The distinction I have in mind is between knowing the inside of a topic in deep detail — many facts and problem-solving skills — and knowing the structure and context of a topic: essential facts, what problems can be solved by the skilled, and how the topic fits with others.

This sort of knowledge is a kind of specialty, really — a limited slice of learning, but oriented crosswise. Because of this orientation, though, it provides leverage in integrating knowledge from diverse sources. I am surprised by the range of fields in which I can converse with scientists and engineers at about the level of a colleague in an adjacent field. I often know what to ask about their research, and sometimes make suggestions that light their eyes.

…the structures, relationships, contents, controversies, open problems, limitations, capabilities, developing an understanding of how the fields covered in the major journals fit together to constitute the current state of science and technology. In some areas, of course, I’ve dug deeper into the contents and tools of a field, driven by the needs of problem solving; in others, I know only the shape of the box and where it sits.

And even more fundamental than these are questions of knowledge about knowledge:

What is known today?
What are the gaps in what I know?
When would I need to know more to solve a problem?
How could I find what I need?

It takes far less knowledge to recognize a problem than to solve it, yet in key respects, that bit of knowledge is more important: With recognition, a problem may be avoided, or solved, or an idea abandoned. Without recognition, a hidden problem may invalidate the labor of an hour, or a lifetime. Lack of a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.”

“Most subjects in science and engineering, however, are narrower than these, and advanced education means deeper and narrower education. What this kind of education omits is knowledge of extent and structure of human knowledge on a trans-disciplinary scale. This means understanding — in a particular, limited sense — everything.

To avoid blunders and absurdities, to recognize cross-disciplinary opportunities, and to make sense of new ideas, requires knowledge of at least the outlines of every field that might be relevant to the topics of interest. “

Design for a humanist experience
Technology hs a reputation for making us feel stupid, helpless, less human. Designing technology for a humanist experience changes that. Take Kacie Kinzer’s innovative Tweenbots - robots that require human intervention in order to reach their goal. Or Foursquare - a location-based application for discovering places and socializing with your friends in physical space. Instead of simply using technology to supplant us for the things we’re not so good at, humanist design lets us do what we do best: It lets humans be human. It’s a great reminder that, when designed thoughtfully, our experiences with technology don’t need to be wholly outsourced to the point where we lose our sense of being.” - Phoebe Espiritu

When each new observation builds on earlier observations, context accumulates. Context accumulation improves the accuracy over time and leads to an exciting phenomenon whereby more data is faster - much in the same way the last few pieces of the puzzle are as easy as the first few, despite the fact there are more observations in front of you than ever before.” - Jeff Jonas

Obtaining power requires will and skill—the ambition to do the hard work necessary, and the insight required to direct your energy productively. Power comes from an ability to build your reputation, create efficient and effective networks of social relations, act and speak in ways noted that nothing gets done without power. that build influence, and from an ability to create Social change requires the power to mobilize and employ resources—things that others want resources. ” - Jeffrey Pfeffer

an understanding of the business and what was required within the business, combined with a technical competence that enabled them to understand what was required in technical terms, including the scope of what was being planned. In addition to this, they displayed two types of organizational skills. They knew how to get about the business, and this implied that they knew the business and the people around it well, and they knew how to get things done, possessing a set of excellent social skills — to listen, understand, negotiate and persuade.