7 ms·

The Two Types of Knowledge: The Max Planck/Chauffeur Test (2015)

91 points by bootload 9y ago

losteverything 9y ago
I have to say this was a fantastic short read. Is the chauffeur story true? (I'm almost afraid to ask)
- late2part 9y ago
  Almost certainly not... http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/chauffeur.asp http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/chauffeur.asp
- mhb 9y ago
  Not according to the article: I frequently tell the apocryphal story
  - losteverything 9y ago
    Sorry. My chauffer just told me I knew that.
- dhimes 9y ago
  Just became aware of a version of this joke with Einstein instead of Planck.
- jejones3141 9y ago
  Probably not; Leo Rosten's _The Joys of Yiddish_ has the same story with a Chasidic rabbi in place of Max Planck.
aphextron 9y ago
>"True experts recognize the limits of what they know and what they do not know. If they find themselves outside their circle of competence, they keep quiet or simply say, “I don’t know.” This they utter unapologetically, even with a certain pride. From chauffeurs, we hear every line except this." I'm not sure if I would call myself an "expert" at anything really, but this hits home. I take a certain kind of self righteous pride in admitting precisely the limits of my own knowledge. I feel like vocalizing it helps to internalize the fact that you do not know something, and then creates that impetus to dig deeper and truly learn, rather than just accepting the mentally lazy hand wavy "oh yeah I kinda get that" train of thought.
- visarga 9y ago
  > experts recognize the limits of what they know and what they do not know In statistical learning, to learn about the world in general P(X) is much harder than to learn specific aspects of the world P(Y|X). It's hard to know what you don't know.
- Senderman 9y ago
  I've found that being quick to say "I don't know", "I haven't heard of that before", etc. in environments where people are often afraid to say as such, tends to pleasantly surprise people, and actually earns quite a bit of respect.
jfaucett 9y ago
This article would have been much better if it didn't suggest people fall into one of these two categories. It seems much more likely this is a spectrum with people distributed throughout depending on topics and contexts as opposed to just a binary this person has planck knowledge or not. However, the linked article was a nice tidbit https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/05/elon-musk-lying-experience/ https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/05/elon-musk-lying-exp... and rings really true to me. You never forget those problems you spent so much time solving - I'm thinking of you IE6.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  We all know various things to a greater or lesser extent, but I suspect there is more constancy in the personality trait; the extent to which a person may attempt to pass off chauffeur knowledge as Planck knowledge. Then there is the divide between the people who know they are doing it, and those who do not realize that there is a difference (shades of Dunning-Kruger.)
late2part 9y ago
This article reminds me of experiences I have with job applicant candidates. There will be some folks who can talk really really well - talk a big game and throw out buzzwords, but when it comes to probing into depth, they crack and fizzle. Others have a hard time explaining things because their vernacular varies. But they can do. And then, the intersection of the two - is ideal. But the second category can be great too.
UhUhUhUh 9y ago
I also found that knowing something pretty much equals to being able to explain it to someone. I thought I knew many things until I tried to explain them. Or, in other words, there is a sort of "internal" knowledge that seems to heuristically cut corners and generates or fosters the illusion of knowing. True knowledge does not cut corners. Which is what some of the posters have expressed as well.
- uberduber 9y ago
  Generally true, I'm the exception. My friends have jokingly told me for years, "You are the most inarticulate smart person I know." Went in for some psychometric testing recently and the doctor was fascinated and first thing he when looking at the results was, "I've never met someone so intelligent who can't explain anything."
- logicallee 9y ago
  >I also found that knowing something pretty much equals to being able to explain it to someone. That can't be right, because that would logically imply that there is literally nobody on Earth who knows functional programming -- including the writers of functional compilers -- since no one is able to easily explain it. (No, really, no one is.) But this is clearly not true: clearly, people do know functional programming (after all, how could they write a compiler for it otherwise, how could people program in it otherwise), despite their inability to explain it. Therefore, this proves that knowing something does not equal being able to explain it. Note that I do not go as far as to say it's inexplicable - sometime, somewhere, someone will explain it clearly and in a way that resonates with people that have not programmed in a functional paradigm, so that anyone immediately "gets" all aspects of it. Like a meme, that explanation will reverberate through the Internet, academia, language design, like a wildfire that enlightens everyone who meets it. But it has not happened. That does not mean "nobody knows functional programming." People know it, although they can't explain it. EDIT - this was downvoted, but I stand by it. My assertion is pretty easily falsifiable, but note that no reply does so with a link. Of course, I have not reviewed the entirety of the Internet so it is possible that I missed one. But I notice that nobody seems to be showing one. This is a challenge to do so, if you disagree with my example.
itchyjunk 9y ago
The thing is, facts weigh more than opinions. So people have an incentive to peddle opinion as facts just to make it more credible. And by people I mean me. I caught myself doing this years ago and the worst part was it didn't change just because I realized I was doing it. But on the other hand, trying to limit yourself to only talk about things you know for sure is impossible. It's often a journey from expressing an opinion (that you might believe is a fact) to being corrected by peers and reevaluating your model. As long as I have to energy to adjust my model when someone points out the shortcomings, I feel like I am doing okay. (This is why I like HN, i feel like I am at the bottom of the barrel and I can learn from people who are much more knowledgeable than me. I'd rather be a fool among smart people than smart among fools.)
- kbenson 9y ago
  I have an adjacent problem. I'm always worried I'm coming across more forceful and authoritative than I mean, so I sometimes feel compelled to follow statements or short conversations with "at least, that's what I think/assume is going on, or is the only thing that makes sense to me" to make sure people are aware they are getting my opinion or educated guess. I like to pontificate and work through solutions out loud with the person asking (a habit that runs in my family) when a question is asked that I don't know the answer to, and I suspect my thoughts in verbal form may be taken as assertions of fact when that's not the purpose.
DonaldFisk 9y ago
"You don't understand anything until you learn it more than one way." -- Marvin Minsky
B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
> [N] people visited Farnam Street last month to expand their knowledge and improve their thinking. Sounds ghastly.

91 points by bootload 9y ago

losteverything 9y ago

I have to say this was a fantastic short read. Is the chauffeur story true? (I'm almost afraid to ask)

late2part 9y ago
Almost certainly not... http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/chauffeur.asp http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/chauffeur.asp
mhb 9y ago
Not according to the article: I frequently tell the apocryphal story
- losteverything 9y ago
  Sorry. My chauffer just told me I knew that.
dhimes 9y ago
Just became aware of a version of this joke with Einstein instead of Planck.
jejones3141 9y ago
Probably not; Leo Rosten's _The Joys of Yiddish_ has the same story with a Chasidic rabbi in place of Max Planck.

aphextron 9y ago

>"True experts recognize the limits of what they know and what they do not know. If they find themselves outside their circle of competence, they keep quiet or simply say, “I don’t know.” This they utter unapologetically, even with a certain pride. From chauffeurs, we hear every line except this." I'm not sure if I would call myself an "expert" at anything really, but this hits home. I take a certain kind of self righteous pride in admitting precisely the limits of my own knowledge. I feel like vocalizing it helps to internalize the fact that you do not know something, and then creates that impetus to dig deeper and truly learn, rather than just accepting the mentally lazy hand wavy "oh yeah I kinda get that" train of thought.

visarga 9y ago
> experts recognize the limits of what they know and what they do not know In statistical learning, to learn about the world in general P(X) is much harder than to learn specific aspects of the world P(Y|X). It's hard to know what you don't know.
Senderman 9y ago
I've found that being quick to say "I don't know", "I haven't heard of that before", etc. in environments where people are often afraid to say as such, tends to pleasantly surprise people, and actually earns quite a bit of respect.

jfaucett 9y ago

This article would have been much better if it didn't suggest people fall into one of these two categories. It seems much more likely this is a spectrum with people distributed throughout depending on topics and contexts as opposed to just a binary this person has planck knowledge or not. However, the linked article was a nice tidbit https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/05/elon-musk-lying-experience/ https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/05/elon-musk-lying-exp... and rings really true to me. You never forget those problems you spent so much time solving - I'm thinking of you IE6.

mannykannot 9y ago
We all know various things to a greater or lesser extent, but I suspect there is more constancy in the personality trait; the extent to which a person may attempt to pass off chauffeur knowledge as Planck knowledge. Then there is the divide between the people who know they are doing it, and those who do not realize that there is a difference (shades of Dunning-Kruger.)

late2part 9y ago

This article reminds me of experiences I have with job applicant candidates. There will be some folks who can talk really really well - talk a big game and throw out buzzwords, but when it comes to probing into depth, they crack and fizzle. Others have a hard time explaining things because their vernacular varies. But they can do. And then, the intersection of the two - is ideal. But the second category can be great too.

UhUhUhUh 9y ago

I also found that knowing something pretty much equals to being able to explain it to someone. I thought I knew many things until I tried to explain them. Or, in other words, there is a sort of "internal" knowledge that seems to heuristically cut corners and generates or fosters the illusion of knowing. True knowledge does not cut corners. Which is what some of the posters have expressed as well.

uberduber 9y ago
Generally true, I'm the exception. My friends have jokingly told me for years, "You are the most inarticulate smart person I know." Went in for some psychometric testing recently and the doctor was fascinated and first thing he when looking at the results was, "I've never met someone so intelligent who can't explain anything."
logicallee 9y ago
>I also found that knowing something pretty much equals to being able to explain it to someone. That can't be right, because that would logically imply that there is literally nobody on Earth who knows functional programming -- including the writers of functional compilers -- since no one is able to easily explain it. (No, really, no one is.) But this is clearly not true: clearly, people do know functional programming (after all, how could they write a compiler for it otherwise, how could people program in it otherwise), despite their inability to explain it. Therefore, this proves that knowing something does not equal being able to explain it. Note that I do not go as far as to say it's inexplicable - sometime, somewhere, someone will explain it clearly and in a way that resonates with people that have not programmed in a functional paradigm, so that anyone immediately "gets" all aspects of it. Like a meme, that explanation will reverberate through the Internet, academia, language design, like a wildfire that enlightens everyone who meets it. But it has not happened. That does not mean "nobody knows functional programming." People know it, although they can't explain it. EDIT - this was downvoted, but I stand by it. My assertion is pretty easily falsifiable, but note that no reply does so with a link. Of course, I have not reviewed the entirety of the Internet so it is possible that I missed one. But I notice that nobody seems to be showing one. This is a challenge to do so, if you disagree with my example.

itchyjunk 9y ago

The thing is, facts weigh more than opinions. So people have an incentive to peddle opinion as facts just to make it more credible. And by people I mean me. I caught myself doing this years ago and the worst part was it didn't change just because I realized I was doing it. But on the other hand, trying to limit yourself to only talk about things you know for sure is impossible. It's often a journey from expressing an opinion (that you might believe is a fact) to being corrected by peers and reevaluating your model. As long as I have to energy to adjust my model when someone points out the shortcomings, I feel like I am doing okay. (This is why I like HN, i feel like I am at the bottom of the barrel and I can learn from people who are much more knowledgeable than me. I'd rather be a fool among smart people than smart among fools.)

kbenson 9y ago
I have an adjacent problem. I'm always worried I'm coming across more forceful and authoritative than I mean, so I sometimes feel compelled to follow statements or short conversations with "at least, that's what I think/assume is going on, or is the only thing that makes sense to me" to make sure people are aware they are getting my opinion or educated guess. I like to pontificate and work through solutions out loud with the person asking (a habit that runs in my family) when a question is asked that I don't know the answer to, and I suspect my thoughts in verbal form may be taken as assertions of fact when that's not the purpose.

DonaldFisk 9y ago

"You don't understand anything until you learn it more than one way." -- Marvin Minsky

B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago

> [N] people visited Farnam Street last month to expand their knowledge and improve their thinking. Sounds ghastly.