> I wish we would drop all the dumb analogies. They're incredibly useful tools for thinking about things. You don't need or want QM to perform most reasoning t

> I wish we would drop all the dumb analogies. They're incredibly useful tools for thinking about things. You don't need or want QM to perform most reasoning tasks. Even MO is often overkill. I agree though that we should lead with the truth - that these models you're being taught are useful abstractions but ultimately wrong. That each successive model brings with it more accuracy and nuance but is more difficult to comprehend. A particular strength of that approach is that after making it to QM at the end it leaves you wondering what's next. It really drives home the point that the map is not the territory and that all we as humans can ever actually have is a succession of maps. > Forget about billiard balls and wave/particle duality. Actually that one is rather important. QM wave functions really do collapse. Things really do switch from behaving like a wave to behaving like a particle. This fact has significant effects on behavior. > these odd shapes originate from symmetry constraints Well they might fit those constraints, but can they really be said to originate from them? Is there actual cause and effect there? The answer to that would require understanding what gave rise to the phenomenon to begin with.