Internal and External Explanations

I would like to make a distinction between two kinds of explaining a thing. The thing can be both physical and abstract. An Internal explanation tells us how the thing works. This can be a mathematical definition, a blueprint, program code, or a flowchart. In theory, this is a complete description of the thing. This is also often the shortest way of explaining it (but not always). When we want to figure out something really nontrivial about the thing, we almost always have to look at the internal explanation. The internal explanation is the one that should be remembered. There is definitely a lot of power in getting the habit of checking internal explanations, as many people are reluctant to. 

However, the internal representation is not very good for transferring knowledge. It may be just a human thing, or perhaps it's a universal quality of knowledge, that the shortest explanations aren't very enlightening on their own. We often need some context for the knowledge to really stick. That is why we need the External explanations. The external explanation tells us how the thing connects to the rest of our world. It can tell us which problem the thing is meant to solve. It can reveal why the assumptions used, are exactly the assumptions needed. If the person giving the external explanation seems to be very vague and unsure, perhaps they themselves have not thought it through enough, and will not be taken seriously. A person who gives long external explanations however, is often extremely appreciated by their audience. I can't say the same thing about a person who presents long internal explanations. So there is also a lot of power in mastering the external explanation, both for personal and for social reasons. 

I have presented a distinction between two kinds of explanations, and what they are good for. I hope these concepts are useful to you. 

Biasology

Independent thinking can't be imitated with an attitude. For people who need to think professionally, doing one's own thinking is cognitively cheaper than constructing a patchwork of attitudes and counter-attitudes. It is wise to copy other's data and arguments, but not their attitudes.

One of the things that most stuck with me in 2020 was a quote from Stefan Schubert's twitter (2020-03-16):

"The coronavirus crisis displays the limits of "biasology" - arguments for over- or under-reactions by reference to biases.

It's too easy to make up a just-so-story we're biased in this or that direction. You should primarily look at the object-level facts about the virus."[1]

References:

[1]: https://twitter.com/stefanfschubert/status/1239518892621471744?lang=en