Warning, the following only relates to small remark from the article... I really like the remark "noone understands hyperexponential growth". I've always wonde

Warning, the following only relates to small remark from the article... I really like the remark "noone understands hyperexponential growth". I've always wondered if it's possible to learn understanding this better. I'd like to think that most things can be learned and improved on at least to some degree so it might be worthwhile to investigate this. I used to play online poker for a living and I feel it improved my intuitive understanding of limited chance events quite a bit (and taught me to think a lot more in expected value than in actual results which is very valuable imo). My hypothesis would be that a pool of (good) poker players understand something like every day variance better than a comparable sample with no poker background. There's some counter evidence that may be related (econ students routinely know very little about basic econ concepts) but these examples tend to be about theoretical and not practical knowledge. Not sure what other groups one could include, statisticians or people who use statistics regularly (data scientists, data centric QM, investment bankers maybe) Constructing an instrument (questionnaire?) to measure intuitive understanding of statistics is probably non-trivial. +I'm already having nightmares of endless Frequentist vs. Bayesian debates. Afterwards, the interesting thing would be to construct creative (I'm thinking games due to my background but it could be anything) learning environments where an improved understanding of (hyper)exponential growth is developed.