

The Hardest Thing About Teaching: Knowing When to Lie - CrypticSwarm
http://crypticswarm.com/knowing-when-to-lie

======
arscan
"All models are wrong but some are useful" - generally credited to George Box.

A model, by definition, is a simplification, otherwise it wouldn't be a model
(it would be the actual "thing"). Therefore, you shouldn't get caught up on
whether or not the model is a perfect representation of the thing it describes
(because it won't ever be), but rather if it is useful in the situation in
which it is being applied.

For example, sometimes it is useful to model light as waves, sometimes it is
useful to model it as particles, but both models are technically wrong because
they can't explain the full behavior of light by themselves. That doesn't mean
we should just give up those models and never use them, since they both are
useful in certain situations.

So present the simplified model to the student, until that simplified model no
longer can explain what you are trying to explain. In which case you present
the more refined model. Just keep in mind there is overhead that comes along
with that refined model.

And perhaps more importantly: don't think in terms of "truthfulness", think in
terms of "usefulness".

~~~
timwiseman
Very well said, but it is important to point out that you are simplifying.
Otherwise the ambitious ones who continue learning without you may feel
betrayed or even question your competence when they begin seeing the problems
in the model.

~~~
andylei
> to point out that you are simplifying

suffice it to say that what arscan presented was itself a model

~~~
arscan
I love it when discussions turn meta. Bravo! ;-)

~~~
dylanhassinger
this is some seriously recursive abstraction

------
jimrhoskins
Taking it a step further, the next hardest thing is dealing with the
consequences of the lies when there are students with enough experience to
know that you lied, but not why you lied.

I teach programming through video courses, and at a very beginner level, you
have to lie a lot, in order to simplify the concepts that are peripheral to
the core concept you are trying to explain. There are few things (if any) in
the world that can be explained linearly. The dependency graph for any concept
you want to teach will branch out into a dozen other topics, and often cycle
back on itself.

The way you have to teach is pick a core concept you want your student to
learn, and do your best to explain it, and whenever an unexplained concept
comes up, explain it the simplest way you can so you don't get knocked off
track. Often this involves lying, or creating the simplest mental model that
works for the current situation.

I'll get emails routinely from people who say that I didn't thoroughly explain
some topic that was not the core topic of the exercise. For instance if you
want to learn about JavaScript strings, you may want to mention
"string".toUpperCase(), but if you are just learning about strings, functions
or method invocations are some way off in the future. You can't just stop and
explain the details of functions, how they are invoked on objects if you are
still working on the basics of a core data type.

So the hardest thing is not just knowing when to lie, but how to lie in a way
that won't cause too much upset if the student knows you are lying. The best
way to mitigate this is to explain that it is a simplification, and we will
learn more about it soon. This is usually enough to keep going, as well as
keep interest levels high.

------
kiba
Or you could tell them that it's a model, a simplification and that they will
learn the more complex, accurate version later.

~~~
stcredzero
It's not lying to me. It's more of an attentional optimization. It's more like
sleight of hand. People's psychological defenses are very strong. Evolution
has made them so. To change someone else's mental models has to be hard,
otherwise they'd be easy to conquer using psychological means. However, one
cannot truly learn without changing one's mental models.

~~~
dylanhassinger
i agree. also, "attentional optimization" would be a good band name.

nice post @crypticswarm !

------
petercooper
A Wikipedia entry on this very dilemma/process:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children> .. It's also known as
Wittgenstein's Ladder based on this proposition in Ludwig Wittgenstein's work:

 _My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who
understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used
them - as steps - to climb beyond them. He must, so to speak, throw away the
ladder after he has climbed up it._

~~~
gnosis
Long, long, long before even Wittgenstein's grandparents had a twinkling in
their eye, Zen masters said pretty much the same thing about their words being
useful get you started on the path towards enlightenment but needing to be
eventually overcome and discarded to reach it.

Unfortunately, I don't have a direct quotation from them handy. However, the
Taoists have expressed similar sentiments in the Tao Te Ching (from 300+ BC):

    
    
      The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
    

Much of what Wittgenstein has to say in the Tractatus is just run of the mill
mysticism[1] and negative theology[2]. It's quite ironic that the "anti-
mysticist" logical positivists[3] (and their heirs, the analytics[4]) would
latch on to him of all people as some kind of prophet.

[1] - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism>

[2] - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology>

[3] - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivists>

[4] - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy>

------
podperson
The article title, which is quoting the writer's favorite teacher, is a lie,
which is to say a didactic oversimplification.

When you're trying to explain something, you can be too simple, you can get
way too complex, you can qualify your simplification to the point where the
explanation is lost, or you can simplify just enough and not spend time
discussing the limits of your simplification until you've made your point.

That last item is the "when to lie" bit.

------
16BitTons
I remember feeling rather devastated when I found out that F<>MA and that
energy and mass aren't really conserved. I think it was because I was trying
to build a philosophy from studying physics, rather than just getting the
equations down to pass the test.

~~~
artmageddon
> I found out that F<>MA

How do you mean?

~~~
timwiseman
I think he means that even in a purely classical system (ignoring relativity
and quantum theory), F=MA describes a system you could never see in the
physical world. After all, it does not take into account friction or
constantly acting forces like gravity (yes, I know gravity's nature is more
complex than that, but I am talking about a purely classical system).

And that is if we can ignore relativity and quantum theory. With those, it
gets more complex, especially given that they cannot currently be reconciled
with each other.

As others have discussed, F=MA and all of Classical theory is a model that is
definitely wrong, but it remains close enough to be extremely useful even now.

------
AznHisoka
Also know when to keep your mouth shut and don't nitpick when they make
mistakes. Such as a beginner learning a language. He/she is probably scared of
speaking, so don't point out more mistakes than needed. You want to build
confidence first.

