Feynman Technique

SKILL.md

---
name: feynman-technique
description: "Activate when: user says 'explain this simply', 'teach me like I'm five', 'do I really understand this', 'what's the simplest way to think about X', 'what's missing in my model', wants to test genuine vs. surface understanding of a concept, or is preparing to teach/present and needs to verify their mental model. Do NOT activate when: user needs a fast decision on a concept already well-tested, or the concept is irreducibly formal (legal statutes, certain proofs) where simplification destroys essential content."
---

# Feynman Technique

## Overview

**The Feynman Technique** tests whether understanding is genuine (can reproduce, predict, extend) or surface (can recognize, recall jargon). It exploits a cognitive asymmetry: recognizing an explanation is much easier than reproducing it. Feynman's principle: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."

**Compose with neighbors:** [first-principles](../first-principles/SKILL.md) supplies the ground-level understanding Feynman Technique then tests. [metacognition](../metacognition/SKILL.md) monitors your thinking process; Feynman Technique stress-tests the output. [critical-thinking](../critical-thinking/SKILL.md) evaluates someone else's claimed understanding.

## When to Use

- Need to know whether understanding is genuine vs. surface; preparing to teach or make a high-stakes decision; a model is giving wrong predictions
- Someone says: *"explain it simply," "teach me like I'm five," "do you really understand this," "what am I missing?"*

**When NOT to use:** Fast decision on a concept already tested; concept too new with no source material for Step 3; concept irreducibly formal — use [first-principles](../first-principles/SKILL.md) instead; evaluating creativity or judgment, not understanding.

## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)

- **Engine mode:** user has a specific concept to test → run The Process directly.
- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → guide step by step.

In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.

1. **What it is.** The Feynman Technique is an understanding test: explain a concept in plain language as if teaching a beginner; every breakdown point is a map of what you don't actually understand.
2. **Check fit** — if irreducibly formal, redirect; if you need speed, skip.
3. **Elicit the specific concept.** "I want to understand things better" is not workable; "I want to test whether I understand compounding interest" is.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
4. **One step at a time.** Walk through each step with their actual concept; identify breakdown points together; locate source material for gaps.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
5. **Close by naming the specific gap most surprising** — the thing the user thought they understood but the test revealed they did not.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**

## The Process

Four steps producing a **Feynman Understanding Audit**. **Stop rule:** complete when explanation is genuinely plain — not when jargon is replaced with different jargon. If you cannot simplify further without factual loss, name the irreducible core.

1. **Choose the concept and write its name.** One specific concept, not a topic. "Compounding interest" is a concept. "Finance" is not.
2. **Produce a plain-language explanation.** As if to a curious 12-year-old: no jargon without definition, no circular definitions, no hedges. Record verbatim — do not edit in real time.
3. **Diagnose the gaps.** Mark every: (a) undefined technical term; (b) circular definition; (c) "it's complicated" hedge; (d) prediction that doesn't match reality. For each gap: name the specific question you cannot answer. Return to primary sources.
4. **Simplify and refine.** Rewrite incorporating what you learned. Test each analogy: does it break down where the original concept breaks down? If not, replace it.

### Output template

```
Feynman Understanding Audit: <concept>
Initial Explanation: <verbatim, unedited>
Gap Diagnosis: location | type (circular/jargon/unjustified/hedge) | specific question I cannot answer
Sources consulted per gap: gap → source → what it clarified
Refined Explanation: <revised>
Analogies: analogy | works when | breaks down when
Summary: genuine (can reproduce/predict/extend) | surface only | irreducible core
```

*→ Method in Action: [Feynman and the Challenger O-Ring Investigation (1986)](examples/feynman-challenger-o-ring-1986.md)*

## Feynman Audit Packs

| Domain | Surface recognition | Genuine understanding |
|---|---|---|
| Tech/engineering | Correct acronym use without explaining what problem each solves | Can predict failure modes and tradeoffs |
| Finance/investing | Fluent "DCF," "beta," "convexity" without explaining why formulas break down | Can explain to a non-finance person; spots when standard formulas give wrong answers |
| Leadership | Fluent framework use without explaining what behavior change each produces | Describes a concrete situation where each predicts a specific outcome |

Contribute a **Feynman Audit Pack**: one file cataloguing the top 5–10 surface-recognition patterns and what genuine understanding looks like.

## Applying It Well

- **The gap is the output** — not the explanation. Treat each gap as a precise instruction for what to study.
- **Do not edit the initial explanation in real time** — editing papers over gaps. Write first; diagnose second.
- **Circular definitions are the most common gap** — circle every term appearing in its own definition.
- **"Basically" and "essentially" are gap markers** — mark every hedge; they signal recognition substituted for understanding.
- **Return to primary sources for gap-filling** — a secondary summary may contain the same gap.

*→ Primary sources: [references/sources.md](references/sources.md)*

## Common Rationalizations

**[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.**

| Fake move | Reality |
|---|---|
| [D] **"I know what it means, I just can't explain it simply."** | This is the definition of surface recognition. If you understand it, you can explain it simply. |
| [D] **Replacing jargon with different jargon.** | "Capital allocation efficiency" for "return on investment" is not simplification. Test: can someone with no domain background follow it? |
| [D] **Producing a correct-sounding analogy that predicts nothing.** | An explanation producing no testable predictions has not conveyed genuine understanding. |
| [D] **Treating it as a communication exercise.** | The goal is to find where you cannot explain — not to produce a good explanation. |
| [D] **Stopping when the explanation "sounds good."** | A fluent jargon-reduced explanation ≠ genuine plain-language explanation. Test: does it predict outcomes and failure modes? |
| [D] **Filling gaps with a secondary summary that has the same gap.** | If you still cannot explain Y after reading "X works by doing Y," the gap is still open. Chase to a primary source. |
| [D] **Accepting "it's complicated" as a valid stopping point.** | It is never a conclusion — it is the beginning of gap diagnosis. |
| [D] **Using the technique on too large a topic.** | Identify the smallest falsifiable unit: a mechanism, a principle, a formula's derivation. |
| *→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern* | *What went wrong and why* |

## Red Flags

- "Plain language" explanation contains undefined technical terms
- No gaps identified — concept is trivial or diagnosis step was skipped
- Analogies not tested against failure conditions
- Gaps filled by secondary summary that "confirmed" original explanation
- "Basically," "essentially," or "kind of like" in refined explanation without unpacking
- Explanation cannot predict failure modes or boundary conditions

## Verification

- [ ] Single specific concept chosen and named (not a general topic)
- [ ] Initial explanation produced verbatim, without real-time editing
- [ ] Each gap categorized: circular / jargon / unjustified / hedge
- [ ] For each gap: specific question that cannot be answered was named
- [ ] Gaps filled from primary sources, not secondary summaries
- [ ] Refined explanation tested: can someone with no domain background follow it?
- [ ] Analogies have explicit stated breakdown conditions

---

*Part of **deciqAI Knowledge Skills** — open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. Built by deciqAI · https://deciqai.com · Contributions welcome — see the template at the repo root.*