Concerns for knowledge is not separate from concerns for the knower. — Fooloso4

Ah! I was hoping you didn't mean Dr. Pangloss's belief that all is for the best in the best possible world. I think you may be right in suggesting that knowing p is good for the knower. Believing that p may or may not be beneficial. Thinking that p is usually harmful - because "he thinks that p" suggests that he is wrong.

Al doesn't know that p and that he doesn't know that not-p. — Ludwig V

This might be true from a third person perspective. Not from a first person perspective. If a person makes a knowledge claims and then she herself discovers that what she believed is false, the discovery of her belief's falsity itself would support another first-person knowledge claim.
That's different from the knowledge claim where the justification is to be questioned. Imagine I claim: I know that Erik the Red used to wear horned helmets because Erik the Red is a Viking and Vikings used to wear horned helmets. But then I discover that archeologists have widely called as a myth the belief that Vikings used to wear horned helmets. Then I might say: I didn't know (not "I don't know"!) that Erik the Red used to wear horned helmets, or I doubt that Erik the Red used to wear horned helmets.

This might be true from a third person perspective. Not from a first person perspective. — neomac

Yes. First person use of "know" is different from the others, because there is no difference between justification and truth. In the case of second or third person uses, they are. That was the point of the last sentence of my last post.

But it seems to me that the paradigm use has to be second or third person uses, because there is no real difference between "I know that p" and "I believe that p", except emphasis.