This idea of becoming comfortable with complexity and just "getting wet" from the firehose remind me of the educational philosophy of "Productive Failure" where you start students off with an extremely challenging problem before you have taught them how to solve it and have students try to solve the problem on their own. Then afterwards you can focus on gaps in understanding and doing more conventional teaching methods.
By understanding (or failing to understand) things at a complex level first, students become more motivated to learn the subsequent materiel as well as more aware of what the specific gaps in their knowledge are and what they need to focus on.
The main guy who came up with the concept has also just published a book on it this month although I will refrain from recommending it as I have not had a chance to read it yet.
I like the "challenging problem" method as a pedigogical reality check for students, especially in cases where you have a number in the cohort who think they have it nailed. The delicate balance is always to avoid demoralising them.
However, generally, becoming aware that you're unconsciously incompetent - you don't know what you don't know - is the first stage of engaging in motivated learning.
When the target space is the Daddies stork and the moduli space the Mummies vagina, the correct arrow is that the Mummy grabs the Daddies cock and inserts it...
The other arrow is not the inverse functor, it is the _wishful thinking_ false functor.
The only thing I meant by the comment I left on u tube is that your audience will always be limited precisely because of its highly educated content. That's just my opinion. In think physics kind of abandoned the popularity contest when it had to delve into the non intuitive. Its at that point you'll loose these who are smart but uneducated. There was hay day for a while where there just a gush of realisations. I actually think that served a needed pourpose cause I dont believe in a spontaneous randomly reorganising universe.
I really encourage you to be more precise in framing your thoughts (grammar, spelling, etc) not because I want to be a punctuation bitch, but because people won't listen to your ideas if they're dressed in shabby clothes. It's socioling 101 - and I mean no insult; it's the reality of human psychology. My 12th grade English teacher was the first person who corrected my punctuation, to my horror, because I was never told I wrote like I was illiterate.
You have interesting ideas! A little more rigor, a little more traction.
In think = I think
Its at that point = It's at that point
loose = lose
hay day = hey day
pourpose = purpose
cause I dont = because I don't
reorganising = reorganising YEAAH Brit spelling, you are my people ;)
If I told you you sound like AI then there would be no need for me to also tell you I think google is a demon. Besides I wasnt aware there were any mud slappers I had need to accomodate. There was something about painting I keep hearing...
Understanding seems to be a kind of relaxation; a relaxation of the tension that is inherent in thinking. Perhaps understanding takes place beyond thinking.
Not sure about Scott Alexander, but the last point about "explain" and "understand" is terrific. There is a notion of "I get it!" to understanding. That's a fuzzy (and subjective, hence unscientific) notion. It is however very human. Our understanding is connected to our mental impressions of being unconfused, or less confused than before, or having a new coherent mental model. While "explain" is, as you say, a two-way street, best verified fuzzily by checking the feedback. The explainee has to be able to implement the functor back to the explainer.
_"In fact, some spiritual teachers believe this to be the case of language in general. That is, language so fails to capture the nature of consciousness or whatever else are the “deepest” questions we want answered..."_
Someone should tell Fodor's ghost and the high falutin' professors of literary crit. Thought is not a mere language homies.
I think the first level is motivation for the concept - you can’t tell if you’re stationary on earth or in an accelerating rocket - there is no largest integer - light always travels at the same speed.
I've always understood "explain like I am five" as not meant that literally.
When the context allows it, I prefer to ask if things can explained to me like I am an idiot - because I am like 90% idiot living in a world mostly populated by idiots, and there's simply too much knowledge for any of us to handle, but we can still benefit from superficial knowledge about topics outside of our area of expertise.
I think the question becomes: why do we seem to no longer be interested in understanding concepts in depth? What causes us to comfortably bathe in our own ignorance as a sign of importance? We no longer are ashamed to know next to little, but instead are incentivized—or so it seems—to shun those who know more. It is unfortunate.
Oh, I also wanted to say - I think words are like bodies for thought. Incarnation has a lot of benefits, but is finite, physically limited, and dimensionally collapsed.
There's probably a right-brain aspect too where things understood on a systemic/wholistic level cannot be articulated without diminution because you have to explain it slowly for the left-brain who always gets it wrong \_(シ)_/
I absolutely endorse what you're saying Curt. As a teacher, I also note it's really important to scaffold learning. Learning seems to thrive on analogy, anchoring, and hooking into what we already know. As a teacher of both mathematics and ESL, I wrestle with the balance between top-down and bottom-up. True learning in these fields is a process of pattern abstraction and somehow we've decided that the best way to teach is to give the pattern and then the examples. I really think effective learning happens by moving more dynamically between these two; lots of data, but expediting the abstraction process by directing learners on what to focus on.
Although all learning is progressive unveiling of prior simplification, that's kind of fun too. Do you remember when you realised that multiplication only made numbers bigger if the multiplier was more than one? I do. Mind blown. I SO SO want to leave space for my kids to "discover" something for themselves, because that's what really hooks you...
...
Notation is obstructive in both fields but a necessary evil in the learning process (after which it can be discarded). But that's another rant for another day.
On the business analog to your constrained triples. People often fail to realize the critical thing in economics is the income, a flow, not a stock. Cost is therefore not an issue if you can gain credit and have subsequent income (flow) to pay off the debt (a stock), i.e., make sales. Most firms operate this way to make monthly pay-roll. (I am simplifying a bit, but no simpler than necessary.)
Dear Curt, I would've never thought I ever tell you that you're wrong... But here we are: you seem to be missing the whole point of the saying, which is: "Explain it to YOURSELF by using the most possibly simple basic (child-related) terms and fully grasped concepts, so that it'd be fully transparent to YOURSELF (at least)".
And actually, you're expressing this idea here:
...
These questions aren’t obvious to you, as they lie at the undeclared level.
Not realizing these are questions lurking underneath prevents you from asking these questions. This evinces itself as an implicit feeling that something is “left unexplained.”
This means that as a student, or an interviewer, the more you can become in touch with that feeling of knowing something is left unexplained, and the more you can ask by dredging what’s unarticulated, then the more quickly you learn.
In other words, you have sticking points, but you're unaware of precisely what they are. That is, you have some misunderstanding, and you don’t know that your trouble understanding a derivative concept is because of having the wrong intuition about a sub-concept.
... YES 🙌 EXACTLY THAT
P.S. And the following, in fact, is a very beautiful way of putting out a relevant and geniously simple explanation:
"If you were to explain it to a five-year-old, your concept of “empty” would indeed be empty!"
Precisely... If you imagine that scenario...
Love your channel, man. My top 5 online.
Upd.
...And no comments from the author as of October 31. How interesting... 🙂
This idea of becoming comfortable with complexity and just "getting wet" from the firehose remind me of the educational philosophy of "Productive Failure" where you start students off with an extremely challenging problem before you have taught them how to solve it and have students try to solve the problem on their own. Then afterwards you can focus on gaps in understanding and doing more conventional teaching methods.
By understanding (or failing to understand) things at a complex level first, students become more motivated to learn the subsequent materiel as well as more aware of what the specific gaps in their knowledge are and what they need to focus on.
Some solid scientific evidence supporting that approach is here: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019105
As well as a paper explaining it: https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
As well as a simpler article (although maybe you should read this last): https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/using-productive-failure-activate-deeper-learning
The main guy who came up with the concept has also just published a book on it this month although I will refrain from recommending it as I have not had a chance to read it yet.
I like the "challenging problem" method as a pedigogical reality check for students, especially in cases where you have a number in the cohort who think they have it nailed. The delicate balance is always to avoid demoralising them.
However, generally, becoming aware that you're unconsciously incompetent - you don't know what you don't know - is the first stage of engaging in motivated learning.
All I can say is thank god for “Look Up” in the context menu. Keep it as technical as you want. Accuracy is key.
When the target space is the Daddies stork and the moduli space the Mummies vagina, the correct arrow is that the Mummy grabs the Daddies cock and inserts it...
The other arrow is not the inverse functor, it is the _wishful thinking_ false functor.
The only thing I meant by the comment I left on u tube is that your audience will always be limited precisely because of its highly educated content. That's just my opinion. In think physics kind of abandoned the popularity contest when it had to delve into the non intuitive. Its at that point you'll loose these who are smart but uneducated. There was hay day for a while where there just a gush of realisations. I actually think that served a needed pourpose cause I dont believe in a spontaneous randomly reorganising universe.
I really encourage you to be more precise in framing your thoughts (grammar, spelling, etc) not because I want to be a punctuation bitch, but because people won't listen to your ideas if they're dressed in shabby clothes. It's socioling 101 - and I mean no insult; it's the reality of human psychology. My 12th grade English teacher was the first person who corrected my punctuation, to my horror, because I was never told I wrote like I was illiterate.
You have interesting ideas! A little more rigor, a little more traction.
In think = I think
Its at that point = It's at that point
loose = lose
hay day = hey day
pourpose = purpose
cause I dont = because I don't
reorganising = reorganising YEAAH Brit spelling, you are my people ;)
If I told you you sound like AI then there would be no need for me to also tell you I think google is a demon. Besides I wasnt aware there were any mud slappers I had need to accomodate. There was something about painting I keep hearing...
Understanding seems to be a kind of relaxation; a relaxation of the tension that is inherent in thinking. Perhaps understanding takes place beyond thinking.
Not sure about Scott Alexander, but the last point about "explain" and "understand" is terrific. There is a notion of "I get it!" to understanding. That's a fuzzy (and subjective, hence unscientific) notion. It is however very human. Our understanding is connected to our mental impressions of being unconfused, or less confused than before, or having a new coherent mental model. While "explain" is, as you say, a two-way street, best verified fuzzily by checking the feedback. The explainee has to be able to implement the functor back to the explainer.
I liked this:
_"In fact, some spiritual teachers believe this to be the case of language in general. That is, language so fails to capture the nature of consciousness or whatever else are the “deepest” questions we want answered..."_
Someone should tell Fodor's ghost and the high falutin' professors of literary crit. Thought is not a mere language homies.
I think the first level is motivation for the concept - you can’t tell if you’re stationary on earth or in an accelerating rocket - there is no largest integer - light always travels at the same speed.
I've always understood "explain like I am five" as not meant that literally.
When the context allows it, I prefer to ask if things can explained to me like I am an idiot - because I am like 90% idiot living in a world mostly populated by idiots, and there's simply too much knowledge for any of us to handle, but we can still benefit from superficial knowledge about topics outside of our area of expertise.
I think the question becomes: why do we seem to no longer be interested in understanding concepts in depth? What causes us to comfortably bathe in our own ignorance as a sign of importance? We no longer are ashamed to know next to little, but instead are incentivized—or so it seems—to shun those who know more. It is unfortunate.
In any case, I enjoyed reading this Curt.
Oh, I also wanted to say - I think words are like bodies for thought. Incarnation has a lot of benefits, but is finite, physically limited, and dimensionally collapsed.
There's probably a right-brain aspect too where things understood on a systemic/wholistic level cannot be articulated without diminution because you have to explain it slowly for the left-brain who always gets it wrong \_(シ)_/
I absolutely endorse what you're saying Curt. As a teacher, I also note it's really important to scaffold learning. Learning seems to thrive on analogy, anchoring, and hooking into what we already know. As a teacher of both mathematics and ESL, I wrestle with the balance between top-down and bottom-up. True learning in these fields is a process of pattern abstraction and somehow we've decided that the best way to teach is to give the pattern and then the examples. I really think effective learning happens by moving more dynamically between these two; lots of data, but expediting the abstraction process by directing learners on what to focus on.
Although all learning is progressive unveiling of prior simplification, that's kind of fun too. Do you remember when you realised that multiplication only made numbers bigger if the multiplier was more than one? I do. Mind blown. I SO SO want to leave space for my kids to "discover" something for themselves, because that's what really hooks you...
...
Notation is obstructive in both fields but a necessary evil in the learning process (after which it can be discarded). But that's another rant for another day.
Hi Curt, reading about you and your work I couldn't find what area did you study and what degrees do you have... Many thanks in advance.
PS: And --- million thanks for obtaining the full copy of wonderful presentation by Prof. Ivette Fuentes:
• The Breakthrough We’ve Been Waiting For -- 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUj2TcZSlZc
• And -- FULL PPt presentation by Ivette Fuentes:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13Jg6pLkeg53jUGfXisuffIbjMdust_iz/edit?pli=1#slide=id.p1
On the business analog to your constrained triples. People often fail to realize the critical thing in economics is the income, a flow, not a stock. Cost is therefore not an issue if you can gain credit and have subsequent income (flow) to pay off the debt (a stock), i.e., make sales. Most firms operate this way to make monthly pay-roll. (I am simplifying a bit, but no simpler than necessary.)
Wonderful essay. Not too succinct either. ;-)
Dear Curt, I would've never thought I ever tell you that you're wrong... But here we are: you seem to be missing the whole point of the saying, which is: "Explain it to YOURSELF by using the most possibly simple basic (child-related) terms and fully grasped concepts, so that it'd be fully transparent to YOURSELF (at least)".
And actually, you're expressing this idea here:
...
These questions aren’t obvious to you, as they lie at the undeclared level.
Not realizing these are questions lurking underneath prevents you from asking these questions. This evinces itself as an implicit feeling that something is “left unexplained.”
This means that as a student, or an interviewer, the more you can become in touch with that feeling of knowing something is left unexplained, and the more you can ask by dredging what’s unarticulated, then the more quickly you learn.
In other words, you have sticking points, but you're unaware of precisely what they are. That is, you have some misunderstanding, and you don’t know that your trouble understanding a derivative concept is because of having the wrong intuition about a sub-concept.
... YES 🙌 EXACTLY THAT
P.S. And the following, in fact, is a very beautiful way of putting out a relevant and geniously simple explanation:
"If you were to explain it to a five-year-old, your concept of “empty” would indeed be empty!"
Precisely... If you imagine that scenario...
Love your channel, man. My top 5 online.
Upd.
...And no comments from the author as of October 31. How interesting... 🙂
So Curt was "wrong here" but also he was "not wrong there". Sounds about right. If every essay was everywhere not wrong we'd be gods.
...wrong)