= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
waitingforgodel comments on Best career models for doing research? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (999)
I'm slowly moving through the sequences, I'll comment back here if/when I finish the posts as well.
In the mean time, I've been told that if you can't explain something simply then you don't really understand it... wanna take a fast and loose whack?
edit: did you drastically edit your comment?
I believe this is utter nonsense, play on the meaning of the word "explain". If explaining is to imply understanding by the recipient, then clearly fast explaining of great many things is not possible, otherwise education wouldn't be necessary. Creating an illusion of understanding, or equivalently a shallow understanding might be manageable of course, the easier the less educated and rational the victim.
Interesting. I've found that intuitive explanations for relatively complex things are generally easier than a long, exact explanation.
Basically fast explanations use hardware accelerated paths to understanding (social reasoning, toy problems that can be played with, analogies), and then leave it to the listener to bootstrap themselves. If you listen to the way that researchers talk, it's basically analogies and toy problems, with occasional black-board sessions if they're mathy.
It's hard to understand matrix inversion by such a route, which I think you're saying is roughly what's required to understand why you believe this censorship to be rational.
But, for the record, it ain't no illusionary understanding when I talk fast with a professor or fellow grad student.
Certainly easier, but don't give comparable depth of understanding or justify comparable certainty in statements about the subject matter. Also, the dichotomy is false, since detailed explanations are ideally accompanied by intuitive explanations to improve understanding.
What we were talking about instead is when you have only a fast informal explanation, without the detail.
It's because they already have the rigor down. See this post by Terence Tao.
Yes, I do that, sorry. What I consider improvement over the original.