When explaining how to get to a destination, it doesn’t necessarily mean that more information is better, right?
For example, “Pass the store with the blue sign 300 meters ahead, turn right at the building with the red roof just past it, and take the road next to the white vending machine” is a very detailed explanation. On the other hand, “Turn left at the second traffic light, then go straight and turn right at the next intersection” contains less information.
However, it relies on fewer variables, and the information you need to focus on is simpler.
So, doesn’t providing information that strays from the essence risk distorting our understanding of that essence?
4 Comments
bootstrap@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 33d
Quality vs quantity
Emotional_Series7814@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 33d
"too much cognitive load, didn't remember" vs "too vague, got confused" is always a hard balance to walk
naught101@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 33d
This seems more like over complication than complexity. The first set of instructions isn't adding information, it's using less standard information, which makes it inherently harder (you're already looking out for intersections when driving, you're not looking for roof colours or vending machines).
What's the "system" you're trying to think about here?
Erystela_Thevale@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 33d
Thank you for your comment.
What I perceive and what the other person perceives are fundamentally different. Given that, the question is what we should do to establish a mechanism for finding common ground.
It seems my explanation left room for multiple interpretations, which actually ended up highlighting that very shortcoming…