Oddly, the author doesn't follow their own advice. Nor do they support the claim on which the entire article depends: > People only really learn when they’re s

Oddly, the author doesn't follow their own advice. Nor do they support the claim on which the entire article depends: > People only really learn when they’re surprised. The idea that people learn when surprised is not surprising. The idea that people only learn when surprised could be surprising, but only if substantiated. I would be surprised because I can think of numerous times that I learned when not surprised. Surprise is fine as a technique to draw the reader in, but it puts you on the hook to support the surprising claim. And the act of whittling that claim down to something supportable could very well leave you with nothing very surprising at all.