This is true, but I feel we need to try harder before reaching this conclusion that "oh, it's inherently too theoretical/has too many solutions, so you're just

This is true, but I feel we need to try harder before reaching this conclusion that "oh, it's inherently too theoretical/has too many solutions, so you're just going to have to figure it out by yourself". Because even in the scenario that it did have too many possible solutions, wouldn't it be more helpful to provide at least one in addition to the theory? I think it would, as long as you make it clear that there are other possibilities out there and that this particular solution might not work for you. The crux of the issue for me, is that intelligence research (to my rather limited knowledge) seems to be converging on the idea that people have different inherent [genetic?] constraints on learning ability. Not learning capacity mind you, just that it might be more challenging for certain subsets of people to understand quantum physics (for example) than others, and that that could be traced back to how much 'actionable' material they are exposed to -- if they're not exposed to enough, then they could easily be left behind and be blamed for not 'choosing' to get it. This is what bothers me. Especially since I know I often find myself struggling for ages with things that other people seem to grasp with significantly less information than I needed to 'get it'.