Knowing and Doing as One

SKILL.md

---
name: knowing-and-doing-as-one
description: "Activate when: user says 'I know I should but I haven't', a team is stuck in analysis paralysis going in circles, you need to assess whether someone actually learned from a past experience, a strategy or lessons-learned doc has produced no operational change, or an organization keeps repeating the same mistake. Do NOT activate when: the barrier is a demonstrable external constraint (capital, regulation, waiting for a trigger), or when the goal is to shame rather than diagnose."
---

# Knowing and Doing as One

## Overview

When you say "I *know* I should but I just don't *do* it," the standard explanation is a failure of willpower. This skill rejects that. **The gap between knowing and doing is the diagnostic signature that the knowing was never complete in the first place.**

Wang Yangming (王阳明, 1472–1529) formalized this in 知行合一 (*zhīxíng héyī*): "There has never been one who knows but does not act. To know and not act is simply not to know." Modern research (Gollwitzer 1999, Pfeffer & Sutton 2000, Ries 2011) has independently converged on the same operational conclusion.

Composes with: [`metacognition`](../metacognition/SKILL.md) · [`founder-mindset`](../founder-mindset/SKILL.md) · [`lean-startup`](../lean-startup/SKILL.md) · [`critical-thinking`](../critical-thinking/SKILL.md)

## When to Use

Apply when: "I know I should but I haven't" · analysis paralysis going in circles · assessing whether someone actually learned from past experience · strategy/lessons-learned doc produced no operational change · org repeating the same mistake · someone invokes "say-do gap," "knowing-doing gap," or "Wang Yangming."

**When NOT to use:** barrier is demonstrably external (capital, regulation, waiting for a trigger) · "strategic patience" with specifiable duration · tempted to use it to shame rather than diagnose.

## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)

- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete "I know but I haven't" case → run The Process directly.
- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → guide step by step.

In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.

1. One-line what-it-is: when you say "I know I should but I haven't," that's not a willpower problem — it's evidence that some specific part of knowing hasn't actually happened yet.
2. Check fit against When to Use / When NOT to use. If the barrier is genuinely external, point elsewhere.
3. Elicit their real case — a concrete "I know but I haven't," their own or someone they're helping. Don't run on hypotheticals.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
4. Walk through The Process one step at a time with their actual input.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
5. Close by naming the specific knowledge component that was incomplete, and the one next action that would test whether it is now complete.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**

## The Process

Run the **Knowing-Doing Audit**. Find the gap, find what specifically isn't actually known, find the next acting step.

1. **State the claim of knowing** — one sentence, not a slogan.
2. **State the concrete action not yet taken** — what does doing-the-thing look like this week?
3. **State the gap** — what has happened that is not the doing (thinking, talking, planning)?
4. **Apply Wang's diagnostic:** *what specifically would have to be additionally known for the doing to follow?* Common missing: felt consequence; concrete picture of doing; alternative being protected; real motivations.
5. **Test at small scale** — complete one missing component via small action. If still stuck, recurse.
6. **Recurse** — each cycle reveals further missing components; terminates when knowing is sufficient.
7. **Audit others through doing, not words** — evidence of learning = what they have done since.
8. **Stop-rule:** audit ending with "I need to think more" has failed — must terminate in a concrete next action.

### Output: the Knowing-Doing Audit

```markdown
# Knowing-Doing Audit: <claim of knowing>
Claim: <one sentence>
Concrete action not taken: <what doing looks like this week>
Gap: <what happened that is not the doing>
Missing knowledge components: <component 1> / <component 2> / <component 3>
Test: <small action to complete one missing component>
Next action + date: <specific doing, specific time>
How I'll know it worked: <observable outcome or new component revealed>
```

*→ Method in Action: [Wang Yangming's Longchang Enlightenment, 1508](examples/wang-yangming-longchang-enlightenment-1508.md)*

## Pack: Knowing-Doing-as-One in Modern Practice

- **Founder/startup:** "Do things that don't scale" — knowing what customers need is constituted by personally delivering, not reading research.
- **Hiring:** Past behavior >> past explanations. Reference check: "what specific actions showed the learning?"
- **Strategy:** Plans with no change in calendar/budget/headcount within ~90 days are vocabulary, not strategy.
- **Retros:** Same issues quarter after quarter = lessons never learned because no action consistent with them was taken.

## Applying It Well

- Diagnose ("what's missing?") not weaponize ("you don't know"). Apply to yourself first.
- Recursion terminates — if not after several cycles, the constraint is external.
- Fluency of retrospective narration = fluency, not learning.

*→ Primary sources: [references/sources.md](references/sources.md)*

## Common Rationalizations

**[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.**

| Fake move | Reality |
|---|---|
| [D] "I know what to do, I just lack motivation/willpower" | Name the specific knowledge component missing, complete it via small action, observe whether doing follows. The deficit is almost always knowing, not motivation. |
| [D] "I just need more information before I act" | The Cheng-Zhu position Wang criticized. Leads to neither knowing nor action. Act small on the components gated on action. |
| [D] "We held a retro and learned the lesson" | A retro that doesn't change behavior produced vocabulary, not learning. Test = action consistent with the lesson since. |
| [D] "They explained what they learned really well" | Fluency of narration is not evidence of learning. Evidence is what they have done since. Critical for hiring. |
| [D] Using this skill to shame rather than diagnose | Frame: "what specific component hasn't completed?" — not "you don't really know." |
| [D] Treating the audit as one-shot | Iterative. If doing still doesn't follow, run another cycle. The recursion terminates. |
| [D] Using the framework when constraint is genuinely external | Diagnose external constraints first or the audit produces false-positive "I don't really know" conclusions. |
| *→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern* | *What went wrong and why* |

## Red Flags

- "I know I should but I haven't" treated as willpower, not knowing gap
- Retrospective doc that changed no operational practice within 30–90 days
- Candidate's learning narrative far more sophisticated than post-learning behavior
- Team with 3+ retros on same root cause, no behavioral change
- Decision paralysis with remedy of "more analysis"
- "Strategic patience" invoked with no specifiable duration

## Verification

- [ ] Claim of knowing stated as one concrete sentence
- [ ] Concrete action specified for this week
- [ ] Gap (what happened that is not the doing) honestly described
- [ ] Specific knowledge component named — not "willpower"
- [ ] Small-scale test action defined
- [ ] Next action with specific date on calendar
- [ ] Audit ended in action, not "I need to think more"
- [ ] When applied to others, evidence is behavioral not narrative

---

*Part of **deciqAI Knowledge Skills** — open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. Built by deciqAI · https://deciqai.com · Contributions welcome — see the template at the repo root.*