One of my favorite bad analogies is mixins. I came up with this Mixin FAQ to satirize how mixins are often explained. Mixin FAQ Q: What is a mixin? A: Mixin allows to inject functionality into classes. Mixins first appeared in the Flawors system and were inspired by an ice cream shop offering a basic flavor of ice cream (vanilla, chocolate, etc.) with a choice of optional "mix-in" ingredients like nuts, cookies, cand…
https://shoppe24.ph/products/oreo-ice-cream-tub-450ml You were saying? I can confirm it doesn't work. But for me Oreo barely works as a cookie.
Patterns in Confusing Explanations
141–150 of 168 posts
Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations
#142One tip I picked up a while back is to be aware of the number of `it`s and other pronouns used. I realized that when my explanation were getting lengthy, I was tempted to avoid duplication by referring to previously mentioned nouns as `it`s, `they`s etc. This practice led to some very confusing sentences, where each `it` meant a different thing. My explanations got noticeably clearer once I started replacing the pron…
I've seen newspapers handle this[1] by having other phrases for the same referent -- instead of just switching between "the pope" and "he", they'll slip in "the Bishop of Rome" or "the vicar of St. Peter". Unfortunately, I consider that itself annoying because it then creates the problem of assuming your reader knows which of those are just alternate phrases vs other entities in the story! Side note: this story got r…
The Pope is an interesting example since they represent several things, each having separate responsibilites.
It just so happens that the pope has all those roles at same time time
Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen newspapers handle this[1] by having other phrases for the same referent -- instead of just switching between "the pope" and "he", they'll slip in "the Bishop of Rome" or "the vicar of St. Peter". Unfortunately, I consider that itself annoying because it then creates the problem of assuming your reader knows which of those are just alternate phrases vs other entities in the story! Side note: this story got r…
The Pope is an interesting example since they represent several things, each having separate responsibilites. It just so happens that the pope has all those roles at same time time
Yeah but they rarely use those alternate phrases specifically to refer to the authority he has in that title’s capacity.
Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations
#144The patterns Julia gives absolutely distill the bad practices when well-intentioned people try but fail to explain something. In particular, you can see examples of "inconsistent expectations of reader knowledge" and "starting out abstract" ALL THE TIME in stackoverflow. Someone will ask a specific question about a problem they're having but then have their question closed as dupe and referred to another related (or…
That does happen, but the StackOverflow people aren't wrong. If there's a good, general answer to the question, then it's on the asker to expand their knowledge as they need to in order to understand that general answer.
Stackoverflow people are frequently and abundantly "wrong" as far as emotional intelligence and empathy goes.
Sometimes a simple question needs a simple answer and not treatise or "canonical" answer.
Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can also be used to make text easier to understand, for example: The client connected to the server, then it crashed vs The client connected to the server, then the server crashed.
That's actually an example of making it more confusing. Did the client crash? Okay, it's obvious to you that the client didn't crash (but should it be obvious? Clients can crash too, you know!), but for anyone who didn't make the right inference, or isn't sure, they now have a dangling node in their mental model and are still validating they understood it right as they read the next sentences. If you really can't sta…
Ahh "former" and "latter" - for people that like to use these terms, just repeat the damn word.
I find the use of these terms does the reader a disservice by giving them additional cognitive load.
You typically end up having to go back and read whatever was written again.
Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations
#146Am I the only one that appreciated strained analogies? They are meant to create a visual in the reader's mind so they can remember the pieces that are being shared. Of course, if the analogy is good, it won't feel strained. But it seems like the author is against any extended analogies at all, which I think is a mistake.
Personally, when it comes to technical topics, I have not ever found an extended analogy that made a subject less confusing. Analogies are fine as a quick way to introduce the flavor of a topic -- saying "Kafka is like a river..." at least gets me started on the right footing. But when they extend onwards and onwards, I always just end up feeling like the analogy-creator is sort of reveling in a semi-poetic alignment…
Interesting. I consider myself a "generous audience" in general. Quick to laugh, willing to suspend disbelief, eager to listen. I wonder if there is a correlation between open-mindedness of the listener/reader and the effectiveness of extended analogy.
I can see your point, that if you try to "steal" the analogy (in the Picassian sense of the word), the analogy could become more distracting than helpful. If you take it for what it is and try to focus on the author's or speaker's vision, they probably work much better.
Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations
#147The Wikipedia example is a gem because it explains everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. All of "technical" information on Wikipedia amounts to nothing concrete or useful unless you're a historian..
Yes I was thinking about this the other day. You need to be such an expert to understand a technical Wikipedia that you don’t need the article!
Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations
#148Pattern 12 was something I learned early (fortunately) in my software development journey. I think the article I was reading was something to do with how to properly partition your disk (it was about 15 years ago, so fuzzy details, but I remember it was a topic that directly impacted disk storage). Anyway, it listed a series of steps that he followed, which I had printed out and began following (again, 15 years ago).
The paragraph following his series of steps then said, "I soon realized that this was not what I wanted, and in fact, it made for a cleaned out disk. No good. So next.."
And yes, it wiped my disk clean too. The light-hearted way in which he wrote this infuriated me. I just wiped clean my computer because of his article. Granted, I should not have blindly followed the article, and it was a good lesson that has prevented me from ever making the same mistake again. But the way he listed the steps in a very procedural, "this should be followed" format; it felt very deceptive, and the result was irreversible.
Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a long time I've tried to speed up my reading my turning off the `sub-vocalizing' machine in my mind, only to realize that sub-vocalizing actually helps understand the meaning of technical/math texts better. On a relevant note: There was a post on HN a while ago which basically was about how using language (and probably, speaking out loud) is actually a `feature' or `technology' of human mind. For long, we have b…
> There was a post on HN a while ago which basically was about how using language (and probably, speaking out loud) is actually a `feature' or `technology' of human mind Really would like to see that post, as I've been vaguely interested in this very topic for quite a while. Is there a chance that you remember any key words that might've been in the title, so I could plug them into the HN search? From what I gathered…
Sure, I just found the post: https://psyche.co/ideas/talking-out-loud-to-yourself-is-a-te...
Re: Patterns in Confusing Explanations
#150One tip I picked up a while back is to be aware of the number of `it`s and other pronouns used. I realized that when my explanation were getting lengthy, I was tempted to avoid duplication by referring to previously mentioned nouns as `it`s, `they`s etc. This practice led to some very confusing sentences, where each `it` meant a different thing. My explanations got noticeably clearer once I started replacing the pron…
I love that you pointed this out (oops, this = the tendency to unclearly define or refer to pronouns). One of the questions I ask the most in trying to clarify what someone said is "what do you mean by 'it'?"
I find this happens a lot also with personal pronouns: you, we, she/he/they, etc. A buddy got angry once and said to me "Why do you always do that?!" And I was really confused. I said, "I'm really confused, why do I always do what?" And he said "ohhh, I didn't mean you, I actually meant me and how I always forget to do things."
Double pronoun confusion