3 ms·
I think this unreasonably splits the world into cutting edge research, and learning in public for beginners. In reality, almost every talk you're going to see
by habitue 3y ago
I think this unreasonably splits the world into cutting edge research, and learning in public for beginners.
In reality, almost every talk you're going to see would be considered educational, somebody mostly saying things other have said before, maybe in a new way, to an audience who is new to that topic.
Also the world is really highly dimensional and there are a lot of things to learn. "Let's talk about sorting algorithms in python" "let's talk about what makes a superconductor" let's talk about how to make your own kombucha at home".
If every talk began with an infantalizing "we're both beginners because I didn't invent this topic" we'd all get sick of it real quick.
- dkarl 3y agoI don't think the original article makes sense in the context of an educational talk, so I didn't read it that way. For example, if you're talking about sorting algorithms in Python, different readers will naturally find different things surprising, depending on their background (Quicksort? Timsort? neither?) and even if you wanted to target a particular very narrow audience that is supposed to be in the same place in the learning process, like in a university course, it would still be bad pedagogy to jump straight to the new knowledge without connecting to something the audience knew first. I think the advice in the article applies so badly to that situation that it would be unfair to think that the author intended it to be read that way. The article makes a lot more sense if you apply it to speaking/writing for a professional audience with a shared set of knowledge or conventional wisdom, and adding something that you think adds to the shared body of knowledge or contradicts some element of it.