It's unfortunate you've read my post as a claim to avoid actually learning these.
I was pointing out that the "x is elementary" attitude doesn't help the process and I thought (from the video at least) some empathy in communication is warranted. It's ridiculous to expect clarity when no such thing exists in the language used to describe an idea in the first place. The OP went to the trouble of making such a post. Maybe it wasn't perfect, but it gets the ball rolling.
Whatever inadequacies can be corrected with feedback and I for one would like to see more people engage in humane explanations for things pertaining to their expertise.
Big-O is "technical". Understanding of it comes with clear explanations.
No where did I claim anything contrary to : "The correct way to "understand these things" is to learn the math, the theory, and do the exercises." What I claimed was that language can soften the barrier to learning these as I imagine it did for you.
Well, I must still be misunderstanding you because I spent 30 minutes writing a whole comment explaining why Math is important then got to the bottom of your comment and realized we both believe the same thing (that these subjects are important).
What I will contend is that pity parties about scary topics are unhelpful and rigor is important - more so for self-taught people. Like you, I advocate humane teaching. Humane teaching, to me however, is more about adapting to learning styles while maintaining the rigor and difficulty of the material (without watering it down) - this article watered it down.
Clear and humane explanations are out there; this article was not one of them. The intention was noble and I respect them for that but I agree with the top commenter in that the pity party needs to end and more self-educated individuals need to be role models for those that do find it scary so that we can all (as in self-educated people) strive to understand difficult concepts instead of "being okay" with not fully understanding it or the language it was meant to be understood in.
Much as autodidactic scholars hold themselves up to very high standards when reading about an author, they read the author's works in the original language they were written in - not in its translations (this is slight speculation because I don't know any autodidactic scholars personally, but I have read some of their articles).
Watering down is unacceptable. No argument here. What I do appreciate though is that advanced topics can be made reachable with a step stool, at least at first, before the full rung up the ladder.
That "being okay" with not fully understanding a concept grates me to no end too.
It's honestly incredibly condescending. That said, there are ways to be more clear without being condescending and without accepting that "okay" is good enough.
Take that math, for example. I've lost count of how many people I've run into who hate Calculus and the like because "it's so hard!" This tells me that the approach to teaching it was all wrong. I hated math too, cause it was big and scary, until I came across and awesome teacher who actually sat down with me and went over the basics with very careful attention to the language she used. There are approaches to teaching like this online I'm sure, but they're very few and far between.
I was pointing out that the "x is elementary" attitude doesn't help the process and I thought (from the video at least) some empathy in communication is warranted. It's ridiculous to expect clarity when no such thing exists in the language used to describe an idea in the first place. The OP went to the trouble of making such a post. Maybe it wasn't perfect, but it gets the ball rolling.
Whatever inadequacies can be corrected with feedback and I for one would like to see more people engage in humane explanations for things pertaining to their expertise.
Big-O is "technical". Understanding of it comes with clear explanations.
No where did I claim anything contrary to : "The correct way to "understand these things" is to learn the math, the theory, and do the exercises." What I claimed was that language can soften the barrier to learning these as I imagine it did for you.