I don’t think I agree with your conclusion. It seems to assume that ideas are somehow representation-independent—and in practical programming as well as practical psychology, that idea is a non-starter.
Or to put it another way, someone who can state a point more eloquently than its originator knows something that its originator does not. Sure, the communicator shouldn’t get all the credit… but more than a little is due.
Cf. Feynman stating that since he wasn’t able to explain the spin—statistics theorem at a freshman level, that meant he hadn’t actually fully understood it himself.
I don’t think I agree with your conclusion. It seems to assume that ideas are somehow representation-independent—and in practical programming as well as practical psychology, that idea is a non-starter.
Or to put it another way, someone who can state a point more eloquently than its originator knows something that its originator does not. Sure, the communicator shouldn’t get all the credit… but more than a little is due.
It could be ‘How to write eloquently in a context independent manner’.
Cf. Feynman stating that since he wasn’t able to explain the spin—statistics theorem at a freshman level, that meant he hadn’t actually fully understood it himself.