If you can't explain it to a 10 year old...

So I heard this line earlier today on the radio, it's not a quote of someone famous that I know of but the idea is if you can't explain any given topic/device/item/idea to a 10 year old in a way that they will understand it(and not just what it is but how it works and why you use it), then you don't truly 100% understand it yourself.

They also broken down into several different parts, whether it comes down to technical know-how, whether it comes down philosophical reasons, or theoretical, etc. Honestly it just came down to can you explain it to the point where they understand it and get it, and either agree or disagree without having to ask any additional questions, and then there was some tangent of how long it should take to explain something etc.

If you can't do it, then it's either too complicated for you to understand, you don't know enough about it to explain it to someone else, you just know it because you see/hear/touch/interacted with it in some way but can't explain it(like gravity for example). Ultimately its a way to define whether you understand something yourself or not, and if you don't understand it maybe you should strive to improve your understanding etc.

I see some faults and some things that are true with it, I just found it interesting enough to put here and see what discussions come of it.

I think we should all aim to explain things clearly and simply, with minimal jargon, all the time.

Hehe true, the one step at a time approach, its easy to take a few skips, jumps and leaps to speed up.... and get off track midair which ends up not as expected. What defines a step I guess is the meeting of the two minds as understanding.

I've heard this idea before. It rings true to me. If you can't make a 10 year old understand it you probably don't understand it well yourself. Makes me think about the things I claim to understand that's for sure.

This thought can truly be applied to the Force itself. I'm always looking for ways to strengthen myself with the ways of the Force and when I can't explain it to others I feel like I don't understand it myself.

This is a two way street. I have watched PHDs in evolutionary biology try to explain evolution to a fundamentalist christian and have it rejected outright because of preconceived bias on the christians part. Needless to say, not only do we need to understand what we are talking about but the recipiant of that knowledge needs to not only be willing but able to understand and learn as well.

Maybe the reason why the saying goes with ten-year-olds (though I have heard it with "your grandpa", too), is because children that age tend to be just experienced enough to no longer be satisfied by "because I said so" but still rather uneducated in pretty much every field and still flexible enough to listen and ton inquire for more details.
All in all, I not only agree with the quote, I even take it a step further. I feel like my understanding of a subject is directly proportional to my ability to explain it to a skeptic's satisfaction. The better my listener understands what I am saying, the better I am versed in the subject myself, and the fewer listeners I can bring to an understanding of the subject, the worse I grasp it myself. Conversely, if I am the listener, the better my teacher finds that I understood the teaching, the better a job they did and the more related questions they were unable to answer during the lesson, the worse prepared they were for it.

I've also said that the best way to learn deeply is to teach what you've learned. This is part of the reason study groups work so well. If each person grasps well a part of the lesson, then they teach that part to others while reinforcing what they already know. (I'm sure the teaching knights have noticed this when teaching their own apprentices).

One has to be cognizant of their listener though. You can go in and teach something you don't know well, and you'll "know" your material "better", but if you're wrong to begin with (or don't understand it well) then you'll answer questions to the point that satisfies your own self and reinforce your own beliefs while filling in the blanks with your own assumptions. But if you're cognizant of your audience, you'll realize that your explanations aren't working (likely because you don't really understand it well enough yourself) and you'll (hopefully) own up to your lack of understanding and want to seek out more information for the next time you have to share that topic/idea.

Maybe the reason why the saying goes with ten-year-olds (though I have heard it with "your grandpa", too), is because children that age tend to be just experienced enough to no longer be satisfied by "because I said so" but still rather uneducated in pretty much every field and still flexible enough to listen and ton inquire for more details.

I can explain the force, and my understanding well enough to a ten year old, who will then stop asking questions, or maybe run me out of answers, and I will say, "at this time, I have no more answers"...

We all "understand" what ever it is we "understand" and can explain it to that point, but beyond that, we cannot... And 'specualting only gets us into murky waters when talking with the more fact-driven conversationalist, lol...

So, Trisskar, Gisteron and I are talking... And, I am explaining my understanding of the force.. I get to a point where Trisskar says, "oh, ok, I got you" because she understood it well enough that she can understand what I understand...

Gisteron, ever after as much fact and provable data he can be, , continues to ask me questions about why I have faith that it exists... I cannot answer all of his questions, because he is more scientifically aimed, and thus, he may come to the conclusion that I have no clue what I am talking about...

Both are right... Trisskar wanted to understand what I understand as best she could... Gisteron wants to understand it as I do, but for himself...

In the case of the force, an 'object/idea' that is not tangible enough for science, yet is enough of an concept for some to think there are connections...

If I was to describe a pencil, Im sure I could answer all of Gisteron's questions, or a Backhoe... lol... For a pencil is a simple idea/object, a backhoe more difficult than a pencil, but still solid enough that he can verify that I do know what I am talking about, but, the force?

Kinda like 'rainbows', gotta be in the right place, at the right time, with the right conditions, and seeing in the right direction... lol...

Justus wrote: I've also said that the best way to learn deeply is to teach what you've learned.

I understood martial arts well enough to get my black belt... When I began to instruct, my understanding sky-rocketed...

My students ask questions and do things I would NEVER do/ask, and force me to look at things from a new perspective... Explaining to another, what to do in the case of martial arts, means I have to understand the "whys and hows', but also have to be able to do the moves forwards and backwards as I am trying to teach the 'mirror' how to hold my hand just right...

Here too, as Hatter and I discussed the Death Penalty, I reviewed my stance, and thought about it... Choosing words to better relay my thoughts, and I modified them a bit this time (as I do every time, lol) to try to convey then in the most succinct way possible...

or a Backhoe

I don't know your background, but I hope you're giving the incredibly complex nature of something that uses signicant amounts of mechanical, fluid, and chemical engineering enough credit in the "how hard to explain" stakes.


(Otherwise "Big magic Shovel" more or less works)


For the OP -

I appreciate the sentiment of the message, and it can be a reminded to teachers to "simplify" their messages to what is essential and relevant, and to drop the fancy jargon.

However, I would not take it too literally, or infer that someone who does use complex terms to explain things is necessarily ignorant on the subject.