Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Layman's terms vs actual scientific explanation?
rybo
Posts: 5,424 Member
in Debate Club
Does it really truly matter if someone doesn't care to have the physiological mechanism of a particular function (fat loss, muscle building, energy metabolism etc) explained to them in detail? Or if they use general terms like "toning up"?
Where does the line fall between making someone feel stupid and just going along and answering their question? I have many people ask for help, toning up, but not looking to get too bulky. If I went into a thesis on these terms and issues, they'd be sure to look elsewhere for help.
Where does the line fall between making someone feel stupid and just going along and answering their question? I have many people ask for help, toning up, but not looking to get too bulky. If I went into a thesis on these terms and issues, they'd be sure to look elsewhere for help.
8
Replies
-
I don't believe so. What matters is the output. I don't get caught up in the unnecessary details and focus on what works.
I generally include a level of detail to suit multiple readers, but effective communication requires lay terminology.4 -
Depends on who you're talking to, and how good you are at explaining technical terms in laymens language.I personally like knowing more, and get irritated at people who just want to be told what to do without understanding why. It also infuriates me when someone giving me an answer can't state why that is the answer, or worse refuses to answer by repeatedly answering the question they wished I had asked. That tendency got me into trouble way more than it should have in school. I was always the kid the teachers loved or hated. There was no in between.3
-
To use a common metaphor, you do not need to be an aerospace engineer capable of disassembling an F15 to be able to capably fly one. The same applies here. Being able to understand the science is helpful, especially since there is so much BS out there in health and fitness, but certianly not required. Most, and by most I would say about 95% of the population, would much rather have things explained to them in plain conversational English than to have someone send them a link from the NIH and tell them to "read it, peasant". Not to mention the vernacular in such papers is outside the knowledge of most people just looking to drop some pounds.
My undergraduate degree is in molecular biology (A field I do not work in now, which is common), and oddly enough I am more interested in it these days than I was back then. Likely because I am no longer forced to do it for labs or a letter grade. So the science I love, and I have had to read so many friggin journal articles in my life I sort of take it for granted how it must look like Mandarin Chinese to the unaffiliated. That said, the following article offers some helpful guidelines to people that do want to give it a go: http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/01/how-read-scientific-paper
8 -
Depends, and often depends on whether the terminology used reflects a misunderstanding that is worth clearing up.
Toning is a good example. I think it generally means "want to look leaner and have some muscle tone, but not big muscles/have a particular look that is perceived as bulky." For some women, this is based on the idea that building muscle WILL result in looking bulky and not lean (or super muscular accidentally), and so only very light weights should be used. It's worth explaining how it works to get rid of those ideas, I think. It also might help understand what they really want to have the conversation, although I'd do it nicely.
Same with a lot of the food/nutrition related things.4 -
I learned that you have to level your "layman's terms" accordingly.
For someone who just entered the gym for the first time, there are more pressing matters than explaining them every detail of muscle metabolism or correcting their use of "toning.
For someone who is a little more into it, I adapt accordingly.
I have to do this a lot in my work, which is interdisciplinary and I need to explain a lot of what I do in a more "broken down" manner to some of the people I work with. You have to find the balance for everyone, which is not condescending "baby speech" to them but also not far fetched unintelligible academic blah.1 -
If you don't speak on someones level then how are you really helping them? My brother is one of those people that can explain something complex to anyone in a way they can understand it (he did with me many times), that is such a useful skill. I see on here so many people get caught up in sounding smart or trying to make a point that they never actually answer the question the person posted. I always find that very frustrating and useless. If you really want to help then you can't talk on a level someone doesn't understand.7
-
emmydoodles83 wrote: »I see on here so many people get caught up in sounding smart or trying to make a point that they never actually answer the question the person posted. I always find that very frustrating and useless. If you really want to help then you can't talk on a level someone doesn't understand.
Hmm. But I also see people who just assume others are so dumb they cannot understand the actual facts, so justify simplifications that are not true. I find that to be actually insulting to the people they are aimed at and probably underestimating them, rather condescending.
I think it's polite, not "caught up in sounding smart" to assume that others are capable of understanding things that are not really that hard, and wrong and selling them short to assume they should be fed myths or inaccurate information or cannot understand the facts.
Not saying you are saying we should do the latter, but I see that happen, and that's what I try to combat against in explaining things as best I can (I think reasonably understandably, but also -- because I think this is important and again part of politeness -- not assuming that they are dumb or unwilling/uninterested to learn or unable to comprehend things I can).2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »emmydoodles83 wrote: »I see on here so many people get caught up in sounding smart or trying to make a point that they never actually answer the question the person posted. I always find that very frustrating and useless. If you really want to help then you can't talk on a level someone doesn't understand.
Hmm. But I also see people who just assume others are so dumb they cannot understand the actual facts, so justify simplifications that are not true. I find that to be actually insulting to the people they are aimed at and probably underestimating them, rather condescending.
I think it's polite, not "caught up in sounding smart" to assume that others are capable of understanding things that are not really that hard, and wrong and selling them short to assume they should be fed myths or inaccurate information or cannot understand the facts.
Not saying you are saying we should do the latter, but I see that happen, and that's what I try to combat against in explaining things as best I can (I think reasonably understandably, but also -- because I think this is important and again part of politeness -- not assuming that they are dumb or unwilling/uninterested to learn or unable to comprehend things I can).
Good point, but I think a lot of times you can kind of tell how much or little they know depending on the way they phrase their question. I would rather start with a simple answer (because that would cover any knowledge base) and if that doesn't do it for them then you know they can understand it and get more in depth as you go.
2 -
emmydoodles83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »emmydoodles83 wrote: »I see on here so many people get caught up in sounding smart or trying to make a point that they never actually answer the question the person posted. I always find that very frustrating and useless. If you really want to help then you can't talk on a level someone doesn't understand.
Hmm. But I also see people who just assume others are so dumb they cannot understand the actual facts, so justify simplifications that are not true. I find that to be actually insulting to the people they are aimed at and probably underestimating them, rather condescending.
I think it's polite, not "caught up in sounding smart" to assume that others are capable of understanding things that are not really that hard, and wrong and selling them short to assume they should be fed myths or inaccurate information or cannot understand the facts.
Not saying you are saying we should do the latter, but I see that happen, and that's what I try to combat against in explaining things as best I can (I think reasonably understandably, but also -- because I think this is important and again part of politeness -- not assuming that they are dumb or unwilling/uninterested to learn or unable to comprehend things I can).
Good point, but I think a lot of times you can kind of tell how much or little they know depending on the way they phrase their question. I would rather start with a simple answer (because that would cover any knowledge base) and if that doesn't do it for them then you know they can understand it and get more in depth as you go.
You can often tell by the questions people ask. Many come to the forums seeking support of their beliefs and ask leading questions, fail to note relevant specifics, and tend to be combative.
Several fall victim to Google-fu and cite articles they believe support their claim, yet often these article are completely irrelevant or in many cases directly dispute the original claim.0 -
It really depends. There are quite a few newer(and some older) who bandwagon on the "starvation mode isn't a thing"... which it's not, anytime a discussion of adaptive thermogenesis comes up, when the issue is more complicated than a soundbite.
Toning is another one where giving a brief explanation of what it takes to build bulky muscles will generally help more than "ELMM".
Having good vetted stickies goes a long way.
Ditto for the inevitable "I want to run faster" discussions, Well meaning, well informed posters pile on to the "run further", which is true, but some people don't want to run 5 or 6 or 8 miles a day, and just want to run 3 miles quicker.3 -
emmydoodles83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »emmydoodles83 wrote: »I see on here so many people get caught up in sounding smart or trying to make a point that they never actually answer the question the person posted. I always find that very frustrating and useless. If you really want to help then you can't talk on a level someone doesn't understand.
Hmm. But I also see people who just assume others are so dumb they cannot understand the actual facts, so justify simplifications that are not true. I find that to be actually insulting to the people they are aimed at and probably underestimating them, rather condescending.
I think it's polite, not "caught up in sounding smart" to assume that others are capable of understanding things that are not really that hard, and wrong and selling them short to assume they should be fed myths or inaccurate information or cannot understand the facts.
Not saying you are saying we should do the latter, but I see that happen, and that's what I try to combat against in explaining things as best I can (I think reasonably understandably, but also -- because I think this is important and again part of politeness -- not assuming that they are dumb or unwilling/uninterested to learn or unable to comprehend things I can).
Good point, but I think a lot of times you can kind of tell how much or little they know depending on the way they phrase their question. I would rather start with a simple answer (because that would cover any knowledge base) and if that doesn't do it for them then you know they can understand it and get more in depth as you go.
I agree, but I think it's important to be accurate and not decide they can't understand things. There are pretty simple ways to explain anything they need to know.
It's a super pet peeve of mine when people explain things in a way that suggests they are assuming I am an idiot, so I try to avoid that with others. I'd say that's the opposite of trying to sound smart (and I usually use pretty straightforward terms), but actually respecting the other person. Again, I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, so am not assuming that we are in disagreement here.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »emmydoodles83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »emmydoodles83 wrote: »I see on here so many people get caught up in sounding smart or trying to make a point that they never actually answer the question the person posted. I always find that very frustrating and useless. If you really want to help then you can't talk on a level someone doesn't understand.
Hmm. But I also see people who just assume others are so dumb they cannot understand the actual facts, so justify simplifications that are not true. I find that to be actually insulting to the people they are aimed at and probably underestimating them, rather condescending.
I think it's polite, not "caught up in sounding smart" to assume that others are capable of understanding things that are not really that hard, and wrong and selling them short to assume they should be fed myths or inaccurate information or cannot understand the facts.
Not saying you are saying we should do the latter, but I see that happen, and that's what I try to combat against in explaining things as best I can (I think reasonably understandably, but also -- because I think this is important and again part of politeness -- not assuming that they are dumb or unwilling/uninterested to learn or unable to comprehend things I can).
Good point, but I think a lot of times you can kind of tell how much or little they know depending on the way they phrase their question. I would rather start with a simple answer (because that would cover any knowledge base) and if that doesn't do it for them then you know they can understand it and get more in depth as you go.
I agree, but I think it's important to be accurate and not decide they can't understand things. There are pretty simple ways to explain anything they need to know.
It's a super pet peeve of mine when people explain things in a way that suggests they are assuming I am an idiot, so I try to avoid that with others. I'd say that's the opposite of trying to sound smart (and I usually use pretty straightforward terms), but actually respecting the other person. Again, I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, so am not assuming that we are in disagreement here.
lol I actually don't think we are in disagreement, just talking at different sides of the same coin. You feel it is polite and respectful to not assume someone is too stupid to understand something that you are explaining in the way you explain it, and I think it is better to explain something as simply (not condescendingly though, making someone feel stupid is not nice) as possible and then work up from there if the person wants a more in depth explanation. That's what I got from our discussion, neither wrong just different approaches.
1 -
Pretty much. And without a specific example it's hard to say how differently we'd approach it.0
-
It's this secretly about whether people should be allowed to call their group classes HIIT?8
-
I'd start with KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid, and go from there.3
-
emmydoodles83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »emmydoodles83 wrote: »I see on here so many people get caught up in sounding smart or trying to make a point that they never actually answer the question the person posted. I always find that very frustrating and useless. If you really want to help then you can't talk on a level someone doesn't understand.
Hmm. But I also see people who just assume others are so dumb they cannot understand the actual facts, so justify simplifications that are not true. I find that to be actually insulting to the people they are aimed at and probably underestimating them, rather condescending.
I think it's polite, not "caught up in sounding smart" to assume that others are capable of understanding things that are not really that hard, and wrong and selling them short to assume they should be fed myths or inaccurate information or cannot understand the facts.
Not saying you are saying we should do the latter, but I see that happen, and that's what I try to combat against in explaining things as best I can (I think reasonably understandably, but also -- because I think this is important and again part of politeness -- not assuming that they are dumb or unwilling/uninterested to learn or unable to comprehend things I can).
Good point, but I think a lot of times you can kind of tell how much or little they know depending on the way they phrase their question. I would rather start with a simple answer (because that would cover any knowledge base) and if that doesn't do it for them then you know they can understand it and get more in depth as you go.
You can often tell by the questions people ask. Many come to the forums seeking support of their beliefs and ask leading questions, fail to note relevant specifics, and tend to be combative.
Several fall victim to Google-fu and cite articles they believe support their claim, yet often these article are completely irrelevant or in many cases directly dispute the original claim.
I have to chime in to support this position. I can't tell you the number of times I have seen people cite a paper which they feel somehow supports their claim, though when you actually read the paper it does not say anything of the sort. In a couple of situations the paper in question actually contradicted the claim by the OP entirely.
I think some people only scan the abstract, or hell even just the title of the paper, then link to it and call it a day thinking nobody will notice. I guess that linking to a scientific paper is preferable to some health guru's blog, as I might actually learn something from the paper, but I find it hilarious that people would link to a paper as "evidence" when they are quite obviously not even remotely familiar with the content.
I also have to chime in to support of another poster who brought up those lucky souls out there who have the either literary or linguistic chops to boil down incredibly complex concepts into easily digestible chunks of knowledge. These types of people rock, and are a rare find that I hope choose a career in education/academia.3 -
The problem with trying to lay things out in "layman's terms" around here is that you will always find those folks that hang around just waiting to ....
so, I think a lot of people get a little too detailed with their explanations just as a reaction to those folks.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Depends, and often depends on whether the terminology used reflects a misunderstanding that is worth clearing up.
Toning is a good example. I think it generally means "want to look leaner and have some muscle tone, but not big muscles/have a particular look that is perceived as bulky." For some women, this is based on the idea that building muscle WILL result in looking bulky and not lean (or super muscular accidentally), and so only very light weights should be used. It's worth explaining how it works to get rid of those ideas, I think. It also might help understand what they really want to have the conversation, although I'd do it nicely.
Same with a lot of the food/nutrition related things.
This, this and this...0 -
@supaflyrobby1, one of my undergraduate degrees is in Mandarin Chinese.
Most of the papers posted on here are a challenge for my unscientific mind, and I have to put an evening aside to work my way through them to a comprehension level I am happy with. By then it has been reduced to 'people speak' in my mind.
That was said to illustrate that someone can be intelligent with little scientific exposure/knowledge.
I think concise answers, aimed at the poster, but encompassing the whole audience, work best, and so replying in the same tone(?) is usually the way I try to go.
Dispelling myths and misconceptions is often hard, and I think simpler explanations with links for those who like the science behind is a good way to go.
But who am I to speak, I never get into the heavy stuff, I don't feel qualified.
@NorthCascades, off to my hiit aquafit later- ooh I could make it a thing!
Cheers, h.3 -
I think you do a disservice if you don't give an explanation of what something means-especially things that are so commonly misunderstood. "I want to tone up" "I have a slow metabolism" "I have to eat clean" So many misconceptions out there, it's not too difficult to give a polite explanation of what something means. Use humor and relate to the person. I personally try to answer questions simply, and then casually explain why as the conversation (or session) continues.
If someone is coming to you for help, the ultimate goal should be for them to be able to branch out on there own. How can they do that if they don't have a basic grasp of what they are doing? (Or what you are trying to do for them?) Someone mentioned people asking for help increasing speed when running Make them a plan, and explain the plan. Of course you will have people that want to blindly follow whatever you tell them, but at least give them a chance to be empowered. This way, if they have questions in the future-they can decipher all of the advice they get and make a more informed decision about their next move.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 908 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions