Talk:Feynman Technique

Technique was never used or promoted by Feynman, although it is named for him

The so-called Feynman technique is may be very loosely based on something Feynman once said, which was that being able to teach a subject ***at the college freshman level*** was a test of whether or not you understood it: "I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we really don't understand it."[1]

The so-called Feynman technique is a technique named for Feynman. It is not a technique created or endorsed by Feynman. Many promotional articles by people who get money and kudos for teaching "the Feynman technique" blur this distinction. Please cite independent RS before adding links to other Wikipedia articles (e.g. this one implying otherwise. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been hunting for reliable sources. Best I can tell, the idea of a Feynman Technique for learning can be traced to Shane Parrish, who published it on his blog and then in Quartz. No mentions prior to 2015. I did find two recent journal articles that mention it.[2][3] Haven't read them yet. Schazjmd (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I will have a look at those tomorrow. I found a YT video from 2011 [4] that talks about it but no references that I could find.DannyHatcher (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! Maybe Parrish picked it up from this Scott Young (video description says "The technique is inspired by Richard Feynman and the story I share at the beginning which is taken from his autobiography, Surely You Must Be Joking, Mr. Feynman. "). The video can't be used as a source for the article though. Schazjmd (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that and found the wiki page for the book. [5] At a quick glance, I can't see any talk of a technique, just anecdotes of conversations. I expected YT to be an unaccepted source, just an interesting place to find out things. Would love creators to cite their work though.DannyHatcher (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: I was wondering when someone was going to add those tag/banner things on the article. I was trying to figure out how to do it but couldn't. Thanks!DannyHatcher (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion

The article is weakly sourced and I don't think I could make a good argument for notability to justify a stand-alone article. What about merging the content to Study skills#Types and redirecting? Schazjmd (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That sounds to me like an excellent idea. I think, however, we need to find SOME independent coverage of the topic, not just promotional pages and how-to websites. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I have been thinking the same thing, looking around the learning-related pages. The basis of the technique is in diologic learning and explanation-based learning which could also be part of active learning section in the learning page. Plain language, understanding, and knowledge all are connected alongside memory, schema etc. I think it makes sense to include it as a section someone rather than an article on its own. Out of curiosity, what is normally done about the primary sources like the blogs, videos, podcasts etc? added to an external links section, or future reading section?DannyHatcher (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

DannyHatcher, take a look at WP:EL to learn about the types of links appropriate for an External links section. Blogs and such are user-generated content, that's why they're not considered reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The Quartz article gives a basic introduction of it and isn't selling anything; this journal article indicates its use in a scholarly context. Also there's an MSN source (reprint from Fast Company). I think those would be enough to support it as a study skill. (It actually is a useful method, I recommended something similar to students when I was teaching, but it didn't have a catchy name at the time.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

From what I can tell teh Quartz article repeats all the other articles I have seen, with no RS only referencing back to the books. The Journal articles I have found (3 inlcuding the one you mention) don't speak about where they got the technique from and actually don't find any support for the technique.DannyHatcher (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I quote journal article "The study revealed that there is not enough evidence to prove the existence of a significant difference in the results"DannyHatcher (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The Quartz article is by Shane Parrish of Farnam Street, a promoter of the method, who wrongly implies that Feynman originated this method. Feynman did not and Parrish is not RS concerning the topic. The MSN piece looks better, and as you say the IIEE would also be a good source. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't suggest the journal study to support any claims, merely as an example that it has been used in an academic study. Schazjmd (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that Schazjmd found some good sources (wtg!), I am a YES to redirect as suggested. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Jcubic (article creator) in case he wants to weigh in. Schazjmd (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I've written this article in Polish Wiki pl:Technika Feynmana, because I've had good book that was describing this topic, by Barbara Oakley. And there was not article like this. I think this is important to have this page in Wikipedia. One - it's named after Feynman and second - it's no different than SQ3R. OF course you can put everything into one big article, but I think it's better to have separate articles about different things. jcubic (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If you look at Polish article there is mention that it was used by Charles Darwin (when he imagine that someone came into his office and he needed to explain what he was working on to that person), but I don't have original book. So I didn't added this information to the article. I've tried to find information about this in Google, but didn't find anything. jcubic (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jcubic: Darwin was not using the four-step "Feynman technique" when he imagined explaining something in a simple way. Nor was Ernest Rutherford, when he imagined explaining something "to a barmaid." Nor was Einstein when he supposedly said, which he didn't, to imagine explaining something to a six-year-old or to a grandmother. But of all the ridiculous and promotional claims made for "the Feynman technique", the worst is the claim that Feynman invented it, taught it, or even used it. Any source that contains even one of these false claims about FT is clearly not a fact-checked reliable source. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand some reasons for having it as a separate article but the technique itself is a list of 4 things that are fairly obvious when looking into all other areas of learning articles. When thinking about an articles potential this wouldn't be able to go very high without duplicating much of the other learning articles. Just my thoughts as a new editor :) DannyHatcher (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Google Books doesn't show much of the Oakley book so I've put in an interlibrary loan request for it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Oakley attributes the FT to Scott Young (author of Ultralearning); I found a very early, possibly the first, exposition of it by him in a 2012 blogpost. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice find, HouseOfChange! Schazjmd (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, there have been blogs and videos that cite a couple of different books which they use to create this framework from stories of his study time. I would imagine that many individuals would have similar daily habits so the technique is a collection of habits people have recognized. My question would be, does it go beyond common sense?DannyHatcher (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What about if we send an email to ms Oakley with question about the techniques and a reference, in the book there is very big bibliography at the end. She has PhD so I think he know how to do research and she would not write something that don't have a source. Maybe some of you can send a message, https://barbaraoakley.com/contact/ I prefer that it would be someone that is native English speaker. But if no one wants to do this I can write one. jcubic (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It is an option but I thought She attributes it to Scott Young which isn't a reliable source. Just to add, having a PhD doesn't mean they know about the topic or have researched the area in depth, just that they have in something, which in her case is Systems engineering which is computers not learning or pedagogy.DannyHatcher (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting the information in the article is not verifiable. The problem that I see is notability: sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The Oakley book definitely does not contribute to notability. After a few sentences talking about simple explanations of complex concepts, it says: Learning expert Scott Young has developed this idea in what the calls the Feynman technique, which asks people to find a simple metaphor or analogy to help them grasp the essence of an idea. That's it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I personally think it should be put into a different page as a section rather than an article on its own. This wont get any further than a stub unless duplicated articles are brought in, which is pointless.DannyHatcher (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to "Plastic platypus learning"

There is little independent coverage of the "Feynman technique," a promotional name for iterating Plastic platypus learning. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As mentioned above, I don't think this should be an article, but could be a mention in one. I don't know much about redirects or how any of it works so I was trying to put links in the page to related learning techniques. The papers I referenced mentioned dialogic learning (learning through conversation) and learning through teaching, hence the 2 links. Does this work on an upvote system? DannyHatcher (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, DannyHatcher, Jcubic, I added a mention of the Feynman technique to Learning_by_teaching#Plastic_platypus_learning and redirected this title to that section. Thanks, everyone, for such an enjoyable and collaborative effort! Schazjmd (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)