I was an unmotivated math learner, who did not want to admit it. I essentially stopped at integral calculus(failed three times), although I did try a linear alg

I was an unmotivated math learner, who did not want to admit it. I essentially stopped at integral calculus(failed three times), although I did try a linear algebra course at the same time and had to drop it because the effort needed to complete the proofs was beyond me. On the other hand, I took well to immediate, CS-y applications. I liked graph theory, since I could write pathfinding algorithms with it. And I learned to like parts of Fourier analysis, since I could understand DSP with it. So I know I can enjoy the study, given the right context. However, I think it speaks to the difficulty of math education that nobody discovers exactly the same approach to its study. But perhaps this is the wrong way to frame it. Perhaps, to put it another way, other subjects allow students to cheat themselves more easily into getting answers without understanding. I think, with respect to current curricula, we focus far too much on computation, and on proof. Both are answer-oriented by nature, whereas in my self-study I was motivated by developing a process, and in understanding the process I was considering things with language and hasty spatializations of ideas, long before I was ready for the formal applications. And we give almost no credence to process development as part of mathematics education. A typical lecture begins: "Assume the following. We define..." And this is perfectly reasonable if you've already immersed yourself in the jargon and want to get to the point as quickly as possible. But if you aren't ready for it, it's intimidating. A tiny definition, a sentence or two long, can become something you struggle over for a week, which only compounds the intimidation factor. In theory the problem sets should help you explore further. But if they're unmotivated, the students can barely try at the problem sets.