
The Two Types of Knowledge: The Max Planck/Chauffeur Test (2015) - bootload
https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/09/two-types-of-knowledge/
======
aphextron
>"True experts recognize the limits of what they know and what they do not
know. If they find themselves outside their circle of competence, they keep
quiet or simply say, “I don’t know.” This they utter unapologetically, even
with a certain pride. From chauffeurs, we hear every line except this."

I'm not sure if I would call myself an "expert" at anything really, but this
hits home. I take a certain kind of self righteous pride in admitting
precisely the limits of my own knowledge. I feel like vocalizing it helps to
internalize the fact that you do not know something, and then creates that
impetus to dig deeper and truly learn, rather than just accepting the mentally
lazy hand wavy "oh yeah I kinda get that" train of thought.

~~~
Senderman
I've found that being quick to say "I don't know", "I haven't heard of that
before", etc. in environments where people are often afraid to say as such,
tends to pleasantly surprise people, and actually earns quite a bit of
respect.

------
late2part
This article reminds me of experiences I have with job applicant candidates.

There will be some folks who can talk really really well - talk a big game and
throw out buzzwords, but when it comes to probing into depth, they crack and
fizzle.

Others have a hard time explaining things because their vernacular varies. But
they can do.

And then, the intersection of the two - is ideal. But the second category can
be great too.

------
UhUhUhUh
I also found that knowing something pretty much equals to being able to
explain it to someone. I thought I knew many things until I tried to explain
them. Or, in other words, there is a sort of "internal" knowledge that seems
to heuristically cut corners and generates or fosters the illusion of knowing.
True knowledge does not cut corners. Which is what some of the posters have
expressed as well.

~~~
logicallee
>I also found that knowing something pretty much equals to being able to
explain it to someone.

That can't be right, because that would logically imply that there is
literally nobody on Earth who knows functional programming -- including the
writers of functional compilers -- since no one is able to easily explain it.
(No, really, no one is.)

But this is clearly not true: clearly, people do know functional programming
(after all, how could they write a compiler for it otherwise, how could people
program in it otherwise), _despite_ their inability to explain it.

Therefore, this proves that knowing something does not equal being able to
explain it.

Note that I do not go as far as to say it's inexplicable - sometime,
somewhere, someone will explain it clearly and in a way that resonates with
people that have not programmed in a functional paradigm, so that anyone
immediately "gets" all aspects of it. Like a meme, that explanation will
reverberate through the Internet, academia, language design, like a wildfire
that enlightens everyone who meets it.

But it has not happened. That does not mean "nobody knows functional
programming." People know it, although they can't explain it.

EDIT - this was downvoted, but I stand by it. My assertion is pretty easily
falsifiable, but note that no reply does so with a link. Of course, I have not
reviewed the entirety of the Internet so it is possible that I missed one. But
I notice that nobody seems to be showing one. This is a challenge to do so, if
you disagree with my example.

~~~
fmihaila
Not to be glib, but maybe you're reading the wrong books. Someone _did_
explain it clearly and in a way that resonates with people that have not
programmed in a functional paradigm. As an example, the link below [1] (which
has been posted here to death), explains things very clearly, provided one has
the patience to read it carefully _and do the exercises_.

It's true, though, that one will not necessarily, as you put it, 'immediately
"get" all aspects of it'. Many things worth learning, this one included,
require a bit more diligence. As Euclid famously explained, there is no royal
road to functional programming.

[1] [https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-
Z-H-4.html](https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-4.html)

~~~
logicallee
I find your reference (which I had not seen, though you state it has been
posted to death) superlative.

It requires patience but I think I will work through it.

Although it serves as a counterexample (so that the strictest form of my
argument, that some people know fp but nobody has explained it, _therefore_ it
is not true that to know something is to be able to explain it ... this strict
argument does not work as it has a counterexample), still, other similar forms
of my argument could stand. After all, not _everone_ who knows fp can write
such a resource.

Anyway, it really does seem to be far and away better than others that are
posted or offered, usually. I have not completely read it but my subjective
opinion of it is very good. Thanks for the link!

~~~
js2
Any progammer, certainly anyone with a CS degree, really ought to be aware of,
if not familiar with SICP. And yes, it's mentioned on HN almost daily:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=sicp&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=sicp&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)

------
jfaucett
This article would have been much better if it didn't suggest people fall into
one of these two categories. It seems much more likely this is a spectrum with
people distributed throughout depending on topics and contexts as opposed to
just a binary this person has planck knowledge or not.

However, the linked article was a nice tidbit
[https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/05/elon-musk-lying-
exp...](https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2015/05/elon-musk-lying-experience/)
and rings really true to me. You never forget those problems you spent so much
time solving - I'm thinking of you IE6.

~~~
mannykannot
We all know various things to a greater or lesser extent, but I suspect there
is more constancy in the personality trait; the extent to which a person may
attempt to pass off chauffeur knowledge as Planck knowledge. Then there is the
divide between the people who know they are doing it, and those who do not
realize that there is a difference (shades of Dunning-Kruger.)

------
itchyjunk
The thing is, facts weigh more than opinions. So people have an incentive to
peddle opinion as facts just to make it more credible. And by people I mean
me. I caught myself doing this years ago and the worst part was it didn't
change just because I realized I was doing it.

But on the other hand, trying to limit yourself to only talk about things you
know for sure is impossible. It's often a journey from expressing an opinion
(that you might believe is a fact) to being corrected by peers and
reevaluating your model. As long as I have to energy to adjust my model when
someone points out the shortcomings, I feel like I am doing okay.

(This is why I like HN, i feel like I am at the bottom of the barrel and I can
learn from people who are much more knowledgeable than me. I'd rather be a
fool among smart people than smart among fools.)

~~~
kbenson
I have an adjacent problem. I'm always worried I'm coming across more forceful
and authoritative than I mean, so I sometimes feel compelled to follow
statements or short conversations with "at least, that's what I think/assume
is going on, or is the only thing that makes sense to me" to make sure people
are aware they are getting my opinion or educated guess. I like to pontificate
and work through solutions out loud with the person asking (a habit that runs
in my family) when a question is asked that I don't know the answer to, and I
suspect my thoughts in verbal form may be taken as assertions of fact when
that's not the purpose.

------
losteverything
I have to say this was a fantastic short read.

Is the chauffeur story true? (I'm almost afraid to ask)

~~~
mhb
Not according to the article: _I frequently tell the apocryphal story_

~~~
losteverything
Sorry. My chauffer just told me I knew that.

------
DonaldFisk
"You don't understand anything until you learn it more than one way." \--
Marvin Minsky

------
B1FF_PSUVM
> [N] people visited Farnam Street last month to expand their knowledge and
> improve their thinking.

Sounds ghastly.

