On Learning and Technology

During this time, because of the embarrassment of life, I have been sighing that "men are afraid of entering the wrong line and women are afraid of marrying the wrong person". I was deeply touched and said to my children, "I must study science and engineering in the future, and I can have a mouth to eat wherever I go." Children born in rural areas know that carpenters and masons are "crafts" after all, thinking that only "crafts" are the bowls for eating, and they must master a professional skill.

Until recently, I studied the Basic Course of Yi-ology edited by Mr. Zhu Bokun, and a passage in it made me stop and think for a long time. "The so-called' learning' refers to the truth about life in heaven and earth; The so-called' technique' refers to the technique of fortune-telling with yarrow. " According to the meaning of this passage, "learning" is the truth, and "skill" is only skill. According to relevant historical documents, in history, we did not distinguish between knowledge and skill, and it was only in the Han Dynasty that we made a clear distinction. This sharp distinction mainly lies in emphasizing the orthodox truth theory, while denying or even belittling the technical number in the technical field. I finally understand that for a long time, it is precisely because of my admiration for a hundred schools of thought that I have always emphasized my perfection in the realm of life and neglected the specific survival skills.

In order to understand the specific meaning and distinction of "academic", I searched some documents, and the more useful information is probably the following three. Baidu's explanation is relatively simple. Academics is systematic and specialized knowledge, and it is the general name of opinions, theories and propositions. Liang Qichao, a master of Chinese studies, wrote an important article on this and made a thorough analysis. There is also an article by Hu Jun, head of the Department of Philosophy of Peking University. Which is more important, study or skills? In his article, Mr. Hu Jun pointed out that "we must start directly from the basic disciplines and combine learning with technology on the basis of theoretical research."

After careful analysis, my point of view is clear: scholarship must go down to ability, and ability must go up to scholarship. Generally speaking, the relationship between learning and skill is the relationship between "body" and "use". In other words, "learning" is the fundamental truth, and "technique" is only concrete application. This can be illustrated by concrete examples.

For example, there are three basic ways of heat transfer in physics: conduction, convection and radiation. The generalization of these three ways is "learning", which is specifically thermodynamics. Its application is also more extensive. Fan coil units supply air through convection principle, floor heating and ceiling radiation through radiation principle, and cold and hot coils supply air through conduction principle. Therefore, "learning" is fundamental, "body"; And "technique" is concrete, "use".

It is relatively easy to distinguish concepts, but we always make mistakes in epistemology and methodology. My main idea is to talk about the specific understanding from several themes around the relationship between learning and technology.

First, today's society is a society that only pays attention to skills and ignores learning, which leads to a lot of embarrassment.

"Learning" is fundamental and belongs to the guiding category. And "technique" is just a concrete application, which belongs to different techniques in practice. Nowadays, society only pays attention to specific skills and ignores the fundamental truth. There are several examples to illustrate.

Throughout the value chain of the pharmaceutical industry, from generic drugs, generic drugs and generic drugs to patented drugs, it is similar to a pyramid, but most pharmaceutical manufacturers in China just stay at the "generic drugs" stage at the bottom of the pyramid. Why? Just because you lack "learning". How can you stand at the top of the pyramid without research and development? In terms of drug research and development procedures, it basically goes through four stages: drug discovery, preclinical research, clinical research and then listing. Most pharmaceutical companies in China have no way to make a fuss at the stage of drug discovery, that is, there is no basis for "learning", and finally they are only qualified to produce "ordinary APIs" for others. What are China pharmaceutical companies doing now? "Imitation"! What do you mean? It is nothing more than a little "improvement" in technology and a little change in dosage form. You say, what else can you do besides being a "world factory"? ! !

Look at the situation in enterprise management. At present, most enterprise managers can only do some "technical" work at most, only use what others call "tools" to do some coping things, and have no idea what to learn in the realm of "learning". I have been engaged in enterprise human resources management for a long time, and I deeply feel that most human resources practitioners are only doing superficial articles, and have no idea what kind of "knowledge" is behind these management tools. How many managers can figure out their "management philosophy"? How many managers can understand the basic principles and orientation of management? How many managers know how the so-called "six modules" are connected in series?

The whole society is pursuing to make money quickly in an "efficient" way, so "if you want to make money in any major, learn some professional knowledge quickly", and you are not afraid to cheat and cheat, just "fool"! Whether it's an exam or a textual research, you will earn that income soon after you get the "stepping stone", and no one will delve into knowledge. This is a degenerate society, which has completely lost its fundamental principles. Come on! Anyway, everyone is like this, let's "smash" it together!

Secondly, the classical four-quadrant method is used to analyze the specific division between science and surgery.

If learning and technology are taken as vertical axis and horizontal axis, four quadrants can be divided.

The first kind, unlearned, not much to say. There are many such people in reality. They often look very academic, but in essence they are just "treasures outside".

In the second category, those with skills and no knowledge account for the majority. It is often found everywhere in various institutions. This kind of person, on the surface, has mastered many rules and regulations to do things with high efficiency, but the organization has not developed in the end. The reason is that this is a kind of person who only knows "doing things" and "not sensible". These people can only be "executors" at best. It is ok to do things step by step, but you can't take on heavy responsibilities, let alone expect to make any innovations within your responsibilities.

The third category emphasizes learning over skills. This kind of model has been seen in schools before, and most of them are academic researchers who are divorced from reality and study their own "ivory towers" behind closed doors. Up to now, it is relatively easy to show such a typical example in the tutor class of colleges and universities. However, it is worth noting that these people also started "activities" because of the national policy of "transformation of scientific and technological achievements".

The fourth category is academic part-time. This is the talent we should give 100% respect to. Learning is guidance, skills can be combined with practice, and they are always in the process of mutual promotion and progress. It seems that it is rare to see such people, too few.

If you are in charge of the organization, what kind of talents do you want to attract? It's obvious!

Thirdly, there are many new terms named after "Xue". Are they reliable?

Since the 1990s, a number of bestsellers have appeared in representative so-called "elite places" such as airport lounges, mainly involving topics such as interpersonal relationship research, relationship research, larceny and officialdom research. And in the coverage of about 20 years, many people relish these books, talk about truth, and even put them into practical work.

Today, we want to say that this is all "pseudoscience", which only caters to the appetite of some impetuous people in the era of rapid development and rapid chaos, and the result can only be misleading. We can't completely criticize these books or their viewpoints, because the classic Organizational Behavior also talks about the concept of interpersonal skills, but if we deviate from the purpose and the theory is not rigorous enough, it will lead to confusing results.

Furthermore, can bestsellers be read? My opinion, the so-called bestseller, is bullshit! Poetry and songs can be sold well, even "Luoyang paper is expensive". However, books about basic knowledge can't be sold. The concept of bestselling means that it is inspiring to most people. Is it possible? If it really sells well, it is only arty at best.

Fourth, basic theory is the driving force of sustainable development.

Art is selfish and learning is selfless. Technology, such as patents. Patents probably include inventions, utility models and designs, all of which are exclusive, and all of which are for protecting their own interests. Just like Han Feizi said, "hide inside the Lord", don't show it easily. So the consequence of overemphasizing technology is profit. Learning is for the benefit of mankind and is universal. Therefore, Mr. Hu Jun should emphasize academic research, because it benefits the overall welfare of mankind and paves the way for the overall happiness in the future.

However, in today's society, who wants to do such a thing that "can't see immediate interests"?

To sum up, we should treat study and work from three realms: knowing what, how and why. If you just "know what", you just know common sense at best. We must know how to do it, which is the basic action to create social wealth. Of course, the development of society should be "knowing what it is", and we should explore more from learning, otherwise we will just "follow the trend" and there will be no substantive breakthrough.