6 ms·

I'm french and I have a great memory about that quote. In high school my litterature and physics teachers had a disagreement about it, although I believe they d

I'm french and I have a great memory about that quote. In high school my litterature and physics teachers had a disagreement about it, although I believe they didn't know about each other's point of views. Only us the students did, as they each hand waved great insights about the world with this quote. One was arguing, much like you, about the profound truth there is to it. The other was quick to explain that they perfectly conceived how to ride a bicycle, but like most of us couldn't possibly teach it at a blackboard. I leave it to you to guess which was which :)

Brian_K_White 2y ago
I would say that if you can't explain on a blackboard how to ride a bicycle, then that simply means you do not understand how to ride a bicycle. You can do a thing without understanding it. I would guess very few bike riders really understand what all makes the act work even though they all can perform the act. Maybe no one can learn how to ride a bike purely from a blackboard but that is a seperat issue about physicality. But the quote is really about understanding, and the forces and effects that go into the act of riding a bike are both understandable and explicable. Anyone who understands them can describe them on a blackboard. So the quote holds water even in the case of riding a bike. I would say anyway. Maybe there are other examples and bike riding just wasn't the best example to invalidate the quote.
jonahx 2y ago
Literature professor = bike argument? That's were I put my money, but I could see it going either way. This can devolve into a definitional argument, but I actually think it's fair to say we don't understand how we ride a bike. We have many abilities and fluencies we don't understand, or only partially understand, in the sense that we can't break them down into pieces easily and transmit the information. That perspective feels more accurate to me than saying I understand how I ride a bike because I can ride a bike, though in common usage the phrase "I understand how to ride a bike" would be perfectly acceptable. The subtle distinction between the phrase "knows how to" and "understands" hints at the difference here.
- gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
  Looks like here's an opportunity for a language to express the riding of bikes Headstart (modelling the non-riding of bikes): http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/bicycle_mechanics/JBike6_web_folder/ http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/bicycle_mechani...
- somat 2y ago
  We(by which I mean a person who knows how to ride a bike) do understand how to ride a bike. The problem in communicating that is a riding a bike is a skilled act. that is you cant get good at riding a bike by reading about it, and it is very hard to describe a well trained skill, it boils down to "practice a lot" which makes nobody happy.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    One of the reasons you can’t get good at riding a bike by reading about it is that we literally don’t understand the mechanics of bike riding. It’s a currently unsolved problem in physics. Google it if you do t believe me! So I get what you’re saying, but it is maybe not the optimal example.
    - moi2388 2y ago
      It’s not. Google harder.
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      It's not unsolved per se, just a complex topic that resists simple explanations. (see also: what causes lift in an airfoil)
      - adastra22 2y ago
        Sibling comment to yours points to a relatively recent (this century) article with a mostly complete theoretical model for bike self-stability. There are other theories though, some more or less developed than others. It turns out to be a fiendishly hard control-theory problem, and at least one aspect is chaotic. Which theory is correct has not, to my knowledge, been definitively determined by experiment. Until it is, I think it is fair to say that it is unsolved. Unlike lift, which is very well understood but often poorly explained.
gosub100 2y ago
That's a great rebuttal. But if the actual claim is "I cannot teach..." It is still consistent. No one is claiming to teach you how to ride a bike or be in a relationship or know when to leave a party. "I cannot teach what I cannot understand" is not the inverse: "I can teach everything I understand".
stahorn 2y ago
I took up social dancing in my 20s, including salsa and Argentinian tango. I think that it is a very good way to experience the difference between being very good at something and being able to teach. I've been on courses with some people that are clearly exceptionally good at dancing but are a bit lacking when it comes to teaching. Then I've had the pleasure of having teachers that, while still very good at dancing, would not win the high level competitions. When it comes to teaching though, they are just wonderful to be around. They are exceptionally good at spotting what you are doing wrong and giving you an explanation of how to fix it. Not only that, but they make you feel good about learning. One concrete memory I have is from a cuban salsa dancer trying to teach me, a poor northern European, how to move like a cuban. His frustration was very noticeable and not making it easier for me! Then an example of the other type of teach, is the crazy Australian tango dancer that not only had fantastically fun and simple workshops, but also spotted and explained simple fixes. When I was struggling with a move, he told me to rotate my foot, which I did, and I stopped struggling. When us attendees in the class talked about some high level move being complicated, he said that it is not at all complicated, and showed us how it's simpler than it appears.
- yarekt 2y ago
  Great insight, it actually aligns with the conversation above: Yes, teaching is its own skill regardless of the subject matter, but to teach you really have to understand the subject matter really well, and isn’t at all related to “doing it well” in some cases. For example, in film, being a great director requires a deep insight about acting, so they can explain what’s needed from a performance to an actor. A director may know what they need despite being unable to perform it themselves.
- vacuity 2y ago
  I think teaching requires not only that you understand how to do something, but also what someone else's incomplete understanding is. You need to address the root cause as to why the other person's understanding is so lacking, like your examle with the tango dancer, instead of pointing out that a move is wrong and not giving the tools to prevent it. There may be many paths to reaching similar understandings, and a teacher needs to be able to tame this sprawling diversity. That's one reason why we don't just get blog posts or films that are exceedingly short, because if everyone could just understand a dry delivery of the core points instead of needing to think through multiple examples and reasons, we wouldn't be so pressed about teaching.

Brian_K_White 2y ago

I would say that if you can't explain on a blackboard how to ride a bicycle, then that simply means you do not understand how to ride a bicycle. You can do a thing without understanding it. I would guess very few bike riders really understand what all makes the act work even though they all can perform the act. Maybe no one can learn how to ride a bike purely from a blackboard but that is a seperat issue about physicality. But the quote is really about understanding, and the forces and effects that go into the act of riding a bike are both understandable and explicable. Anyone who understands them can describe them on a blackboard. So the quote holds water even in the case of riding a bike. I would say anyway. Maybe there are other examples and bike riding just wasn't the best example to invalidate the quote.

jonahx 2y ago

Literature professor = bike argument? That's were I put my money, but I could see it going either way. This can devolve into a definitional argument, but I actually think it's fair to say we don't understand how we ride a bike. We have many abilities and fluencies we don't understand, or only partially understand, in the sense that we can't break them down into pieces easily and transmit the information. That perspective feels more accurate to me than saying I understand how I ride a bike because I can ride a bike, though in common usage the phrase "I understand how to ride a bike" would be perfectly acceptable. The subtle distinction between the phrase "knows how to" and "understands" hints at the difference here.

gsf_emergency_2 2y ago
Looks like here's an opportunity for a language to express the riding of bikes Headstart (modelling the non-riding of bikes): http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/bicycle_mechanics/JBike6_web_folder/ http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/bicycle_mechani...
somat 2y ago
We(by which I mean a person who knows how to ride a bike) do understand how to ride a bike. The problem in communicating that is a riding a bike is a skilled act. that is you cant get good at riding a bike by reading about it, and it is very hard to describe a well trained skill, it boils down to "practice a lot" which makes nobody happy.
- adastra22 2y ago
  One of the reasons you can’t get good at riding a bike by reading about it is that we literally don’t understand the mechanics of bike riding. It’s a currently unsolved problem in physics. Google it if you do t believe me! So I get what you’re saying, but it is maybe not the optimal example.
  - moi2388 2y ago
    It’s not. Google harder.
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    It's not unsolved per se, just a complex topic that resists simple explanations. (see also: what causes lift in an airfoil)
    - adastra22 2y ago
      Sibling comment to yours points to a relatively recent (this century) article with a mostly complete theoretical model for bike self-stability. There are other theories though, some more or less developed than others. It turns out to be a fiendishly hard control-theory problem, and at least one aspect is chaotic. Which theory is correct has not, to my knowledge, been definitively determined by experiment. Until it is, I think it is fair to say that it is unsolved. Unlike lift, which is very well understood but often poorly explained.

gosub100 2y ago

That's a great rebuttal. But if the actual claim is "I cannot teach..." It is still consistent. No one is claiming to teach you how to ride a bike or be in a relationship or know when to leave a party. "I cannot teach what I cannot understand" is not the inverse: "I can teach everything I understand".

stahorn 2y ago

I took up social dancing in my 20s, including salsa and Argentinian tango. I think that it is a very good way to experience the difference between being very good at something and being able to teach. I've been on courses with some people that are clearly exceptionally good at dancing but are a bit lacking when it comes to teaching. Then I've had the pleasure of having teachers that, while still very good at dancing, would not win the high level competitions. When it comes to teaching though, they are just wonderful to be around. They are exceptionally good at spotting what you are doing wrong and giving you an explanation of how to fix it. Not only that, but they make you feel good about learning. One concrete memory I have is from a cuban salsa dancer trying to teach me, a poor northern European, how to move like a cuban. His frustration was very noticeable and not making it easier for me! Then an example of the other type of teach, is the crazy Australian tango dancer that not only had fantastically fun and simple workshops, but also spotted and explained simple fixes. When I was struggling with a move, he told me to rotate my foot, which I did, and I stopped struggling. When us attendees in the class talked about some high level move being complicated, he said that it is not at all complicated, and showed us how it's simpler than it appears.

yarekt 2y ago
Great insight, it actually aligns with the conversation above: Yes, teaching is its own skill regardless of the subject matter, but to teach you really have to understand the subject matter really well, and isn’t at all related to “doing it well” in some cases. For example, in film, being a great director requires a deep insight about acting, so they can explain what’s needed from a performance to an actor. A director may know what they need despite being unable to perform it themselves.
vacuity 2y ago
I think teaching requires not only that you understand how to do something, but also what someone else's incomplete understanding is. You need to address the root cause as to why the other person's understanding is so lacking, like your examle with the tango dancer, instead of pointing out that a move is wrong and not giving the tools to prevent it. There may be many paths to reaching similar understandings, and a teacher needs to be able to tame this sprawling diversity. That's one reason why we don't just get blog posts or films that are exceedingly short, because if everyone could just understand a dry delivery of the core points instead of needing to think through multiple examples and reasons, we wouldn't be so pressed about teaching.