Hacker News Reader

Comment by S_A_P | Hacker News Reader

John is like many of the people Ive met that have no problem conveying a lot of dense information quickly and easily and avoiding speech patterns that are overly technical and difficult to understand. Some of the most intelligent people I know are able to do that. That is a very underrated skill that I wish I had. I forever stumble on words when Im explaining something complicated/technical. Its like a cognitive dissonance that I am fighting between saying technical jargon and dumb-ing down to layman's terms. Im sure being on the other end of that it is perceived as condescending or just that I dont know what Im talking about.

View on HN

Don't forget, most of the things you see in media, if not fully scripted, are at least outlined ahead of time. Also, he's talked about most of it over and over and over so he's had time to refine. I'm a terrible conversationalist but there are things I can discuss this way, they're just generally useless and boring to most of the world so no one is calling me in for an interview.

That is a great point and I agree. Its easy for the JRE "Its just a hang for a couple hours" to make it seem like he is just talking on the fly. Some times the curtain gets pulled back and people pull out and mention their notes on the show. I could definitely tell there were some bullet points that John was trying to cover, and Im sure these are topics hes covered in front of audiences when he gives lectures/appearances. But there is a fluidity to his responses that suggest he does indeed have a great talent for conveying complicated subjects with ease.

Personally I find him a little jarring to listen to. Funny enough he actually reminded me of reading hacker news comment sections. He’s just not conversational enough for me. I don’t think media interviews are his sweet spot.

This is often said about Richard Feynman and how he could distill incredibly complex questions down into simple thoughtful answers that left you satisfied but more curious. I think we get a capable (but not quite the same) modern version with Neil deGrasse Tyson.

It's definitely something you can learn though, it just takes practice. Take a complex topic and summarize it to yourself in shorter and shorter sentences. Or browse ELI5 (explain like I'm five) on Reddit for some good amateur responses.

Tyson's explanations are often wrong. Possibly the most inaccurate pop science celebrity who has every lived.

Not remotely the same league as Richard Feynman.

One issue I have is that I can't bullshit people. I had a friend who I was trying to explain things to, and often I made it too complicated. Another friend explained it to her satisfaction, but I thought the particular explanation given was deceiving. And yet she didn't care. I think it is possible to be honest and yet simplify things to whatever level, but I'd rather fail at explaining than give a false explanation.

I find it's good to let people know that 'it's actually a bit more complicated than this, but...'

To illustrate this I like to use the analogy of very basic physics.

Even someone who never took calculus can usually grasp the concept of first learning ideal velocity and acceleration, then adding details like friction.

Honestly reminds me of posters here complaining that an article/headline is click bait, when it's really just an attempt to simplify something for more people. People assume it's malicious, when it's really doing what you friend seems to be good at - reducing an explanation in a way that might not be as accurate, but get the general point across more easily for people.

But there's a difference between simplifying and changing. This is a bit of a skill in itself: presenting simplified versions of information without misleading the learner.

When learning, I don't appreciate reading a description of something, thinking about it, generating my own conclusions, then finally reading forward to find I had been misled not by my own fault but by faulty explanations.

As an example, a book I read on SQL was narrated from the point of view of an employee at a startup and stated that indexes on views were efficient, but then eventually backtracked on that statement, saying that this is only true for materialized views.

Your account name is displayed in green is that because you have 1 karma point and you are new user ?

I'm similar, but have learned to just be more iterative when explaining complex topics.

Start with the simplest conveyance, which usually is riddled with the most bullshit. If you don't lose them, just add the corrections, if there are too many, only add some of the corrections, rinse, repeat.

To be clear I don't mind simplifications, metaphors, etc. I just don't like _bad_ metaphors that are desired just because they're satisfying.

Bad simplification: "The CPU is like the brain of your computer"

Better simplification: "The CPU is like the conductor of your computer"

You may not think my "better simplification" is so great either. The point is, somebody may be satisfied with the "brain" answer because it feels right, but (IMO) it doesn't actually give you a better understanding of the situation.

One of my favorite personal examples of the results of deceivingly pat explanations is the time when, in undergrad, an English major got on my case for "not understanding black holes." They had taken a general physics course and I was working my way through upper division.

I'm sorry to inform you you're not cut out for middle management.

He also seems so happy to work on what he's working on and to talk about it. It must be fun being him.

How did I leave this comment here without any memory of doing it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com