6 ms·

The Hardest Thing About Teaching: Knowing When to Lie

24 points by CrypticSwarm 15y ago

kiba 15y ago
Or you could tell them that it's a model, a simplification and that they will learn the more complex, accurate version later.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  It's not lying to me. It's more of an attentional optimization. It's more like sleight of hand. People's psychological defenses are very strong. Evolution has made them so. To change someone else's mental models has to be hard, otherwise they'd be easy to conquer using psychological means. However, one cannot truly learn without changing one's mental models.
  - dylanhassinger 15y ago
    i agree. also, "attentional optimization" would be a good band name. nice post @crypticswarm !
jimrhoskins 15y ago
Taking it a step further, the next hardest thing is dealing with the consequences of the lies when there are students with enough experience to know that you lied, but not why you lied. I teach programming through video courses, and at a very beginner level, you have to lie a lot, in order to simplify the concepts that are peripheral to the core concept you are trying to explain. There are few things (if any) in the world that can be explained linearly. The dependency graph for any concept you want to teach will branch out into a dozen other topics, and often cycle back on itself. The way you have to teach is pick a core concept you want your student to learn, and do your best to explain it, and whenever an unexplained concept comes up, explain it the simplest way you can so you don't get knocked off track. Often this involves lying, or creating the simplest mental model that works for the current situation. I'll get emails routinely from people who say that I didn't thoroughly explain some topic that was not the core topic of the exercise. For instance if you want to learn about JavaScript strings, you may want to mention "string".toUpperCase(), but if you are just learning about strings, functions or method invocations are some way off in the future. You can't just stop and explain the details of functions, how they are invoked on objects if you are still working on the basics of a core data type. So the hardest thing is not just knowing when to lie, but how to lie in a way that won't cause too much upset if the student knows you are lying. The best way to mitigate this is to explain that it is a simplification, and we will learn more about it soon. This is usually enough to keep going, as well as keep interest levels high.
16BitTons 15y ago
I remember feeling rather devastated when I found out that F<>MA and that energy and mass aren't really conserved. I think it was because I was trying to build a philosophy from studying physics, rather than just getting the equations down to pass the test.
- artmageddon 15y ago
  > I found out that F<>MA How do you mean?
  - timwiseman 15y ago
    I think he means that even in a purely classical system (ignoring relativity and quantum theory), F=MA describes a system you could never see in the physical world. After all, it does not take into account friction or constantly acting forces like gravity (yes, I know gravity's nature is more complex than that, but I am talking about a purely classical system). And that is if we can ignore relativity and quantum theory. With those, it gets more complex, especially given that they cannot currently be reconciled with each other. As others have discussed, F=MA and all of Classical theory is a model that is definitely wrong, but it remains close enough to be extremely useful even now.
arscan 15y ago
"All models are wrong but some are useful" - generally credited to George Box. A model, by definition, is a simplification, otherwise it wouldn't be a model (it would be the actual "thing"). Therefore, you shouldn't get caught up on whether or not the model is a perfect representation of the thing it describes (because it won't ever be), but rather if it is useful in the situation in which it is being applied. For example, sometimes it is useful to model light as waves, sometimes it is useful to model it as particles, but both models are technically wrong because they can't explain the full behavior of light by themselves. That doesn't mean we should just give up those models and never use them, since they both are useful in certain situations. So present the simplified model to the student, until that simplified model no longer can explain what you are trying to explain. In which case you present the more refined model. Just keep in mind there is overhead that comes along with that refined model. And perhaps more importantly: don't think in terms of "truthfulness", think in terms of "usefulness".
- timwiseman 15y ago
  Very well said, but it is important to point out that you are simplifying. Otherwise the ambitious ones who continue learning without you may feel betrayed or even question your competence when they begin seeing the problems in the model.
  - andylei 15y ago
    > to point out that you are simplifying suffice it to say that what arscan presented was itself a model
    - arscan 15y ago
      I love it when discussions turn meta. Bravo! ;-)
      - dylanhassinger 15y ago
        this is some seriously recursive abstraction
AznHisoka 15y ago
Also know when to keep your mouth shut and don't nitpick when they make mistakes. Such as a beginner learning a language. He/she is probably scared of speaking, so don't point out more mistakes than needed. You want to build confidence first.
podperson 15y ago
The article title, which is quoting the writer's favorite teacher, is a lie, which is to say a didactic oversimplification. When you're trying to explain something, you can be too simple, you can get way too complex, you can qualify your simplification to the point where the explanation is lost, or you can simplify just enough and not spend time discussing the limits of your simplification until you've made your point. That last item is the "when to lie" bit.
petercooper 15y ago
A Wikipedia entry on this very dilemma/process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children .. It's also known as Wittgenstein's Ladder based on this proposition in Ludwig Wittgenstein's work: My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps - to climb beyond them. He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.
- gnosis 15y ago
  Long, long, long before even Wittgenstein's grandparents had a twinkling in their eye, Zen masters said pretty much the same thing about their words being useful get you started on the path towards enlightenment but needing to be eventually overcome and discarded to reach it. Unfortunately, I don't have a direct quotation from them handy. However, the Taoists have expressed similar sentiments in the Tao Te Ching (from 300+ BC): The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao Much of what Wittgenstein has to say in the Tractatus is just run of the mill mysticism[1] and negative theology[2]. It's quite ironic that the "anti-mysticist" logical positivists[3] (and their heirs, the analytics[4]) would latch on to him of all people as some kind of prophet. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivists [4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy

24 points by CrypticSwarm 15y ago

kiba 15y ago

Or you could tell them that it's a model, a simplification and that they will learn the more complex, accurate version later.

stcredzero 15y ago
It's not lying to me. It's more of an attentional optimization. It's more like sleight of hand. People's psychological defenses are very strong. Evolution has made them so. To change someone else's mental models has to be hard, otherwise they'd be easy to conquer using psychological means. However, one cannot truly learn without changing one's mental models.
- dylanhassinger 15y ago
  i agree. also, "attentional optimization" would be a good band name. nice post @crypticswarm !

jimrhoskins 15y ago

Taking it a step further, the next hardest thing is dealing with the consequences of the lies when there are students with enough experience to know that you lied, but not why you lied. I teach programming through video courses, and at a very beginner level, you have to lie a lot, in order to simplify the concepts that are peripheral to the core concept you are trying to explain. There are few things (if any) in the world that can be explained linearly. The dependency graph for any concept you want to teach will branch out into a dozen other topics, and often cycle back on itself. The way you have to teach is pick a core concept you want your student to learn, and do your best to explain it, and whenever an unexplained concept comes up, explain it the simplest way you can so you don't get knocked off track. Often this involves lying, or creating the simplest mental model that works for the current situation. I'll get emails routinely from people who say that I didn't thoroughly explain some topic that was not the core topic of the exercise. For instance if you want to learn about JavaScript strings, you may want to mention "string".toUpperCase(), but if you are just learning about strings, functions or method invocations are some way off in the future. You can't just stop and explain the details of functions, how they are invoked on objects if you are still working on the basics of a core data type. So the hardest thing is not just knowing when to lie, but how to lie in a way that won't cause too much upset if the student knows you are lying. The best way to mitigate this is to explain that it is a simplification, and we will learn more about it soon. This is usually enough to keep going, as well as keep interest levels high.

16BitTons 15y ago

I remember feeling rather devastated when I found out that F<>MA and that energy and mass aren't really conserved. I think it was because I was trying to build a philosophy from studying physics, rather than just getting the equations down to pass the test.

artmageddon 15y ago
> I found out that F<>MA How do you mean?
- timwiseman 15y ago
  I think he means that even in a purely classical system (ignoring relativity and quantum theory), F=MA describes a system you could never see in the physical world. After all, it does not take into account friction or constantly acting forces like gravity (yes, I know gravity's nature is more complex than that, but I am talking about a purely classical system). And that is if we can ignore relativity and quantum theory. With those, it gets more complex, especially given that they cannot currently be reconciled with each other. As others have discussed, F=MA and all of Classical theory is a model that is definitely wrong, but it remains close enough to be extremely useful even now.

arscan 15y ago

"All models are wrong but some are useful" - generally credited to George Box. A model, by definition, is a simplification, otherwise it wouldn't be a model (it would be the actual "thing"). Therefore, you shouldn't get caught up on whether or not the model is a perfect representation of the thing it describes (because it won't ever be), but rather if it is useful in the situation in which it is being applied. For example, sometimes it is useful to model light as waves, sometimes it is useful to model it as particles, but both models are technically wrong because they can't explain the full behavior of light by themselves. That doesn't mean we should just give up those models and never use them, since they both are useful in certain situations. So present the simplified model to the student, until that simplified model no longer can explain what you are trying to explain. In which case you present the more refined model. Just keep in mind there is overhead that comes along with that refined model. And perhaps more importantly: don't think in terms of "truthfulness", think in terms of "usefulness".

timwiseman 15y ago
Very well said, but it is important to point out that you are simplifying. Otherwise the ambitious ones who continue learning without you may feel betrayed or even question your competence when they begin seeing the problems in the model.
- andylei 15y ago
  > to point out that you are simplifying suffice it to say that what arscan presented was itself a model
  - arscan 15y ago
    I love it when discussions turn meta. Bravo! ;-)
    - dylanhassinger 15y ago
      this is some seriously recursive abstraction

AznHisoka 15y ago

Also know when to keep your mouth shut and don't nitpick when they make mistakes. Such as a beginner learning a language. He/she is probably scared of speaking, so don't point out more mistakes than needed. You want to build confidence first.

podperson 15y ago

The article title, which is quoting the writer's favorite teacher, is a lie, which is to say a didactic oversimplification. When you're trying to explain something, you can be too simple, you can get way too complex, you can qualify your simplification to the point where the explanation is lost, or you can simplify just enough and not spend time discussing the limits of your simplification until you've made your point. That last item is the "when to lie" bit.

petercooper 15y ago

A Wikipedia entry on this very dilemma/process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children .. It's also known as Wittgenstein's Ladder based on this proposition in Ludwig Wittgenstein's work: My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps - to climb beyond them. He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.

gnosis 15y ago
Long, long, long before even Wittgenstein's grandparents had a twinkling in their eye, Zen masters said pretty much the same thing about their words being useful get you started on the path towards enlightenment but needing to be eventually overcome and discarded to reach it. Unfortunately, I don't have a direct quotation from them handy. However, the Taoists have expressed similar sentiments in the Tao Te Ching (from 300+ BC): The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao Much of what Wittgenstein has to say in the Tractatus is just run of the mill mysticism[1] and negative theology[2]. It's quite ironic that the "anti-mysticist" logical positivists[3] (and their heirs, the analytics[4]) would latch on to him of all people as some kind of prophet. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivists [4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy