[vasco]

> You cannot simply explain to someone complex stuff

This is absolutely not true. Many times I've experienced the moment of something complex "clicking" after hearing or reading an appropriate explanation for a phenomenon - finally seeing the right visual or appropriate example or comparison. I find it hard to believe you've never experienced this other than through grinding problem sets.

[ozim]

I don't believe something can "click" - without grinding first.

I believe something "clicked" only because you were grinding or already quite familiar with the topic.

There is no way to simply explain complex topic so someone would just get it or someone would "click" on after reading one book on the topic.

[vasco]

Like I said, I've had many of those moments. It is strange you haven't. You telling me I just wasn't aware of my own grinding is a bit strange. I've literally had examples where person A explains X and I don't get it, then 2 hours later person B explains X again and I get it. There's no grinding in the middle. There's good and bad ways to explain complex things, and the success rate will vary and the amount of "grinding" you need to do I think also varies depending on the quality of the explanations you get. Maybe I'm missing the core of your point.

[hobs]

The only charitable reading of the comment is that the GP is a purely sequential learner - they've dont have epiphanies and gasps of insight like a partially global learner. The learning style stuff is semi-debunked since usually people dont just fit in one category, but they are classically divided as:

Sequential learners prefer to organize information in a linear, orderly fashion. They learn in logically sequenced steps and work with information in an organized and systematic way.

Global learners prefer to organize information more holistically and in a seemingly random manner without seeing connections. They often appear scattered and disorganised in their thinking yet often arrive at a creative or correct end product.

[bikenaga]

What you're describing is well-known to mathematicians. The idea is that if you struggle hard with something (perhaps till you have to give up), your brain feels there is "unfinished business" and keeps working on the problem even when you're not consciously thinking ("grinding" in your words) about it. The second time you engage with the problem, you're primed to understand it - or understanding may just pop into your head, like an unexpected pizza delivery. A couple of examples:

The great mathematician Henri Poincare was struggling with a problem on fuchsian functions. He made some progress, and then: "Just at this time, I left Caen, where I was living, to go on a geological exursion under the auspices of the Schools of Mines. The incidents of the travel made me forget my mathematical work. Having reached Coutances, we entered an omnibus to go some place or other. At the moment when I put my foot on the step, the idea came to me, without anything in my former thoughts seeming to have paved the way for it ..." [1]

"Incubation is the work of the subconscious during the waiting time, which may be several years. Illumination, which can happen in a fraction of a second, is the emergence of the creative idea into the conscious. This almost always occurs when the mind is in a state of relaxation, and engaged lightly with ordinary matters. Helholtz's ideas usually came to him when he was walking in hilly country. ... Incidentally, the relaxed activity of shaving can be a fruitful source of minor idea; I used to postpone it, when possible, till after a period of work." [2]

[1] Jacques Hadamard, "The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field" (p. 12--13)

[2] J. E. Littlewood, "Littlewood's Miscellany" (p. 192) [A wonderful book, by the way!]

[vasco]

No, that is different. I'm aware when my background brain does work because like you say next time I arrive at the subject it's easier. This is not that.

[jawilson2]

I agree and disagree. I've definitely experienced this, but I've come to the conclusion that the problem is bouncing around in my head for those 2 hours, quietly grinding away in the background. Then, when person B explains it, my brain is more receptive to it. At work as a developer, I'll often encounter a difficult problem, and walk away for a few minutes. Then, if still stuck, I'll go to the gym. Usually when I come back I'll have the answer coded in 5 minutes.

However, I've definitely had the case where person B just explains it better (for me). I still can't completely discount that my brain was primed for it by person A.

[tr8798]

Just the fact that there are bad explanations for things immediately proves there are ones relatively better, i.e. good.

[vasco]

Exactly, I don't understand how people are bending backwards to not accept this. I could be explained integrals as "it's a banana", 2 hours later someone explains it properly and I get it, and some of these commenters would tell me my brain was working on "it's a banana" and that's why I understand integrals the second time.

[olddustytrail]

Well I've definitely had those moments but I happen to have an alternative explanation.

Person B explains X and I don't get it, then 2 hours later person A explains X again and I get it. There's no grinding in the middle. I just needed both perspectives to make sense of X.

[ozim]

I do not argue that guidance is not needed, it also is, but there is no shortcut that let's people skip own hard work by telling someone incantation of words or sentences in special order that will make things click - without even trying to grasp the subject.