To Explain or to Predict? (2010) [pdf] | Hacker News Reader

To Explain or to Predict? (2010) [pdf]

stat.berkeley.edu

30 pointssteppi6 comments

I think this paper really cuts to the heart of the distinction Leo Breiman was exploring in his classic Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures [0]. The idea here is that real distinction is not essentially in terms of assumptions or philosophy, but in terms of goals. The boundaries are more fuzzy when it comes to the methods themselves, and there are always tradeoffs between building a model to predict or building a model to try to understand the underlying phenomena.

[0] https://projecteuclid.org/journals/statistical-science/volum...

I was thinking along these lines when considering if/how a person speaking their first language knows the grammar of it. It's well internalized and unless they study language later in life may never really be able to speak clearly about it although they can certainly apply it.

I ran into this when I was trying to find out about the challenging grammatical structure of Japanese that I'd read about. It said that it's similar to Korean (which I can speak at approximately preschool level with my parents). It then occurred to me that I have no clue what the grammatical structure is, while comprehending and constructing valid (though informal/unrespectful) speech.

I find a similar pattern with software development. I've done so much hobby/solo coding that much of what I know doesn't have names, or I discover what they're called much later. Now I'm consciously relearning what I internally know so that I can share it.

It’s an interesting example. I experienced something similar learning to play guitar by ear from a young age and then going back to learn proper music theory as an adult. I’d learned to improvise over chords in any key just by feel, without really understanding what was going on. My playing actually became more wooden as a result of thinking things through more. It seems like a lot of human learning is based on statistical/associative pattern matching like this and real expertise requires our brains to master both prediction and explanation and combine them skillfully.

I wouldn't initially have expected being consciously aware to be necessary for mastery. I do find that being able to teach brings you to a new level, so there's something to that. I'm also able to cut my search space more concisely by being able to identify/name the problem or solution path than to find it by feel.

That's an interesting point about a more 'wooden' result. I believe that has a name where being consciously aware of what you're doing lowers ability, or in this case creativity or subjective evaluation. I believe that dip/plateau can again be surpassed as if you'd learned consciously first then internalized to gain proficiency. Alternatively, you could 'get in the zone' by turning off analytical overthinking somehow.

I think I would have eventually pushed through the dip, but I ended up badly injuring the elbow on my fretting hand side. This was when I was around 20. It was maybe for the best. I ended up getting into math instead which has lead me down an interesting path.

My impression is that real mastery requires periods of flow and periods of deliberate thought. When performing you want to flow, but practice should also incorporate the conscious and deliberate. Having the meta-cognition to reflect on where you are, where you want to be, and having the ability to plan how to get there are very important. I think this holds true beyond music.

Cited “influential paper” in OP: Studies in the Logic of Explanation, Hempel, Oppenheim, 1948

https://www.sfu.ca/~jillmc/Hempel%20and%20Oppenheim.pdf

Reply on news.ycombinator.com