What is an Explanation?

A good explainer is someone who can break a complicated task down to its core parts and describe in the language of the learner, the importance and order of the tasks.

Or Weezy, would always had some 'splaining to do.

An explanation is two parts, first the introduction of the subject (item, event, product) that is to be made clear and then the clarification. To use your example, the Ford Sync technology is the subject, the explanation is how it works with all of the different products, phones, car, person driving the car etc.

A good explainer is someone who can take a subject and clarifies its purpose. It doesn’t have to be simplified by any means; it depends on the audience they are talking to. The explainer becomes ‘good’ when they effectively communicate the subject so the audience understands it.

I think to become ‘good’ you need to first understand your audience and create your explanation so that it clarifies the subject in the best possible communication method the audience understands…. who’s your audience; what do they know about the subject already; what do they not know; how can they learn?

What is an explanation?
An explanation is the process of giving meaning to something.

What are the skills required to be a good explainer?
1. Understanding your audience
2. Understanding the successful use of metaphor
(this book is a great read: "How Customers Think" http://www.amazon.com/How-Customers-Think-Essential-Insights/dp/15785182... )

What makes a good explanation?
When the intended audience can interpret or give meaning to the subject being explained.

... is a bridge-builder.

I was curious and looked up the etymology. That had to do with something being "out" and "flat" and that gave me the idea of taking a complexity, laying it out flat, and showing what it means, how it works, what it's for. The problem comes when one doesn't understand the terms of the explanation--I'm having that experience with derivatives, toxic debts, etc. Slowly though, after listening to many explanations, I'm getting the idea. One has to persist. IMO there are responsibilities on what you might call the demand side of the explanation. People who want to learn will put up with boring explanations and if they don't want to learn right then it doesn't much matter how good you are.

Thanks for the question!

My Definition: An explanation is a set of reasoning, communicated from one person to another, with the purpose of improving the receiver's understanding.

In this definition, we see two roles and an abstraction: a) a subject matter (an empirical model, a set of facts held together by some common thread, an odd circumstance, ... ) b) a human source of information (an author, a speaker, ...) c) receiver(s) of the communication, the one(s) intended to gain new understanding.

An explanation can be cut and dried ("...because when you factor the expression cleanly into two sums, each adding the variable and a digit..."), or very emotive ("I just forgot ! I'm so sorry !" or a passionate political speech)

If your goal is to optimize explanation in general, it's important to see the abstract 'explanation' in its wider context. An attempt at explanation can fall flat if the explainer doesn't see the bigger picture.

There will be a context surrounding any explanation, and thinking about that content will help optimize the explanation itself. How did the explainer and learner come together? Has the explainer had the chance to really understand the learner? In the case that the learner is some as yet unknown person, can the explanation be crafted to appeal to many personality types simultaneously? Is the learner truly engaged? Is the message crafted in a form that the learner can understand? How much effort does it take on the part of the learner to grok the message? (some non-zero amount effort is optimal)

The answers to each of those leading questions depend on the specific circumstance of the explanation, but the definition given at the beginning appears to be a reasonable framework for the generation and consideration of such questions.

Extending all this a little further, let's call "explanation" highly related to education. I would defer to Alfred North Whitehead's model for optimal education... something that includes three parts: a) romance, b) detail and c) generalization. The 'romance' of a topic should hook the listener with all the wonderful possibilities that they will gain once they understand. It should motivate that particular listener. (Ask me if you're interested in strategies for tuning an educational experience for a set of people you don't know ahead of time). The 'detail' of a topic should be the body of knowledge, the set of facts that drives understanding. It might be the components of a model, or a syllogism, etc. 'Generalization' should reflect back on the romance, on the facts, and give examples of how the new knowledge can be applied in as many areas as possible. This last phase gives the student the opportunity to truly grow with their new understanding.

ref: http://www.amazon.com/Aims-Education-Alfred-North-Whitehead/dp/002935180...

Wow.

I just missed a HUGE chance to use my own advice! I should have rewritten my definition with the a) b) and c) in mind !

TTFN

An explanation is a tool used by an explainer whose success is measured by the adage: "If the student hasn't learned, the teacher hasn't taught" No excuses.

A teacher is someone who leaves no confusions behind.

An explaination is essentially a simple shared understanding between people. It requires creativity to "explain" across different individuals and groups. Charlie Mingus said it best with:

Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, that's creativity.
-Charles Mingus

Ditto on the translation post from Suresh. A good explainer is someone who can decipher the specialized jargon and translate it into clear, concrete terms. If an explainer cannot put it into simple terms, I will argue that they do not understand it themselves.

A good explainer keeps in mind that what matters is how something relates to what they already know and how they can use it.

The only evidence of a " good explanation" is the empowerment of the recipient to know and do what he could not do before. The Commoncraft medium spares no means to achieve this result.

I like this quote from Albert Einstein:

Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.

I think listening to a good explanation is like listening to a good story. It's clear and interesting and keeps you intrigued enough to really want to understand and able to understand what is being explained. It has a beginning, middle and end and should be as detailed as possible without being confusing at all.

A good expanation is one that conveys a shared understanding in simple terms and as quickly as possible.

Explanation is made up of information.

Explanation can be useful or not useful.

Useful explanation: The right information to the right people, right time and to the right question.
It must be useful and gives meaning to the reader.
Example: The comment you are reading now.

Not Useful explanation: The opposite of a useful explanation.
If the explanation does not give any meaning to a dumb reader, it is Spam to him.
Example: I give you the explanation to Einstein's Theory of Relativity here.... it is not useful, so the dumb reader will think I am spamming even though I have given the best explanation in the world.

Do you think I am spamming?

One could also ask what is the difference between an explanation and an excuse. I would say that the difference lies with the person requesting the explanation or the excuse and the tone in which it is requested.

An explanation is pretty self explanatory, somebody wants to know the reason behind something.

Asking for an excuse is in itself an accusation and has already judged a person prior to an explanation or an excuse.

I would say that the actual difference is similar by nature to the difference between a good manager and a bad one.

It's interesting that you are asking for an explanation of an explanation.

In its most basic form, an explanation is an attempt to enlighten another person about a subject.

The skill that I think is most important for an explainer is the art of listening, or reading the reactions of the recipients of the explanation. Obviously in the format that you employ with the video explanations, the art of listening has to come before you produce the video, or in testing reactions before you release the video. But when the recipient of the explanation is live, the ability to modify the explanation to the listener is paramount. They don't have to actually say anything, the fact that their eyes glaze over can be enough to cause the explainer bring it down a notch.

A good explanation in an online video is one that reaches the highest percentage of the viewers. In a live group presentation it is the same. In a one on one, a good explanation brings the listener to an ah hah moment.

I see most people here are detailing what a "good" explanation is, as opposed to just an "explanation."

The etymology of a word usually provides a good starting point for understanding what that word means in daily life. ‘Explanation' comes from the Latin ‘explanare’, which literally means ‘make level’ or ‘flatten’. A literal meaning often works as a metaphor for a less literal meaning (which is not necessarily a figurative meaning).

Explaining is: reducing a thing of three dimensions into a thing of two dimensions.

For it is three-dimensional things that need explanation: RSS, icecreammaking, the economic crisis, how to travel from Chicago to Washington.

Why? Because we are three-dimensional things. We live in a three-dimensional world, among three-dimensional things, some of which we are familiar with and some of which we are not. We operate on the same - three-dimensional - level.

People who know their way in a certain part of the (three-dimensional) world (we call them experts) do not need a (two-dimensional) map. But they can make one for others.

What is an expert explainer? Take for exampele an origami crane (http://www.savingcranes.org/origamicranes.html). A bad explainer flattens the thing by squashing it, thereby giving you the feeling that you are stupid if you don’t see fast enough how it works. A good explainer shows you step by step how to fold a two-dimensional piece of paper into a three-dimensional bird.

A good explanation is an explanation by a good explainer. A good explainer takes one step at the time and makes sure at every folding point that the explainee is still with him.

pretty interesting, thanks for sharing.

explanation is a stream of information that helps to understand something.
good explainer must be perfect erudite. his task is to find patterns that fit someone's mind paterns. in other words good explainer must speak in other person's language.
---------------------------------

A good explanation tells a story that concretely allows the listener to visualize a concept in such a way that they can remember it and use it at a later date. It avoids subjectivity and embraces the object of the explanation, giving to the object a shape and form people can identify with and remember.

The trick to good explanation is understanding your audience and identifying the level of concrete detail they require before the do see the explanation. How much can you assume they know? How much needs to be explained? Good explanation is as much about the listener as it is the explainer, how much knowledge the explainer assumes the listener has about the subject and how well the explainer can shape the explanation to meet the listener's understanding and needs.

Explanations are clearest when they contain information the listener can 'relate' to; i.e., they can compare and relate an unknown concept to a known concept that helps them make the unknown knowable. "Yeah, I can relate to that!"

By the way, I think your tutorials are perfect examples of good explanation. Another great example is the Discover channel show, "How it's Made."