Being able to say things about a thing can be accomplished by memorizing trivia.
Knowing what the thing is implies understanding. This does not automatically follow from knowing trivia.
Though people tend to build an understanding while amassing trivia, so it’s considered a good enough approximation for schools. Hence multiple choice tests. Personally, I think it is lazy and incentivizes wrong ways to teach and bad ways to study.
Also also, this is why the prevalence of internet access and now ChatGPT is so scary for schools: Students can easily provide this appoximated understanding without having any.
Strictly no. But the overlap is significant.
Being able to say things about a thing can be accomplished by memorizing trivia.
Knowing what the thing is implies understanding. This does not automatically follow from knowing trivia.
Though people tend to build an understanding while amassing trivia, so it’s considered a good enough approximation for schools. Hence multiple choice tests. Personally, I think it is lazy and incentivizes wrong ways to teach and bad ways to study.
Also also, this is why the prevalence of internet access and now ChatGPT is so scary for schools: Students can easily provide this appoximated understanding without having any.
What’s the difference between knowing what a thing is and knowing a bunch of things about a thing?
Is it backstory? Is that the key thing to know?