Im leaning on the notion that if you can’t verbally explain the idea, then you only really understand it in passing or through rote (input/process/output), but you do not actually understand the process at a high enough level to connect it to anything else.
Smart people can do incredible things, but the truly smart can explain analogs of what they do to 6-year olds. Everybody should learn how to teach
You almost admit at the end that putting into words is a skill in its own right. I feel like when you have deep understanding, it can be difficult to put into words. It’s like the bell curve meme: first you can’t put it into words because you only have a vague idea, than you have a straightforward definition, later you realize it’s more complex, has more aspects to it and you again struggle to put it into words
I feel like it’s more than that though. Some researchers go too deep into their field that an adjacent one tied to the same goal becomes alien to them (e.g. developmental biology vs pharmacology)
Techies are very good because they own a thorough understanding of the low-level implementation of a tasks requirements, they can tell you exactly how they converted an input to an output down the finest T. But they do not necessarily know how to generalise, they’ve overtrained and specialised on that specific task that taking it into another context is foreign to them – i.e., they’ve learned a task within a specific environment but do not know what the task means outside of it, and in a way… haven’t actually learned what the task means.
Project managers (and, in theory, CTO’s…) have a high level overview of the task. They might not know how to implement it directly, but they know enough from a conceptual standpoint to extrapolate the task and apply it to different situations and understand the bigger picture that the task takes place in.
My whole argument is that neither the Techie nor the Project manager are masters of the task, because they see the task in different isolated scopes; one from a high level overview and one from a low level implementation.
A Teacher understands both – what the task is, how to extrapolate it to different situations, and how to implement it
I think I see what you mean. Being able to explain the actual workings of a task or skill shows a much greater depth of understanding about said task or skill, compared to simply performing it.
I would like you to consider the perspective of those who don’t speak, those who find the task cognitively overwhelming, those with disabilities or TBIs who have a particular deficit with verbal processing. There are many people who can understand fully well the ins and outs of a task or skill, but be unable to put it into words despite their high level of understanding. They would be able to teach if not for barriers outside of their control. It’s important not to write off somebody’s intelligence just because they struggle to communicate.
Apologies - it was not my intention to paint those who have difficulty communicating as non-teachers. I myself am not a great verbal communicator, and construct thoughts far better in text than on-demand with sound.
“Verbal” was a poor choice of words in my original comment. I only meant that if you are asked to explain a task you do often through whatever means are available to you, and you are unable to in your own mind create an analog of it to something else, then that is a sign of overtraining
Im leaning on the notion that if you can’t verbally explain the idea, then you only really understand it in passing or through rote (input/process/output), but you do not actually understand the process at a high enough level to connect it to anything else.
Smart people can do incredible things, but the truly smart can explain analogs of what they do to 6-year olds. Everybody should learn how to teach
You almost admit at the end that putting into words is a skill in its own right. I feel like when you have deep understanding, it can be difficult to put into words. It’s like the bell curve meme: first you can’t put it into words because you only have a vague idea, than you have a straightforward definition, later you realize it’s more complex, has more aspects to it and you again struggle to put it into words
I feel like it’s more than that though. Some researchers go too deep into their field that an adjacent one tied to the same goal becomes alien to them (e.g. developmental biology vs pharmacology)
Techies are very good because they own a thorough understanding of the low-level implementation of a tasks requirements, they can tell you exactly how they converted an input to an output down the finest T. But they do not necessarily know how to generalise, they’ve overtrained and specialised on that specific task that taking it into another context is foreign to them – i.e., they’ve learned a task within a specific environment but do not know what the task means outside of it, and in a way… haven’t actually learned what the task means.
Project managers (and, in theory, CTO’s…) have a high level overview of the task. They might not know how to implement it directly, but they know enough from a conceptual standpoint to extrapolate the task and apply it to different situations and understand the bigger picture that the task takes place in.
My whole argument is that neither the Techie nor the Project manager are masters of the task, because they see the task in different isolated scopes; one from a high level overview and one from a low level implementation.
A Teacher understands both – what the task is, how to extrapolate it to different situations, and how to implement it
I think I see what you mean. Being able to explain the actual workings of a task or skill shows a much greater depth of understanding about said task or skill, compared to simply performing it.
I would like you to consider the perspective of those who don’t speak, those who find the task cognitively overwhelming, those with disabilities or TBIs who have a particular deficit with verbal processing. There are many people who can understand fully well the ins and outs of a task or skill, but be unable to put it into words despite their high level of understanding. They would be able to teach if not for barriers outside of their control. It’s important not to write off somebody’s intelligence just because they struggle to communicate.
Apologies - it was not my intention to paint those who have difficulty communicating as non-teachers. I myself am not a great verbal communicator, and construct thoughts far better in text than on-demand with sound.
“Verbal” was a poor choice of words in my original comment. I only meant that if you are asked to explain a task you do often through whatever means are available to you, and you are unable to in your own mind create an analog of it to something else, then that is a sign of overtraining