Why video > written content for learning technical subjects | #12

The story of what happened when I checked my email this morning

In this 12th issue of The Pole:

• Should I stay or should I go? The two options you have when you run into something you don’t understand

• Option 1: What happens if I stay (i.e. sit there and struggle with it until you grok it)

• Option 2: What happens if I go (i.e. move on to the rest of the content)

• But what if it were a video? Why video content is better than written content for technical subjects

• Wait, I’m not convinced. I learn from written content all the time. The tradeoff that written content must make that video doesn’t have to make

• Ok fine, there is one case where written content is better for technical subjects. An exception to my conjecture.

Should I stay or should I go?

When I checked my email today, I noticed that one of my favorite newsletter writers put out a new edition.

His name is

Tivadar Danka

, and he writes a math newsletter.

The email today was on understanding matrix multiplication:

I learned matrix multiplication a few years ago when I took Linear Algebra in college.

Or did I?

To be more specific, I learned how to multiply matrices on paper. I learned how to be a computer and run the matrix multiplication algorithm.

But did I have intuition for what was going on? No.

I was hoping that clarity would follow later, but it never did.

So, when I saw this newsletter in my inbox, I got excited. Heck yeah! I'd love to understand what's going on.

I opened it, and...

Sheesh. There's already a lot going on.

At this point, I have a two options:

1. stop, digest the picture, and make sure everything makes sense. I’ll have thoughts like

   • What're A and B again? Ok, matrices, got it.

   • What're a and b again? Ok, rows.

   • Ok, so i and j are the row and column numbers. Wait does it begin at 0 or 1? I think it’s 1?

   • Ok which one is which again? Ok i is rows and j is columns.

   • Wait, why are there two sets of i and j? Why is it (a ij)ij?

   • What does it mean for i, j to be equal to n, m?

   • Shoot. How do I Google the above 2 questions?

2. glance at the picture for a few seconds, try and get the Big Picture, and then move on

I've been at this crossroad many times. Here is what often happens in each case.

Option 1: What happens if I stay

If I pick option 1, I risk burning out. There are typically two reasons that happens:

it doesn't stick

Take, for example, trying to keep straight which letter refers to a row index and which one refers to a column index.

I’m stubborn, so I’ll sit there and rehearse:

Ok, i is for rows and j is for columns…

Sometimes I’ll come up with a mnemonic if I can think of a good one.

Then after some rehearsal, I’ll quiz myself.

…and I draw a blank.

I’ll rehearse it again and quiz myself again.

…and still I draw a blank.

UGH!!!

I'll have a question for which the answer isn't easily accessible

For example, earlier, when I asked

Wait, why is there two sets of i and j? Why is it (a ij)ij?

The answer to that question isn’t in the newsletter. So I either have to consult a textbook, Google, or some other resource.

From past experience, that can be an annoying wild goose chase.

And that’s just for one question. Tracking down answers for a few questions can easily reach an hour of effort.

At this point, you might be thinking:

Why not just move on? Do you have to know the answers to those questions? Can you get by with the big picture?

Option 2: What happens if I go

Let’s say I commit to not getting lost in the details.

I quickly discover that those definitions I skimmed over keep popping up.

As I continue skimming, I run into more words that sound familiar.

Matrices represent linear transformations. You know, those that stretch, skew, rotate, flip, or otherwise linearly distort the space.

The images of basis vectors form the columns of the matrix. We can visualize this in two dimensions.

Space, linear transformation, image, basis. These are words that I hazily know what they mean individually. But, if you asked me for the definition of a space or linear transformation, I couldn’t give them to you without a lot of struggle.

As a result, when I read a sentence like

The images of basis vectors form the columns of the matrix.

my brain goes

It turns out most of the sentences in the newsletter are like that.

So I have two choices: skim through the newsletter and get next to nothing out of it, or put a lot of effort into tracking down information.

Unfortunately, I don’t want to understand matrix multiplication bad enough to put that much effort into it. Plus, I have other stuff to do.

But what if it were a video?

I run into this dilemma a lot. In fact, more often than not. It is my default expectation when I dive into written technical content.

To be clear, It's not that Tivadar is a bad writer. He's really good, actually.

It's more so that

• writing good technical content is hard, and

• at least for me, video would be a better medium for content like this

Why is video a better medium? Because you burn a lot of cognitive load recalling and locating information.

When you run into a word or symbol you don't know fluently, you have two choices:

• struggle to recall it from memory, or

• search for an example or definition (perhaps elsewhere in the content, or using Google)

When you recall it from memory, that burns cognitive load.

When you search for it, you have to

1. hold what you're looking for in short term memory,

2. once you find what you're looking for, hold what you found in short term memory,

3. navigate back to where you were in the original content, and then

4. re-orient yourself to your previous context with the new information.

All of that burns cognitive load, too.

Now, imagine having to do that 5 times before you're even 20% of the way done.

With a video, you can put the information the audience needs right there in the frame when it’s needed.

Wait, I’m not convinced. I learn from written content all the time.

If you're an ardent defender of writing as a medium, you might object by saying,

Ok Josh, but that's not a problem with writing as a medium. The problem is the lack of detail.

My response to that is:

Have you ever followed instructions to assemble furniture? Did you wish that there was a video you could watch while you put it together?

You can't escape the cognitive load when it comes to written content.

If you're assembling IKEA furniture, they're going to tell you what parts A through H refer to. Then, on page 3, it's going to say connect part F to part G.

You're going to think, wait, that looks like part H. Which one is F again? Then you’ll turn back to page 1. Wait, what was I looking for again?

Don't you wish you were watching a video that pointed to each part in real time? Why waste brain power locating and recalling part definitions and orientations?

It’s not enough to include details. You have to include the right details at the right times in the right contexts.

That means repeating details and definitions of terms and symbols a few times until you’re sure they’re securely suspended in the audience’s head.

But then, with writing, you run into another problem: bloat.

Think about it like this. If you have a 5 page explanation, adding a copy of a definition might take an extra 10-20% of a page. That adds an extra 2-4% to the length of the how-to guide.

Imagine doing that for every technical term the first few times they’re used.

For dense topics, that might 5x the length of the explanation to 25 pages.

Sheeeeeesh!

You can be efficient with writing by being terse and not defining anything.

You can be accommodating with writing by defining everything and giving lots of details.

But you can't do both. With written content, adding a definition on page 3 pushes content on page 3 to page 4.

Contrast that with a 10 minute video.

With video, you can do both because you can accommodate efficiently.

You can add a definition as a caption without increasing the length of the video.

You can add a definition to one section of the video without effecting the other sections.

Ok fine, there is one case where written content is better for technical subjects.

Granted, I'm not trying to say that video is a panacea. Video isn't strictly better than writing. Otherwise you'd be watching this instead of reading it!

Making videos takes a lot more effort than writing. It makes more sense to write things when the subject isn't that technical or your audience isn't that big.

In fact, there is one scenario where writing as a medium makes more sense for a technical subject: when you’re an expert.

Everything I’ve written in this newsletter assumes we’re writing for a beginner to intermediate audience.

But if you’re an expert, the rules change. Video affords transferring information efficiently and flexibly, but that’s not the problem you’re solving.

As an expert, you’re more likely to be locating information than learning it. For a given piece of technical content, 95% of it isn’t new to you. You’re scanning for that 5%, and you probably know what it looks like.

Text affords more tools for searching, like CTRL + F. That’s a lot harder for videos.

---

But enough about experts. We’re talking about me! And I want a video.

You might be thinking: wait, aren't there already math videos on YouTube?

True, but those have their own problems. Which is why I’m scratching my own itch and learning After Effects to make my own!

I'll be glad to cover what those problems are in a future edition, since this one is getting a bit long. :)