Several people in the comments have provided explanations of this percentage trick. That is, they're trying to impart perspective shifts to the audience, just l

Several people in the comments have provided explanations of this percentage trick. That is, they're trying to impart perspective shifts to the audience, just like you are. It's interesting that they're all different perspective shifts. There's no one true way to internalize it. I mean they might all be mathematically equivalent, sure, but in any mathematical problem, the initial information is equivalent to the result. The result is just the same thing, expressed differently. With sufficient insight, it wouldn't be necessary to do any mathematics at all, because all results would be implied already. The author of the article worries about people learning "formulas and processes" and "magic words" instead of gaining understanding. That is, rote learning. It's a valid concern, but every gain in understanding, every insight, remains like a magic trick. The more you internalize it the less surprising the trick gets, but it's forever a trick, and you are building a catalog of tricks, even as you seek greater understanding. We never get close to the above-mentioned perfect and total level of insight, and learning is a process of continually adding clutter and low-key mysteries.