> applicative -> equivalent of turning one element into a list This is only one part of the definition of an applicative. Applicatives must also preserve the m

> applicative -> equivalent of turning one element into a list This is only one part of the definition of an applicative. Applicatives must also preserve the monoidal operation (product). That is, there is a function `pair : f a -> f b -> f (a * b)`. Then, you can map functions of multiple arguments by turning `(a * b) -> c` into `f (a * b) -> f c` via `map` and passing it the result of the applicative `pair` operation. > monad -> equivalent of unwrappering list items, applying a function to each, and rewrapping it I'm not sure how precise or accurate this definition is. I'd say that a monad is about collapsing multiple layers of a functor into one layer. > This is just for lists, but the terms are more powerful than that and have many variations. The nice thing is because it's universal. You don't have to wonder, "have I done this pattern right," because you test the laws for them. It might also help, for some of the laws, to remember identity and associativity as like from multiplication -- ie 1 * 9 = 9, 3 * 2 = 2 * 3 Yup, I agree that this is a benefit of generalizing these operations based on their common structure.