Being able to explain things simply and being deeply skilled in a specific domain seem like similar but different abilities.
Being deeply skilled in a domain means understanding its specific terminology and the dominant modeling approaches used in that field.
Explaining things simply, on the other hand, is about deciding what to cut out and what to reinforce when communicating with others or with the public, within a domain you're already skilled in. So they're similar, but I think they're different areas of competence.
For example, when writing, you usually model your readership. And in the process of adjusting your explanation to fit that audience, you inevitably lose some information in areas you're deeply familiar with, or you add things like analogies to compensate
I think they are largely uncorrelated, in fact I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that they are anti-correlated. James Maxwell, who everyone regards as absolute genius, was a famously bad teacher. My own grad experience also adds that an absolute beast of a researcher is not necessarily the best teacher. I believe the term "curse of knowledge" is popular enough that it suggests people who are way too deep into their abstractions seldom rise above it when it comes to communication. Hence the stereotype of nerds being socially awkward and hard to communicate with.
Being able to explain things simply and being deeply skilled in a specific domain seem like similar but different abilities.
Being deeply skilled in a domain means understanding its specific terminology and the dominant modeling approaches used in that field.
Explaining things simply, on the other hand, is about deciding what to cut out and what to reinforce when communicating with others or with the public, within a domain you're already skilled in. So they're similar, but I think they're different areas of competence.
For example, when writing, you usually model your readership. And in the process of adjusting your explanation to fit that audience, you inevitably lose some information in areas you're deeply familiar with, or you add things like analogies to compensate
I think they are largely uncorrelated, in fact I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that they are anti-correlated. James Maxwell, who everyone regards as absolute genius, was a famously bad teacher. My own grad experience also adds that an absolute beast of a researcher is not necessarily the best teacher. I believe the term "curse of knowledge" is popular enough that it suggests people who are way too deep into their abstractions seldom rise above it when it comes to communication. Hence the stereotype of nerds being socially awkward and hard to communicate with.