Ah, OK, I read your article. I think that's an admirable task to try to classify or identify the levels of understanding. However, I'm not sure I am convinced by your categorization. It seems to me that many of these "Level 1 savants" as you call them are quite capable of fitting their understanding with the rest of reality. Actually it seems like the claim of "Level 1 understanding" basically trivializes that understanding. Yet many of these people who are bad teachers have a very nontrivial understanding -- else I don't think this would be such a common phenomena, for example, in academia. I would argue that these people have some further complications or issues which are not recognized in the 1-2-3 hierarchy.
That being said, you have to start somewhere, and the 0-1-2-3 hierarchy looks like a good place to start. I'd definitely be interested in hearing more about this analysis.
Thanks for reading it and giving me feedback. I'm interested in your claim:
It seems to me that many of these "Level 1 savants" as you call them are quite capable of fitting their understanding with the rest of reality.
Well, they can fit it in the sense that they (over a typical problem set) can match inputs with (what reality deems) the right outputs. But, as I've defined the level, they don't know how those inputs and outputs relate to more distantly-connected aspects of reality.
... (read more)Yet many of these people who are bad teachers have a very no
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.