[ta-learner]

> Learning is an exercise in creating space in your mind to represent a new map of interrelated symbols.

That might be how you learn, which is a good thing to know, but the presentation of your personal understanding of yourself come off like “this is the way for all”, which gives me the yucks.

For me I need to re-formulate things in my own words (or my own code) until I understand which parts of a system I have blind spots on, then dig into those, then rinse and repeat.

If I can express it in simple language in a way that hangs together, and go into detail about complicated parts of the system, I’m getting somewhere.

The downside of learning a system of human invention fundamentally is that one invariably comes to understand that it is a Rube Goldberg machine that some yahoos figured out how to sell.

[ismail]

> That might be how you learn, which is a good thing to know, but the presentation of your personal understanding of yourself come off like “this is the way for all”, which gives me the yucks.

Not sure why you assume OP is speaking about his own personal experience?

I am unsure what OP background is, but I will assume he knows what he is taking about.

there are theories of the mind that actually supports this view.

It goes back to early attempts at AI [0], and different perspectives on this also caused a split amongst researchers.

> If I can express it in simple language in a way that hangs together, and go into detail about complicated parts of the system, I’m getting somewhere.

What you have said does not actually contradict what OP has, but rather could be used to support what he said.

Yet it seems you believe it contradicts him?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_symbol_system

[warrenm]

Not sure why you'd complain about OP's comment ... then go and paraphrase what was posted saying this is how you do it "instead" (when it's not "instead", but "I didn't use your words, but agree with the process - here's how I word it")