Note: this is from a logical and game theory perspective, not sociological.
Information is more so for the self. You can only retrieve information from your own brain! This talks about revealing information to others.
Knowledge is an Asset.
Forced retention of knowledge is painful for the brain -> back to the point that school syllabus prioritize retention over depth.
1. A baby has no knowledge. You wouldn't want to go back to a baby's
brain.
2. An adult has lots of knowledge and is likely living a better life,
including how to walk, eat, talk.
3. Thus, knowledge does help with life (in the long run) so it is
usually good!
Only provide information after giving enough consideration to whether you actually want them to benefit from this knowledge, and in fragmented pieces. Of course, it is game-theoretically beneficial if others know less.
Giving information to my classmates (I will reframe this as
competitors) can be a loss. A negligible one, but it likely still is
technically a loss in terms of a standardized zero-sum examination system. I don’t have friends,
but it doesn’t really matter; I still have AI and information on the internet (honestly, just
because I “know” classmates better doesn’t mean the average candidate on
internet sites is less trustworthy, especially if, unlike them, they
have already completed the examination system before)
Hmm… let’s talk about another topic… Why isn’t there much information
about murdering humans on the internet? Societal bias or censorship could be one thing,
but I think it’s more likely to be that if someone had the information
on how to do such a thing, they might actually be more likely to succeed
in doing it.
Yeah, so… information distribution or the lack of it can be a pretty big
factor when it comes to the way humans act. And human actions also change based on
whether they are observed (others gaining information about them). A
very, very powerful factor, the Hawthorne effect.