[Big Mac]

Hey guys, I got a sudden flash of inspiration and wanted to run it by you:

I think that a portion of human ignorance that could otherwise be dispelled is instead maintained and perpetuated because of what I'm calling the Scholarly Obviousness Fallacy. By this I mean, people specialize in different areas of knowledge, and in the course of that specialization some become well acquainted with the subject of their study and some go on to become experts. But then, in conversing with others who do not possess their specialized knowledge, the scholar assumes that what they know about the subject they study is so easily understood that they don't bother to help others understand what they know. The scholar may even become frustrated resentful toward others who don't have their specialized knowledge because what they know so well has become second nature to him, completely obvious. But he doesn't realize that his understanding came from somewhere, either intellectual gifts that made their apprehension of the knowledge much easier than it would be for most, or more commonly, substantial work to gain said knowledge.. This fallacy is particularly pernicious when the scholar is working to try to inform others of knowledge that they may be predisposed to reject for a variety of reasons but often due to political factors. That often just serves to further frustrate the scholar. I think that a certain amount of human ignorance could be eliminated if we could overcome this fallacy, but given human nature I'm not sure how possible it is to correct for this,

I've seen others write about this, especially in area of programmers trying to design interfaces for end users and sometimes failing as a result. I just have never seen it described generally or assigned a name before. Therefore, with much fanfare I officially entitle it the Scholarly Obviousness Fallacy

[Spheric Harlot]

That's one part.

The other part is a staunch unwillingness on the side of the ignorant party to WANT to be educated, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, since that would conflict with personal world-view.

The combination explains refusal to accept Evolution, global warming, and the superiority of keyboard-based music.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, you're right, that's the other side of the fallacy that I allude to above, but I'm concentrating on the failure of the person who has the knowledge to effectively communicate it despite hurdles internal to himself or external in the receiving audience.

I'm trying to keep this thread non-political btw.

[Spheric Harlot]

Good luck with the non-political bit.

The grand delusion: Blind to bias - life - 17 May 2011 - New Scientist

[Paco500]

EDIT: the first sentence looks like it might be an insult directed at you. It's not. I am speaking in generalities only and am making no comments on you or your abilities.

I think you attempting to elevate being a poor teacher to the level of a grand logical fallacy. There are three problems I see here.

First, I'm not sure that I understand why you think the issue, which certainly exists, is in anyway realted to a logical fallacy. Perhaps it's obvious to you as you may be an expert on the subject and have assumed some basic knowledge I don't have.

Second, I think you assume that an expert on any topic or issue should necessarily be able to communicate or teach effectly on that topic or issue. I don't agree. The best teachers are not necessarily experts on the subjects they teach. Rather the skill is in effectively communicating ideas in a clear and useful way to the target audience.

An example. My son is in the equivalent of 4th grade. His history teacher this year is a young man from South Africa with little practical knowledge of British History. The teacher is new to the school and this is his first year teaching history anywhere. You may question the wisdom of giving him the responsibility as I did, however he has been an excellent teacher and my son has learned an amazing amount in class this year and is excited about history. All the while, the teacher has basically stayed just one chapter ahead of the kids in the syllabus. He is a great teacher and the headmaster was correct to have faith in him. Granted, a fourth grade history class is not the same as a university level chemistry course, but there are two different skills here. Expertise in any topic and teaching. It's great when they go hand in hand, and my son's experience may have been enhanced if the teacher had more knowledge, but they don't always and this is not a poor reflection on the expert.

The third issue, as I see it, may be completely off base and is founded on assumption. I assume part of your thinking on the subject is based on your inability to convert what see to be otherwise intelligent people to your way of thinking on issues of religion, morality and politics. My further assumption is that this is especially frustrating to you as you believe that your opinions and values are based on concrete and provable truths. You have seen what you believe to be the facts and you also believe these facts lead unerringly to the conclusions you have drawn. I don't agree with you, but you may be right. However, most other people don't agree with your basic assumptions either and no amount of in-depth study and persuasive communication is going to change this- for most people.

There are people as learned and persuasive as you- likely even moreso (not a criticism, just playing the odds)- with opinions and beliefs very different to yours. I'm guessing they would never change your mind, almost certainly not on your core beliefs. This doesn't make them bad teachers or mean their arguments suffer from some kind of logical fallacy, you just see the world differently and likely always will. Nothing can change that.

[SSharon]

Somehow this thread reminded me of xkcd: Connoisseur

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

First, I'm not sure that I understand why you think the issue, which certainly exists, is in anyway realted to a logical fallacy.

Indeed. What's being described in the OP is a failure to communicate .... not a "fallacy" which is "a mistaken belief based on unsound argument".

OAW

[imitchellg5]

Fallacy isn't the correct word to describe it with, but the issue is very real, particularly within the university realm. For example, I took an upper-division political science class last semester that was filled with many people who had never taken a political science class. That class was a prerequisite for Letters, Arts, and Sciences majors, yet the professor taught at a level that, while appropriate for an upper-division class, went over the heads of nearly everyone else in the class, myself included.

[Waragainstsleep]

I should like to propose a solution, at least in academia. It won't fix much in the way of politics or religious belief, though arguably the best way to change those things is through better education so perhaps it might.

I have always found one of the very best ways to learn something yourself is to try and teach it to someone else. Your student(s) may not think the way you do and this forces you to think in a number of different ways about something you thought you already had nailed down pretty well. It also teaches you about how other people think when you find ways of getting your points across.

This happens to a very limited extent at the moment and always has but I have long thought that students from a much younger age would benefit by attempting to teach those even younger than themselves. I'll leave the exact mechanics of it to others to work out all the logistics involved but essentially each class would have to divide its time between learning and teaching. It shouldn't be too hard to organise.

I shall dub this "The Knowledge Cascade".

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Hey guys, I got a sudden flash of inspiration and wanted to run it by you:

I think that a portion of human ignorance that could otherwise be dispelled is instead maintained and perpetuated because of what I'm calling the Scholarly Obviousness Fallacy. By this I mean, people specialize in different areas of knowledge, and in the course of that specialization some become well acquainted with the subject of their study and some go on to become experts. But then, in conversing with others who do not possess their specialized knowledge, the scholar assumes that what they know about the subject they study is so easily understood that they don't bother to help others understand what they know. The scholar may even become frustrated resentful toward others who don't have their specialized knowledge because what they know so well has become second nature to him, completely obvious. But he doesn't realize that his understanding came from somewhere, either intellectual gifts that made their apprehension of the knowledge much easier than it would be for most, or more commonly, substantial work to gain said knowledge.. This fallacy is particularly pernicious when the scholar is working to try to inform others of knowledge that they may be predisposed to reject for a variety of reasons but often due to political factors. That often just serves to further frustrate the scholar. I think that a certain amount of human ignorance could be eliminated if we could overcome this fallacy, but given human nature I'm not sure how possible it is to correct for this,

I've seen others write about this, especially in area of programmers trying to design interfaces for end users and sometimes failing as a result. I just have never seen it described generally or assigned a name before. Therefore, with much fanfare I officially entitle it the Scholarly Obviousness Fallacy

Sometimes I think this is the biggest source of disagreement between my wife and me.

(We really couldn't have more different domains of expertise: CS and PR...)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I should like to propose a solution, at least in academia. It won't fix much in the way of politics or religious belief, though arguably the best way to change those things is through better education so perhaps it might.

I have always found one of the very best ways to learn something yourself is to try and teach it to someone else. Your student(s) may not think the way you do and this forces you to think in a number of different ways about something you thought you already had nailed down pretty well. It also teaches you about how other people think when you find ways of getting your points across.

This happens to a very limited extent at the moment and always has but I have long thought that students from a much younger age would benefit by attempting to teach those even younger than themselves. I'll leave the exact mechanics of it to others to work out all the logistics involved but essentially each class would have to divide its time between learning and teaching. It shouldn't be too hard to organise.

I shall dub this "The Knowledge Cascade".

It's actually a really great method. We did this all the time when I was in the boy scouts. We called it "learn one, do one, teach one" (no dirty jokes, please ). After step 3, then you knew the material. There are other advantages too besides what you mentioned, like division of labor, and the fact that in addition to helping the teacher, it helps the student when the teacher is young enough to remember the student's perspective and can still relate.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

the scholar assumes that what they know about the subject they study is so easily understood that they don't bother to help others understand what they know. The scholar may even become frustrated resentful toward others who don't have their specialized knowledge because what they know so well has become second nature to him, completely obvious.

People often wonder what the point is of arguing on the internet, like here in the PWL. This is the reason. It lets you practice explaining things (views, philosophies, beliefs) that you find obvious or innate, to people who can put your reasoning to the test. This is necessary because as you say, the more you know about something, the harder it is to distill it into an approachable format. You have to work at it. Instead of "fallacy" though how about "dilemma" or "paradox."

[Big Mac]

Agreed. And I suppose you could say it's more of a dilemma than a fallacy. I was thinking along the lines of it being a fallacy when a scholar assumes that that which is obvious to him through scholarship should be obvious to others just because it's easy for him to understand, but you're probably right that the central problem I've identified is more accurately termed a dilemma.

Anyway, thank you to all the participants in this thread. I know this thread and the professorial tone of my OP was a bit out of place.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Hey guys, I got a sudden flash of inspiration and wanted to run it by you:

I think that a portion of human ignorance that could otherwise be dispelled is instead maintained and perpetuated because of what I'm calling the Scholarly Obviousness Fallacy. By this I mean, people specialize in different areas of knowledge, and in the course of that specialization some become well acquainted with the subject of their study and some go on to become experts. But then, in conversing with others who do not possess their specialized knowledge, the scholar assumes that what they know about the subject they study is so easily understood that they don't bother to help others understand what they know. The scholar may even become frustrated resentful toward others who don't have their specialized knowledge because what they know so well has become second nature to him, completely obvious. But he doesn't realize that his understanding came from somewhere, either intellectual gifts that made their apprehension of the knowledge much easier than it would be for most, or more commonly, substantial work to gain said knowledge.. This fallacy is particularly pernicious when the scholar is working to try to inform others of knowledge that they may be predisposed to reject for a variety of reasons but often due to political factors. That often just serves to further frustrate the scholar. I think that a certain amount of human ignorance could be eliminated if we could overcome this fallacy, but given human nature I'm not sure how possible it is to correct for this,

I've seen others write about this, especially in area of programmers trying to design interfaces for end users and sometimes failing as a result. I just have never seen it described generally or assigned a name before. Therefore, with much fanfare I officially entitle it the Scholarly Obviousness Fallacy

Spot on. In fact, it's the entire basis for my career in user experience design.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Spot on. In fact, it's the entire basis for my career in user experience design.

Wow! I'm really gratified that you think that. Thank you so much, Wiskedjak.

[ghporter]

"Scholarly Obviousness" has several sides. The scholar feels that what he/she thinks of as trivial is indeed trivial, and thus thinks everyone around him/her is dense when they don't "get it," while those around this person think he/she is being superior in his/her reactions.

There's also the flip side: "scholarly superiority." A lot of doctors have this, and they demonstrate it by using very small words in short sentences, which they spice up with enough jargon to make it obvious they know you're a moron. It's fun to watch two doctors of differing specialties do this to each other...

There's an old truism that the more focused your specialty, the more you feel you are an expert on everything. This is another opportunity for entertainment-"So, Dr. Smith, it looks like your car isn't starting. What's wrong with it?" Step back and enjoy the hilarity. Seriously, this is another side of "scholarly obviousness": if the scholar can handle such high-level concepts, certainly something as mundane as auto maintenance/plumbing/lawn care/etc. must be literally trivial (and not worthy of even a few moments thought).

[OreoCookie]

I don't think this is a problem specific to scholar (which to me implies higher university education, a PhD, for instance), but experts in general. To make an analogy: compare a bicycle mechanic, a car mechanic and an aeroplane mechanic.

I'm a laymen when it comes to these things (yes, I can fix a tire, but you get the gist): when I brought my bike to a bike shop two weeks ago (the chain tore itself apart), the mechanic informed me that the chain failure is connected to old cogwheels and they need replacement. Since all of them are visible and I knew I had driven ~8000 km with them, his argument seemed plausible.

If I had brought a broken car to a car mechanic and even though I know in abstract terms how a four-stroke piston engine works, but since most of the parts are hidden (unlike in a bicycle) and oily, in all likelihood, I would have to believe the mechanic's assessment.

The situation gets even more complicated with airplanes where very small mistakes during repair (e. g. using wrong or substandard bolts) can lead to serious accidents or even crashes.

In my opinion, the only reason Big Mac singles out scholars here is that typically, compared laymen, scholars are more like plane mechanics rather than bike mechanics and in essence, a layman's point of view is far removed on that subject and (s)he has to trust the expert's opinion. Think you're going to the doctor and (s)he suggests one of several treatment options: to a certain degree the doctor can explain to you why, but as a laymen, you won't be able to really understand the totality. The only other thing you can do is ask another expert whom you trust, e. g. a colleague of a parent, a sibling or a friend, where the trust is based on something else. But in essence, it's not possible for you to really understand the whole picture, unless you started studying medicine, specialize and practice for a few years.

Regarding Waragainstsleep's suggestion to have people teach, I absolutely agree. But as always in life, there are people who have talent in teaching (or giving talks or doing something else) and there are those who don't. Neither in everyday life nor in my scientific field have I noticed a strong correlation between the level of expertise and the ability to communicate knowledge effectively. So for a layman to assess the level of expertise by the expert's perceived ability to explain something is a useless endeavor. In the end, I don't want my brain surgeon to talk pretty, but to fix me

But in any case, I still found this to be true: A very good indication someone is an expert in a given field is when that person can explain something complicated in simple words without having to use big and intimidating words.

Also, I must say, there is also a flip side: people who ask experts for opinions or advice must be open to that and put forth an amount of trust. Otherwise it's quite clear why the expert is frustrated by the audience's reaction. Indeed, some people already have made up their mind regarding, say, homeopathy or the absence of Bible or Torah codes, and no amount of convincing will change their opinion. There have been experiments regarding this predisposed bias to reinforce one's belief's. The scientific method attempts to break this self-reinforcement.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Fallacy isn't the correct word to describe it with, but the issue is very real, particularly within the university realm. For example, I took an upper-division political science class last semester that was filled with many people who had never taken a political science class. That class was a prerequisite for Letters, Arts, and Sciences majors, yet the professor taught at a level that, while appropriate for an upper-division class, went over the heads of nearly everyone else in the class, myself included.

I see this kind of thing all the time in my classes and classes of others. Part of the trouble is that many students refuse to be responsible for things that should have been learned before. Things such as basic algebra. So when profs talk "over students' heads" they aren't really over anyone's head. That, or they are forcing students to pick up the pace in order to respond to the new material.

In the information age, can they really be talking over heads?

I follow the "Knowledge Cascade" approach personally. But I also talk over students heads all the time, and I expect them to rise to the occasion. Those who rise, pass. Those who do not rise, don't. That's the whole point of taking classes; one should work to understand the material, and review background if necessary.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I see this kind of thing all the time in my classes and classes of others. Part of the trouble is that many students refuse to be responsible for things that should have been learned before. Things such as basic algebra.

I concur: the `talking over the students' heads' feeling is quite common, but in my experience not necessarily an indication of bad teaching. Especially when people enter university, they have to get used to the way things work and get accustomed to the higher expectations the departments place on students. In many cases, there is a conscious effort to keep the difficulty of the classes at a certain, previously agreed upon level. Especially when you're at a good university, they keep their level up by preselecting those who are willing to work.

In the cases where people pick up the pace and they get a bigger picture, stuff that felt over the head at that time makes a whole lot of sense now.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Indeed, some people already have made up their mind regarding, say, homeopathy or the absence of Bible or Torah codes, and no amount of convincing will change their opinion. There have been experiments regarding this predisposed bias to reinforce one's belief's. The scientific method attempts to break this self-reinforcement.

Scientific method gives a good try, but as you said, no amount of convincing will change their opinion. Reason and logic are not prerequisites to faith.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In the cases where people pick up the pace and they get a bigger picture, stuff that felt over the head at that time makes a whole lot of sense now.

Good point. It may seem too much at first, but you get used to the pace and develop the skills to cope as you go along. College is supposed to screen out those who can't cope with a workload as much as those who are incapable of independent thought.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

`talking over the students' heads'

I have an example of this, but with a twist. My "physics for engineers" course was taught by a professor that could NOT make eye contact with any student. However, while he looked over our heads, he taught very effectively, explaining the physical issues, the mathematical connections, and how it all worked together very nicely. He was the first physics instructor I had at any level that would actually admit that there were more things going on around the wing of an aircraft than only the Bernoulli Effect...

On the flip side of that, I had a sociology instructor (not even an "associate professor") who tried to buffalo my whole class with his "epic wisdom" about a variety of sociological concepts. He used Full Metal Jacket excerpts to illustrate indoctrination into a group, and appeared to actually believe that Kubric's film was effectively a documentary about how USMC Basic Training actually runs today... (Hint: he never served a day in uniform, apparently never even MET a Marine, and could not handle the concept of "artistic exaggeration" as applied to how stories are told...)

My most interesting professor taught Abnormal Psychology. He clearly illustrated ideas with personal experience in the field, and presented everything at an undergraduate level, without oversimplifying or overwhelming us with useless jargon or attempting to amaze us with his prowess. I think of this as the polar opposite of the "scholarly obviousness" instructor.