I'm not sure that actually pans out in the real world. It seems that there's a gap between people understanding the very basics and anything slightly more compl

I'm not sure that actually pans out in the real world. It seems that there's a gap between people understanding the very basics and anything slightly more complex. We can either believe that there's just a big percentage of people that will never be able to grasp beyond arithmetic (mathematically dumb) or that perhaps we aren't teaching things in the best way possible? When I say using descriptive/relatable labels, is in the context of a relatable problem. I also think this is common, in the very first levels of introducing maths for small children it's a normal procedure. At some point between that and more advanced topics it seems to jump off and the conclusion seems to be "Many students fail to master requisite concepts before advancing to more complex ideas, leaving them ill-prepared to succeed in higher level Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) coursework.". Of course it's the students (usually kids) that fail, not the very smart lecturers and teachers. At every point in time probably people think of the way they're doing something as the most sensible or best way of doing it. I think there was quite a leap when programming let go of pure mathematical notation to more regular language likeness - it seems many at the time voiced their opposition to that too. Not long ago I spent some hours chasing around a problem where had the authors I encountered tried to explain it using more descriptive problems I would have grasped it in minutes, because it was really basic. But yeah, maybe it sounds really smart when it's shrouded in jargon, symbols and meanings that only someone immersed in that field of study would understand.