Teaching and knowledge is compared to practice and experience, yet they are both analogous and dichotomous at the same time. It is impossible to say that these two are exactly alike or that they are completely different due to their natures. The two are comparable in a few ways. Both are ways of improving oneself at a certain practice. This is not to say that the practice is deemed good or not, but only to say that it will assist in the advancement of it. Another way in which the two are similar is that neither knowledge nor experience are inherent. They must be nurtured through their respective means. Both of these can also be done, and can be enhanced by doing it in groups.
The two also differ in many ways. First, the way that the means, teaching and practicing, are used today have a few implications to them. Teaching is usually seen as a tool for academic progress, thus resulting in the word teaching to be connected to learning and intellectualism. Practice is usually seen in a context for something physical, such as “I am about to go to basketball practice,” or “I need to practice my form.” Consequently, practice is more associated with physicality. What I believe to be the greatest difference between the 2 is in the difference between sympathy and one is empathy. To be empathetic is to feel bad for someone simply due to human instinct, while feeling sympathetic is to feel sorry for someone based on having previously experienced that particular ordeal or trial. Practice will give you first-hand experience of how to handle a problem while teaching will give a person knowledge of how to handle a certain problem. It is the difference between book smart and street smart, where one teaches you how to act while the other one grants the practitioner the ability to react.