12 ms·

The Feynman Technique: The Best Way to Learn Anything (2012)

187 points by NinjaX 8y ago

revskill 8y ago
The real problem is not the way to learn, it depends on each individuals. The real problem is knowing which concepts need to learn. It's not easy.
bitwize 8y ago
I thought the Feynman technique was: 1) Write down the problem 2) Think real hard 3) Write down the solution In other words, the "draw the rest of the fucking owl" of general learning/problem solving.
- KineticLensman 8y ago
  Lots of people (e.g. [0], [1], [2]) have blogged the Feynman technique, which seems to have been first documented in Gleick’s biography [3]. The various descriptions identify the following four steps: * write down the name of a concept * write down an explanation of the concept in plain English, identifying the bits you don’t know * review the explanation, going back to source material if there is something that you haven’t yet explained, and repeat step 2 * simplify the language and rewrite bits where you have paraphrased the source material [0] https://collegeinfogeek.com/feynman-technique/ https://collegeinfogeek.com/feynman-technique/ [1] https://mattyford.com/blog/2014/1/23/the-feynman-technique-model https://mattyford.com/blog/2014/1/23/the-feynman-technique-m... [2] https://mystudentvoices.com/feynman-technique-learn-and-retain-information-effectively-bfe37b642c9e https://mystudentvoices.com/feynman-technique-learn-and-reta... [3] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679747044 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679747044
- tejohnso 8y ago
  No, it's 1) Write down the problem 2) Frame it in such a way as to pique Feynman's curiosity 3) Wait for Feynman to tell you how he solved it
  - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
    These days we call this approach 'lazyweb'
- mkl 8y ago
  That's the Feynman algorithm, not technique: https://badarabbas.com/2013/07/30/feynman-pauli/ https://badarabbas.com/2013/07/30/feynman-pauli/
dajonker 8y ago
That's usually how you can identify good people: when they can explain complicated things using simple words, in a way that their audience can understand it. People that need lots of expensive words and leave you feeling dizzy at the end of their presentation often don't know very well what they are talking about either.
- 1000units 8y ago
  Good or smart? They're not entirely unrelated but there's a big difference.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- iKevinShah 8y ago
  If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - copperx 8y ago
    Feynman said that if he couldn't teach something to undergrads, he didn't understand it well enough.
- wenc 8y ago
  An alternative explanation is that some people are just good explainers. I've had profs in college who were brilliant but couldn't teach, and profs who could teach but weren't brilliant (didn't produce much original research). I wouldn't say the former group "didn't know their material well", but they didn't build up the material systematically. Pedagogy was neglected. Explaining things is an art that not every has the inclination to master (but they should).
  - 8y ago
barefoot 8y ago
"If you’re not learning you’re standing still" This is a large understatement. In our industry, if you're not learning you are drifting backwards rapidly. I aim for twenty hours a week of (unpaid) reinvestment and learning. Some weeks I still feel like that's not enough to stay current. Does anyone else feel the same way?
- kostarelo 8y ago
  It depends on how you measure that ROI, so to speak. In the web development industry, yes probably you could spend even more h/w on learning but would that benefit you in any way? If you have just graduated yes you probably need to catch up especially if you are after a highly paid job, but for the more experienced one, no you don't have to be that anxious about it. At some point I found my self spending more time on readying newsletters that were landing on my mail daily or weekly. Besides knowing what was that weeks' famous frontend library, it was adding zero to my foundational knowledge. I did felt that way. I just learned to let it go. Now I am gradually trying to find my pace. The state were I can be aware of what's happening in the industry but also spend enough time on things that matter.
- judofyr 8y ago
  I’ve had that feeling, and I started making an effort to improve myself. I started time-tracking my side projects (“you can’t improve what you don’t measure”), scheduling time for learning, and set up an automatic summary sent on email every week. It didn’t work for me at all, and ended up basically killing every joy in my side projects. If I missed a scheduled hour (because I was doing something else fun) I felt like a failure. I could only focus on “I should be working on x” instead of actually thinking about x. These days I try to not worry too much about what I should learn/produce, and rather work on what interests me at the time. I’m probably not learning at the most effective rate, but at least I’m having fun.
  - teacpde 8y ago
    I share similar experience, I find I can only achieve learning at a high effective rate with strong short-term motivation, and it can become tiring very quickly. On the other hand, I can always enjoy having fun and learn without worrying about effectiveness.
tugberkk 8y ago
There is a youtuber junior md called Ali Abdaal. He has very good scientific videos about learning. Talks about subjects such as “active recall” and “spaced repetition”. Worth a look imho. Here is the youtube channel link: https://m.youtube.com/user/Sepharoth64 https://m.youtube.com/user/Sepharoth64 Video on a.recall and s.repetition: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukLnPbIffxE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukLnPbIffxE
- kmarc 8y ago
  Should you be interested in the science and research behind it, I warmly recommend reading the book "Make It Stick" where the concepts are discussed in length. [1] [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18770267-make-it-stick https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18770267-make-it-stick
  - tugberkk 8y ago
    Thank you!
- masternda 8y ago
  Wow, this is brilliant. Thanks for sharing.
troquerre 8y ago
My friend’s dad is an inventor and discovered that the best way to retain knowledge is to teach it, which is why most students forget 90% of the source material. Most teaching is based on students inputting knowledge not outputting it.
- amelius 8y ago
  Yes and I think programming can be seen as a kind of teaching (where you teach a computer instead of a person).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
agumonkey 8y ago
Some people used to say the same about programming. If you can ~teach it to a computer (<2yo innate abstraction capabilities), you know it all.
peter303 8y ago
A variant is to 'explain it to your spouse'. (Ignoring these days your partner might be better educated than you.)
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  I've started just explaining it to myself. You don't need to actually teach it to someone. In fact this is kind of a subtle point. There are two functions that teaching it to a third party is performing. The first is that of burning the material into your memory and the second is getting to an exposition that the third party understands. Well... the second part is not necessarily necessary. It depends on your goals, but let's say you are only trying to further your own understanding then perhaps all that is really required is getting the material into your memory in a robust way. Just explaining it out yourself enough times to actually wire all the nuerons up in a complete graph is massively beneficial.
peter303 8y ago
In my town we have something called The Science Cafe. The presenter has describe an interesting topic in 20 minutes without [computer] slides, followed by Q&A. This is not easy now that conference talks and course lectures heavily use powerpoint. TED science talks are similar.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  Is harder now to find someone willing to talk without slides, or is it harder for the speakers to put together a talk without slides? > without [computer] slides Are other types of slides allowed?
- keithpeter 8y ago
  That sounds interesting. I could do my maths/stats stuff with a whiteboard or flip-chart for occasional images. How do the biologists or ecologists get on? Actual (large, paper) charts?
- markc 8y ago
  Mine also. In our case it's called "Science by the Pint". http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/science-by-the-pint/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/science-by-the-pint/
mettamage 8y ago
> When you write out an idea from start to finish in simple language that a child can understand (tip: use only the most common words), you force yourself to understand the concept at a deeper level and simplify relationships and connections between ideas. If you struggle, you have a clear understanding of where you have some gaps. That tension is good –it heralds an opportunity to learn. I have lived with my grandparents for the majority of my life. My grandpa isn't the most intellectual person on this planet. Yet, since I've grown up I've always seen him as my intellectual equal and because of that he always listened to when I had understood a new concept. I am sure that because of this 'in-built mechanism' in my family structure I got set up to be 'naturally talented' at explaining things since I was always used to put things into simple terms subconsciously. What I am learning from this is that when I have a kid, I have to act like an 8 year old so that he/she will experience the same blessing as I did. I still thank my grandpa for listening to my (most of the times) very long-winded and convoluted explanations, forcing me to simplify until I had a feeling he understood me well enough.
- koss38 8y ago
  Good observation. But apply it to everyone not just your kid, and observe the results. Apply it to people who you disagree with politically. Apply it to your relationships at home and work. It's basically what Fred Rodgers, Dale Carnegie, Marshall Rosenberg (and hundreds of others) all talk about.
alexpetralia 8y ago
Although I think Shane's article serves as a good introduction to the Feynman Technique, I feel it could go further when it comes to how to actually implement it. Notably, I'd argue the Feyman Technique - and Feynman was especially good at this - revolves around asking good questions. Here's a related excerpt from my blog post on the topic[1]: -- This is not a novel concept, and it’s just a bit of fortuitous branding that Richard Feynman’s name got attached to it, but the Feynman technique is a framework for learning new things. It’s very simple: 1. Pick a concept you want to learn, such as “what is company stock?” 2. Ask some very practical questions, like: - “What is it?” - “Why do we need it?” - “What alternatives are there?” - “When did it come about?” - “Who uses it?” - “What are its various forms?” - “Where is it commonly used?” 3. All of these questions will invariably branch out into even more jargon and concepts, such as “equity,” “preferred stock,” “voting rights,” “limited liability” and so on. 4. Repeat #2 for each of those branches. By the end, you should know the first principles so well you could teach the concept to a college freshman. Three things about this framework immediately jump out at me: (1) Learning something deeply is necessarily a lot of work. It’s not like you’re just answering “what is X.” You’re asking ten questions about it, each trying to get at it from a different angle, and then asking ten questions about each of those underlying concepts. The bottleneck to knowledge then is not so much ability, but effort. (2) Learning something deeply is largely a function of the questions you ask. The greater “coverage” your questions span on the concept surface area, the better you will understand it. In this framework, asking good questions is a necessity. (3) Questions are also where new insights come from. Once you understand all the factors which compose “company stock,” you’re able to toggle individual factors on and off, and ask questions such as: “can you have stock with unlimited liability?” or “what would stock in people look like?” . [1] https://alexpetralia.github.io/2017/12/25/NL-2017-12-25.html https://alexpetralia.github.io/2017/12/25/NL-2017-12-25.html
- koss38 8y ago
  There is more or less the basis of an experiment going on in English schools (google Self organized learning classrooms - Sugata Mitra). The class is split into small groups. Each group is given a computer with internet access . A "big" question is placed on the board. Then the groups start working on it. They soon realize by themselves the points you have listed and are encouraged by the teacher to explore them.
8bitsrule 8y ago
"Step 1: Teach it to a child..." Key. Teaching is a learning process for both teacher (who must condense and reduce to essentials, and so integrate) and student. If the child is old enough to ask good questions (and is encouraged to), so much the better. The feedback is valuable, and the teacher can continue to reduce/integrate at a somewhat higher level.
- MaxBarraclough 8y ago
  I'm always surprised how rarely anyone makes the obvious point here, and sure enough in this thread it looks like no-one has: no, you can't explain complex things to a two year old. Not without dumbing it down to the point that you've discarded everything of value. Is this some odd kind of hyperbole about teaching techniques? I don't see that it's helpful. If I'm struggling with it, the odds of a toddler being able to comprehend it are slim to none. The kernel trick? Quantum computing? Even good old eigenvectors? (Or, heaven forbid, genuinely advanced mathematics?) The best professors in the world couldn't convey these things to a 2 year old, and not for lack of understanding.

187 points by NinjaX 8y ago

The real problem is not the way to learn, it depends on each individuals. The real problem is knowing which concepts need to learn. It's not easy.

bitwize 8y ago

I thought the Feynman technique was: 1) Write down the problem 2) Think real hard 3) Write down the solution In other words, the "draw the rest of the fucking owl" of general learning/problem solving.

KineticLensman 8y ago
Lots of people (e.g. [0], [1], [2]) have blogged the Feynman technique, which seems to have been first documented in Gleick’s biography [3]. The various descriptions identify the following four steps: * write down the name of a concept * write down an explanation of the concept in plain English, identifying the bits you don’t know * review the explanation, going back to source material if there is something that you haven’t yet explained, and repeat step 2 * simplify the language and rewrite bits where you have paraphrased the source material [0] https://collegeinfogeek.com/feynman-technique/ https://collegeinfogeek.com/feynman-technique/ [1] https://mattyford.com/blog/2014/1/23/the-feynman-technique-model https://mattyford.com/blog/2014/1/23/the-feynman-technique-m... [2] https://mystudentvoices.com/feynman-technique-learn-and-retain-information-effectively-bfe37b642c9e https://mystudentvoices.com/feynman-technique-learn-and-reta... [3] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679747044 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679747044
tejohnso 8y ago
No, it's 1) Write down the problem 2) Frame it in such a way as to pique Feynman's curiosity 3) Wait for Feynman to tell you how he solved it
- MaxBarraclough 8y ago
  These days we call this approach 'lazyweb'
mkl 8y ago
That's the Feynman algorithm, not technique: https://badarabbas.com/2013/07/30/feynman-pauli/ https://badarabbas.com/2013/07/30/feynman-pauli/

dajonker 8y ago

That's usually how you can identify good people: when they can explain complicated things using simple words, in a way that their audience can understand it. People that need lots of expensive words and leave you feeling dizzy at the end of their presentation often don't know very well what they are talking about either.

1000units 8y ago
Good or smart? They're not entirely unrelated but there's a big difference.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
iKevinShah 8y ago
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- copperx 8y ago
  Feynman said that if he couldn't teach something to undergrads, he didn't understand it well enough.
wenc 8y ago
An alternative explanation is that some people are just good explainers. I've had profs in college who were brilliant but couldn't teach, and profs who could teach but weren't brilliant (didn't produce much original research). I wouldn't say the former group "didn't know their material well", but they didn't build up the material systematically. Pedagogy was neglected. Explaining things is an art that not every has the inclination to master (but they should).
- 8y ago

barefoot 8y ago

"If you’re not learning you’re standing still" This is a large understatement. In our industry, if you're not learning you are drifting backwards rapidly. I aim for twenty hours a week of (unpaid) reinvestment and learning. Some weeks I still feel like that's not enough to stay current. Does anyone else feel the same way?

kostarelo 8y ago
It depends on how you measure that ROI, so to speak. In the web development industry, yes probably you could spend even more h/w on learning but would that benefit you in any way? If you have just graduated yes you probably need to catch up especially if you are after a highly paid job, but for the more experienced one, no you don't have to be that anxious about it. At some point I found my self spending more time on readying newsletters that were landing on my mail daily or weekly. Besides knowing what was that weeks' famous frontend library, it was adding zero to my foundational knowledge. I did felt that way. I just learned to let it go. Now I am gradually trying to find my pace. The state were I can be aware of what's happening in the industry but also spend enough time on things that matter.
judofyr 8y ago
I’ve had that feeling, and I started making an effort to improve myself. I started time-tracking my side projects (“you can’t improve what you don’t measure”), scheduling time for learning, and set up an automatic summary sent on email every week. It didn’t work for me at all, and ended up basically killing every joy in my side projects. If I missed a scheduled hour (because I was doing something else fun) I felt like a failure. I could only focus on “I should be working on x” instead of actually thinking about x. These days I try to not worry too much about what I should learn/produce, and rather work on what interests me at the time. I’m probably not learning at the most effective rate, but at least I’m having fun.
- teacpde 8y ago
  I share similar experience, I find I can only achieve learning at a high effective rate with strong short-term motivation, and it can become tiring very quickly. On the other hand, I can always enjoy having fun and learn without worrying about effectiveness.

tugberkk 8y ago

There is a youtuber junior md called Ali Abdaal. He has very good scientific videos about learning. Talks about subjects such as “active recall” and “spaced repetition”. Worth a look imho. Here is the youtube channel link: https://m.youtube.com/user/Sepharoth64 https://m.youtube.com/user/Sepharoth64 Video on a.recall and s.repetition: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukLnPbIffxE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukLnPbIffxE

kmarc 8y ago
Should you be interested in the science and research behind it, I warmly recommend reading the book "Make It Stick" where the concepts are discussed in length. [1] [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18770267-make-it-stick https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18770267-make-it-stick
- tugberkk 8y ago
  Thank you!
masternda 8y ago
Wow, this is brilliant. Thanks for sharing.

troquerre 8y ago

My friend’s dad is an inventor and discovered that the best way to retain knowledge is to teach it, which is why most students forget 90% of the source material. Most teaching is based on students inputting knowledge not outputting it.

amelius 8y ago
Yes and I think programming can be seen as a kind of teaching (where you teach a computer instead of a person).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

agumonkey 8y ago

Some people used to say the same about programming. If you can ~teach it to a computer (<2yo innate abstraction capabilities), you know it all.

peter303 8y ago

A variant is to 'explain it to your spouse'. (Ignoring these days your partner might be better educated than you.)

james_s_tayler 8y ago
I've started just explaining it to myself. You don't need to actually teach it to someone. In fact this is kind of a subtle point. There are two functions that teaching it to a third party is performing. The first is that of burning the material into your memory and the second is getting to an exposition that the third party understands. Well... the second part is not necessarily necessary. It depends on your goals, but let's say you are only trying to further your own understanding then perhaps all that is really required is getting the material into your memory in a robust way. Just explaining it out yourself enough times to actually wire all the nuerons up in a complete graph is massively beneficial.

peter303 8y ago

In my town we have something called The Science Cafe. The presenter has describe an interesting topic in 20 minutes without [computer] slides, followed by Q&A. This is not easy now that conference talks and course lectures heavily use powerpoint. TED science talks are similar.

daveFNbuck 8y ago
Is harder now to find someone willing to talk without slides, or is it harder for the speakers to put together a talk without slides? > without [computer] slides Are other types of slides allowed?
keithpeter 8y ago
That sounds interesting. I could do my maths/stats stuff with a whiteboard or flip-chart for occasional images. How do the biologists or ecologists get on? Actual (large, paper) charts?
markc 8y ago
Mine also. In our case it's called "Science by the Pint". http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/science-by-the-pint/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/science-by-the-pint/

mettamage 8y ago

> When you write out an idea from start to finish in simple language that a child can understand (tip: use only the most common words), you force yourself to understand the concept at a deeper level and simplify relationships and connections between ideas. If you struggle, you have a clear understanding of where you have some gaps. That tension is good –it heralds an opportunity to learn. I have lived with my grandparents for the majority of my life. My grandpa isn't the most intellectual person on this planet. Yet, since I've grown up I've always seen him as my intellectual equal and because of that he always listened to when I had understood a new concept. I am sure that because of this 'in-built mechanism' in my family structure I got set up to be 'naturally talented' at explaining things since I was always used to put things into simple terms subconsciously. What I am learning from this is that when I have a kid, I have to act like an 8 year old so that he/she will experience the same blessing as I did. I still thank my grandpa for listening to my (most of the times) very long-winded and convoluted explanations, forcing me to simplify until I had a feeling he understood me well enough.

koss38 8y ago
Good observation. But apply it to everyone not just your kid, and observe the results. Apply it to people who you disagree with politically. Apply it to your relationships at home and work. It's basically what Fred Rodgers, Dale Carnegie, Marshall Rosenberg (and hundreds of others) all talk about.

alexpetralia 8y ago

Although I think Shane's article serves as a good introduction to the Feynman Technique, I feel it could go further when it comes to how to actually implement it. Notably, I'd argue the Feyman Technique - and Feynman was especially good at this - revolves around asking good questions. Here's a related excerpt from my blog post on the topic[1]: -- This is not a novel concept, and it’s just a bit of fortuitous branding that Richard Feynman’s name got attached to it, but the Feynman technique is a framework for learning new things. It’s very simple: 1. Pick a concept you want to learn, such as “what is company stock?” 2. Ask some very practical questions, like: - “What is it?” - “Why do we need it?” - “What alternatives are there?” - “When did it come about?” - “Who uses it?” - “What are its various forms?” - “Where is it commonly used?” 3. All of these questions will invariably branch out into even more jargon and concepts, such as “equity,” “preferred stock,” “voting rights,” “limited liability” and so on. 4. Repeat #2 for each of those branches. By the end, you should know the first principles so well you could teach the concept to a college freshman. Three things about this framework immediately jump out at me: (1) Learning something deeply is necessarily a lot of work. It’s not like you’re just answering “what is X.” You’re asking ten questions about it, each trying to get at it from a different angle, and then asking ten questions about each of those underlying concepts. The bottleneck to knowledge then is not so much ability, but effort. (2) Learning something deeply is largely a function of the questions you ask. The greater “coverage” your questions span on the concept surface area, the better you will understand it. In this framework, asking good questions is a necessity. (3) Questions are also where new insights come from. Once you understand all the factors which compose “company stock,” you’re able to toggle individual factors on and off, and ask questions such as: “can you have stock with unlimited liability?” or “what would stock in people look like?” . [1] https://alexpetralia.github.io/2017/12/25/NL-2017-12-25.html https://alexpetralia.github.io/2017/12/25/NL-2017-12-25.html

koss38 8y ago
There is more or less the basis of an experiment going on in English schools (google Self organized learning classrooms - Sugata Mitra). The class is split into small groups. Each group is given a computer with internet access . A "big" question is placed on the board. Then the groups start working on it. They soon realize by themselves the points you have listed and are encouraged by the teacher to explore them.

8bitsrule 8y ago

"Step 1: Teach it to a child..." Key. Teaching is a learning process for both teacher (who must condense and reduce to essentials, and so integrate) and student. If the child is old enough to ask good questions (and is encouraged to), so much the better. The feedback is valuable, and the teacher can continue to reduce/integrate at a somewhat higher level.

MaxBarraclough 8y ago
I'm always surprised how rarely anyone makes the obvious point here, and sure enough in this thread it looks like no-one has: no, you can't explain complex things to a two year old. Not without dumbing it down to the point that you've discarded everything of value. Is this some odd kind of hyperbole about teaching techniques? I don't see that it's helpful. If I'm struggling with it, the odds of a toddler being able to comprehend it are slim to none. The kernel trick? Quantum computing? Even good old eigenvectors? (Or, heaven forbid, genuinely advanced mathematics?) The best professors in the world couldn't convey these things to a 2 year old, and not for lack of understanding.