I think I know a fair amount about doing calligraphy, but I'm dubious that someone could get a comparable level of knowledge without doing a good bit of calligraphy themselves.
If I were doing a serious job of teaching, I would be learning more about how to teach as I was doing it.
I consider myself to be a good but not expert explainer.
Possibly of interest: The 10-Minute Rejuvenation Plan: T5T: The Revolutionary Exercise Program That Restores Your Body and Mind : a book about an exercise system which involves 5 yoga moves. It's by a woman who'd taught 700 people how to do the system, and shows an extensive knowledge of the possible mistakes students can make and adaptations needed to make the moves feasible for a wide variety of people.
My point is that explanation isn't an abstract perfectible process existing simply in the mind of a teacher.
But in some limited areas explanation is completely adequate.
I taught co-worker how to do sudoku puzzles. After teaching him the human-accessible algorithms and allowing time for practice, I was still consistently beating his time. I knew why, and he didn't. After I explained the difference in mental state I was using, he began beating my time on regular basis. {Instead of checking the list of 1-9 for each box or line, allow your brain to subconsciously spot the missing number and then verify its absence.} He is more motivated and has more focus, while I ...
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.