3 ms·

This completely. If you cannot explain something to someone else whom has no innate knowledge of the subject, using plain language, then your command of the sub

by druiid 14y ago

This completely. If you cannot explain something to someone else whom has no innate knowledge of the subject, using plain language, then your command of the subject is questionable at best. True command of a subject in my opinion contains within it the ability to relay what you know and make it understood.

VLM 14y ago
"If you cannot explain something to someone else whom has no innate knowledge of the subject, using plain language" If the someone has enough raw mental horsepower and an infinite supply of spare time... Let me teach you everything I know about electrical engineering, it'll only take 10 to 20 years of your time assuming you're smart enough to keep up. Also note that its quite possible to get stuck unable to explain something to someone smarter than you, if you have an inherent talent and or huge experience that results in talent far beyond what your horsepower "should" produce. So both sides the student and teacher have sort of a "must be this smart to enter" carnival ride requirement.
- druiid 14y ago
  I disagree. I never said anything about teaching everything you know. I can explain to someone why a certain metal in a product is better than a less expensive metal without getting into advanced materials science/crystal theory yet not use hand-wavy 'You wouldn't understand' language or mentality. Pretty much anything I can think of, as long as you're willing to spend five to ten minutes on explaining it, can be discussed with a person without the same background. That isn't to say at the end they could or should be expected to be able to build a bridge safely, but at least the can understand why it's costing them so much.
- VLM 14y ago
  I will concede that we both appear to agree that if you define "something" as "something very common and simple" then you win and if we define "something" as "something very complicated" then I win. It would appear the main point of the discussion was how to deal with my definition rather than your definition...

by druiid 14y ago

VLM 14y ago

"If you cannot explain something to someone else whom has no innate knowledge of the subject, using plain language" If the someone has enough raw mental horsepower and an infinite supply of spare time... Let me teach you everything I know about electrical engineering, it'll only take 10 to 20 years of your time assuming you're smart enough to keep up. Also note that its quite possible to get stuck unable to explain something to someone smarter than you, if you have an inherent talent and or huge experience that results in talent far beyond what your horsepower "should" produce. So both sides the student and teacher have sort of a "must be this smart to enter" carnival ride requirement.

druiid 14y ago
I disagree. I never said anything about teaching everything you know. I can explain to someone why a certain metal in a product is better than a less expensive metal without getting into advanced materials science/crystal theory yet not use hand-wavy 'You wouldn't understand' language or mentality. Pretty much anything I can think of, as long as you're willing to spend five to ten minutes on explaining it, can be discussed with a person without the same background. That isn't to say at the end they could or should be expected to be able to build a bridge safely, but at least the can understand why it's costing them so much.
VLM 14y ago
I will concede that we both appear to agree that if you define "something" as "something very common and simple" then you win and if we define "something" as "something very complicated" then I win. It would appear the main point of the discussion was how to deal with my definition rather than your definition...