Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it

kottke.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 237 posts

Re: If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it

#141

Post by dtashima »

stcredzero wrote: post #80
freddref wrote: post #13

Feynman also said: "Hell, if I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel prize." [1] Showing a limitation of the maxim or Feynman's hubris? [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

I run into this all of the time when explaining what I'm doing at work as a programmer. It's not that I couldn't explain why my merging workload increased due to the increased code collisions from my coworkers working in the same files, and how dividing my current assignment in two so I could check in code would reduce this. It's doing that in a normal conversation under time and attention constraints which is the pr…

In the workplace, there is also the problem of coworkers' (managers in particular) desire to listen to you explain it.

Re: If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it

#142

Post by zobzu »

sh87 wrote: post #60
peterwwillis wrote: post #34

I can simplify how a car engine works, but that doesn't mean I understand how the air to fuel ratio is obtained. Opposite example: Simplify how walking works, and make sure to include the critical systems such as major muscle groups, stabilizers, vision, inner ear, thigh/knee/pelvis/hip construction, the curved spine and its connection to the head, and blood pressure flow/regulation.

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler -Albert Einstein.

As often, AE's killing it. That's exactly right.

Re: If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it

#143

Post by dtashima »

lm_nop wrote: post #30
ivanbakel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then what does it mean to be understood? If you skip out the part of the analogy where you actually return to the complex terminology you're simplifying, you haven't produced understanding - you've only made a just-so story which is a reflection of the reality, not a justification for it.

"But then what does it mean to be understood?" Great epistemological question for the ages. Vectors for the response include audience type, previous knowledge context, goal for how much needs to be conveyed...

This is the key. The person you explained it to could probably not turn around and explain it to someone else, but could walk away thinking that they understood it.

Re: If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it

#144

Post by tnzn »

jokoon wrote: post #129
jknoepfler wrote: post #68

This strikes me as raw arrogance. Complexity is intrinsic to many systems that are subject of expert study. To tell someone who has devoted their career to understanding a complex topic that they don't understand their subject because they can't express it in layman's terms without doing terrible violence to the underlying phenomenon is ludicrous. This is the sort of thing you'd believe if you were an arrogant 20-som…

Understanding the fine details is one thing, but unless you can really communicate a synthesis or an analogy, it's impossible to really prove you understand something. Nobody cares about a genius who understands something until he can really interact about the subject. Humans work with communication. When you learn about something, you read about it and you process it. To see if you understand it, you must communicat…

That's why there's peer review.

Re: If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it

#145

Post by CatMtKing »

I practice taijiquan, a martial art. My teacher often describes concepts that I can relate to basic mechanics. When I do, it feels like I understand, but as my teacher says -- until you can actually express it with your body, you don't really understand.

For example, a lever seems conceptually simple, but to create a lever in the body is extraordinarily hard. The joints have to be solidly connected and free to open or close. The direction must be precise and rotation must not wobble. There are so many things that can err and lots of places for force to leak out.

Re: If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it

#146

Post by cestith »

freddref wrote: post #13

Feynman also said: "Hell, if I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel prize." [1] Showing a limitation of the maxim or Feynman's hubris? [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

I don't see this as evidence the other statement is false. If it was something he understood well enough at the time he was earning the prize, it wouldn't have been groundbreaking work worthy of the prize. Gaining that understanding or paving the way for that understanding is what's prize-worthy.

Re: If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it

#147

Post by Retra »

juandazapata wrote: post #132

What is a monad?

It's a pattern of taking a series nested items and treating them as sequential by implicitly passing the nesting context from one item to the next.

At least, that's the programmer's interpretation. Mathematically, they are algebraic structures that can behave analogously to this in a number of fashions.

Re: If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it

#148

Post by leepowers »

Feynman is an outlier, a very rare talent that could handle very complex maths and also communicate these concepts in an approachable, charming, and laid-back style. This is an in-born talent and also a skill that can be taught. But communicating complex systems is a separate proficiency from understanding those systems.

The main issue when explaining concepts (especially maths concepts) is switching from one formal context to another, deciding what details to omit, and determining what rules in both contexts should be treated as analogous.

Think of a translator. He/she/it needs proficiency in two languages to do a proper translation. Lacking a second language precludes translation. But it doesn't affect mastery of your native tongue.

Re: If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it

#149

Post by dtashima »

NumberSix wrote: post #36

This is Feynman from the introduction to his Feynman Lectures on Physics: The question, of course, is how well this experiment has succeeded. My own point of view — which, however, does not seem to be shared by most of the people who worked with the students — is pessimistic. I don’t think I did very well by the students. When I look at the way the majority of the students handled the problems on the examinations, I…

I always felt that the Feynman Lectures were really, "an incredibly deep understanding of freshman level physics, targeted towards physics graduate students." (As opposed to freshman level physics targeted towards pre-med students.)

Even after I got my undergrad degree in physics I would reread the Lectures and would see things on a whole new level than I ever understood them the first time.

Edit: even "Surely you're Joking" had jokes that only someone that had graduate level general relativity would get (talking about "gee-mue-nue, gee-mue-nue")

Re: If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it

#150

Post by clay_to_n »

jknoepfler wrote: post #68

This strikes me as raw arrogance. Complexity is intrinsic to many systems that are subject of expert study. To tell someone who has devoted their career to understanding a complex topic that they don't understand their subject because they can't express it in layman's terms without doing terrible violence to the underlying phenomenon is ludicrous. This is the sort of thing you'd believe if you were an arrogant 20-som…

I think you misunderstand what the author means by simple terms.

Everything can be talked about on different levels of abstraction, including ones which use metaphors or contain inaccuracies in order to create a jumping-off point for further learning.

If you understand something very well, you're able to use various levels of precision + abstraction in order to best communicate it to your audience. You can "play" with it, without getting confused or off-track. If you don't understand it well, this gets very hard.

I think this is true for teaching and mastery in general, and not just for teaching about science or complexity.

Post reply on HN