiful Information is Beautiful Store

Show Comments ( )

  • Kate Towsey

    Interesting to juxtapose this against Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

  • Linda Gabriel

    I like this but there’s something about it’s that’s nagging me. Maybe it has to do with the way the graphic implies that wisdom is more complex than knowledge when in fact it is often much more simple. Wisdom is so often the result of a “clearing away” instead of an “adding to.” In my experience the shift between Knowledge and Wisdom is more quantum than linear. Wisdom is much more than Applied Knowledge. As you mention, the structure has been around a while, but maybe Applied Knowledge deserves it’s own tier and Wisdom?

    • david

      Yeah that’s a good point. Thank you. Yes, wisdom is more like optimisation, rather than increasing complexity. Although you can have very complex belief systems & philosophies that could be considered wisdom?

      • Michael

        I felt a similar nagging as Linda. Although for different reasons.

        I think the ‘clearing away’ and ‘optimisation’ is actually captured quite well by the vanishing point of the pyramid, the Wisdom domain IS smaller, the books and paradigms may be very complex but at that point it’s a tightly-bound, dense, complexity that is more like compression and chunking than a shedding of ‘useless’ data, information or knowledge — that said… the more you learn at this level the wider the base becomes as new data is uncovered — what’s the Large Hadron collider pumping out every day? Terrabytes of data every few hours I’d wager!

        Perhaps enveloping circles would be better to show how each level transcends but includes the rest? But keeping, somehow, the idea that there is all that depth and… a FRAK load of data, really… it’s mindboggling compared to the petty pamphlets and tracts you get further up ;)

        • Golden_worm

          Maybe you could show the discountect between knowledge and wisdom by separating the topmost section so it floats just above the other three. And then install a eye on it.

  • rune

    hi i like the consept here, but this idea deserves a eaven broader scope, your angle is wery useful to really get those “managers” who think data in a box is enough.. Pherhaps a business angle could show a more tight despription., by all means i get the picture.
    If you let me i will actually use this in a meeting where we are adressing the future of dataassembly as a innovation possibility. The design phase can be just that, and at the top new market possibilities, a way of compeeting on data,, another issue is that the foundation is the data, and the vizualization could be more clear on that witout the data your pyramid will never get buildt,, in stead you will have a platform, where averyting or anything is the truth.. This is why thomas davenports “compeeting on analytics” is what come to my mind when looking at your work.

  • Kathrine Jensen

    Looks a bit like Bloom’s taxonomy of learning related to the cognitive domain to me.
    Skills in the cognitive domain revolve around knowledge, comprehension, and critical thinking of a particular topic. There are six levels in the taxonomy, moving through the lowest order processes to the highest:

    The other classic pyramid structure going from basic needs to more complex ones, is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

  • Thomas Sanjurjo

    This is similar to Bloom’s Taxonomy. You might want to check that out as a comparative model. I’d love to see what you could come up with as a more appealing way of dealing with all that data.


  • Tina Benson

    ??? = art. (Maybe.)

  • Alexandre Plennevaux

    For wisdom one could think that being on the topmost level of meaning, you’d need to pass on this wisdom, not represent it (since you master it), so it’s about exchange. In terms of representation, it could be a totem (a chanel between the spiritual world and the material world) but it could also be a simple conversation, a link shared through twitter. so: exchange.

  • Ray Lee

    So if you can only really ‘design’ information, rather than visualize it, then maybe the term ‘information visualization’ is a bit of a misnomer?

    I’d say we apply design to the connections between the data, not the data itself. But I’m not wedded to that point.

    By the way, I’m not sure I’d label the left vertical axis ‘increasing meaning.’ Meaning only has any, uhm, meaning, in the context of a question or metric, neither of which applies to data bereft of an observer.

    Also, the pyramid structure is likely reasonable, but there is a notable counterexample: Mathematics. Math starts with the simplest possible sets of data (integers, for example), and then derives a giant edifice of information, knowledge, and even wisdom about those numbers and other entities that they led us to.

    Finally, the triple question mark at the top is obviously either ‘Profit!’ or world domination.

  • Levi M -”what next”

    I think the chart does capture some truth. Although the problem is that on the bottom level it’s easy to tell when facts and data is correct or incorrect. But as you move up it becomes more abstract and thus, more difficult to confirm. Ie; less certain.

    Not all books, paradigms, philosophies, belief systems, schools of thought should be considered wisdom. Because many of them can be misled, or skewed, or completely detached from reality. (conspiracy theories) However if you can ensure that all the lower levels are as reliable as possible, then you have a better chance of getting the top one right.

    But again, the more abstract, the less certain, so often what we are left with is fascinating theories and ideas, but little certi-fied/able truth.

    • david

      > However if you can ensure that all the lower levels are as reliable as possible, then you have a better chance of getting the top one right.

      good point – thanks! D

    • B Schwendimann

      I consider books that I have not read yet “proto-knowledge” (potential knowledge). I describe the idea here:

  • Craig Wilkey

    I don’t think wisdom can be codified in books, religions, philosophies etc. and I’m not certain it can be visualized.
    Wisdom is not only dynamic and contextual, it is ethereal.
    Wisdom can not be divorced from the person and documented, generated, displayed or virtualized.
    Wisdom is something one can apply to visualized information and knowledge as a practice of discernment.

  • Igor Topilsky

    I think it came from Russell Ackoff. But why place wisdom on top of all this as if it were ultimately rooted in data?

  • Jacqui Taylor

    I loved this and wondered about ??? against wisdom.

    Wisdom can be a distillation of knowledge to the essential points, not to invalidate the knowledge but to reveal the essential components. So I wondered whether “ontology” would be appropriate for ‘???”. In the semantic world the knowledge is preserved, but the wisdom is made visible by the ontology.

  • Alexandre Plennevaux

    I tend to agree on Igor: the more i look at this pyramid, the more it seems to me that in fact Wisdom is sort of a black sheep here. It feels a bit in the way, like an artistic gesture on top of a rational system.

    Knowledge on top seems right to me. the only piece of wisdom is actually : the more i know, the less i know. In fact, on top of knowledge, i would put something else: “paradox”. When 2 pieces of knowledge – equally right, equally based on truthful data – bite themselves. It’s a quite common pattern. Paradox is everywhere. Everything that stands creates its own shadow. So, what’s knowledge ‘s shadow ? It’s own paradox.

  • Eric

    I would think ??? = understanding

  • João Ramos

    That DIKW continuum is quite interesting. I’ve read a bit about it, but I guess it’s almost common sense these days. Still, I would label “???” as “Interpreting” and would not use the “increasing meaning” label at all. I think the higher you climb that hierarchy, the more defined, refined and new becomes your understanding, but also more abstract, more subjective and less pragmatic.

    Wisdom is the ability to apply knowledge in an “experience” environment. You should take a look at Mazza’s book, “Introduction to Information Visualization”. It seems like just another infovis book, but it describes that DIKW continuum pretty well.

    By the way, did you get my email “About Information Visualization” on November 25? I would be eternally thankful if you could take a look, David ;)

  • Jason Goodman

    Like others here, I saw this graph and said “aha! Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning!” It’s not quite the same, but there’s a close connection between one’s level of understanding on Bloom’s scale, and the data organization structures one can create on your scale.

  • Chad Walling

    Being both a scientist (software developer) and philosopher (college minor at least…), I found this very interesting and decided to look it up. Here is the wiki entry on the DIKW model, which cites the earliest known use in TS Eliot’s poem ‘The Rock’. I think the idea fits within the philosophy of science realm, but can also help describe problems in the philosophy of the mind realm as well. However, as one noted, there is a kind of ‘gap’ if you will between wisdom and knowledge. And I saw one image on the link you presented with a 5th layer: vision. I kind of agree with this extra notion. I think visionaries separate themselves from those that just ‘know’ things. However, I dont think vision is too far off from how you define wisdom. I would say that wisdom is the ability to take knowledge and utilize it appropriately, while vision is the ability to create new ideas from that knowledge/wisdom. Many people know a great deal, but not all are able to use that knowledge in an apt manner. And in the same vein, even fewer people can create new ideas – think newton, galileo, dawkins, socrates/plato/aristotle, etc.

  • AJ Cann

    Old news. This is Bloom’s Taxonomy of Education: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals; pp. 201–207;B. S. Bloom (Ed.) Susan Fauer Company, Inc. 1956.

  • Cooper

    I can count many, many forms of “belief systems, philosophies, schools of thought, churches, etc.” which are clearly, and substantially NOT based upon the forms of knowledge and information, and sometimes even data, presented in this pyramid.

    The first three sections do not currently read as necessary steps for the tip, and the tip doesn’t read as the potential for the lower sections.

    Either the rest of the pyramid needs re-writing to move it away from the logical, rational reasoning and thought processes it it outlining in order to substantiate the form of wisdom expressed currently, or the wisdom section needs re-writing to define wisdom in a manner which makes the previous sections a neccessity for wisdom to be reached.

    As it currently reads, the white text of wisdom works, the notion of ‘applied knowledge’ works, but I don’t think many of the examples do. Though I can’t come up with laternatives right now.

    • John Ellis

      I must ask then, if not though observation and understanding how do our thoughts which we classify as wisdom come to be? You don’t sound like the type of person who would given a religious author the credit of divine inspiration, so how should such wisdom, however flawed, develop if not through the processing of aggregated knowledge?

  • bbswede

    If the vertical axis quantifies meaning, then the horizontal axis is?

    My first reaction was that the pyramid is upside down. If the width of the block represents the relative magnitude of possible interpretations, then the data block, at the bottom, should be the smallest. In this way, it would imply that there is no debating the raw data; no “wiggle room” for multiple interpretations. As in math: There is no debate that 2+2=4.

    In the same way, moving up to the pyramid, the number and ways of interpreting and organizing the data increases as more connections are made: E.g. Interpreting all stories as one of several archetypical stories: man vs. man, man vs. himself, or some other deconstruction of plots and narratives. At some level, we can organize an infinite set of different stories with a finite set of categories.

    By this rationale, the topmost tier of wisdom would be unlimited in terms of interpretation. Furthermore, it would be mutable from day to day insofar as the meaning of one bit of wisdom is greater at one time, than it is at a time when the awareness of that wisdom is in abundant supply. When the wise old carpenters are a dime a dozen, what we really need is a wise young physicist. However, even as wisdom is not confined, or limited by rational constructions, it simultaneously never violates the rational substructure that is at the foundation of all organized thought.

    One consequence of this interpretation, is that when a religious, philosophical, political, economic, or other form of be-all end-all wisdom succumbs to dogma, or rigid orthodoxy, it loses its credibility as an example of wisdom, and decays to a mere ‘knowledge’ or at the very least, something less meaningful than in its original form.

  • Robert

    Perhaps replace Wisdom with the less value-laden Application or Integration. The lower three steps seem parallel to Bertand Russel’s Abduction, Induction and Deduction in terms of graduated organization of experience into rules. Acting (the apex of your pyramid) on raw data and piles of similar information generally yields results with “unforeseen consequences.” Once a map is in place, however, the results are at least useful enough to test the apparent rules, implicitly leading directly to a new level of raw experience to collect this new data. Hence the dialectic. G. Spencer Brown does a good job of teasing this out. I think “Wisdom” is a messy non-parallel complication here. At least that’s what is says in the brochure.

  • John Ellis

    The time required to process each succeeding layer each layer will cause each to become a bit removed from the present. Today’s information came from yesterdays data and so forth.

    For most applications this means only a significant delay for the wisdom layer but in certain quick response decision situations the lag between layers becomes relevant right down to the separation between data and information, specifically stock trading which gives both a continuous processable data stream and continuous opportunities for decision making necessitates that we model the time delays for all layers.

    The other drawback to the higher levels is of course biasing, a factor which time delay plays a role in. But biasing is less about wisdom coming to late than it not changing in response to new data (which may or may not represent a paradigm shift on the part of the system we are observing). In business, and academia for that matter, a lot of concern is placed on being able to overturn or ignore high levels of understanding to avoid being blinded to the facts at hand.

    I would add to your chart the comment that increasing organization and abstraction leads to decreasing relevance.

  • Micheal Burke

    Thanks for throwing this one out to the floor!

    I dont have any revolutionary insights here, but as soon as I saw your pyramid and your questions, I immediately thought of a maxim I know on this subject. If you havent heard it already, you might find it amusing at least:

    “Knowledge is knowing that tomatoes are in fact a fruit.
    Wisdom is knowing not to them in a fruit salad.”

  • darth_careful

    Oh no! I feel myself being sucked into this one when I spent 6 months trying to avoid it at university!

    Anyway; Wisdom. I agree with the optimisation comments to a point, but I think it’s more like a synthesis of complexity rather than a distillation. For example, Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence suggests that wisdom is the ability to choose the correct strategy for a given situation; in order to get there, you already have to know a lot of strategies. Similarly, Czikzentmihalyi has a concept of ‘flow’ ( the state you get when everything comes together, or you’re in ‘the zone’) where complexity is balanced by ability – so things seem simple, even though they’re only like that because of a large base of underlying knowledge.

    Because of this, I agree with David’s representation; applied knowledge is at the top of the tree. “Wisdom” will always be a tricky term because of the range of associations that it has.

    Belief, now. That’s the tricky blighter. I still can’t get my head around that one…

  • eris

    I see data/info/knowledge in the pyramid, and wisdom a kind of circular halo around the vanishing point of the pyramid…

    Also the more I think about it, the more I want more interwoven bits — sometimes what contributes to information/knowledge is the synthesis of data from different sources, rather than a simple linear march from one to another….spokes in a wheel?

    • david

      yeah i agree actually, the more I think about it

  • Cait

    I believe there is a value in representing “wisdom” this way if the triangle is seen as an iceberg (I may just be stuck on this idea ‘cos we’re so cold here in the UK just now – can hardly type!!!). By this, I refer to the idea that beneath “wisdom” is all the tacit knowledge, the experience, the distillation of information, facts, data etc, yet all one sees in the actions of the “wise” is perhaps something simple – the top triangle as it were. The apparent simplicity is infact a complex integration of the lower layers?

  • simone

    wisdom implies actions that can be copied, with people emulating the guy’s behavior, while the guy is aware of his power.

  • lori

    wisdom means something that is “true” for me.
    visualization, design and mapping need to be interpreted in a way, and can be misunderstood. wisdom doesn’t need to be interpreted cause it already shows the truth itself.

    would a seed of a plant represent knowledge or allready wisdom (or nothing of it at all)?

  • Thomas Ehrich

    I think that a few of the posts get to an interesting question about the nature of wisdom — is it knowledge stripped away so that a given decision can be made with crystal clarity? Or is it accumulated knowledge that leads to the correct decision? Both, probably. But the graphic illustrates wisdom as knowledge accumulated to the point that reference to that knowledge becomes subconscious, and so correct, “wise” decisions can be made without apparent recourse to logic, when in fact it is such a vast amount of logic, rational thought, and factual data points that to elucidate them all would be too inefficient. In other words, wisdom only seems like the stripping away of knowledge because our brains don’t have the time to lay out all of the arguments.

    Some people are better at this than others. In other words, some people can make “wise” decisions with less experience and fewer data points. But I think most of us operate in the way described above — wisdom is the accumulation of knowledge and experience. And this is why people in many professions perform best in their 50′s — they have the accumulated experience for wisdom, with brains still agile enough to apply that wisdom with relative efficiency.

    And I love the idea that we must, on some level, construct our own knowledge — exploration of that idea would lead to a fundamental reevaluation of education.

  • onshay

    I would definitely echo what Levi M said.

    There may be a correlation between this mentality and the scientific process which might be interesting to think about.

    I have to admit that I was startled when I saw what you listed as examples of wisdom & applied knowledge as I’m not sure if I would include any of them in that category. Many of the items listed in there are not the result of a movement from abstract data to refined figures to facts. In fact, I would argue that many of them are emotional or intuitive in nature.

    I love the graphic as an exploration but would question the driver behind it. I realize I’m already echoing a few commenters already but I also observe that moving up in the pyramid is a filtering of detritus to come away with something meaningful and that’s why I made the connection to the scientific method.

    • onshay

      After reading through more carefully, I guess I could have just replied to Cooper and said “ditto.” Ugh…

  • Rich

    One category that could replace wisdom …. computation?

  • Sean Wood

    Recently, I looked at the DIKW model as a way to explain which parts of the social web could be understood through automation. The bottom half (D.I.) can be gathered by data mining tools then sorted into quantifiable metrics and information.

    Human analysis is needed analyze that information and sort out a meaningful understanding in the top half (K.W.). A visionary uses past information to form forward-thinking Wisdom. As Leonardo Da Vinci said… “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

  • sharon Leighton

    Data – Information – Knowledge – Wisdom.
    As an information professional I should know where it comes from. One source I know is;
    Taylor RS. Value Added Processes in Information Systems, 1986.
    I don’t have the book myself but it’s been quoted many times.

    Thought you might also like this TS Eliot quote (very apt). From The Rock.

    “Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
    Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?”

    PS Love the website and updates. Regularly post them to my FB fan page as I think information professionals can easily overlook the power of visuals well designed.

  • David Witt

    This is an interesting lunchtime read – thanks for sharing! Here is my input:

    I think the Wisdom level should properly read ‘Action,’ since knowledge isn’t really mature until it has been tried or tested. Wisdom could possibly be moved up a level, and redefined as the accretion of successfully applied knowledge.

    This leads to some troublesome, but interesting dilemmas, since we all ‘know’ a lot of things that we have never personally tested, however, by reinterpreting in this way, a lot of ‘conventional wisdom’ gets exposed for what it really is – beliefs.

    Action, otoh, implies a higher level of data, information and knowledge, because it seeks to put them into practice. The feedback then becomes personal or situational wisdom, not absolute, but practical instead of theoretical.

  • Arkadiusz Dymalski

    My first thought is that wisdom should be described by words: ‘solutions’ and ‘decisions’ – as these are real results of applying knowledge. I guess I’ll have more suggestions later. Best greetings!

  • John Golden

    I clicked on this because of a connection with a model of geometric reasoning called the Van Hiele levels, in which we progress from visual reasoning, to informal reasoning, to formal argument, to axiomatic reasoning.

    The connection I might make with yours is recognition (noticing the data), connection (relating the information), causation (reasoning with the knowledge/understanding why the knowledge is how it is), and extension (applying the wisdom).

    I liked the model of this that thought about what causes the transitions. They had context, meaning and insight.

  • Enrico Zini

    Possibly, ??? = “argument”/”discussion” or more generally “enact”, “live”, “participate”.

  • B Schwendimann

    I agree that data-information-knowledge are hierarchically linked, but wisdom is ontologically different. Wisdom (or strategic knowledge) is meta-level knowledge WHEN to use certain knowledge. (I reflected on that in a recent blog post:

    Thank you very much for your beautiful visualizations.

  • Mike Leung

    Wisdom is action. Games, maybe? Sports, improvisation?

  • Jody Boehnert

    This topic has been of interest to me for some time. I have a few leads you might find worthwhile.

    1. Robert Logan (a Canadian physicist) has just written a book called ‘What is information?’ I have not actually read it yet but intend to soon (it is not yet available). Here is an excerpt from this book that breaks down these four categories:

    Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom

    There is often a lack of understanding of the difference between information and knowledge and the difference between explicit and tacit knowledge, which we herewith define in the following manner;

    • Data are the pure and simple facts without any particular structure or organization, the basic atoms of information,

    • Information is structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives it context and significance,

    • Knowledge is the ability to use information strategically to achieve one’s objectives,

    • Wisdom is the capacity to choose objectives consistent with one’s values within a larger social context. (Logan, 2010)

    2. The four levels are similar to Gregory Bateson’s influential work ‘The Logical Categories of Learning and Communication’ published first in 1964 and then included in his book Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972). This is a brilliant book. I can’t find much on line about this, here is something:

    3. The idea that there are levels of learning and understanding has been an important theme in sustainable education. Dr. Stephen Sterling developed a staged theory of learning directly from Bateson’s work in his Phd – Information processing occurs at the different levels. We live in an information rich world, but information does not necessarily lead to understanding. Critical pedagogy practices have developed processes to help learners move from processing information to developing deeper understanding and capacity for action.

    4. I am developing work around this theme in regards to the visual communication of ecological literacy. Learning about context, relationships, patterns and interdependence is part of moving from data to understanding. I have also made a pyramid to represent a movement from concrete information to metaphysics (based on Sterling’s work). See: and

    I like your pyramid, thanks!

  • alyxandr

    I’m not much of a fan of wisdom in what is seemingly its most popular definition: a way of “knowing”, independent of evidence or reason, that the speaker wishes you to believe is superior to mere knowledge. A popular expression of this is the phrase “Humanity is smart enough to X, but not wise enough to Y” — where X is something sciency, often involving space exploration, and Y is usually something heartwarmingly obvious involving nature or children.

    (My personal definition of wisdom is knowledge that cannot be acquired discursively, but only by acquaintance. “the stove is hot” is Knowledge; “ow fuck that hurt” is Wisdom.)

  • Kim


  • Duy K. Bui

    I’d say the top would be “symbolizing”

  • Martin

    One thing missing are the transform for going between the levels.

    Data to Information requires analysis. Visualization is a way of visualizing. Analysis is the transform and key step between the two.

    Information to Knowledge requires Synthesis.

    Knowledge to wisdom requires theory. Hyposthesis. Consensus through scientific enquiry. Not Mapping

    As a cartographer I have a bit of an issue with mapping being thrown around in such ways. And the assumption that information graphics can substitute for through inquiry.

    • david

      Those visual tags – visualisation, design etc – are not meant as replacements for transformations between levels. Just the dominant or appropriate mode for making each tier visual.

  • tactilekat

    ??? = understanding

    or perhaps navigation.

    i would love to see this idea created into a circular graphic, or perhaps “bubbles” to address the issues raised in some other comments.

    • tactilekat

      just wanted to add that I think navigation works because it conveys a sense of being immersed in the knowledge, moving amongst it, being in the same world as it…constant interaction, response and creatively living IN one’s knowledge…

  • Chris

    How about an inverse hierarchy that works to deliberately hide the information in data. It’s subjective of course, but I’d have put several of your higher value systems on the inverse side.

  • tyler

    Slight wording change:
    I think the sub-heading under Information should be changed to Linked Data
    Very minor but I think it fits with the two above it better.

  • Annindk

    Very thought provoking!

    I’ve previously found it helpful to view the process as a cycle rather than a hierarchy – see for example

    Also, in most articles I have read from the KM sphere, albeit several years ago, knowledge is defined as applied information, ie information in a personal context. Wisdom always attracts question marks!

    I need to reflect some more on applying these concepts to, in effect, curation and the social Web. Very interesting.

    In a final thought, when I have presented the DIKW model to academics, they have dismissed it as over-simplistic compared to Bloom’s taxonomy.

  • waldito

    Nice work indeed. and thanks for letting your readers participate in this one!. beautiful.

    Here’s my thoughts..

    I’m also not comfortable with the term ‘wisdom’. Your pyramid does a nice job arranging the information processed grouping it in different levels of understanding, but that term ‘wisdom’ goes a bit beyond the rest of the terms, it’s like is not matching somehow.

    My personal suggestion would be ‘judgement’ instead of ‘wisdom’, since wisdom is to me a more complex way of knowledge indeed,but applied to the practical world. the ‘???’ still not clear to me, but could be ‘knowledge’, the final objective of processing the data?

  • Gower

    Firstly, I’m a real fan. Thank you. My first reaction to this was that it seemed very un-you. So much of what you do unwraps the apparently obvious and presents concepts from very different perspectives. I’d love to see you explore more than the singularly linear relationships. There are a couple of fabulous animated talks on the RSA site which I think bear watching in the context of this discussion (I’m sure you’ve seen them – 21st Century Rnlightenment and Changing Education Paradigms). Maybe I just have an issue with Churches sitting under Wisdom and alongside Truths! Keep it up.