On building and explaining

[posic]

Scott D. Clary writes in Facebook -- https://www.facebook.com/scottdclarypage/posts/pfbid0KLhGVJjGCDwwp6sNjAfy9usMNToM2LKN5XMCCNxDysGsNxGgYkL8h2tEERBhxsX9l :

The person who can both build something and explain it clearly is worth more than someone who can do either alone. These skills don't naturally co-occur. Builders tend to dismiss communication. Communicators tend to dismiss technical depth. The rare person who refuses to dismiss either becomes the one everyone wants on their team.

***

Throughout my life, I generally did not dismiss mathematical communication. But explaining something clearly is one thing, while getting the audience interested in what I'm explaining is something else altogether. In the epoch when mathematicians are no longer interested in mathematics, but rather in betterment of their own lives by the means of doing mathematics, getting anybody interested in my mathematical ideas is a tall order. Coming across people who perceive profit opportunities in pretending to be interested is, unfortunately, much easier. But then, I am not interested in being on anybody's team, either.

Comments

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> The person who can both build something and explain it clearly is worth more than someone who can do either alone. <<

And that's how I wound up with English teachers photocopying the poetry chapters out of my Pagan liturgy book -- because it was the best explanation of how to write poetry that they could find.

>>The rare person who refuses to dismiss either becomes the one everyone wants on their team.<<

Very few people want me on their team, because I tend to make everyone else look bad. If something is dumb, I say so. I want things that actually work. That is not popular.

So, there's an element missing. It's not just about being able to build something or teach something or explain something. It's about making people like you. And that's the part I really don't care about.