The Cheesecake Scale of Explanation
How much explanation is too much explanation?
(And how much is too little?)
When seeking an explanation from an experts - or as an expert, giving an explanation - how can we ensure that the explanation is at the appropriate level, and has the appropriate focus, so that we neither waste time nor exclude crucial details?
I have a tool to suggest for this purpose.
Recipes are a great blueprint for calibrating explanations. A written recipe can be very terse, or very detailed, depending on how much the writer wants to communicate and/or how much the reader cares to hear.
Compare the following levels of detail which might be given within a specific step of a cheesecake recipe:
***
The Cheesecake Scale
Level 0
”Turn off the heat and allow the cheesecake to cool in the oven.”
(no explanation, just instructions)
Level 1
“Turn off the heat and allow the cheesecake to cool in the oven, to prevent surface cracks.”
(explanation = telling you the intended result)
Level 2
”Turn off the heat and allow the cheesecake to cool in the oven, to prevent surface cracks, by ensuring that the surface and the interior of the cheesecake cool down at a similar rate.” [possibly adding more detail, like:] “As the cheesecake filling cools, it contracts, so if the surface cools faster than the interior - as it would at room temperature - then it also contracts faster than the interior, resulting in cracks.”
(explanation = telling you the intended result and the mechanism behind it)
Level 3
This level diversifies into one or more of the following:
“If you let the cheesecake cool in the oven and it cracks anyway, other possible explanations are....”
“Other recipes where the 'allow to cool in the oven method' is useful include...”
“But why does a cheesecake filling contract as it cools? For a fuller understanding of this, we have to consider...”
(explanation = deep dive into specific interest; may or may not be prefaced with Level 2.)
***
We can see how this generalises out. People asking for an explanation might be asking:
0 - “What do I do next”? (Not strictly speaking an ‘explanation’ at all, but a request for instructions)
1 - “What is this going to achieve?" (A request for a justification: why am I being asked to do this?)
2 - “How does this work?” (A request for a causal explanation - the most archetypal explanation)
3 - “Tell me more about X specifically” (A request for a deep-dive exploration/explanation)
It’s important to know which of these you are asking for, or being asked for. But, whilst by default, an expert should try to tailor the level of explanation to what the asker wants, there may be circumstances where that does not line up with what the asker needs; or else it does not line up with what the expert is able to provide at that moment of time.
To explore this further, let’s look at the benefits and potential pitfalls of each level.
***
Level 0 - “What do I do next”?
Beneficial when:
It's an emergency. Your asker needs to know what to do, not why.
You are addressing a fellow expert who can ‘read your shorthand’.
You are addressing a non-expert who wants a brief reminder; they already received a fuller explanation.
For whatever reason, your asker genuinely does not want any information beyond the instruction (due to stress, overwhelm, lack of curiosity, etc.) and there is no urgent requirement for them to learn more.
The pitfalls:
People can feel patronised or controlled if they are not given reasons why actions are being taken/why they should take certain actions. They might be less likely to trust you or follow the instructions.
To address this: outside of emergency situations, security issues, or conversations with fellow experts who can 'read your shorthand', only use Level 0 with the explicit agreement of your audience, and make it clear you will increase depth of explanation on request.
Without the context as to why the action is taken, they might not realise it when the action ceases to be appropriate (e.g., “I cut my beef roast in half because Grandma used to do it” - but Grandma only did it to fit the beef in her small roasting trays).
To address this: as far as possible, avoid using Level 0 in situations where people will have to act in response to your instructions for long periods of time whilst unsupervised.
Level 1 - “What is this going to achieve?"
Beneficial when:
Your asker wants to feel basically informed about the process, but cannot (or do not want to) invest much time in learning details.
You are feeling out how much explanation your asker wants, and you make it clear that you are ready to add more detail if they request it.
The pitfalls are:
Askers who receive a Level 1 explanation without realising that it is only a Level 1 may think they understand more than they do. Then, when unexpected things happen due to complexities you didn't cover, they may believe that you misinformed them. In the example: suppose that they forgot to leave the cheesecake in the oven to cool, and took it out to cool on the surface instead, but it still didn't crack. It was a blisteringly hot day, so the cheesecake cooled down relatively slowly and evenly anyway. They realise their 'mistake' but conclude it didn't actually matter, so the recipe must be wrong. If they had a Level 2 explanation, they would probably be able to work out what happened - and why they should leave it in next time, especially if the weather is cold.
To address this: when giving a Level 1 explanation, make it clear that it is only a Level 1 and there is 'more to it' then you've covered. Encourage your listeners to come back to you if they don't get the results they expect.
Level 2 - “How does this work?”
Beneficial when:
Your asker wants to have enough understanding of the process to inform their own decision-making.
Your asker will need to explain the material to others, and want to understand enough to enable them to answer other people's questions with confidence.
You have sufficient time to provide an explanation of this level (required).
The pitfalls are:
Your asker might not be making the decision you assume they are. Perhaps it’s not “do I leave the cheesecake in the oven to cool or not?” but “do I make a festive cheesecake instead of a Christmas pudding this year; given that I can’t hold up the oven for too long on Christmas Day?” Then they need to know that baking it a day ahead is fine, or that the cracking effect could be minimised if they keep the cheesecake in a warm place, or that they can conceal any cracks with a fruit topping: details which won’t crop up in a ‘general explanation’.
To address this: make sure you know what decisions are being made on the basis of the information you are giving and calibrate accordingly.
If you are educating an educator, then you have an additional level of responsibility to ensure that they are able to explain the material to a third party (especially if there is safety information involved).
To address this: check that they can explain the material back to you. Depending on your role and responsibilities, you might also watch them explain the material to a beginner and then check how much understanding is actually passed on.
Level 3 - “Tell me more about X specifically”
Beneficial when:
Your asker wants to build their own expertise in your area, and would benefit from a deep-dive.
Your asker has one particular question that they want to explore in depth, as it relates to their own area.
Your asker has a decent Level 2 understanding already (with some caveats, below).
There is *plenty* of time to work with them.
The pitfalls are:
Overenthusiasm on the part of the expert (and/or asker). If your asker only needs a Level 2 explanation, resist initiating a Level 3 explanation. Either they are not interested (and may be too polite to say so); or they are, and you both go down a rabbit-hole together when you need to be doing something else.
To address this: know what your asker's purpose is. If that purpose does not require a Level 3 explanation, but you both still want to go ahead with one just because it’s interesting, then either time-bound the conversation or defer it to an informal setting.
Going deeper in the wrong direction. The “what are the other possible explanations for cracks?” people want a very different conversation to the “why does a cheesecake filling contract as it cools?” people, and if you mix them up then everyone is going to have a very frustrating time.
To address this: as above, touch base on their learning goals frequently. Encourage them to frame their questions and to guide the direction.
Askers who receive a Level 3 explanation of some specialised detail of a topic having skipped over much of Level 2 may think they understand more than they do; and/or may convince other people of this; as snippets of specialist knowledge can be treated as a ‘green flags’ indicating a broader understanding of the topic. Also, unfortunately, isolated Level 3 explanations can be used as a means to cherry-pick details and manufacture a justification for a decision that’s already been made. "You told me there are lots of ways a cheesecake can crack, not just this way, and I'm not going to manage to avoid all of them, so there's no point". They are wrong, but far worse they are persuasively wrong. People will listen to them and end up with bad cheesecakes. It’s best not to enable this behaviour if we can avoid it.
To address this: as far as possible, insist on a suitable Level 2 foundation first rather than giving an isolated Level 3 explanation. If this isn’t possible, then flag any obvious (to you) risks of overgeneralisation or misinterpretation that might happen as a result of getting the Level 3 explanation in isolation.
One possible exception: if your asker's interest stems from a narrow interdisciplinary connection, it may be safe to skip into Level 3 content without full Level 2 context. Suppose their ‘deep dive’ question is “Cheesecake contracts as it cools, but water expands as it is frozen - why the difference, and what happens if you freeze cheesecake?” This person isn’t trying to bake a cheesecake, they’re trying to design a chemistry experiment. Neither they nor anyone else will mistake them for a master chef as a result, so the 'green flag' risk is mitigated.
***
Using the Cheesecake Scale
When you are asking for an explanation, you can use the scale to clarify what level of explanation you want.
When you are being asked for an explanation:
use the scale to clarify what level of explanation you are being asked for;
consider the suitability of that level of explanation to the circumstances, and
EITHER pitch the explanation at the level your asker wants,
OR politely redirect them to a more appropriate level of explanation.
Hopefully that explains it.
(Sorry.)
