Difference between revisions of "What makes a word explanation good?"
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* Alternates between concrete and abstract | * Alternates between concrete and abstract | ||
* Actually gives a precise/technical/gears-level/mechanistic model for the reader to tinker with | * Actually gives a precise/technical/gears-level/mechanistic model for the reader to tinker with | ||
| − | * Opens with the motivation for studying the topic, the "so what" | + | * Structured as [[discovery fiction]] |
| + | ** Opens with the motivation for studying the topic, the "so what" | ||
| + | ** Gives motivation for steps throughout | ||
| + | ** Mentions obvious but failed approaches to the topic | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 01:11, 16 July 2021
- Establishes the prerequisites/background the reader needs, and then builds on that background
- Simulates the reader's inexperienced state of mind
- Anticipates common misinterpretations/misconceptions and counters them
- Does not assume infinite working memory (what goes wrong when this is violated: Unbounded working memory assumption in explanations)
- When different words/terms/phrases are used to point to the same idea, this is explicitly pointed out (synonyms are very common even in technical fields!)
- When the same word/term/phrase is used to refer to different ideas, this is pointed out (this is also very common even in technical fields!)
- Considers all or many permutations of ideas (see permutation trick for a similar idea)
- Alternates between concrete and abstract
- Actually gives a precise/technical/gears-level/mechanistic model for the reader to tinker with
- Structured as discovery fiction
- Opens with the motivation for studying the topic, the "so what"
- Gives motivation for steps throughout
- Mentions obvious but failed approaches to the topic
