So this young man, you have brought him up before and I remember finding him impressive. If you recall Saddam, you had also been suggesting I participate in other forums and venues. I recall telling you I would not even be on this forum either if my little hobby posting stuff like this over the years had not made it a dependable place to find it if looking for it. Mt observation of him was impressive, but brief.
Having taken a better look now, I have constructive criticism for him.
1. The Twitter post you posted is a big no no.I am more aware of the subject matter than the average person, and I am less than 50% confident about what is being fully informed by our brother. That means the presentation is a failure.
2. It is better to overexplain, then under explain. The biggest mistake you could make is to trail off...... leaving it to the reader take the burden of confirming whether they understood what YOU were thinking. We hate that as humans. Do not give them that responsibility. The best instructors are the ones who are even obsessive compulsive about being understood.
3. Finally, theory and art have an INVERSE have an inverse relationship between how they are informed theoritically vs
In art, we like growing complexity, the more simple and understandable growing into so much complexity we are blowm away
In theory however it is thr opposite. We EXPECT not to understand at first as that is the point of "learning"... But for the process to be considered a success, it has to result in decreasing complexity as that's what is meant by "understanding".. the most successful instructor takes his "student" to the "AHA" moment almost at the end where the person SNAPS THEIR FINGER and they understand the concept so well, there break with the entire experience of ignorance on the isshe
With this Twitter post, I feel like this;
Tell him, explain, explain, explain until you feel a 3 grader listening can understand that. That's when your presentation is a success.
