There’s explicit knowledge and implicit knowledge

Explicit knowledge is knowledge which can be readily passed, written down, coded, recorder, verbalised, conveyed…

Implicit knowledge is knowledge which is difficult to convey, difficult to teach, and often difficult even to be aware of

(e.g. try writing instructions on how to WALK properly, as a human being, or how to instantaneously tell apart faces. CLEARLY you have those abilities. Clearly you would NOT have them if you NEVER used them. But could you teach them? Do you know HOW YOU KNOW?)

Einstein famously said “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”.

It’s true for explicit knowledge, and wrong for implicit knowledge

Tiger Woods understands golf, Magnus Carlsen understands chess, Messi understands scoring goals, etc — but try having them explain it, let alone explain it simply, LET alone teach it

 

Explaining the inexplicable is dangerous

It’s called SUPERSTITION

We humans like explaining things. Why the sun shines or doesn’t, why there’s nothing to eat, why your tribe is better than my tribe, etc.

We will explain it in terms of gods and faith and good and bad luck

Then we’ll burn a witch at a stake

Nonsense explanations yield no benefit — only harm. But we do it anyway. Because we like explanations, true or wrong. We like explanations more than we like uncertainty.

Therefore we explain away the inexplicable — creating superstitions and like nonsense.

Therefore I advice against explaining the inexplicable

I advice against explaining the implicit knowledge

 

You don’t explain implicit knowledge. You DEMONSTRATE IT.

If you can neither demonstrate it nor explain it — then this it not knowledge at all. It’s just a fantasy.

 

Likewise if you can ONLY demonstrate your knowledge — then you no longer need an explanation. Implicit knowledge or explicit. You don’t have to explain it if you can demonstrate it.

However,

Explicit knowledge can be theoretical

In which case you can’t demonstrate it in REAL world. You must EXPLAIN IT, FORMULATE IT, REASON IT and DEDUCE IT.

 

Finally, the real world is not a clear dichotomy of either explicit of implicit knowledge

Many things you’ll be partly able to explain, partly able to enact, and partly neither know what to do nor even KNOW what to THINK.

You will rarely be able to demonstrate with certainty that you have the right solution. Likewise you will rarely be able to explain it perfectly clearly and cogently.

 

At the end of the day I suggest a powerful bias in favour of TANGIBLE REAL WORLD OUTCOMES

I call it “you are what you tangibly improved today”

Long term success can be deeply subjective and volatile. I don’t believe in conventional measures of success. Nor do I believe in predictability of long term outcomes in life.

I measure myself against myself over short term and based on TANGIBLE CHALLENGES.

Outcomes of those are outcomes I don’t have to explain. And daily outcomes are outcomes which I can repeatedly demonstrate. This way I can be confident about my ability.

THIS is knowledge.

 

I have a strong bias against pretty explanations, appearances, and against useless knowledge separated from reality

Therefore your explicit knowledge doesn’t impress me

Your ability to explain it simply doesn’t impress me

I’d rather hear what you tangibly improved today,

 

HAVING SAID THAT …

Obviously you’d preferably be doing a lot — AND knowing a lot and thinking a lot

And your ability to explain that which is in it’s VERY NATURE based on DEFINITIONS and IDEAS — indeed IS a mark of your understanding.

Concepts are made of concepts.

Complex concepts are made of many simple concepts

If you understand it deeply then you understand the simple concepts. You can always reduce a complex concept to simpler sub-components.

This is how you know you understand something (explicit and theoretical anyway)

 

Thus the point is — if you CAN learn more, if you CAN develop a deeper understanding, if you CAN acquire superior and simpler explanation, a MORE EFFECTIVE MODEL — then obviously you should do it

Being a “doer” doesn’t absolve you from knowing the theory WHERE theory is concerned.

If you are going to invoke a theory — which is IF YOU ARE MEANING TO TALK AT ALL — then you should obviously be au fait with that theory.

And you should be able to explain that theory simply and clearly. Which is a mark of it’s understanding

 

Conclusion is:

It really doesn’t matter if you can explain it, and it doesn’t matter what you know — what matters is that you GET WHAT MATTERS

And you’d rather have someone DEMONSTRATE his ability — then explain it

But none of it means you shouldn’t be able to explain — and EXPLAIN WELL — that which is explainable…and ESPECIALLY that which is impossible to clearly demonstrate — e.g. an IDEA or a THEORY.

Explain what can be explained

VERY CAUTIOUSLY STRIVE to understand that which you yet can’t explain

But seek to MAKE THINGS FIRST, LIVE LIFE FIRST, and DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH — before the proof, before all else