Questioning Known Knowns

In 2002, Donald Rumsfeld was widely ridiculed for talking about the difference between known knowns,  known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Regardless of the political context, Rumsfeld was correct about this important logical distinction, particularly when it comes to unknowns. This topic raises one fundamental question: what does it really mean to "know"?

After Rumsfeld's famous speech, the focus was primarily given to unknowns. There are things you know that you don't know (known unknowns). Then there are the things that you have absolutely no clue even exist, and therefore do not know that you do not know about them (unknown unknowns). Yet when it comes to the known knowns, there is an extra wrinkle: what if what you know is not true?

Known Unknowns

Known unknowns are the things that you are aware of not knowing. For example, you may know that there is something called quantum physics, and also know that you have no idea what quantum physics really entails. If you were asked to list five of your own specific known unknowns, it wouldn't be too difficult. It would simply be a list of five things that you don't know.

A few known unknowns might include: the average lifespan of a giraffe, how to say "I like oranges" in japanese, the square root of 465,912, the name of the person who voices Spongebob Squarepants, and what movies were playing in your hometown movie theaters on the day you were born.

Unknown Unknowns

Unknown unknowns can seem more complicated because you cannot know about them. They are all the things that are so far off your radar that you do not even know to ask about them. As soon as you do become aware of one of these things, it stops being an unknown unknown and becomes a known unknown.

When it comes to unknown unknowns, the best you can do is be aware of the fact that there are things that you are unaware of not knowing. This concept may be simple to some, but for others it may seem very abstract.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

In Part One of his excellent five part series, The Anosognosic's Dilemma, Errol Morris discusses unknown unknowns when exploring the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Essentially, the Dunning-Kruger Effect refers to a 1999 study by Justin Dunning and David Kruger which illustrates that incompetent people make poor decisions, yet their incompetence keeps them from seeing (or correcting) their own incompetence.

According to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, people are not very good at knowing what they don't know. This has a limiting effect on the decisions that they make in life. Conversely, it could be said that a trademark of an intelligent (competent) person is the ability to be aware of the unknown unknowns. But what does that say about intelligence and the known knowns?

Known Knowns

If understanding the concept of unknown unknowns is an important part of making competent, intelligent decisions, is it equally important to understand what it means to have known knowns? In other words, does the measure of competence also rely on a person's ability to evaluate his own sense of what he knows to be true?

It is very easy to say that we know what we know. It is much harder to say how we know that what we know is true. Scientists might define known knowns as truths that have been verified by experiments. This is very different than saying I know just because I know, or because I feel it to be true.

Perhaps the most important conclusion we can draw from all this is that many "truths" derived from intuition or personal observation are not as self-evident as they might appear.

To make the best decisions, we need to be open to both self-evaluation and evaluation by others. To move forward with intelligence and truly open minds, we must be aware that there are unknown unknowns, and also be open to external evaluation of our own known knowns.