6 ms·

I also found that knowing something pretty much equals to being able to explain it to someone. I thought I knew many things until I tried to explain them. Or, i

I also found that knowing something pretty much equals to being able to explain it to someone. I thought I knew many things until I tried to explain them. Or, in other words, there is a sort of "internal" knowledge that seems to heuristically cut corners and generates or fosters the illusion of knowing. True knowledge does not cut corners. Which is what some of the posters have expressed as well.

uberduber 9y ago
Generally true, I'm the exception. My friends have jokingly told me for years, "You are the most inarticulate smart person I know." Went in for some psychometric testing recently and the doctor was fascinated and first thing he when looking at the results was, "I've never met someone so intelligent who can't explain anything."
logicallee 9y ago
>I also found that knowing something pretty much equals to being able to explain it to someone. That can't be right, because that would logically imply that there is literally nobody on Earth who knows functional programming -- including the writers of functional compilers -- since no one is able to easily explain it. (No, really, no one is.) But this is clearly not true: clearly, people do know functional programming (after all, how could they write a compiler for it otherwise, how could people program in it otherwise), despite their inability to explain it. Therefore, this proves that knowing something does not equal being able to explain it. Note that I do not go as far as to say it's inexplicable - sometime, somewhere, someone will explain it clearly and in a way that resonates with people that have not programmed in a functional paradigm, so that anyone immediately "gets" all aspects of it. Like a meme, that explanation will reverberate through the Internet, academia, language design, like a wildfire that enlightens everyone who meets it. But it has not happened. That does not mean "nobody knows functional programming." People know it, although they can't explain it. EDIT - this was downvoted, but I stand by it. My assertion is pretty easily falsifiable, but note that no reply does so with a link. Of course, I have not reviewed the entirety of the Internet so it is possible that I missed one. But I notice that nobody seems to be showing one. This is a challenge to do so, if you disagree with my example.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  The assertion that no one is able to explain functional programming is rather extreme and doesn't pass the sniff test. Does every practitioner of functional programming reinvent the whole thing from scratch each time? Perhaps you mean to say that it is very difficult to explain?
  - logicallee 9y ago
    Here is an explanation, it's the top when when I googled "easy explanation of functional programming." https://maryrosecook.com/blog/post/a-practical-introduction-to-functional-programming https://maryrosecook.com/blog/post/a-practical-introduction-... Please read it. Do you know functional programming now? Do you get it? Do you get the point of it? Did you "grok" the whole reason that the functional paradigm exists? In my opinion that article fails to meet the test. In its very first paragraph it calls out some negative approaches that assume too much or are too hard; in the second paragraph it does the same thing. >The assertion that no one is able to explain functional programming is rather extreme and doesn't pass the sniff test. It's certainly easy to falsify my claim. You can do so with a single link. So if anyone is able to explain functional program in a way that makes it clear and easy, and really lets people grok its purpose and approach, where is that explanation? Where are the benefits that people reap by reading it? The fact is, the resources I have reviewed fail that metric. The people who teach it aren't actually able to explain it easily and well. You suggest that "perhaps [I] mean to say that it is very difficult to explain" -- maybe so, but that is still a reason why it is not true that if someone understands something, then they can also explain it. Here we have a clear example where this is not the case. There are also many more examples in the arts and sciences. Not everything can be explained. That doesn't mean nobody knows it. Therefore, the "if you know it -> you can explain it" claim is false. QED.
    - dwaltrip 9y ago
      > but that is still a reason why it is not true that if someone understands something, then they can also explain it You are going after this rough heuristic as is if it some iron clad metric. Obviously some things are more difficult to explain than others -- I'm not sure how that affects the usefulness of the idea that, in general, being able to explain something well is a sign one likely understands it deeply. This isn't the only measure of understanding, and it isn't perfect, but I've found it be useful. It seems similar to the notion that to truly know a topic, you must distill it down to concise articulations of the only the most fundamental aspects, as well as the key resulting dynamics that emerge. Of course, being able to communicate such a rich mental model to others is not always easy, but doing so demonstrates that one understands their own mental model very well. If you are saying that it isn't a perfect test of understanding, then we are in agreement. But I think that misses the point a bit.

uberduber 9y ago

Generally true, I'm the exception. My friends have jokingly told me for years, "You are the most inarticulate smart person I know." Went in for some psychometric testing recently and the doctor was fascinated and first thing he when looking at the results was, "I've never met someone so intelligent who can't explain anything."

logicallee 9y ago

>I also found that knowing something pretty much equals to being able to explain it to someone. That can't be right, because that would logically imply that there is literally nobody on Earth who knows functional programming -- including the writers of functional compilers -- since no one is able to easily explain it. (No, really, no one is.) But this is clearly not true: clearly, people do know functional programming (after all, how could they write a compiler for it otherwise, how could people program in it otherwise), despite their inability to explain it. Therefore, this proves that knowing something does not equal being able to explain it. Note that I do not go as far as to say it's inexplicable - sometime, somewhere, someone will explain it clearly and in a way that resonates with people that have not programmed in a functional paradigm, so that anyone immediately "gets" all aspects of it. Like a meme, that explanation will reverberate through the Internet, academia, language design, like a wildfire that enlightens everyone who meets it. But it has not happened. That does not mean "nobody knows functional programming." People know it, although they can't explain it. EDIT - this was downvoted, but I stand by it. My assertion is pretty easily falsifiable, but note that no reply does so with a link. Of course, I have not reviewed the entirety of the Internet so it is possible that I missed one. But I notice that nobody seems to be showing one. This is a challenge to do so, if you disagree with my example.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dwaltrip 9y ago
The assertion that no one is able to explain functional programming is rather extreme and doesn't pass the sniff test. Does every practitioner of functional programming reinvent the whole thing from scratch each time? Perhaps you mean to say that it is very difficult to explain?
- logicallee 9y ago
  Here is an explanation, it's the top when when I googled "easy explanation of functional programming." https://maryrosecook.com/blog/post/a-practical-introduction-to-functional-programming https://maryrosecook.com/blog/post/a-practical-introduction-... Please read it. Do you know functional programming now? Do you get it? Do you get the point of it? Did you "grok" the whole reason that the functional paradigm exists? In my opinion that article fails to meet the test. In its very first paragraph it calls out some negative approaches that assume too much or are too hard; in the second paragraph it does the same thing. >The assertion that no one is able to explain functional programming is rather extreme and doesn't pass the sniff test. It's certainly easy to falsify my claim. You can do so with a single link. So if anyone is able to explain functional program in a way that makes it clear and easy, and really lets people grok its purpose and approach, where is that explanation? Where are the benefits that people reap by reading it? The fact is, the resources I have reviewed fail that metric. The people who teach it aren't actually able to explain it easily and well. You suggest that "perhaps [I] mean to say that it is very difficult to explain" -- maybe so, but that is still a reason why it is not true that if someone understands something, then they can also explain it. Here we have a clear example where this is not the case. There are also many more examples in the arts and sciences. Not everything can be explained. That doesn't mean nobody knows it. Therefore, the "if you know it -> you can explain it" claim is false. QED.
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    > but that is still a reason why it is not true that if someone understands something, then they can also explain it You are going after this rough heuristic as is if it some iron clad metric. Obviously some things are more difficult to explain than others -- I'm not sure how that affects the usefulness of the idea that, in general, being able to explain something well is a sign one likely understands it deeply. This isn't the only measure of understanding, and it isn't perfect, but I've found it be useful. It seems similar to the notion that to truly know a topic, you must distill it down to concise articulations of the only the most fundamental aspects, as well as the key resulting dynamics that emerge. Of course, being able to communicate such a rich mental model to others is not always easy, but doing so demonstrates that one understands their own mental model very well. If you are saying that it isn't a perfect test of understanding, then we are in agreement. But I think that misses the point a bit.