I'm an author!

[Mark Hammer]

Thanks for that.  Means a lot coming from someone with more than a bit of dendritic growth himself.

Some 15 years ago, I was on a job-analysis listserv, job analysis being concerned with understanding and measuring what specific jobs require, to serve the purpose figuring out what you need to look for if you're hiring and want competent people.  One of the members asked the other members what the "competencies of the future" would be, in their view.  In other words, what sorts of skills or knowledge would be deemed important for future jobs.

Without missing a beat, I replied "explanatory skill".  In a world that is so information-intensive and comprised of such an increasingly diverse population - both folks who will be your co-workers and folks who will be your clients - the capacity to explain things and create clarity in others (of the sort that facilitates their independence) was paramount.  Ability to explain clearly is not only what you want from your boss or teacher.  It is also what you want from your auto mechanic, border guard, family doctor, lawyer, service rep, manager, complaints department, butcher, "I.T. guy", bus driver, and especially your parents.

Daniel Goleman has made a big kerfuffle and fortune out of the idea of "emotional intelligence", but really and truly, both EI and explanatory skill link to the same core of trying to anticipate or understand what others are thinking, and using that to enhance interactions with them.  A former research colleague (now at Florida State) spent a goodly part of his career studying the development of expertise, part of which involved studying both coaches and prodigies.  And one of the things he noted to me was that the best coaches, who generate prodigies, are able to better identify what the learner needs to know or learn at this moment, and engineer learning opportunities for them to connect and leverage existing knowledge.  And for me, that's a big part of explanatory skill - trying to anticipate exactly what the other party is likely thinking about and needs to hear right now, in order to have an a-ha moment.  Tough to do - especially with one's kids - but a goal worth shooting for.

Ironically, few schools at any level spend any time trying to teach kids how to explain or discussing what a good explanation consists of.  If one acquires any reasonable amount of skill at it, it is purely by chance and personal motivation.

[Tony Forestiere]

I recall a dialogue similar to this in the "1 Million Thread Posts" thread. 

Congratulations on your publication, Mr Hammer.

[LightSoundGeometry]

Thanks for that.  Means a lot coming from someone with more than a bit of dendritic growth himself.

Some 15 years ago, I was on a job-analysis listserv, job analysis being concerned with understanding and measuring what specific jobs require, to serve the purpose figuring out what you need to look for if you're hiring and want competent people.  One of the members asked the other members what the "competencies of the future" would be, in their view.  In other words, what sorts of skills or knowledge would be deemed important for future jobs.

Without missing a beat, I replied "explanatory skill".  In a world that is so information-intensive and comprised of such an increasingly diverse population - both folks who will be your co-workers and folks who will be your clients - the capacity to explain things and create clarity in others (of the sort that facilitates their independence) was paramount.  Ability to explain clearly is not only what you want from your boss or teacher.  It is also what you want from your auto mechanic, border guard, family doctor, lawyer, service rep, manager, complaints department, butcher, "I.T. guy", bus driver, and especially your parents.

Daniel Goleman has made a big kerfuffle and fortune out of the idea of "emotional intelligence", but really and truly, both EI and explanatory skill link to the same core of trying to anticipate or understand what others are thinking, and using that to enhance interactions with them.  A former research colleague (now at Florida State) spent a goodly part of his career studying the development of expertise, part of which involved studying both coaches and prodigies.  And one of the things he noted to me was that the best coaches, who generate prodigies, are able to better identify what the learner needs to know or learn at this moment, and engineer learning opportunities for them to connect and leverage existing knowledge.  And for me, that's a big part of explanatory skill - trying to anticipate exactly what the other party is likely thinking about and needs to hear right now, in order to have an a-ha moment.  Tough to do - especially with one's kids - but a goal worth shooting for.

Ironically, few schools at any level spend any time trying to teach kids how to explain or discussing what a good explanation consists of.  If one acquires any reasonable amount of skill at it, it is purely by chance and personal motivation.

Right on Mark, its my lack of writing skills that get me misunderstood and taken out of context...because I cannot clearly communicate with proper grammar and writing techniques. When people meet me in persont hey understand haha

[Mark Hammer]

We should be careful to separate "writing skills" into 1) those aspects that make someone's writing appealing, fancy-schmancy, an adventure in "word-jazz" (see Ken Nordine:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Nordine), or anything else that connects with one's English prof, 2) the way information is presented so that it makes sense to the reader.  Interesting language helps to make people stick around and want to find the meaning, but one shouldn't confuse it with being clear in the first place.  Simple words can often do a great job.  The key is thinking about what the other person is probably thinking about at this moment, and then telling them something that stands on top of that.  Grammar and $50 words can help, but neither are absolutely critical to getting someone to the point of "Ohhhhhh, now I get it."

The hard part is putting aside what you want to say, in service of what you need to say.  That's why so much technical documentation is crap - the writer is too preoccupied with what they themselves know, and not enough with what the reader doesn't know.

[stallik]

The hard part is putting aside what you want to say, in service of what you need to say.  That's why so much technical documentation is crap - the writer is too preoccupied with what they themselves know, and not enough with what the reader doesn't know.

Thanks Mark. Sometimes someone has to state the bleedin' obvious before it is.

[Jdansti]

Nice article, Mark!  I learned something!

[jdub]

Can't think of anyone better suited for the job, Mark.  Well done!

[PRR]

> what the "competencies of the future" would be
> I replied "explanatory skill".

And I will say I have never seen that on any Help Wanted ad (even the high-class ones).

It was particularly lacking in a recent IEC paper I struggled with. (I finally decided they had nothing to say, but were paid by the page.)

It's not real strong with my auto mechanic, border guard, family doctor, lawyer, service rep, manager, complaints department, butcher, or "I.T. guy". (And I am my own IT Guy.)

I will say my parents were good at it. Mom was a newspaper writer/editor and I learned that, except some jargon words, anything can be said well at a 4th grade reading level.

[Mark Hammer]

> what the "competencies of the future" would be
> I replied "explanatory skill".

And I will say I have never seen that on any Help Wanted ad (even the high-class ones).

It was particularly lacking in a recent IEC paper I struggled with. (I finally decided they had nothing to say, but were paid by the page.)

It's not real strong with my auto mechanic, border guard, family doctor, lawyer, service rep, manager, complaints department, butcher, or "I.T. guy". (And I am my own IT Guy.)

I will say my parents were good at it. Mom was a newspaper writer/editor and I learned that, except some jargon words, anything can be said well at a 4th grade reading level.

Damn straight!
One of the assignments I used to give classes, back when I taught, and taught sections small enough to engage in such exercises, was to get them to select any research journal paper they wanted, and provide pre-ordained pieces of information about it.  It needed to be relatively recent, and pertinent to the curriculum, but apart from that, they had free rein.  One of the things they had to provide was the major hypotheses of the authors - i.e., what questions they were putting to the test.  Most of the time, the students could simply not identify what it was the authors were testing or exploring.  I'll assume that, since the papers were appearing in peer-reviewed journals, that somebody was able to decide that the research deserved to be published because it contributed to knowledge about a field.  But, since such reviewers already had expert knowledge about the subject matter (which is why they were selected as reviewers), they had a leg up in terms of being able to "see" the hypotheses through all the noise, subtly woven into whatever else the authors wrote.  They also had enough familiarity with the structure of journal papers to know where they should look for such info (which my students lacked).  But the bottom line is that the authors rarely made it clear and easy for someone not in their inner circle to say "Oh, THAT's what they are asking, and THAT's what they expect to see.".

Just begin to imagine what sort of world we would live in if more people were able to explain things to each other - even the most basic of things - simply and clearly.  The only downside would be that pharmaceutical companies and yoga instructors - anyone who makes their living by trying to reduce blood-pressure - would lose revenue.

[Ben N]

Alright, Mark! Bringing the gospel to the masses.

[Paul Marossy]

Well Mark... you've been an author here for quite some time.

[Ice-9]

A very well written and informative article Mark, a pleasure to read, Thank you.

[sarah]

The key is thinking about what the other person is probably thinking about at this moment, and then telling them something that stands on top of that.  Grammar and $50 words can help, but neither are absolutely critical to getting someone to the point of "Ohhhhhh, now I get it."

The hard part is putting aside what you want to say, in service of what you need to say.

Totally this. Discriminating between conversational speaking/writing (for which there is time & place) and expositional speaking/writing (task-focused).

As you say, Socratic method useful. Elicit, rather than seek to indoctrinate.
A nice quote "The word "education" comes from the root e from ex, out, and duco, I lead. It means a leading out. To me education is a leading out of what is already there" (Muriel Spark 'The Prime Of Miss Jean Brodie').

Ongoing testing for existing/developing understanding is key too. To establish what is already known in order to build upon it.
When you are asked 'what do you mean?' reply 'what do you think i mean?'.

This clarifies understanding/knowledge (& gaps) & will establish links that haven't been made between things known. This requires a dialogue. Send & Feedback. Listening as important as speaking.

This approach may initially annoy students who are in the habit (state of modern education) of being spoonfed data for recall. But understanding & the ability to repeat data are two different things. One open-ended (exploratory) & the other closed (recall).

Thank you for the read, Mark. A ton to take in but will keep revisiting it & trying.

[Mark Hammer]

A great 6th post.

Probably some 30 years ago, I was attending a workshop on dyslexia and writing deficits in primary and middle-school students.  I recommended the following exercise to the presenters.

1) Get children to write about something they care about a lot.  For instance, a manual intended to give a peer a leg up with a given videogame, and get them from a cold start to reasonable skill within a short period.
2) Once written, get a 2nd child to read it.
3) In the absence of the written text itself, get that 2nd child to convey the content of the manual to a 3rd child, and record the transaction.
4) The writer watches/listens to the recorded exchange, makes note of where the errors in comprehension and communication occur.
5) The writer goes back to step 1 and revises.  Repeat.

The presenters' minds were blown.  We spend too much time and effort on "expressing ourselves" when learning to write prior to adulthood.  Self-expression is important, but it's not everything.  And self-expression is not equivalent to explanatory skill; it's too egocentric.  The writer has to get outside of themselves and inside the reader.  The exercise I proposed was intended to get them to think about how others misunderstand, and help shape their writing to minimize misunderstanding.

Given your evident interest in language, you'll probably enjoy this, if you weren't familiar with it already:  http://neamathisi.com/new-learning/chapter-5-learning-personalities/basil-bernstein-on-restricted-and-elaborated-codes  My own peeve is that societal shifts towards treating whatever young adults believe is important/relevant AS important has drastically reduced widespread use of elaborated code.

[aron]

Congratulations Mark!


WOW and a PICTURE OF MARK on the bottom!

[Mark Hammer]

Thanks, Aron.

My wife took that.  I initially sent them the old pic of me on the can, first thing in the morning, playing the Epi Windsor that was stolen from me shortly after.  But Shawn said it was too grainy.  So we went all artsy and covered half my face with my trusty Kalamazoo KG-21.  This bad boy.

[aron]

Nice!!!! Wooden bridge and all!

[PRR]

> the best coaches, ...are able to better identify what the learner needs to know or learn at this moment, ... anticipate exactly what the other party is likely thinking about and needs to hear right now, in order to have an a-ha moment.

I found an echo in a message elsewhere:

Each time... responded to one of my posts, I get that overwhelming sense that I am learning EXACTLY what I have sought to understand. .... Having a human to decipher the question and provide a tailored answer is the most rewarding and reliable experience.

[chaseblissaudio]

Joel Korte of Chase Bliss got asked by Premier Guitar magazine to write a piece on bucket brigade chips, and very generously asked me if I would be interested in doing it.  He served as go-between with the mag editor, I had some back and forth with Shawn Hammond (the editor), and the article just got posted.  Shawn "punched it up" a bit in places, but it's mostly me. 

Longtime members here will probably already know much of what is included, and truly knowledgable folks will probably grumble about what's left out, but those starting from scratch will benefit.  For your reading pleasure:

http://www.premierguitar.com/articles/25035-behind-the-bucket-brigade?page=2&utm_campaign=PGN+-+010717&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_term=PG+Weekly

Sorry for the necro bump (I really need to get on here more), but I'm so glad that this worked out. 

When I started thinking about what I would write for the article... it dawned on me very quickly that I pretty much learned everything I know about BBDs from Mark Hammer forum posts, and you are such a freakin' GREAT writer... so the light bulb went off, "I wonder if Mark would be interested in writing this." 

I hope they ask you to write a bunch more articles... I'm a bit biased of course (pun intended), but that was the best thing I've ever read in PG. 

[pinkjimiphoton]

mark, you are one of the humblest, giving, knowledgable cats to ever be in this whole scene, and it's an honor to call you friend and a gas to see you get some well deserved recognition outside the immediate circles. well deserved, congratulations brother, and that is a great read and i look forward to your next postings there!!

rock on bud. good for you!!! go, cat, go!!!