
The Feynman Technique: The Best Way to Learn Anything (2012) - NinjaX
https://fs.blog/2012/04/learn-anything-faster-with-the-feynman-technique/
======
mettamage
> When you write out an idea from start to finish in simple language that a
> child can understand (tip: use only the most common words), you force
> yourself to understand the concept at a deeper level and simplify
> relationships and connections between ideas. If you struggle, you have a
> clear understanding of where you have some gaps. That tension is good –it
> heralds an opportunity to learn.

I have lived with my grandparents for the majority of my life. My grandpa
isn't the most intellectual person on this planet. Yet, since I've grown up
I've always seen him as my intellectual equal and because of that he always
listened to when I had understood a new concept.

I am sure that because of this 'in-built mechanism' in my family structure I
got set up to be 'naturally talented' at explaining things since I was always
used to put things into simple terms subconsciously.

What I am learning from this is that when I have a kid, I have to act like an
8 year old so that he/she will experience the same blessing as I did.

I still thank my grandpa for listening to my (most of the times) very long-
winded and convoluted explanations, forcing me to simplify until I had a
feeling he understood me well enough.

~~~
koss38
Good observation. But apply it to everyone not just your kid, and observe the
results.

Apply it to people who you disagree with politically. Apply it to your
relationships at home and work. It's basically what Fred Rodgers, Dale
Carnegie, Marshall Rosenberg (and hundreds of others) all talk about.

------
alexpetralia
Although I think Shane's article serves as a good introduction to the Feynman
Technique, I feel it could go further when it comes to _how_ to actually
implement it. Notably, I'd argue the Feyman Technique - and Feynman was
especially good at this - revolves around _asking good questions_. Here's a
related excerpt from my blog post on the topic[1]:

\--

This is not a novel concept, and it’s just a bit of fortuitous branding that
Richard Feynman’s name got attached to it, but the Feynman technique is a
framework for learning new things. It’s very simple:

1\. Pick a concept you want to learn, such as “what is company stock?”

2\. Ask some very practical questions, like:

\- “What is it?” \- “Why do we need it?” \- “What alternatives are there?” \-
“When did it come about?” \- “Who uses it?” \- “What are its various forms?”
\- “Where is it commonly used?”

3\. All of these questions will invariably branch out into even more jargon
and concepts, such as “equity,” “preferred stock,” “voting rights,” “limited
liability” and so on.

4\. Repeat #2 for each of those branches. By the end, you should know the
first principles so well you could teach the concept to a college freshman.

Three things about this framework immediately jump out at me:

(1) Learning something deeply is necessarily _a lot of work_. It’s not like
you’re just answering “what is X.” You’re asking ten questions about it, each
trying to get at it from a different angle, and then asking ten questions
about each of those underlying concepts. The bottleneck to knowledge then is
not so much ability, but effort.

(2) Learning something deeply is largely a function of the questions you ask.
The greater “coverage” your questions span on the concept surface area, the
better you will understand it. In this framework, asking good questions is a
necessity.

(3) Questions are also where new insights come from. Once you understand all
the factors which compose “company stock,” you’re able to toggle individual
factors on and off, and ask questions such as: “can you have stock with
unlimited liability?” or “what would stock in people look like?”

.

[1]
[https://alexpetralia.github.io/2017/12/25/NL-2017-12-25.html](https://alexpetralia.github.io/2017/12/25/NL-2017-12-25.html)

~~~
teacpde
> (1) Learning something deeply is necessarily a lot of work. It’s not like
> you’re just answering “what is X.” You’re asking ten questions about it,
> each trying to get at it from a different angle, and then asking ten
> questions about each of those underlying concepts. The bottleneck to
> knowledge then is not so much ability, but effort.

This is the truth and it makes me struggle when I want to learn something but
not so deeply. When learning a new concept, I often find myself dfs the tree
and end up somewhere very far in a single branch without gaining the
comprehensive understanding of the concept.

------
tugberkk
There is a youtuber junior md called Ali Abdaal. He has very good scientific
videos about learning. Talks about subjects such as “active recall” and
“spaced repetition”. Worth a look imho.

Here is the youtube channel link:
[https://m.youtube.com/user/Sepharoth64](https://m.youtube.com/user/Sepharoth64)

Video on a.recall and s.repetition:
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukLnPbIffxE](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukLnPbIffxE)

~~~
kmarc
Should you be interested in the science and research behind it, I warmly
recommend reading the book "Make It Stick" where the concepts are discussed in
length. [1]

[1]: [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18770267-make-it-
stick](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18770267-make-it-stick)

~~~
tugberkk
Thank you!

------
peter303
In my town we have something called The Science Cafe. The presenter has
describe an interesting topic in 20 minutes without [computer] slides,
followed by Q&A. This is not easy now that conference talks and course
lectures heavily use powerpoint. TED science talks are similar.

~~~
markc
Mine also. In our case it's called "Science by the Pint".
[http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/science-by-the-
pint/](http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/science-by-the-pint/)

------
dajonker
That's usually how you can identify good people: when they can explain
complicated things using simple words, in a way that their audience can
understand it. People that need lots of expensive words and leave you feeling
dizzy at the end of their presentation often don't know very well what they
are talking about either.

~~~
wenc
An alternative explanation is that some people are just good explainers.

I've had profs in college who were brilliant but couldn't teach, and profs who
could teach but weren't brilliant (didn't produce much original research).

I wouldn't say the former group "didn't know their material well", but they
didn't build up the material systematically. Pedagogy was neglected.
Explaining things is an art that not every has the inclination to master (but
they should).

~~~
james_s_tayler
Professors can massively improve their pedagogy if motivated to do so.

I once had a professor who was new to teaching. It was a very painful
experience and the entire CS class spent every lecture murmuring among
themselves how terrible the lecture was. I gave him the benefit of the doubt
and waited to 2 weeks to see if the lectures would improve. They didn't. At
the end of one lecture I went and spoke to him and told him directly he was by
far the worst teacher I had encountered at University and that as students we
expected higher quality instruction.

From the next week on he was a good lecturer. It was a total transformation. I
was seriously impressed. I guess he just never really thought about the
pedagogical side of things before but to get such a rude wake up call really
jolted him into action and he actually had a pretty good capacity to teach
after that.

------
troquerre
My friend’s dad is an inventor and discovered that the best way to retain
knowledge is to teach it, which is why most students forget 90% of the source
material. Most teaching is based on students inputting knowledge not
outputting it.

~~~
amelius
Yes and I think programming can be seen as a kind of teaching (where you teach
a computer instead of a person).

------
barefoot
"If you’re not learning you’re standing still"

This is a large understatement. In our industry, if you're not learning you
are drifting backwards rapidly.

I aim for twenty hours a week of (unpaid) reinvestment and learning. Some
weeks I still feel like that's not enough to stay current.

Does anyone else feel the same way?

~~~
judofyr
I’ve had that feeling, and I started making an effort to improve myself. I
started time-tracking my side projects (“you can’t improve what you don’t
measure”), scheduling time for learning, and set up an automatic summary sent
on email every week.

It didn’t work for me at all, and ended up basically killing every joy in my
side projects. If I missed a scheduled hour (because I was doing something
else fun) I felt like a failure. I could only focus on “I should be working on
x” instead of actually thinking about x.

These days I try to not worry too much about what I should learn/produce, and
rather work on what interests me at the time. I’m probably not learning at the
most effective rate, but at least I’m having fun.

~~~
teacpde
I share similar experience, I find I can only achieve learning at a high
effective rate with strong short-term motivation, and it can become tiring
very quickly. On the other hand, I can always enjoy having fun and learn
without worrying about effectiveness.

------
bitwize
I thought the Feynman technique was:

1) Write down the problem

2) Think real hard

3) Write down the solution

In other words, the "draw the rest of the fucking owl" of general
learning/problem solving.

~~~
tejohnso
No, it's

    
    
      1) Write down the problem
      2) Frame it in such a way as to pique Feynman's curiosity
      3) Wait for Feynman to tell you how he solved it

~~~
MaxBarraclough
These days we call this approach 'lazyweb'

------
peter303
A variant is to 'explain it to your spouse'. (Ignoring these days your partner
might be better educated than you.)

~~~
james_s_tayler
I've started just explaining it to myself. You don't need to actually teach it
to someone.

In fact this is kind of a subtle point. There are two functions that teaching
it to a third party is performing. The first is that of burning the material
into your memory and the second is getting to an exposition that the third
party understands.

Well... the second part is not necessarily necessary. It depends on your
goals, but let's say you are only trying to further your own understanding
then perhaps all that is really required is getting the material into your
memory in a robust way. Just explaining it out yourself enough times to
actually wire all the nuerons up in a complete graph is massively beneficial.

------
revskill
The real problem is not the way to learn, it depends on each individuals. The
real problem is knowing which concepts need to learn. It's not easy.

------
8bitsrule
"Step 1: Teach it to a child..."

Key. Teaching is a learning process for both teacher (who must condense and
reduce to essentials, and so integrate) and student.

If the child is old enough to ask good questions (and is encouraged to), so
much the better. The feedback is valuable, and the teacher can continue to
reduce/integrate at a somewhat higher level.

~~~
MaxBarraclough
I'm always surprised how rarely anyone makes the obvious point here, and sure
enough in this thread it looks like no-one has: no, you can't explain complex
things to a two year old. Not without dumbing it down to the point that you've
discarded everything of value.

Is this some odd kind of hyperbole about teaching techniques? I don't see that
it's helpful.

If I'm struggling with it, the odds of a toddler being able to comprehend it
are slim to none.

The kernel trick? Quantum computing? Even good old eigenvectors? (Or, heaven
forbid, genuinely advanced mathematics?)

The best professors in the world couldn't convey these things to a 2 year old,
and not for lack of understanding.

------
agumonkey
Some people used to say the same about programming. If you can ~teach it to a
computer (<2yo innate abstraction capabilities), you know it all.

