INFORMATION ABOUT INFORMATION

In the process of working with information, a person enters into relationships with other people; let’s call these relationships relationships tied to information or information relationships.

I classify relations tied to information or Information Relations (IR) as follows:

• Relations of creation;

• Relations of evaluation and recognition;

• Relations of transmission;

• Relations of access/sharing;

• Relations of using information for manipulation.

If we look at relations tied to information from the position of the subject of relationship (and not from the position of the object of relations) then in each of the classes defined above there are following kinds of relationship:

• Expert – Expert (E – E);

• Authority – Expert (A – E);

• Principal – Agent (P – A);

• Expert – Non-expert (E – NE);

• Non-expert – Non-expert (NE – NE).

For the sake of accuracy of further conclusions, we will give definitions of aforementioned subjects of relationship.

By “principal” we mean a subject who set the tasks for the “agent” by performing which the latter receives a reward. 

Authority – a person enjoying recognized influence and respect among experts.  

Expert (from Latin expertus – experienced) – an experienced, knowing and skillful specialist, i.e. the person who has received education (self-education), having experience in some field. As Niels Bohr said: - “Expert is the person who has made all possible mistakes in a narrow field”.   

Relations of creation are the relations between people that arise in the process of new information creation. From the position of above mentioned subjects of relations the most fruitful relations in terms new valuable information creation are the relations expert-expert because they are equal relations both in terms of the absence of subordination and dependence and in terms of the level of knowledge (if to compare with a non-expert).

Expert-non-expert relations in the process of new information creation most often arise:

• when the participation of the experts from different fields of knowledge is required to solve problem. In the literature is often described cases when both the engineers with precise thinking and designers with free flight of fantasy are invited to create a product;

• when non-experts ask questions to experts or make suggestions in a field which they are not experts. For the expert this is useful because when answering he can systematize his knowledge, hone his arguments, although such questions are often stupid from the position of expert level of knowledge and experts sometimes have to politely avoid answering.

In authority-expert relations, the latter may be under the pressure from the authority, that doesn’t allow him to express critical comments and suggestions and defend his point of view. When Niels Bohr at a scientific conference asked the physicist, who did not know him very well personally to express his opinion on some of his ideas. When asked why Bohr asked him to do this, he replayed that others under the influence of his authority would agree with him in everything.

We have considered the relations with pure authority, i.e. when the expert’s position doesn’t depend on the authority opinion. Sometimes the expert depends on the opinion of the authority, for example, when the expert needs to defend or publish a scientific work. In this case, the tendency to agree will be even higher. However, ultimately, everything depends on the authority.

The agent is under the even great influence in the relations Principal-Agent, because the level and the remuneration itself, as well as others social conditions of agent activities depends on the principal.

Information relations P-A in creation of NVI are built as follows. The principal sets a task to the agent and then evaluates the information created by the agent or the agent creates new information om its own initiative and passes it to the principal for evaluation.

The principal can set the task of creating new information using the following methods (a combination of methods is possible):

• detailed description to an agent of information need is arisen, for example, “it is necessary to prepare a decision on reducing of the interest rate, reflecting in it such-and-such points, presenting them according such-and-such logic”;

• informing the agent about the reason for the emergence of the information need (the problem being solved), for example, “there is the opinion that it is necessary to reduce the interest rate, because the following processes are observed in the economy, therefore we are preparing the decision on the reducing, reflecting in it the points that answer the questions posed”;

• working out the information need together with the agent based on a discussing of the problem that gave rise to the setting of the task, for example, “let’s think is it necessary to reduce the interest rate now?”;

• a general description of information need, for example, “we reduce the interesting rate by so many points, go and prepare the decision” or “express your position on this issue” despite this is not within your competence.  

In the latter case there is a high probability the agent will create wrong information the principal wanted to see. In my opinion, one of the indicators of manager’s effectiveness is his ability and desire to set tasks for agent correctly (first three described cases). Along with manager’s ability I would especially note the desire, since the correct presentation of the information need (setting the task) required work but not every manager wants to strain himself in front of a subordinate.

I would like to note that the ideal case when subjects of IR, principal and authority coincide in one person. This increase the possibilities of both correctly setting of task for agent and correctly assessing the information provided by agent. When an expert performs a task setting by the principal-authority he has a completely different motivation compared to performing a task set by the principal-principal. He strives to approach the level set the principal-authority and thereby develop his abilities. However, unfortunately, such cases of coincidence of principal and authority in one person are not so frequent.

Relations of evaluation and recognition are relations that arise between subject (s) presenting new information and others people on the issue of recognition

that new information created is new and valuable and the subject is the original source (author, creator) of the information.

         In the case when the information is created on the instructions of the principal, he recognition is means that the new information corresponds to his needs (ideas).

Based on the definition the following recognition options are possible:

The subject is the author, but:

• the information is new, but not valuable;

• the information is valuable, but not new;

• the information is neither valuable nor new;

• the information is valuable and new.

The information may be new and valuable, but the subject is not the author.

Most often for a person working with information the most important thing is the assessment and recognition among the others experts and authorities working in this field, i.e. expert-expert, expert-authority relations. Within the organization this is not problem since experts and authorities are not so numerous and they can communicate freely with each other. When we moving to the level of society the following problem arises. Entering the level of society means the new information should be published. In turn this means that it must be recognized by authorities when it comes to magazines, or by publishers who consider themselves authorities when it comes to book.   

This is a perfectly valid practice which discourages the publication of valuable but not new information as well as new but not valuable. 

However, it becomes ineffective when we talk about developing of new are of knowledge, presenting an unusual hypothesis or theory or presenting a product of artistic creativity.  

The solution of the problem of inefficiency can be done in two ways. First (I call it the method of sorting out the blockage) is when an author presents the information product to the authorities again and again.  

First method is quite hard and connected with strong psychological stress. In addition, it doesn’t guarantee the success (a person may give up). It is known fact that Joan Rowling received 14 rejections from publishers when she offered to publish her novel about Harry Potter.   

The second method appeared thanks to the internet. This is the way when author puts his information product in the network (through existed sites and information channels or creating his own) and receives feedback from maximum possible number of members of society.

However, the problem of recognition is not fully solved, since sometimes only experts and authorities can understand the research, and here the rule that a person sees only that he knows works. In any case this is a problem the approach to which has to be developed in the future when information relations will become predominant in all spheres of human life and first of all in economic one.

We have considered described above relations (creations and recognitions) in their pure forms. In life this relation can appear in more complex forms – in cases when a several types of relations arise simultaneously. For example, the relations “principal-agent” and “expert-non-expert” can arise simultaneously when the manager is not an expert in the field of created information. In this case the more effective decisions are made when the principal takes into account the agent’s opinion and thrust him rather then imposing his opinion on him on issues in which he is not an expert. Also the principal, expert and authority can coincide in one person, thereby simultaneously creating whole palette of relations that favor the creation of valuable information and making effective decisions provided that all other experts are allowed to express their opinions.

Relations of transfer are the relations that arises when information is transferred by one person (people) and received by another (people).

Unlike the relations of recognition, in this case the relations are not based on new information but on already recognized information. These relations always arise when the learning process (improvement of qualification) is underway.

The classic example of this type of relations are relations between a teacher and a student.

The relations of transfer may have two forms:

• one-sided – the subject receiving the information has no opportunity to ask questions and comment on the received information;

• two-sided information – the subject receiving the information has the opportunity to ask questions and comment on the information received and implements it.

More effective in terms of assimilating the information received is the transfer of information in two-side form. It can be said that how successful a teacher is depending on how much he encourages (inspires) students to ask questions and express their opinions.

Relations of access (sharing of information with others) are relations that arise regarding the possibility of access (sharing) to information.

Let’s consider the reasons for restricting access to information from perspective of various subjects of relations tied to information:

• Principal – Agent;

• Expert – Expert;

• Expert – Non-expert.

The restrictions on access to information imposed by the principal may be implemented for the following purposes.

To restrict the dissemination of information which can be misunderstood and/or be used to harm the organization (or group of organizations, society, if the mission of organization is to regulate social relations) and/or the principal. The latter is often used not only to avoid harm but also to gain an advantage in the hierarchical system. It happens when principal organizes the matter in such a way that information on certain issues reaches the principal of higher level only through him and similarly flows in opposite direction. In this case the lower-level principal has possibility to manipulate the higher-level principal and colleagues using various techniques which I will considerate below.   

In principle this problem should be solved by higher level principal, of cause if he recognized it as a problem and decide to identify low-quality information using one of the described above methods, first of all using information from different sources (method of metainforming - MIM).

Another purpose of restricting access is to narrow the circle of people who knows how decisions are made because, as they say, sausages seems testier if you don’t know how and from what it is prepared.

In Expert-Expert relations restriction of access to information takes the form of refusal to share information with other expert due to fear of:

• providing basis on which competing colleague can create new value information and gain recognition;

• diminishing or losing importance for the organization and/or for principal due to loss of monopoly on the information.

• additional work or other negative consequences from point of view of the information holder, for example, such as loss of the clients and etc.

Experts may restrict access to information they hold for non-expert due to dissemination of information among non-experts may result in:

• harmful use of received information by non-experts due to misunderstanding of information or deliberate use the information to cause harm;

• loss of any benefits to experts.

It is appropriate to consider what makes experts share information with each other. First, it happens when another expert’s opinion is needed to generate metainformation. Second, when one expert knows he may need the information from another expert in the future. Third, we can’t discount such factors as altruism and the desire to communicate. 

Relations of using information for manipulation. By manipulation we will understand such information influence one subject of information relations on another which allows to achieve from the second the thinking, action and/or attitude necessary for the first subject. 

In this case the type of subject of relations is not important: - both principal, for example, and the agent, and the expert, and authority may manipulate each other, using for this:

1. various types of low-quality information;

2. ways to avoid answering;

3. using of two kinds of useless information;

4. using correctly generalized information.

Manipulation techniques using low-quality information.

1. To have something unsaid – using incomplete information. Earlie I cited catchy and very capacious phrase of the Jesuits, showing that it is most insidious type of disinformation. I will also cite the words of our contemporary president and chairman of the board VTB (Vneshtorgbank) Andrei Leonidovich Kostin: - “I never lie but I can leave something unsaid”. By providing incomplete information we can push a counterparty to incorrect generalization (conclusion) and action.

2. Commenting in the right way – using incorrect parainformations. When we receive information connections (parainformations) with this information arise in the consciousness. Information can be presented in such way that we have parainformations (connections) necessary to the information provider.  This is especially evident on television, when the channel not only transmit information about an event but sets itself the goal to link this event with another. In this case, since strongest impact on television is made by picture, the video sequence about associated event should be no less then video sequence about the event to which report is devoted. Other examples can be given especially in the field of politic.

Often in oral speech facts are accompanied by comments in the form of their evaluation (parainformations). These parainformations can differ from truth. When people are lazy (or unable) to make their own assessments, they accept provider’s assessments of the information together with the facts (especially, if еру information is presented vividly, for example, in a tone and voice doesn’t allow doubt and objections).

1. Using (generating) incorrectly generalized information. Sometimes in order to hide the truth incorrectly generalized information is generated at once and one o more detailed information is provided as evidence, while the generalization have should be made using full set of detailed informations. Moreover, just one detailed information can make the generalized information incorrect. Let me give an example with a black swan. The generalized information “all swans are white” is true exactly until after thousands of observations one appear in which the swan is black.

2. To deceive, to invent – the use of 2 types of disinformation (inaccurate and fictious). Here everything is so obvious and so often used that there is no sense to give examples. Each reader has plenty of them. 

3. To become the only intermediary in transfer information – using all types of low-quality information. I repeat, this often happens when high level manager communicates only with his deputes plus some other high-ranking representatives. I repeat, if somebody has become intermediary between boss and others managers (possibly only on a certain range of issue) then he acquires great power since he has ability to manipulate both the boss and other managers. Naturally all this happens if the boss does not bother to understand the problem and establish the channels for the metainformation.    

4. To insert untruth among truth – to mix quality and low-quality information. At the same time, from the point of view of belief that all information is quality one it is more effective when here is more quality information in this mixture. In this case there is an effect of trust transfer, i.e. if some previous informations were quality it is believed that all information is quality and vice versa if it turns out that at least one information is low quality then trust in all other informations falls not to mention the reputation of the source of information. 

Ways to avoid answering:

1. Refusing to answer. You can do this diplomatically, by saying “no comments” or promising to answer later.

2. Transferring the question to another addressee, who should (or maybe shouldn’t) know the answer better or promising to answer later. 

3. Using generalized informations.

4. Providing useless information (talking about something else although it may be close). Answering another question.

5. Asking a counter question.

6. Providing low-quality information when answering.

Using useless (from the point of recipient) information to degrade the quality of the information.

1. Using more detailed information then necessary (to hide a leaf on a tree). In this case useless information from the perspective of decision making and generating new information (redundant information) became useful information for the information provider from the perspectives of achieving his goals. Sometimes subordinates try to provide a lot of detailed information about the work done in order to hide the lack of results (progress) in solving the task.

2. Using the correctly generalized information (to say without saying anything). For example, media reports on visits of high-ranking officials which state that the meeting held in warm friendly atmosphere and issues of bilateral cooperation were discussed. Mutually beneficial agreements were reached in areas of trade and industrial cooperation, etc, etc.

In general, the use of correctly generalized information can be both a good and a bad thing.  The purpose of generalized information – to say briefly what can be described using a large amount of detailed information.

And it is blessing when the recipient of information knows the history of issue (has detailed information about the essence and development of the issue) and/or thrust the source of information. For example, when the media reports that the parties to the negotiations have made significant progress in resolving problematic issues in bilateral relations this is understandable for those who know what issues were problematic and what the positions of the parties were on this issues and as well as planned compromise options. However, this generalized information will not tell anything to the ordinary news reader.