Explaining an algorithm well is translation, not simplification

The advice I gave on LinkedIn: “In my experience, using visual aids like diagrams or flowcharts is highly effective for explaining complex algorithms. These tools make abstract concepts more tangible and relatable. Additionally, employing analogies that connect algorithms to everyday experiences helps bridge the gap between technical terms and familiarity. It’s also crucial to simplify language and avoid jargon, ensuring that explanations remain straightforward.”

I’d give that advice again, with one word I want to push back on: simplify.

“Simplify” is the instinct everyone reaches for, and it’s subtly the wrong target. Simplifying tends to mean removing — cut the detail, drop the qualifiers, shave the idea down until it fits. Do too much of it and you’re no longer explaining the algorithm; you’re describing a different, simpler thing that happens to share its name. The manager leaves “understanding” something that isn’t true.

Translation is a better frame. A translator’s job isn’t to make the sentence shorter — it’s to carry the same meaning into a language the listener speaks. That’s what a good analogy does: it preserves the structure of the idea while swapping the vocabulary. “It sorts by repeatedly splitting the pile in half” is not a dumbed-down algorithm; it’s the real one, told in kitchen terms instead of code terms. The accuracy survives the trip.

So when I explain something technical, I’m not asking “how do I make this simpler?” I’m asking “what does this person already understand that has the same shape?” The diagram and the plain language matter, but they’re in service of that — finding the existing thing in their head to map the new thing onto. Get the mapping right and you haven’t lost any truth. You’ve just spoken it in a language they already know.