Please forgive me if I sound obtuse here, but the title of your post is “Understanding is translation”, which sounds like you are saying that the two are equivalent. If, in your formulation, the two are equivalent, then “Does someone understand X?” and “Can they translate X to Y?” are equivalent questions.
I meant more like the answer to “do they understand X?” is best viewed not as a simple “yes” or “no” or a scalar quantity in between, but a combination of answers to “can they translate X to Y?” for many different Y. These answers can be surprisingly independent from each other, with some people better at translating X to Y1 and others better at translating it to Y2 etc.
Edit: maybe the post is unnecessarily confusing if you don’t know the phrase “two-place word”, which is LW jargon but not very well known otherwise. My bad.
Yes, given your explanation, I do understand what you’re trying to say, and I don’t feel that you’ve sufficiently made your case. For example, how would your formulation handle tacit knowledge, given that such knowledge is inherently difficult or impossible to translate?
Or, to give a different example: suppose I have a puzzle with four pieces. The puzzle’s edges do not form a regular polygon, and each piece is a simple geometric shape, such that the correct orientation of the pieces is ambiguous without already knowing the correct orientation. I have a picture of the completed puzzle which shows how all of the pieces are arranged, and I am tasked with explaining to someone else how to arrange the puzzle. They cannot see the picture, and I cannot see them or their puzzle pieces. If I am unable to explain how to successfully arrange the puzzle to them, does that indicate that I lack some understanding of the puzzle? Surely not, since by having the picture of the correct orientation, I have all of the information there is to know about the puzzle, do I not?
That’s a fair objection. But to give another analogy, when a non-artist looks at a human face, they think they have all the information too, but they don’t. An artist’s skill isn’t just wielding a pencil, it’s mostly noticing facts about the face. (For example, do you know what percentage of head height is above the line of the eyes?) Similarly, if you practice explaining puzzles to people, you might get better at noticing facts about the puzzles. Or at least in my experience, trying to explain something often makes you more aware of how it works.
For tacit knowledge, I guess the only way to salvage the post is to strain the analogy a bit and say that it’s “translated” into action. Take that for what it’s worth :-)
Please forgive me if I sound obtuse here, but the title of your post is “Understanding is translation”, which sounds like you are saying that the two are equivalent. If, in your formulation, the two are equivalent, then “Does someone understand X?” and “Can they translate X to Y?” are equivalent questions.
I meant more like the answer to “do they understand X?” is best viewed not as a simple “yes” or “no” or a scalar quantity in between, but a combination of answers to “can they translate X to Y?” for many different Y. These answers can be surprisingly independent from each other, with some people better at translating X to Y1 and others better at translating it to Y2 etc.
Edit: maybe the post is unnecessarily confusing if you don’t know the phrase “two-place word”, which is LW jargon but not very well known otherwise. My bad.
Yes, given your explanation, I do understand what you’re trying to say, and I don’t feel that you’ve sufficiently made your case. For example, how would your formulation handle tacit knowledge, given that such knowledge is inherently difficult or impossible to translate?
Or, to give a different example: suppose I have a puzzle with four pieces. The puzzle’s edges do not form a regular polygon, and each piece is a simple geometric shape, such that the correct orientation of the pieces is ambiguous without already knowing the correct orientation. I have a picture of the completed puzzle which shows how all of the pieces are arranged, and I am tasked with explaining to someone else how to arrange the puzzle. They cannot see the picture, and I cannot see them or their puzzle pieces. If I am unable to explain how to successfully arrange the puzzle to them, does that indicate that I lack some understanding of the puzzle? Surely not, since by having the picture of the correct orientation, I have all of the information there is to know about the puzzle, do I not?
That’s a fair objection. But to give another analogy, when a non-artist looks at a human face, they think they have all the information too, but they don’t. An artist’s skill isn’t just wielding a pencil, it’s mostly noticing facts about the face. (For example, do you know what percentage of head height is above the line of the eyes?) Similarly, if you practice explaining puzzles to people, you might get better at noticing facts about the puzzles. Or at least in my experience, trying to explain something often makes you more aware of how it works.
For tacit knowledge, I guess the only way to salvage the post is to strain the analogy a bit and say that it’s “translated” into action. Take that for what it’s worth :-)