Information Secrecy and Disclosure

We’ve spoken before about how our brain constitutes a kind of personal universe—a cosmos—shaped by the information we gather throughout our lives. Each individual lives in a vast external universe, yet constructs an internal model of it: a subjective, smaller universe based on experience, learning, and thought. Information, therefore, becomes the matter with which our internal cosmos is expanded. From this perspective, more information equates to a broader universe, and thus, a higher potential for understanding and action.

This leads us to a natural question: if expanding one’s cosmos is beneficial, what role does information sharing play in our interactions with others—be it individuals, organizations, or society as a whole? Should we share what we know, or keep it to ourselves?

Information as Leverage, or Gift?

At the core, the more information an individual or collective possesses, the greater the cognitive and strategic advantage. Knowledge enables navigation. Insight enables prediction. In a competitive sense, secrecy can sustain an upper hand—retaining information means retaining power. This is why corporate trade secrets exist. However, from the perspective of collective benefit, information sharing serves an even higher purpose.

When we share information, we are effectively enlarging another person’s cosmos. If that person is part of our team, our organization, or our community, then expanding their universe expands our own shared space. It becomes a mutual act of empowerment. In this framework, sharing becomes the ethical and strategic choice—one that maximizes group utility even if it minimizes individual advantage.

Thus, we begin to see the dividing line: withholding information is an act of self-preservation; disclosing it is an act of collective empowerment. Who we choose to share with, and to what extent, is a powerful marker of allegiance. Sharing makes someone a comrade. Secrecy, unless ethically justified, is a subtle declaration of rivalry.

The Paradox of Corporate Secrecy

Let’s take a familiar example. A company holds internal data marked as “confidential.” If that company’s mission claims to improve society, does hoarding valuable information contradict that mission? Arguably, yes. If the knowledge held by the company could benefit society, then its concealment is an act of self-interest over public interest. In this sense, corporate visions often stand in silent contradiction to their behaviors.

Compare this with academia, where the norm is open publication. Research institutions publish their findings not just to stake claims, but to contribute to the global knowledge pool. While not perfect, the system is inherently structured around maximizing collective growth.

The Real Measure of Trust

I believe this tension isn’t just organizational—it’s deeply personal. If I were to build a team or community, I would want every member to share information freely. The more complete the information flow, the stronger the collective cosmos. Conversely, if someone resists sharing, it reveals that their incentives are misaligned with the group. It signals that their true goals lie elsewhere.

The scope of one's information-sharing becomes a mirror to their values, a gauge of their trust, and a signal of their intent.

My Personal Commitment

One of my personal goals is to expand the radius of people with whom I can share everything. Even if I occasionally sacrifice individual advantage, the net expansion of the collective cosmos—including mine—is worth it. I want to live in a world where information sharing is not merely safe, but celebrated. Where vulnerability is seen as strength, and expansion as the true metric of success.

Thank you for considering this idea. I hope this essay contributes to the ever-growing cosmos we share.