6 ms·

It seems like a fairly weird expectation to be able to explain advanced mathematics to someone of moderate learning/intelligence.

by zepto 5y ago

bildung 5y ago
It actually is a pretty reasonable expectation for someone not completely clueless about education. Many people in fields like mathematics or CS (and sadly also in the respective teaching positions) have only very rudementary concepts of the inner workings of the human mind, and e.g. equate the content with the mode of delivery. > to someone of moderate learning/intelligence. It's mostly about the learning, not the intelligence, i.e. current state of research shows only loose correlation to intelligence (g factor) and favors models that use a domain-specific skill to explain maths competency. Intelligence will certainly help, but its effect is quite overvalued.
- zepto 5y ago
  > It actually is a pretty reasonable expectation for someone not completely clueless about education. No it isn’t. It is an extreme claim that advanced mathematics can easily be explained to someone regardless of their intelligence. The evidence for this claim would be the presence educational programs that can easily educate almost anyone in advanced mathematics. These do not exist.
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    I made no such claim, it's very hard to explain complex topics, much harder than 'just' understanding them. Certainly impossible in some cases. But a shallower explanation is the essence of what encyclopedias are all about, IMO.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > But a shallower explanation is the essence of what encyclopedias are all about, IMO I think that’s due to encyclopedias having been sets of books with limited space.
mschuster91 5y ago
Schools manage to do this just fine - to explain foundations first in easy language and the advanced knowledge later on. Wikipedia articles, in contrast, start out with expert-level language.
- The_Colonel 5y ago
  People here confuse what encyclopedia is. It's not a learning material, it's a reference work. Big difference.
pbhjpbhj 5y ago
If you expect an encyclopedia to be an exhaustive record of all knowledge, then yes, it's never going to explain every subject. If you expect it to be a review of subjects, like an abstract -- as encyclopedias generally were before the advent of Wikipedia -- then it seems like something can be said on most notable topics. It's a difficult task, it not only requires a thorough understanding of a subject but a special skill as an educator. It's a hard task. Yes, it's going to be impossible for some articles, but if they're notable aspects of mathematics then it's worth a try. I note that shelves are filled with books explaining complex topics at lower levels (easier in a book than a few paragraphs!?). Also, YouTube is replete with explanations that get closer to being encyclopedic than simply splurging graduate level textbook pages into a wiki (which is also a useful thing, but useful to different people).

It seems like a fairly weird expectation to be able to explain advanced mathematics to someone of moderate learning/intelligence.

by zepto 5y ago

It seems like a fairly weird expectation to be able to explain advanced mathematics to someone of moderate learning/intelligence.

bildung 5y ago

It actually is a pretty reasonable expectation for someone not completely clueless about education. Many people in fields like mathematics or CS (and sadly also in the respective teaching positions) have only very rudementary concepts of the inner workings of the human mind, and e.g. equate the content with the mode of delivery. > to someone of moderate learning/intelligence. It's mostly about the learning, not the intelligence, i.e. current state of research shows only loose correlation to intelligence (g factor) and favors models that use a domain-specific skill to explain maths competency. Intelligence will certainly help, but its effect is quite overvalued.

zepto 5y ago
> It actually is a pretty reasonable expectation for someone not completely clueless about education. No it isn’t. It is an extreme claim that advanced mathematics can easily be explained to someone regardless of their intelligence. The evidence for this claim would be the presence educational programs that can easily educate almost anyone in advanced mathematics. These do not exist.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  I made no such claim, it's very hard to explain complex topics, much harder than 'just' understanding them. Certainly impossible in some cases. But a shallower explanation is the essence of what encyclopedias are all about, IMO.
  - zepto 5y ago
    > But a shallower explanation is the essence of what encyclopedias are all about, IMO I think that’s due to encyclopedias having been sets of books with limited space.

mschuster91 5y ago

Schools manage to do this just fine - to explain foundations first in easy language and the advanced knowledge later on. Wikipedia articles, in contrast, start out with expert-level language.

The_Colonel 5y ago
People here confuse what encyclopedia is. It's not a learning material, it's a reference work. Big difference.

pbhjpbhj 5y ago

If you expect an encyclopedia to be an exhaustive record of all knowledge, then yes, it's never going to explain every subject. If you expect it to be a review of subjects, like an abstract -- as encyclopedias generally were before the advent of Wikipedia -- then it seems like something can be said on most notable topics. It's a difficult task, it not only requires a thorough understanding of a subject but a special skill as an educator. It's a hard task. Yes, it's going to be impossible for some articles, but if they're notable aspects of mathematics then it's worth a try. I note that shelves are filled with books explaining complex topics at lower levels (easier in a book than a few paragraphs!?). Also, YouTube is replete with explanations that get closer to being encyclopedic than simply splurging graduate level textbook pages into a wiki (which is also a useful thing, but useful to different people).