The Hardest Thing About Teaching: Knowing When to Lie(crypticswarm.com)
crypticswarm.com
The Hardest Thing About Teaching: Knowing When to Lie
http://crypticswarm.com/knowing-when-to-lie
7 comments
Long, long, long before even Wittgenstein's grandparents had a twinkling in their eye, Zen masters said pretty much the same thing about their words being useful get you started on the path towards enlightenment but needing to be eventually overcome and discarded to reach it.
Unfortunately, I don't have a direct quotation from them handy. However, the Taoists have expressed similar sentiments in the Tao Te Ching (from 300+ BC):
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivists
[4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
Unfortunately, I don't have a direct quotation from them handy. However, the Taoists have expressed similar sentiments in the Tao Te Ching (from 300+ BC):
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivists
[4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
Or you could tell them that it's a model, a simplification and that they will learn the more complex, accurate version later.
It's not lying to me. It's more of an attentional optimization. It's more like sleight of hand. People's psychological defenses are very strong. Evolution has made them so. To change someone else's mental models has to be hard, otherwise they'd be easy to conquer using psychological means. However, one cannot truly learn without changing one's mental models.
i agree. also, "attentional optimization" would be a good band name.
nice post @crypticswarm !
nice post @crypticswarm !
Taking it a step further, the next hardest thing is dealing with the consequences of the lies when there are students with enough experience to know that you lied, but not why you lied.
I teach programming through video courses, and at a very beginner level, you have to lie a lot, in order to simplify the concepts that are peripheral to the core concept you are trying to explain. There are few things (if any) in the world that can be explained linearly. The dependency graph for any concept you want to teach will branch out into a dozen other topics, and often cycle back on itself.
The way you have to teach is pick a core concept you want your student to learn, and do your best to explain it, and whenever an unexplained concept comes up, explain it the simplest way you can so you don't get knocked off track. Often this involves lying, or creating the simplest mental model that works for the current situation.
I'll get emails routinely from people who say that I didn't thoroughly explain some topic that was not the core topic of the exercise. For instance if you want to learn about JavaScript strings, you may want to mention "string".toUpperCase(), but if you are just learning about strings, functions or method invocations are some way off in the future. You can't just stop and explain the details of functions, how they are invoked on objects if you are still working on the basics of a core data type.
So the hardest thing is not just knowing when to lie, but how to lie in a way that won't cause too much upset if the student knows you are lying. The best way to mitigate this is to explain that it is a simplification, and we will learn more about it soon. This is usually enough to keep going, as well as keep interest levels high.
I teach programming through video courses, and at a very beginner level, you have to lie a lot, in order to simplify the concepts that are peripheral to the core concept you are trying to explain. There are few things (if any) in the world that can be explained linearly. The dependency graph for any concept you want to teach will branch out into a dozen other topics, and often cycle back on itself.
The way you have to teach is pick a core concept you want your student to learn, and do your best to explain it, and whenever an unexplained concept comes up, explain it the simplest way you can so you don't get knocked off track. Often this involves lying, or creating the simplest mental model that works for the current situation.
I'll get emails routinely from people who say that I didn't thoroughly explain some topic that was not the core topic of the exercise. For instance if you want to learn about JavaScript strings, you may want to mention "string".toUpperCase(), but if you are just learning about strings, functions or method invocations are some way off in the future. You can't just stop and explain the details of functions, how they are invoked on objects if you are still working on the basics of a core data type.
So the hardest thing is not just knowing when to lie, but how to lie in a way that won't cause too much upset if the student knows you are lying. The best way to mitigate this is to explain that it is a simplification, and we will learn more about it soon. This is usually enough to keep going, as well as keep interest levels high.
I remember feeling rather devastated when I found out that F<>MA and that energy and mass aren't really conserved. I think it was because I was trying to build a philosophy from studying physics, rather than just getting the equations down to pass the test.
> I found out that F<>MA
How do you mean?
How do you mean?
I think he means that even in a purely classical system (ignoring relativity and quantum theory), F=MA describes a system you could never see in the physical world. After all, it does not take into account friction or constantly acting forces like gravity (yes, I know gravity's nature is more complex than that, but I am talking about a purely classical system).
And that is if we can ignore relativity and quantum theory. With those, it gets more complex, especially given that they cannot currently be reconciled with each other.
As others have discussed, F=MA and all of Classical theory is a model that is definitely wrong, but it remains close enough to be extremely useful even now.
And that is if we can ignore relativity and quantum theory. With those, it gets more complex, especially given that they cannot currently be reconciled with each other.
As others have discussed, F=MA and all of Classical theory is a model that is definitely wrong, but it remains close enough to be extremely useful even now.
"All models are wrong but some are useful" - generally credited to George Box.
A model, by definition, is a simplification, otherwise it wouldn't be a model (it would be the actual "thing"). Therefore, you shouldn't get caught up on whether or not the model is a perfect representation of the thing it describes (because it won't ever be), but rather if it is useful in the situation in which it is being applied.
For example, sometimes it is useful to model light as waves, sometimes it is useful to model it as particles, but both models are technically wrong because they can't explain the full behavior of light by themselves. That doesn't mean we should just give up those models and never use them, since they both are useful in certain situations.
So present the simplified model to the student, until that simplified model no longer can explain what you are trying to explain. In which case you present the more refined model. Just keep in mind there is overhead that comes along with that refined model.
And perhaps more importantly: don't think in terms of "truthfulness", think in terms of "usefulness".
A model, by definition, is a simplification, otherwise it wouldn't be a model (it would be the actual "thing"). Therefore, you shouldn't get caught up on whether or not the model is a perfect representation of the thing it describes (because it won't ever be), but rather if it is useful in the situation in which it is being applied.
For example, sometimes it is useful to model light as waves, sometimes it is useful to model it as particles, but both models are technically wrong because they can't explain the full behavior of light by themselves. That doesn't mean we should just give up those models and never use them, since they both are useful in certain situations.
So present the simplified model to the student, until that simplified model no longer can explain what you are trying to explain. In which case you present the more refined model. Just keep in mind there is overhead that comes along with that refined model.
And perhaps more importantly: don't think in terms of "truthfulness", think in terms of "usefulness".
Very well said, but it is important to point out that you are simplifying. Otherwise the ambitious ones who continue learning without you may feel betrayed or even question your competence when they begin seeing the problems in the model.
For sure -- personally if I was a teacher I'd start any course I taught with that models quote :) And if the students find the holes in what I'm teaching them then we can go to the next level of complexity.
> to point out that you are simplifying
suffice it to say that what arscan presented was itself a model
suffice it to say that what arscan presented was itself a model
I love it when discussions turn meta. Bravo! ;-)
this is some seriously recursive abstraction
"usefulness" is a good way to put it. Had never heard the quote "All models are wrong but some are useful". I like it.
Also know when to keep your mouth shut and don't nitpick when they make mistakes. Such as a beginner learning a language. He/she is probably scared of speaking, so don't point out more mistakes than needed. You want to build confidence first.
The article title, which is quoting the writer's favorite teacher, is a lie, which is to say a didactic oversimplification.
When you're trying to explain something, you can be too simple, you can get way too complex, you can qualify your simplification to the point where the explanation is lost, or you can simplify just enough and not spend time discussing the limits of your simplification until you've made your point.
That last item is the "when to lie" bit.
When you're trying to explain something, you can be too simple, you can get way too complex, you can qualify your simplification to the point where the explanation is lost, or you can simplify just enough and not spend time discussing the limits of your simplification until you've made your point.
That last item is the "when to lie" bit.
My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps - to climb beyond them. He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.