This comment got me thinking about it. Of course LW being a website can only deal with verbalizable information(rationality). So what are we missing? Skillsets that are not and have to be learned in other ways(practical ways): interpersonal relationships being just one of many. I also think the emotional brain is part of it. There might me people here who are brilliant thinkers yet emotionally miserable because of their personal context or upbringing, and I think dealing with that would be important. I think a hollistic approach is required. Eliezer had already suggested the idea of a rationality dojo. What do you think?
I’ve been talking to various people about the idea of a Rationality Foundation (working title) which might end up sponsoring or facilitating something like rationality dojos. Needless to say this idea is in its infancy.
I’m a draftsman and it always struck me how absolutely terrible the English language is for talking about ludicrously simple visual concepts precisely. Words like parallel and perpendicular should be one syllable long.
I wonder if there’s a way to apply rationality/ mathematical think beyond geometry and to the world of art.
According to wiki: “Tacit knowledge (as opposed to formal or explicit knowledge) is knowledge that is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalizing it”
Thus: “Effective transfer of tacit knowledge generally requires extensive personal contact and trust. Another example of tacit knowledge is the ability to ride a bicycle.”
Supports the dojo idea...perhaps in SecondLife once the graphics are better?
Thus: “Effective transfer of tacit knowledge generally requires extensive personal contact and trust. Another example of tacit knowledge is the ability to ride a bicycle.”
How much personal contact and trust does it take to learn to ride a bicycle?
As someone who learned cycling as a near-adult, the main insight is that you turn the wheel in the direction in which the bike is falling to push it back vertical. Once I had been told that negative-feedback mechanism, the only delay was until I got frustrated enough with going slowly to say, “heck with this ‘rolling down a slight slope’ game, I’m just going to turn the pedals.” Whereupon I was genuinely riding the bicycle.
...for about a minute, until I got the bright idea of trying to jump the curb. Did you know that rubbing the knee off a pair of jeans will leave a streak of blue on concrete?
I estimate the total time between donning the helmet and hitting the sidewalk was less than an hour—but it was probably a decade ago, so I don’t trust my recollections.
Per my upcoming “Explain Yourself!” article, I am skeptical about the concept of “tacit knowledge”. For one thing, it puts up a sign that says, “Hey, don’t bother trying to explain this in words”, which leads to, “This is a black box; don’t look inside”, which leads to “It’s okay not to know how this works”.
Second, tacit knowledge often turns out to be verbalizable, questioning whether the term “tacit” is really calling out a valid cluster in thingspace[1]. For example, take the canonical example of learning to ride a bike. It’s true that you can learn it hands-on, using the inscrutable, patient training of the master. But you can also learn it by being told the primary counterintuitive insights (“as long as you keep moving, you won’t tip over”), and then a little practice on your own.
In that case, the verbal knowledge has substituted one-for-one with (much of) the tacit learning you would have gained on your own from practice. So how much of it was “really” tacit all along? How much of it are you just calling tacit because the master never reflected on what they were doing?
So for me, the appeal to “difficulty of verbalizing it” certainly has some truth to it, but I find it mainly functions to excuse oneself from critical introspection, and from opening important black boxes. I advise people to avoid using this concept if remotely possible; it tends to say more about you than the inherent inscrutability of the knowledge.
[1] To someone who sucks at programming, the ability to revise a recipe to produce more servings is “tacit knowledge”.
As someone who has made much of the concept of tacit knowledge in the past, I’ll have to say you have a point.
(I’m now considering the addendum: “made much of it because it served my interests to present some knowledge I claimed to have as being of that sort”. I’m not necessarily endorsing that hypothesis, just acknowledging its plausibility.)
It still feels as if, once we toss that phrase out the window, we need something to take its place: words are not universally an effective method of instruction, practice clearly plays a vital part in learning (why?), and the hypothesis that a learner reconstructs knowledge rather than being the recipient of a “transfer” in a literal sense strikes me as facially plausible given the sum of my learning experiences.
Perhaps an adult can comprehend “as long as you keep moving, you won’t tip over”, but I have a strong intuition it wouldn’t go over very well with kids, depending on age and dispositions. My parenting experience (anecdotal evidence as it may be) backs that up. You need to see what a kid is doing right or wrong to encourage the former and correct the latter, you need a hefty dose of patience as the kid’s anxieties get in the way sometimes for a long while.
Learning to ride a bike is a canonical example because it is taught early on, there is hedonic value in learning it early on, but it is typically taught at an age when a kid rarely (or so my hunch says) has the learning-ability to understand advice such as “as long as you keep moving, you won’t tip over”. There is such a thing as learning to learn (and just how verbalizable is that skill?).
It’s all too easy to overgeneralize from a sparse set of examples and obtain a simple, elegant, convincing, but false theory of learning. I hope your article doesn’t fall into that trap. :)
It still feels as if, once we toss that phrase out the window, we need something to take its place: words are not universally an effective method of instruction, practice clearly plays a vital part in learning (why?), and the hypothesis that a learner reconstructs knowledge rather than being the recipient of a “transfer” in a literal sense strikes me as facially plausible given the sum of my learning experiences.
I don’t disagree, but I don’t see how it contradicts my position either. The evidence you give against words being effective is that, basically, they don’t fully constrain what the other person is being told to do, so they can always mess up in unpredictable ways. That’s true, but it just shows how you need to understand the listener’s epistemic state to know which insights they lack that would allow them to bridge the gap
People do get this wrong, and end up giving “let them eat cake” advice—advice that, if it were useful, the problem would have been solved. But at the same time, a good understanding of where they are can lead to remarkably informative advice. (I’ve noticed Roko and HughRistik are excellent at this when it comes to human sociality, while some are stuck in “let them eat cake” land.)
Perhaps an adult can comprehend “as long as you keep moving, you won’t tip over”, but I have a strong intuition it wouldn’t go over very well with kids, depending on age and dispositions.
Well, in my case, once it clicked for me, my thought was, “Oh, so if you just keep moving, you won’t tip over, it’s only when you stop or slow down that you tip—why didn’t he just tell me that?”
It’s all too easy to overgeneralize from a sparse set of examples and obtain a simple, elegant, convincing, but false theory of learning. I hope your article doesn’t fall into that trap. :)
Well, if it were a sparse set I wouldn’t be so confident. I have a frustratingly long history of people telling me something can’t be explained or is really hard to explain, followed by me explaining it to newbies with relative ease. And of cases where someone appeals to their inarticulable personal experience for justification, when really it was an articulable hidden assumption they could have found with a little effort.
Anyone is welcome to PM me for an advance draft of the article if they’re interested in giving feedback.
And of cases where someone appeals to their inarticulable personal experience for justification, when really it was an articulable hidden assumption they could have found with a little effort.
leaves me wondering if you underestimate how much effort it takes to notice and express how to do things which are usually non-verbal.
I don’t understand. The part you quoted isn’t about expressing how to do non-verbal things; it’s about people who say, “when you get to be my age, you’ll agree, [and no I can’t explain what experiences you have as you approach my age that will cause you to agree because that would require a claim regarding how to interpret the experience which you have a chance of refuting]”
What does that have to do with the effort need to express how to do non-verbal things?
Excuse me—I wasn’t reading carefully enough to notice that you’d shifted from claims that it was too hard to explain non-verbal skills to claims that it was too hard to explain the lessons of experience.
Okay. Well, then, assuming your remark was a reply to a different part of my comment, my answer is that yes, it may be hard, but for most people, I’m not convinced they even tried.
Am I interpreting you correctly that you are not denying that some skills can only be learned by practicing the skill (rather than by reading about or observing the skill) but are saying that verbal or written instruction is just as effective as an aid to practice as demonstration if done well?
I’m still a bit skeptical about this claim. When I was learning to snowboard for example it was clear that some instructors were better able to verbalize certain key information (keep your weight on your front foot, turn your body first and let the board follow rather than trying to turn the board, etc.) but I don’t think the verbal instructions would have been nearly as effective if they were not accompanied by physical demonstrations.
It’s possible that a sufficiently good instructor could communicate just as effectively through purely verbal instruction but I’m not sure such an instructor exists. The fact that this is a rare skill also seems relevant even if it is possible—there are many more instructors who can be effective if they are allowed to combine verbal instruction with physical demonstrations.
Good points, but keep in mind snowboarding instructors aren’t optimizing the same thing that a rationalist (in their capacity as a rationalist) is optimizing. If you just want to make money, quickly, and churn out good snowboarders, then use the best tools available to you—you have no reason to convert the instruction into words where you don’t have to.
But if you’re approaching this as a rationalist, who wants to open the black box and understand why certain things work, then it is a tremendously useful exercise to try to verbalize it, and identify the most important things people need to know—knowledge that can allow them to leapfrog a few steps in learning, even and especially if they can’t reach the Holy Grail of full transmission of the understanding.
And I’d say (despite the first paragraph in this comment) that it’s a good thing to do anyway. I suspect that people’s inability to explain things stems in large part from a lack of trying—specifically, a lack of trying to understand what mental processes are going on in side of them that allows a skill to work like it does. They fail to imagine what it is like not to have this skill and assume certain things are easy or obvious which really aren’t.
To more directly answer your question, yes, I think verbal instruction, if it understands the epistemic state of the student, can replace a lot of what normally takes practice to learn. There are things you can say that get someone in just the right mindset to bypass a huge number of errors that are normally learned hands-on.
My main point, though, is that people severely overestimate the extent of their knowledge which can’t be articulated, because the incentives for such a self-assessment are very high. Most people would do well to avoid appeals to tacit knowledge, an instead introspect on their knowledge so as to gain a deeper understanding of how it works, labeling knowledge as “tacit” only as a last resort.
It’s possible that a sufficiently good instructor could communicate just as effectively through purely verbal instruction but I’m not sure such an instructor exists.
I would suspect this has more to do with the skill of the student in translating verbal descriptions into motions. You can perfectly understand a series of motions to be executed under various conditions, without having the motor skill to assess the conditions and execute them perfectly in real-time.
For example, take that canonical example of learning to ride a bike. It’s true that you can learn it hands-on, using the inscrutable, patient training of the master. But you can also learn it by being told the primary counterintuitive insights (“as long as you keep moving, you won’t tip over”), and then a little practice on your own.
In that case, the verbal knowledge has substituted one-for-one with tacit learning you would have gained on your own from practice.
I’m looking forward to your article, and I think that you’re right to emphasize the vast gap between “unverbalizable” and “I don’t know at the moment how to verbalize it”.
But, to really pass the “bicycle test”, wouldn’t you have to be able to explain verbally how to ride a bike so well that someone could get right on the bike and ride perfectly on the first try? That is, wouldn’t you have to be able to eliminate even that “little practice on your own”?
Or is there some part of being able to ride a bike that you don’t count as knowledge, and which forms the ineliminable core that needs to be practiced?
But, to really pass the “bicycle test”, wouldn’t you have to be able to explain verbally how to ride a bike so well that someone could get right on the bike and ride perfectly on the first try? That is, wouldn’t you have to be able to eliminate even that “little practice on your own”?
Depends on what the “bicycle test” is testing. For me, the fact that something is staked out as a canonical, grounding example of tacit knowledge, and then is shown to be largely verbalizable, blows a big hole in the concept. It shows that “hey, this part I can’t explain” was groundless in several subcases.
I do agree that some knowledge probably deserves to be called tacit. But given the apparent massive relativity of tacitness, and the above example, it seems that these cases are so rare, you’re best off working from the assumption that nothing is tacit, than from looking for cases that you can plausibly claim are tacit.
It’s like any other case where one possibility should be considered last. If you do a random test on General Relativity and find it to be way off, you should first work from the assumption that you, rather than GR, made a mistake somewhere. Likewise, if your instinct is to label some of your knowledge as tacit, your first assumption should be, “there’s some way I can open up this black box; what am I missing?”. Yes, these beliefs could be wrong—but you need a lot more evidence before rejecting them should even be on the radar.
(And to be clear, I don’t claim my thesis about tacitness to deserve the same odds as GR!)
something is staked out as a canonical, grounding example of tacit knowledge, and then is shown to be largely verbalizable
Just to be clear, I don’t think it has been shown in the case of bike-riding that the knowledge can be transferred verbally. You can give someone verbal instruction that will help them improve faster at bike-riding, that isn’t at issue. It’s much less clear that telling someone the actual control algorithm you use when you ride a bike is sufficient to transform them from novice into proficient bike rider.
You can program a robot to ride a bike and in that sense the knowledge is verbalizable, but looking at the source code would not necessarily be an effective method of learning how to do it.
I think being able to verbally transmit the knowledge that solves most of the problem for them is proof that at least some of the skill can be transferred verbally. And of course it doesn’t help to tell someone the detailed control algorithm to ride a bike, and I wouldn’t recommend doing so as an explanation—that’s not the kind of information they need!
One day, I think it will be possible to teach someone to ride a bike before they ever use one, or even carry out similar actions, though you might need a neural interface rather than spoken words to do so. The first step in such a quest is to abandon appeals to tacit knowledge, even if there are cases where it really does exist.
None, and nobody. I got a bicycle and tried to ride it until I could ride it. It took about three weeks from never having sat on a bicycle to confidently mixing with heavy traffic. (At the age of 22, btw. I never had a bicycle as a child.)
The first line that JoshB quoted from Wikipedia is fine—there is this class of knowledge—but I don’t agree with the second at all. Some things you can learn just by having a go untutored. Where an instructor is needed, e.g. in martial arts, the only trust required is enough confidence in the competence of the teacher to do as he says before you know why.
I guess that more people learn to ride a bike in childhood than as adults, but I believe that the usual method at any age is to get on it and ride it. There really isn’t much you can do to teach someone how to do it.
OK, so I suppose it doesn’t take much personal contact and trust to acquire a skill of the bike-riding type. In particular if you’re an autonomous enough learner, in particular if the skill is relatively basic.
The original assertion, though, was about personal contact and trust being required to transfer a skill of the bike-riding type, and perhaps one reason to make this assertion is that the usual method involves a parent dispensing encouragement and various other forms of help, vis-a-vis a child. (I learnt it from my grandfather, and have a lot of positive affect to accompany the memories.)
Providing an environment in which learning, an intrinsically risky activity, becomes safe and pleasurable—I know from experience that this takes rapport and trust, it doesn’t just happen. Such an environment is perhaps not a prerequisite to acquiring a non-verbalized skill, but it does help a lot; as such it makes it possible for people who would otherwise give up on learning before they made it to the first plateau.
We must have had very different experiences of many things. Tell me more about learning being risky. I have been learning Japanese drumming since the beginning of last year (in a class), and stochastic calculus in the last few months (from books), and “risky” is not a word it would occur to me to apply to either process. The only risk I can see in learning to ride a bicycle is the risk of crashing.
One major risk involved in learning is to your self-esteem: feeling ridiculous when you make a mistake, feeling frustrated when you can’t get an exercise right for hours of trying, and so on.
As you note, in physical aptitudes there is a non-trivial risk of injury.
There is the risk, too, of wasting a lot of time on something you’ll turn out not to be good at.
Perhaps these things seem “safe” to you, but that’s what makes you a learner, in contrast with large numbers of people who can’t be bothered to learn anything new once they’re out of school and in a job. They’d rather risk their skills becoming obsolete and ending up unemployable than risk learning: that’s how scary learning is to most people.
One major risk involved in learning is to your self-esteem: feeling ridiculous when you make a mistake, feeling frustrated when you can’t get an exercise right for hours of trying, and so on.
I would say that the problem then is with the individual, not with learning. Those feelings reset on false beliefs that no-one is born with. Those who acquire them learn them from unfortunate experiences. Others chance to have more fortunate experiences and learn different attitudes. And some manage in adulthood to expose their false beliefs to the light of day, clearly perceive their falsity, and stop believing them.
They’d rather risk their skills becoming obsolete and ending up unemployable than risk learning: that’s how scary learning is to most people.
I doubt people are consciously making this decision, but rather they aren’t calculating the potential rewards as opposed to potential risks well. A risk that is in the far future is often taken less seriously than a small risk now.
People who buy insurance are demonstrating ability to trade off small risks now against bigger risks in the future, but often the same people invest less in keeping their professional skills current than they do in insurance.
Personal experience tells me that I had (and still have) a bunch of Ugh fields related to learning, which suggest that there are actual negative consequences of engaging in the activity (per the theory of Ugh fields).
My hunch is that the perceived risks of learning accounts in a significant part for why people don’t invest in learning, compared to the low perceived reward of learning. I could well be wrong. How could we go about testing this hypothesis?
I believe that the usual method at any age is to get on it and ride it. There really isn’t much you can do to teach someone how to do it.
Are you serious? I could never have learned to ride a bike without my parents spending hours and hours trying to teach me. Did you also learn to swim by jumping into water and trying not to drown? I’d be very surprised if most people learned to ride a bike without instruction, but I may be unusual.
Did you also learn to swim by jumping into water and trying not to drown?
There was actually at some point a theory that “babies are born knowing how to swim”, and on one occasion at around age three, at a holiday resort the family was staying at, I was thrown into a swimming pool by a caretaker who subscribed to this theory.
It seems that after that episode nobody could get me to feel comfortable enough in water to get any good at swimming (in spite of summer vacations by the seaside for ten years straight, under the care of my grandad who taught me how to ride a bike). I only learned the basics of swimming, mostly by myself with verbal instruction from a few others, around age 30.
I could never have learned to ride a bike without my parents spending hours and hours trying to teach me.
Maybe there’s a cultural difference, but I don’t know what country you’re in (or were in). I’ve never heard of anyone learning to ride a bike except by riding it. But clearly we need some evidence. I don’t care for the bodge of using karma to conduct a poll, so I’ll just ask anyone reading this who can ride a bicycle to post a reply to this comment saying how they learned, and in what country. “Taught” should mean active instruction, something more than just someone being around to provide comfort for scrapes and to keep children out of traffic until they’re ready.
Results so far:
RichardKennaway: self-taught as adult, late 70′s, UK
Morendil: taught in childhood by grandfather, UK?
Blueberry: taught in childhood by parents, where?
So that’s two to one against my current view, but those replies may be biased: other self-taught people will not have had as strong a reason to post agreement.
I dont’t know how much this will support your position, but: mid 1980s, Texas, USA, by my father.
And as I said above, it did take a while to learn, but afterward, my reaction was, “Wait—all I have to do is keep in motion and I won’t fall over. Why didn’t he just say that all along?” That began my long history of encountering people who overestimate the difficulty of, or fail to simplify the process to teaching or justifying something.
ETA: Also, I haven’t ridden a bike in over 15 years, so that might be a good test of whether my “just keep in motion” heuristic allows me to preserve the knowledge.
Also, I haven’t ridden a bike in over 15 years, so that might be a good test of whether my “just keep in motion” heuristic allows me to preserve the knowledge.
The fact that ‘like riding a bike’ is a saying used to describe skills that you never forget suggests that it wouldn’t be a very good test.
Yeah, I wasn’t so sure it would be a good test. Still, I’m not sure how well the “you don’t forget how to learn a bike” hypothesis is tested, nor how much of its unforgettability is due to the simplicity of the key insights.
I don’t disagree, but there’s typically a barrier, increasing with time since last use, that must be overcome to re-access that kinesthetic knowledge. And think verbal heuristics like the one I gave can greatly shorten the time you need to complete this process.
early 90s, US. I also had training wheels for a while first, which didn’t actually teach me anything. I didn’t learn until they were removed. And I also had someone running along for reassurance.
Canada, mid 1960s. Brother tried to teach me but I mostly ignored him. Used bike with training wheels, which I raised higher and higher and removed completely after a couple of weeks.
United States, early 60s (I think it’s worth mentioning when because cultures change), just given a bike with training wheels, and I figured it out myself.
There’s some variation in method of instruction. My grandpa had fitted my bike with a long handle in the back and used that to help me balance after taking the training wheels off. With one of my kids I tried the method of gradually lifting the training wheels to make the balance more precarious over time. One of the other two just “got it”, as I remember, in one or two sessions. Otherwise it was the standard riding down a slight slope and advising them “keep your feet on the pedals”, and running alongside for reassurance.
The truth is, that’s how most skilled artists learned to draw. In the past, there was a more formalized teaching role, often starting at age eight, and you can go through school and even get through art school having been given so little knowledge, that if you know how to draw a human from imagination, you can confidently say you are an autodidact.
It’s not because art, (particularly representational figure drawing, from imagination or not) is inherently unteachable, but a lot of people tend to think so.
This is not the only skill like this, although I think it’s one that’s perhaps the least understood and where misinformation is the most tolerated.
I think it would be great to systematically explore and develop useful skillsets, perhaps in a modular fashion. We do have sequences. I would join a rationality dojo immediately.
What do you mean practical ways? I understand the difficulty of transferring kinesthetic or social understanding, but how can we overcome that in nonverbalized fashion?
What do you mean practical ways? I understand the difficulty of transferring kinesthetic or social understanding, but how can we overcome that in nonverbalized fashion?
Some things have to be shown, you have to sometimes take part in an activity to “get” it, learn by trial and error, get feedback pointing out mistakes that you are unaware of, etc...
It’s not so much, “Such insolence, our ideas are so awesome they can not be broken down by mere reductionism” as “Wow, words are really bad at describing things that are very different from what most of the people speaking the language do.”
I think you could make an elaborate set of equations on a cartesian graph and come up with a drawing that looked like it and say fill up RGB values #zzzzzz at coordinates x,y or whatever, but that seems like a copout since that doesn’t tell you anything about how Fragonard did it.
This reminds me of an exercise we did in school. (I don’t remember either when or for what subject.)
Everyone was to make a relatively simple image, composed of lines, circles, triangles and the such. Then, without showing one’s image to the others, each of us was to describe the image, and the others to draw according to the description. The “target” was to obtain reproductions as close as possible to the original image. It’s surprisingly hard.
It’s was a very interesting exercise for all involved: It’s surprisingly hard to describe precisely, even given the quite simple drawings, in such a way that everyone interprets the description the way you intended it. I vaguely remember I did quite well compared with my classmates in the describing part, and still had several “transcriptions” that didn’t look anywhere close to what I was saying.
I think the lesson was about the importance of clear specifications, but then again it might have been just something like English (foreign language for me) vocabulary training.
An example:
Draw a square, with horizontal & vertical sides. Copy the square twice, once above and once to the right, so that the two new squares share their bottom and, respectively, left sides with the original square. Inside the rightmost square, touching its bottom-right corner, draw another square of half the original’s size. (Thus, the small square shares its bottom-right corner with its host, and its top-left corner is on the center of its host.) Inside the topmost square, draw another half-size square, so that it shares both diagonals with its host square. Above the same topmost square, draw an isosceles right-angled triangle; its sides around the right angle are the same length as the large squares’; its hypotenuse is horizontal, just touching the top side of the topmost square; its right angle points upwards, and is horizontally aligned with the center of the original square. (Thus, the original square, its copy above, and the triangle above that, should form an upwards-pointing arrow.) Then make a copy of everything you have, to the right of the image, mirrored horizontally. The copy should be vertically aligned with the original, and share its left-most line with the right-most line of the original.
Try to follow the instructions above, and then compare your drawing with the non-numbered part of this image.
The exercise we did in school was a bit harder: the images had fewer parts (a rectangle, an ellipse, a triangle, and a couple lines, IIRC), but with more complex relationships for alignment, sizes and angles.
My mum had to do this take for her work, save with building blocks, and for the learning-impaired. Instructions like ‘place the block flat on the ground, like a bar of soap’ were useful.
One nit-pick: when you say squares half the size, you mean with half the side length, or one quarter of the size.
You could probably get pretty good results without messing with complex equations, by first describing the full picture, then describing what’s in four quadrants made by drawing vertical and horizontal lines that split the image exactly in half, then describing quadrants of these quadrants, split in a similar way and so on. The artist could use their skills to draw the details without an insanely complex encoding scheme, and the grid discipline would help fix the large-scale geometry of the image.
Edit: A 3x3 grid might work better in practice, it’s more natural to work with a center region than to put the split point right in the middle of the image, which most probably contains something interesting. On the other hand, maybe the lines breaking up the recognizable shapes in the picture (already described in casual terms for the above-level description) would help bring out their geometrical properties better.
Edit 2: Michael Baxandall’s book Patterns of Intetion has some great stuff on using language to describe images.
Drawing a photograph with the aid of a Grid is a common technique for making copyinng easier, although it’s also sometimes used as a teaching tool for early artists.
I’m not in love with this explanation (Loomis does much better) but this should give you the essential idea:
As a teaching tool for people who can’t draw, I haven’t seen it be effective, but it’s awesome if you’ve got a deadline and don’t want to spend all your time checking and rechecking your proportions.I doubt it would be effective, since it’s so easy for novice artists to screw up when they have the image right in front of them.
There’s a more effective method which uses a ruler or compass and is often used to copy Bargue drawings. Use precise measurements around a line at the meridian and essentially connect the dots. For the curious:
This might work long distance: “Okay, draw the next dot 9/32nds of an inch a way at 12 degrees down to the right.”
This still seems like a bit of a cop out, though. Yes, there are ways to assemble copies of images using a grid, but it doesn’t help us figure out how such freehand images were made in the first place. We’re not even taking a crack at the little black box.
Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain seems to be the classic for teaching people how to draw. It’s a bunch of methods for seeing the details of what you’re seeing (copying a drawing held upside down, drawing shadows rather than objects) so that you draw what you see rather than a mental simplified hieroglyphic of what you see.
LW too focused on verbalizable rationality
This comment got me thinking about it. Of course LW being a website can only deal with verbalizable information(rationality). So what are we missing? Skillsets that are not and have to be learned in other ways(practical ways): interpersonal relationships being just one of many. I also think the emotional brain is part of it. There might me people here who are brilliant thinkers yet emotionally miserable because of their personal context or upbringing, and I think dealing with that would be important. I think a hollistic approach is required. Eliezer had already suggested the idea of a rationality dojo. What do you think?
I’ve been talking to various people about the idea of a Rationality Foundation (working title) which might end up sponsoring or facilitating something like rationality dojos. Needless to say this idea is in its infancy.
The example of coding dojos for programmers might be relevant, and not just for the coincidence in metaphors.
I’m a draftsman and it always struck me how absolutely terrible the English language is for talking about ludicrously simple visual concepts precisely. Words like parallel and perpendicular should be one syllable long.
I wonder if there’s a way to apply rationality/ mathematical think beyond geometry and to the world of art.
According to wiki: “Tacit knowledge (as opposed to formal or explicit knowledge) is knowledge that is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalizing it”
Thus: “Effective transfer of tacit knowledge generally requires extensive personal contact and trust. Another example of tacit knowledge is the ability to ride a bicycle.”
Supports the dojo idea...perhaps in SecondLife once the graphics are better?
How much personal contact and trust does it take to learn to ride a bicycle?
As someone who learned cycling as a near-adult, the main insight is that you turn the wheel in the direction in which the bike is falling to push it back vertical. Once I had been told that negative-feedback mechanism, the only delay was until I got frustrated enough with going slowly to say, “heck with this ‘rolling down a slight slope’ game, I’m just going to turn the pedals.” Whereupon I was genuinely riding the bicycle.
...for about a minute, until I got the bright idea of trying to jump the curb. Did you know that rubbing the knee off a pair of jeans will leave a streak of blue on concrete?
What was your total time frame in learning to ride? Was there a period before you were told about turning the wheel?
I estimate the total time between donning the helmet and hitting the sidewalk was less than an hour—but it was probably a decade ago, so I don’t trust my recollections.
Hahaha, great catch. Though maybe they meant personal contact with a bicycle!
Uh, lots? Who did you learn it from?
Per my upcoming “Explain Yourself!” article, I am skeptical about the concept of “tacit knowledge”. For one thing, it puts up a sign that says, “Hey, don’t bother trying to explain this in words”, which leads to, “This is a black box; don’t look inside”, which leads to “It’s okay not to know how this works”.
Second, tacit knowledge often turns out to be verbalizable, questioning whether the term “tacit” is really calling out a valid cluster in thingspace[1]. For example, take the canonical example of learning to ride a bike. It’s true that you can learn it hands-on, using the inscrutable, patient training of the master. But you can also learn it by being told the primary counterintuitive insights (“as long as you keep moving, you won’t tip over”), and then a little practice on your own.
In that case, the verbal knowledge has substituted one-for-one with (much of) the tacit learning you would have gained on your own from practice. So how much of it was “really” tacit all along? How much of it are you just calling tacit because the master never reflected on what they were doing?
So for me, the appeal to “difficulty of verbalizing it” certainly has some truth to it, but I find it mainly functions to excuse oneself from critical introspection, and from opening important black boxes. I advise people to avoid using this concept if remotely possible; it tends to say more about you than the inherent inscrutability of the knowledge.
[1] To someone who sucks at programming, the ability to revise a recipe to produce more servings is “tacit knowledge”.
As someone who has made much of the concept of tacit knowledge in the past, I’ll have to say you have a point.
(I’m now considering the addendum: “made much of it because it served my interests to present some knowledge I claimed to have as being of that sort”. I’m not necessarily endorsing that hypothesis, just acknowledging its plausibility.)
It still feels as if, once we toss that phrase out the window, we need something to take its place: words are not universally an effective method of instruction, practice clearly plays a vital part in learning (why?), and the hypothesis that a learner reconstructs knowledge rather than being the recipient of a “transfer” in a literal sense strikes me as facially plausible given the sum of my learning experiences.
Perhaps an adult can comprehend “as long as you keep moving, you won’t tip over”, but I have a strong intuition it wouldn’t go over very well with kids, depending on age and dispositions. My parenting experience (anecdotal evidence as it may be) backs that up. You need to see what a kid is doing right or wrong to encourage the former and correct the latter, you need a hefty dose of patience as the kid’s anxieties get in the way sometimes for a long while.
Learning to ride a bike is a canonical example because it is taught early on, there is hedonic value in learning it early on, but it is typically taught at an age when a kid rarely (or so my hunch says) has the learning-ability to understand advice such as “as long as you keep moving, you won’t tip over”. There is such a thing as learning to learn (and just how verbalizable is that skill?).
It’s all too easy to overgeneralize from a sparse set of examples and obtain a simple, elegant, convincing, but false theory of learning. I hope your article doesn’t fall into that trap. :)
I don’t disagree, but I don’t see how it contradicts my position either. The evidence you give against words being effective is that, basically, they don’t fully constrain what the other person is being told to do, so they can always mess up in unpredictable ways. That’s true, but it just shows how you need to understand the listener’s epistemic state to know which insights they lack that would allow them to bridge the gap
People do get this wrong, and end up giving “let them eat cake” advice—advice that, if it were useful, the problem would have been solved. But at the same time, a good understanding of where they are can lead to remarkably informative advice. (I’ve noticed Roko and HughRistik are excellent at this when it comes to human sociality, while some are stuck in “let them eat cake” land.)
Well, in my case, once it clicked for me, my thought was, “Oh, so if you just keep moving, you won’t tip over, it’s only when you stop or slow down that you tip—why didn’t he just tell me that?”
Well, if it were a sparse set I wouldn’t be so confident. I have a frustratingly long history of people telling me something can’t be explained or is really hard to explain, followed by me explaining it to newbies with relative ease. And of cases where someone appeals to their inarticulable personal experience for justification, when really it was an articulable hidden assumption they could have found with a little effort.
Anyone is welcome to PM me for an advance draft of the article if they’re interested in giving feedback.
I’m in general agreement, but
leaves me wondering if you underestimate how much effort it takes to notice and express how to do things which are usually non-verbal.
I don’t understand. The part you quoted isn’t about expressing how to do non-verbal things; it’s about people who say, “when you get to be my age, you’ll agree, [and no I can’t explain what experiences you have as you approach my age that will cause you to agree because that would require a claim regarding how to interpret the experience which you have a chance of refuting]”
What does that have to do with the effort need to express how to do non-verbal things?
Excuse me—I wasn’t reading carefully enough to notice that you’d shifted from claims that it was too hard to explain non-verbal skills to claims that it was too hard to explain the lessons of experience.
Okay. Well, then, assuming your remark was a reply to a different part of my comment, my answer is that yes, it may be hard, but for most people, I’m not convinced they even tried.
xkcd
Am I interpreting you correctly that you are not denying that some skills can only be learned by practicing the skill (rather than by reading about or observing the skill) but are saying that verbal or written instruction is just as effective as an aid to practice as demonstration if done well?
I’m still a bit skeptical about this claim. When I was learning to snowboard for example it was clear that some instructors were better able to verbalize certain key information (keep your weight on your front foot, turn your body first and let the board follow rather than trying to turn the board, etc.) but I don’t think the verbal instructions would have been nearly as effective if they were not accompanied by physical demonstrations.
It’s possible that a sufficiently good instructor could communicate just as effectively through purely verbal instruction but I’m not sure such an instructor exists. The fact that this is a rare skill also seems relevant even if it is possible—there are many more instructors who can be effective if they are allowed to combine verbal instruction with physical demonstrations.
Good points, but keep in mind snowboarding instructors aren’t optimizing the same thing that a rationalist (in their capacity as a rationalist) is optimizing. If you just want to make money, quickly, and churn out good snowboarders, then use the best tools available to you—you have no reason to convert the instruction into words where you don’t have to.
But if you’re approaching this as a rationalist, who wants to open the black box and understand why certain things work, then it is a tremendously useful exercise to try to verbalize it, and identify the most important things people need to know—knowledge that can allow them to leapfrog a few steps in learning, even and especially if they can’t reach the Holy Grail of full transmission of the understanding.
And I’d say (despite the first paragraph in this comment) that it’s a good thing to do anyway. I suspect that people’s inability to explain things stems in large part from a lack of trying—specifically, a lack of trying to understand what mental processes are going on in side of them that allows a skill to work like it does. They fail to imagine what it is like not to have this skill and assume certain things are easy or obvious which really aren’t.
To more directly answer your question, yes, I think verbal instruction, if it understands the epistemic state of the student, can replace a lot of what normally takes practice to learn. There are things you can say that get someone in just the right mindset to bypass a huge number of errors that are normally learned hands-on.
My main point, though, is that people severely overestimate the extent of their knowledge which can’t be articulated, because the incentives for such a self-assessment are very high. Most people would do well to avoid appeals to tacit knowledge, an instead introspect on their knowledge so as to gain a deeper understanding of how it works, labeling knowledge as “tacit” only as a last resort.
I would suspect this has more to do with the skill of the student in translating verbal descriptions into motions. You can perfectly understand a series of motions to be executed under various conditions, without having the motor skill to assess the conditions and execute them perfectly in real-time.
I’m looking forward to your article, and I think that you’re right to emphasize the vast gap between “unverbalizable” and “I don’t know at the moment how to verbalize it”.
But, to really pass the “bicycle test”, wouldn’t you have to be able to explain verbally how to ride a bike so well that someone could get right on the bike and ride perfectly on the first try? That is, wouldn’t you have to be able to eliminate even that “little practice on your own”?
Or is there some part of being able to ride a bike that you don’t count as knowledge, and which forms the ineliminable core that needs to be practiced?
Depends on what the “bicycle test” is testing. For me, the fact that something is staked out as a canonical, grounding example of tacit knowledge, and then is shown to be largely verbalizable, blows a big hole in the concept. It shows that “hey, this part I can’t explain” was groundless in several subcases.
I do agree that some knowledge probably deserves to be called tacit. But given the apparent massive relativity of tacitness, and the above example, it seems that these cases are so rare, you’re best off working from the assumption that nothing is tacit, than from looking for cases that you can plausibly claim are tacit.
It’s like any other case where one possibility should be considered last. If you do a random test on General Relativity and find it to be way off, you should first work from the assumption that you, rather than GR, made a mistake somewhere. Likewise, if your instinct is to label some of your knowledge as tacit, your first assumption should be, “there’s some way I can open up this black box; what am I missing?”. Yes, these beliefs could be wrong—but you need a lot more evidence before rejecting them should even be on the radar.
(And to be clear, I don’t claim my thesis about tacitness to deserve the same odds as GR!)
Just to be clear, I don’t think it has been shown in the case of bike-riding that the knowledge can be transferred verbally. You can give someone verbal instruction that will help them improve faster at bike-riding, that isn’t at issue. It’s much less clear that telling someone the actual control algorithm you use when you ride a bike is sufficient to transform them from novice into proficient bike rider.
You can program a robot to ride a bike and in that sense the knowledge is verbalizable, but looking at the source code would not necessarily be an effective method of learning how to do it.
I think being able to verbally transmit the knowledge that solves most of the problem for them is proof that at least some of the skill can be transferred verbally. And of course it doesn’t help to tell someone the detailed control algorithm to ride a bike, and I wouldn’t recommend doing so as an explanation—that’s not the kind of information they need!
One day, I think it will be possible to teach someone to ride a bike before they ever use one, or even carry out similar actions, though you might need a neural interface rather than spoken words to do so. The first step in such a quest is to abandon appeals to tacit knowledge, even if there are cases where it really does exist.
None, and nobody. I got a bicycle and tried to ride it until I could ride it. It took about three weeks from never having sat on a bicycle to confidently mixing with heavy traffic. (At the age of 22, btw. I never had a bicycle as a child.)
The first line that JoshB quoted from Wikipedia is fine—there is this class of knowledge—but I don’t agree with the second at all. Some things you can learn just by having a go untutored. Where an instructor is needed, e.g. in martial arts, the only trust required is enough confidence in the competence of the teacher to do as he says before you know why.
How typical is that bike-learning history in your estimation?
I guess that more people learn to ride a bike in childhood than as adults, but I believe that the usual method at any age is to get on it and ride it. There really isn’t much you can do to teach someone how to do it.
OK, so I suppose it doesn’t take much personal contact and trust to acquire a skill of the bike-riding type. In particular if you’re an autonomous enough learner, in particular if the skill is relatively basic.
The original assertion, though, was about personal contact and trust being required to transfer a skill of the bike-riding type, and perhaps one reason to make this assertion is that the usual method involves a parent dispensing encouragement and various other forms of help, vis-a-vis a child. (I learnt it from my grandfather, and have a lot of positive affect to accompany the memories.)
Providing an environment in which learning, an intrinsically risky activity, becomes safe and pleasurable—I know from experience that this takes rapport and trust, it doesn’t just happen. Such an environment is perhaps not a prerequisite to acquiring a non-verbalized skill, but it does help a lot; as such it makes it possible for people who would otherwise give up on learning before they made it to the first plateau.
We must have had very different experiences of many things. Tell me more about learning being risky. I have been learning Japanese drumming since the beginning of last year (in a class), and stochastic calculus in the last few months (from books), and “risky” is not a word it would occur to me to apply to either process. The only risk I can see in learning to ride a bicycle is the risk of crashing.
One major risk involved in learning is to your self-esteem: feeling ridiculous when you make a mistake, feeling frustrated when you can’t get an exercise right for hours of trying, and so on.
As you note, in physical aptitudes there is a non-trivial risk of injury.
There is the risk, too, of wasting a lot of time on something you’ll turn out not to be good at.
Perhaps these things seem “safe” to you, but that’s what makes you a learner, in contrast with large numbers of people who can’t be bothered to learn anything new once they’re out of school and in a job. They’d rather risk their skills becoming obsolete and ending up unemployable than risk learning: that’s how scary learning is to most people.
I would say that the problem then is with the individual, not with learning. Those feelings reset on false beliefs that no-one is born with. Those who acquire them learn them from unfortunate experiences. Others chance to have more fortunate experiences and learn different attitudes. And some manage in adulthood to expose their false beliefs to the light of day, clearly perceive their falsity, and stop believing them.
Thus it is said, “The things that we learn prevent us from learning.”
I doubt people are consciously making this decision, but rather they aren’t calculating the potential rewards as opposed to potential risks well. A risk that is in the far future is often taken less seriously than a small risk now.
People who buy insurance are demonstrating ability to trade off small risks now against bigger risks in the future, but often the same people invest less in keeping their professional skills current than they do in insurance.
Personal experience tells me that I had (and still have) a bunch of Ugh fields related to learning, which suggest that there are actual negative consequences of engaging in the activity (per the theory of Ugh fields).
My hunch is that the perceived risks of learning accounts in a significant part for why people don’t invest in learning, compared to the low perceived reward of learning. I could well be wrong. How could we go about testing this hypothesis?
I’m not sure. It may require a more precise statement to make it testable.
Are you serious? I could never have learned to ride a bike without my parents spending hours and hours trying to teach me. Did you also learn to swim by jumping into water and trying not to drown? I’d be very surprised if most people learned to ride a bike without instruction, but I may be unusual.
There was actually at some point a theory that “babies are born knowing how to swim”, and on one occasion at around age three, at a holiday resort the family was staying at, I was thrown into a swimming pool by a caretaker who subscribed to this theory.
It seems that after that episode nobody could get me to feel comfortable enough in water to get any good at swimming (in spite of summer vacations by the seaside for ten years straight, under the care of my grandad who taught me how to ride a bike). I only learned the basics of swimming, mostly by myself with verbal instruction from a few others, around age 30.
I’m so sorry. That is truly horrific abuse.
Maybe there’s a cultural difference, but I don’t know what country you’re in (or were in). I’ve never heard of anyone learning to ride a bike except by riding it. But clearly we need some evidence. I don’t care for the bodge of using karma to conduct a poll, so I’ll just ask anyone reading this who can ride a bicycle to post a reply to this comment saying how they learned, and in what country. “Taught” should mean active instruction, something more than just someone being around to provide comfort for scrapes and to keep children out of traffic until they’re ready.
Results so far:
RichardKennaway: self-taught as adult, late 70′s, UK
Morendil: taught in childhood by grandfather, UK?
Blueberry: taught in childhood by parents, where?
So that’s two to one against my current view, but those replies may be biased: other self-taught people will not have had as strong a reason to post agreement.
I dont’t know how much this will support your position, but: mid 1980s, Texas, USA, by my father.
And as I said above, it did take a while to learn, but afterward, my reaction was, “Wait—all I have to do is keep in motion and I won’t fall over. Why didn’t he just say that all along?” That began my long history of encountering people who overestimate the difficulty of, or fail to simplify the process to teaching or justifying something.
ETA: Also, I haven’t ridden a bike in over 15 years, so that might be a good test of whether my “just keep in motion” heuristic allows me to preserve the knowledge.
The fact that ‘like riding a bike’ is a saying used to describe skills that you never forget suggests that it wouldn’t be a very good test.
Yeah, I wasn’t so sure it would be a good test. Still, I’m not sure how well the “you don’t forget how to learn a bike” hypothesis is tested, nor how much of its unforgettability is due to the simplicity of the key insights.
Most people don’t store the insights of bike riding verbally—the insights are stored kinesthetically. It seems to be much easier to forget math.
I don’t disagree, but there’s typically a barrier, increasing with time since last use, that must be overcome to re-access that kinesthetic knowledge. And think verbal heuristics like the one I gave can greatly shorten the time you need to complete this process.
early 90s, US. I also had training wheels for a while first, which didn’t actually teach me anything. I didn’t learn until they were removed. And I also had someone running along for reassurance.
Canada, mid 1960s. Brother tried to teach me but I mostly ignored him. Used bike with training wheels, which I raised higher and higher and removed completely after a couple of weeks.
United States, early 60s (I think it’s worth mentioning when because cultures change), just given a bike with training wheels, and I figured it out myself.
France, but close enough. ;)
There’s some variation in method of instruction. My grandpa had fitted my bike with a long handle in the back and used that to help me balance after taking the training wheels off. With one of my kids I tried the method of gradually lifting the training wheels to make the balance more precarious over time. One of the other two just “got it”, as I remember, in one or two sessions. Otherwise it was the standard riding down a slight slope and advising them “keep your feet on the pedals”, and running alongside for reassurance.
The truth is, that’s how most skilled artists learned to draw. In the past, there was a more formalized teaching role, often starting at age eight, and you can go through school and even get through art school having been given so little knowledge, that if you know how to draw a human from imagination, you can confidently say you are an autodidact.
It’s not because art, (particularly representational figure drawing, from imagination or not) is inherently unteachable, but a lot of people tend to think so.
This is not the only skill like this, although I think it’s one that’s perhaps the least understood and where misinformation is the most tolerated.
I think it would be great to systematically explore and develop useful skillsets, perhaps in a modular fashion. We do have sequences. I would join a rationality dojo immediately.
What do you mean practical ways? I understand the difficulty of transferring kinesthetic or social understanding, but how can we overcome that in nonverbalized fashion?
Some things have to be shown, you have to sometimes take part in an activity to “get” it, learn by trial and error, get feedback pointing out mistakes that you are unaware of, etc...
For example?
Do you think you could describe this image to an arbitrarily talented artist and end up with an image that even looked like it was based on it?
http://smithandgosling.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/the-reader.jpg
It’s not so much, “Such insolence, our ideas are so awesome they can not be broken down by mere reductionism” as “Wow, words are really bad at describing things that are very different from what most of the people speaking the language do.”
I think you could make an elaborate set of equations on a cartesian graph and come up with a drawing that looked like it and say fill up RGB values #zzzzzz at coordinates x,y or whatever, but that seems like a copout since that doesn’t tell you anything about how Fragonard did it.
This reminds me of an exercise we did in school. (I don’t remember either when or for what subject.)
Everyone was to make a relatively simple image, composed of lines, circles, triangles and the such. Then, without showing one’s image to the others, each of us was to describe the image, and the others to draw according to the description. The “target” was to obtain reproductions as close as possible to the original image. It’s surprisingly hard.
It’s was a very interesting exercise for all involved: It’s surprisingly hard to describe precisely, even given the quite simple drawings, in such a way that everyone interprets the description the way you intended it. I vaguely remember I did quite well compared with my classmates in the describing part, and still had several “transcriptions” that didn’t look anywhere close to what I was saying.
I think the lesson was about the importance of clear specifications, but then again it might have been just something like English (foreign language for me) vocabulary training.
An example:
Draw a square, with horizontal & vertical sides. Copy the square twice, once above and once to the right, so that the two new squares share their bottom and, respectively, left sides with the original square. Inside the rightmost square, touching its bottom-right corner, draw another square of half the original’s size. (Thus, the small square shares its bottom-right corner with its host, and its top-left corner is on the center of its host.) Inside the topmost square, draw another half-size square, so that it shares both diagonals with its host square. Above the same topmost square, draw an isosceles right-angled triangle; its sides around the right angle are the same length as the large squares’; its hypotenuse is horizontal, just touching the top side of the topmost square; its right angle points upwards, and is horizontally aligned with the center of the original square. (Thus, the original square, its copy above, and the triangle above that, should form an upwards-pointing arrow.) Then make a copy of everything you have, to the right of the image, mirrored horizontally. The copy should be vertically aligned with the original, and share its left-most line with the right-most line of the original.
Try to follow the instructions above, and then compare your drawing with the non-numbered part of this image.
The exercise we did in school was a bit harder: the images had fewer parts (a rectangle, an ellipse, a triangle, and a couple lines, IIRC), but with more complex relationships for alignment, sizes and angles.
My mum had to do this take for her work, save with building blocks, and for the learning-impaired. Instructions like ‘place the block flat on the ground, like a bar of soap’ were useful.
One nit-pick: when you say squares half the size, you mean with half the side length, or one quarter of the size.
Color and line weight have not been specified, I note. Nor position relative to the canvas.
You could probably get pretty good results without messing with complex equations, by first describing the full picture, then describing what’s in four quadrants made by drawing vertical and horizontal lines that split the image exactly in half, then describing quadrants of these quadrants, split in a similar way and so on. The artist could use their skills to draw the details without an insanely complex encoding scheme, and the grid discipline would help fix the large-scale geometry of the image.
Edit: A 3x3 grid might work better in practice, it’s more natural to work with a center region than to put the split point right in the middle of the image, which most probably contains something interesting. On the other hand, maybe the lines breaking up the recognizable shapes in the picture (already described in casual terms for the above-level description) would help bring out their geometrical properties better.
Edit 2: Michael Baxandall’s book Patterns of Intetion has some great stuff on using language to describe images.
Drawing a photograph with the aid of a Grid is a common technique for making copyinng easier, although it’s also sometimes used as a teaching tool for early artists.
I’m not in love with this explanation (Loomis does much better) but this should give you the essential idea:
http://drawsketch.about.com/od/drawinglessonsandtips/ss/griddrawing.htm
As a teaching tool for people who can’t draw, I haven’t seen it be effective, but it’s awesome if you’ve got a deadline and don’t want to spend all your time checking and rechecking your proportions.I doubt it would be effective, since it’s so easy for novice artists to screw up when they have the image right in front of them.
There’s a more effective method which uses a ruler or compass and is often used to copy Bargue drawings. Use precise measurements around a line at the meridian and essentially connect the dots. For the curious:
http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=121170
This might work long distance: “Okay, draw the next dot 9/32nds of an inch a way at 12 degrees down to the right.”
This still seems like a bit of a cop out, though. Yes, there are ways to assemble copies of images using a grid, but it doesn’t help us figure out how such freehand images were made in the first place. We’re not even taking a crack at the little black box.
Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain seems to be the classic for teaching people how to draw. It’s a bunch of methods for seeing the details of what you’re seeing (copying a drawing held upside down, drawing shadows rather than objects) so that you draw what you see rather than a mental simplified hieroglyphic of what you see.