5 ms·

Have you ever 'taught' anyone anything? When you do, you'll probably get what Feynman was trying to say. Complexity is intrinsic. Just that as a teacher/guide/e

by sh87 9y ago

Have you ever 'taught' anyone anything? When you do, you'll probably get what Feynman was trying to say. Complexity is intrinsic. Just that as a teacher/guide/explainer, you have to gently guide the novices around enough to invoke a sense of curiosity that will drive the pupil to explore on their own. The task at hand here is to make things less overwhelming, not removing or ignoring complexity. For every complex system, there is usually an underlying simpler, though not accurate, model that makes grasping the broader concepts easier.

jshelly 9y ago
I think Feynman's statement is a wee bit over the top, and I will say that being able to teach complex things to novices is definitely an art and certainly one which I do not possess
- dtashima 9y ago
  I think it's partly motivational. There is definitely a level of understanding where it feels like you understand a concept, and then when you try to teach it to someone else, you realize when they ask basic questions that you don't understand it as deeply as you thought you did. So, if you think you understand something, it's worth trying to explain it simply, so you can push your own understanding of the subject.
  - jshelly 9y ago
    I like this idea
  - sh87 9y ago
    I think this is closest to what Feynman (I think) wanted to convey.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> For every complex system, there is usually an underlying simpler, though not accurate, model that makes grasping the broader concepts easier One doesn't stop at that model. (Feynman didn't.) It's used as scaffolding, later torn down, to organize thoughts. By continuously proceeding downwards, in a fractal nature, filling in gaps, tearing and replacing where needed, the larger structure always stands ready to contextualise. This helps hold the audience's interest. It also lets the mind, by itself, fill in gaps, promoting retention as well as pedagogical efficiency.
jknoepfler 9y ago
I have, and do. Physics 101, or in my case computer science 101 are not the world. Humans are gifted teachers (probably unique among animals in our instinct to simplify while teaching). I love distilling things down into teachable parts. It's hard, interesting work. But I also do research, and I absolutely do not expect deeply technical topics like advances in aerospace engineering or gene regulation or cosmology to have "simple explanations" that I can understand. I accept that I won't understand them without years of effort, and I won't denigrate experts in those fields because of my limitations. I tell people to come up with elevator pitches for complex work all the time, but I don't evaluate the quality of a thinker by the quality of their elevator pitch.
- pimmen 9y ago
  > "But I also do research, and I absolutely do not expect deeply technical topics like advances in aerospace engineering or gene regulation or cosmology to have "simple explanations" that I can understand." There's a difference between explaining the entire topic and just giving you a very broad strokes approach to get you started learning the subject on your own. Nobody's having any delusions about summarizing a complex subject to a few sentences to substitute learning it the hard way, but if you can't give a very gentle explanation that can ease people in to the subject so they can get started by themselves, I would say that you don't fully understand the subject. Also, I would add that this explanation is not universal at all. You have to be able to gauge your audience and adapt to what's most suitable.
- sh87 9y ago
  My comment came across snarky. I apologize. I agree cs 101 is not the world. I also agree some concepts cannot be simplified and it shouldn't. My point was what you hinted towards when you say "distilling things down". My gripe is that most people that have taught or guided me have had no inclination to do that. I would have had a much smoother learning curve for it. I also feel if there is a concept that can be taught by one person to another, it can be slowly be presented in increasing order of complexity than be presented all at once. That feeling of slowly building or adding complexity is underestimated and hard.
- sh87 9y ago

by sh87 9y ago

jshelly 9y ago

I think Feynman's statement is a wee bit over the top, and I will say that being able to teach complex things to novices is definitely an art and certainly one which I do not possess

dtashima 9y ago
I think it's partly motivational. There is definitely a level of understanding where it feels like you understand a concept, and then when you try to teach it to someone else, you realize when they ask basic questions that you don't understand it as deeply as you thought you did. So, if you think you understand something, it's worth trying to explain it simply, so you can push your own understanding of the subject.
- jshelly 9y ago
  I like this idea
- sh87 9y ago
  I think this is closest to what Feynman (I think) wanted to convey.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> For every complex system, there is usually an underlying simpler, though not accurate, model that makes grasping the broader concepts easier One doesn't stop at that model. (Feynman didn't.) It's used as scaffolding, later torn down, to organize thoughts. By continuously proceeding downwards, in a fractal nature, filling in gaps, tearing and replacing where needed, the larger structure always stands ready to contextualise. This helps hold the audience's interest. It also lets the mind, by itself, fill in gaps, promoting retention as well as pedagogical efficiency.

jknoepfler 9y ago

I have, and do. Physics 101, or in my case computer science 101 are not the world. Humans are gifted teachers (probably unique among animals in our instinct to simplify while teaching). I love distilling things down into teachable parts. It's hard, interesting work. But I also do research, and I absolutely do not expect deeply technical topics like advances in aerospace engineering or gene regulation or cosmology to have "simple explanations" that I can understand. I accept that I won't understand them without years of effort, and I won't denigrate experts in those fields because of my limitations. I tell people to come up with elevator pitches for complex work all the time, but I don't evaluate the quality of a thinker by the quality of their elevator pitch.

pimmen 9y ago
> "But I also do research, and I absolutely do not expect deeply technical topics like advances in aerospace engineering or gene regulation or cosmology to have "simple explanations" that I can understand." There's a difference between explaining the entire topic and just giving you a very broad strokes approach to get you started learning the subject on your own. Nobody's having any delusions about summarizing a complex subject to a few sentences to substitute learning it the hard way, but if you can't give a very gentle explanation that can ease people in to the subject so they can get started by themselves, I would say that you don't fully understand the subject. Also, I would add that this explanation is not universal at all. You have to be able to gauge your audience and adapt to what's most suitable.
sh87 9y ago
My comment came across snarky. I apologize. I agree cs 101 is not the world. I also agree some concepts cannot be simplified and it shouldn't. My point was what you hinted towards when you say "distilling things down". My gripe is that most people that have taught or guided me have had no inclination to do that. I would have had a much smoother learning curve for it. I also feel if there is a concept that can be taught by one person to another, it can be slowly be presented in increasing order of complexity than be presented all at once. That feeling of slowly building or adding complexity is underestimated and hard.
sh87 9y ago