The Learner's Survival in Information Noise and the Flow of Knowledge

When studying any technology, concept, or model, it is key to refer to the original source. The original contains the idea itself, its essence, logic, and the context in which it was created. Any subsequent articles, analyses, courses, or publications are usually interpretations, reworkings, or adaptations. There are certain works whose interpretations are deeper and more practical. But this does not negate the need to familiarize yourself with and study the original work. The original is a complete work in itself. It can exist without interpretations, but interpretation cannot exist without the original.

They can be useful for examples and clarifying understanding, but often distort the original thought. To truly understand a concept, its strengths and weaknesses, you need to turn to the primary source, study it carefully, and form your own opinion based on the original.

Naturally, the question arises: where to find the original source? Wikipedia usually has links to primary research and attributes authorship to a specific person with an indication of the original source. Naturally, such an approach is not applicable everywhere: there are certain areas and tasks where direct recourse to the primary source proves difficult to understand or explain. But there remains a key factor: any knowledge has a single author or collective authorship, and even in the case of scientific collaboration, authorship ultimately falls to a specific unified structure, group, or organization. Subsequently, knowledge begins to build according to a pyramid scheme, and the lower you go, the faster and stronger the original primary data becomes blurred. In the lower layers, nothing remains of the original—not only do details disappear, but the root concept itself becomes distorted.

If there is a need for broader understanding or practical implementation, one can turn to one or two large-scale interpretations recognized by the community or experts in the field. By large-scale interpretations, I mean those that have wide coverage, that are considered standard, and have been recognized by multiple specialists or organizations. Especially those that have practical applicability to multiple users. These interpretations should be authoritative enough to be considered a supplement to the original, not its replacement. Exceeding this number usually leads to information noise and cognitive overload. In the modern world, when the volume of information is enormous and constantly growing, it is important to focus precisely on the original and on one or two verified sources to form accurate and stable understanding, without getting lost in streams of interpretations.

It is especially important to approach the study of technology criticism in this way. Modern interpretations often transfer popular opinions and general judgments that may not reflect the true strengths and weaknesses of a concept. For example, the opinion that Singleton is an anti-pattern is encountered everywhere, but often this is the result of reworkings and interpretations several years after the original article appeared. Almost all information consumed on the current internet is reworked through multiple iterations. Each new iteration becomes either shorter or more distorted. At some point, information sounds so brief and dry as if it were a statement of fact, which it is not in reality. Information increasingly ceases to answer questions or answers them more briefly: Efficient, Useful, Better. Should we believe these arguments on faith?

This problem is not encountered only in IT and the Singleton example. Similarly, in other fields, in science, classical experiments that are often simplified in textbooks; in education, original teaching methods interpreted through modern courses; in business and management, ideas like “Lean Startup” which in blogs and trainings can distort principles; in art and literature, classical works like Orwell’s “1984” where criticism and analysis provide interpretation but do not replace the original; in music and culture, works by Bach or Beethoven whose interpretations help but do not replace listening to or studying the primary source.

To understand the real side effects, limitations, and compromises, one must study the original and comments that were published contemporaneously, that is, in the same period of time. This may be direct criticism from the author’s colleagues or discussion in the comments to the article. Only such an approach allows us to see the full picture and form an objective understanding of the concept.

In an era of information overload, such an approach becomes necessary. Today, a huge amount of courses, videos, articles, and automated materials are available, including those generated by AI, and trying to cover everything is impossible and inefficient. Moreover, the more “chewed” versions of material are consumed, the further knowledge strays from the truth. Focusing on the original and one or two major interpretations allows us to conserve attention, form correct models of understanding, and avoid the illusion of knowledge. This principle is applicable to any field: science, education, technology, everyday life, or any other activity.

I have never encountered articles and solutions on this topic, and those that exist try to treat the symptoms rather than the disease: how to survive in an era of information noise? As a solution, Notion is proposed for structuring information, thoughts, and so on. And no other tool is helpful in this: you can install a bunch of plugins, unsubscribe from everything, but as soon as there is a need to go online and master something, learn something, the problem of information surplus will meet you, because anyone who cares to has written about the topic you are looking for.

When studying the original independently, without the accompaniment of interpretations, there is an advantage: you can interpret it in your own way. Your version of interpretations may be more suitable for your task and your context. Likewise, you may stumble upon the fact that you are not the only one who came to the same conclusions. But in addition to the original, when necessary, it makes sense to know a couple of authoritative and widely accepted interpretations if you cannot afford to rely entirely on your own interpretation. You need to know them even if you have the goal of challenging other interpretations.

The optimal learning strategy in this case is as follows: first, the primary source is fixed, then, as necessary, a limited number of large-scale interpretations are studied, and only after that, one’s own understanding and conclusions are formed. This allows you to simultaneously maintain focus, avoid overload, and build a stable and accurate knowledge base that can be used for practical purposes and for creating educational materials, guidelines, or articles. It is easier to push off from the original further; it will be the starting point. Someone else’s point of view will not be perceived as truth. Knowledge acquired through interpretations has neither beginning nor end, because the beginning will be considered an acquired someone else’s opinion. It cannot have a continuation, because it will be built on the basis of a copy of a copy and will not be verified against anything.