idk title yet but some meta-pedagogy notes
even math/physics ppl have diff Ti understandings of the same concept, even though math theorems are like the most robust/coherent/rigorous ideas, there's just lots of variation in different angles/approaches to understanding the same thing, each with different emphasis and different blindspots. and so even if a teacher fully understands something AND can explain/teach it incredibly well to someone, that angle just might not work too well for someone else's thinking cadence (even if we bar the usual problems of bad pedagogy!!) (i like to think by making the analogy of how different students have different random idiosyncratic initializations in the latent vector space of understanding/ideas/etc and so they each require a different stochastic gradient descent path, and they have different hills to traverse and different gradients to follow)
(not to mention the fact that even if you have an incredibly great teacher who explains things incredibly well to you, you'll still have to tinker/grapple with the concept in your mind to really gain mastery/friendship with it. i think this is not just because practice is obviously needed to commit smth to familiarity or muscle memory, but also largely because practice/tinkering/grappling allows us to do like a survey/search/BFS/DFS on the possible blindspots/edge-cases/dead-ends of the nuances that we have to iron out.)
anyway, these pedagogical ""issues"" are even more present for things like philosophy with lots of subjectivity, or even fields who aim for objectivity but are just rly early/preparadigmatic in their development so there's less robust theories (eg meditation, etc)
so just wanted to write that out so we can keep that in mind when interacting with this site/text -- this stuff might not at all resonate with you, but im just sharing anything that was anticonfusing for me personally