Comment by rkomorn

We don't have enough time to derive everything from first principles, but we do have the time to go over how something was derived, or how something works.

A common issue when trying this is trying to teach all layers at the same level of detail. But this really isn't necessary. You need to know the equation for Ohms law, but you can give very handwavy explanations for the underlying causes. For example: why do thicker wires have less resistance? Electricity is the movement of electrons, more cross section means more electrons can move, like having more lanes on a highway. Why does copper have less resistance than aluminum? Copper has an electron that isn't bound as tightly to the atom. How does electricity know which path has the least resistance? It doesn't, it starts flowing down all paths equally at a significant fraction of the speed of light, then quickly settles in a steady state described by Ohm's law. Reserve the equations and numbers for the layers that matter, but having a rough understanding of what's happening on the layer below makes it easier to understand the layer you care about, and makes it easier to know when that understanding will break down (because all of science and engineering are approximations with limited applicability)

Are you being serious or is this satire? What an odd perspective to share on Hacker News. We're a bunch of nerds that take pleasure in understanding how things work when you take them apart, whether that's a physics concept or a washing machine. Or am I projecting an ethos?

On the contrary, your OP claims that dissertations require a rehash of the references cited in class. A real dissertation exercises logic and requires mobilizing facts and verbal precision to ground arguments. It is also highly teacher-dependent: if the correction is lax or not properly explained, you won’t understand what the exercise really is or how you are supposed to think in order to succeed.

One thing I've come to understand about myself since my ADHD diagnosis is how hard thinking actually is for me. Especially thinking "to order", like problem solving or planning ahead. I'm great at makeshift solutions that will hold together until something better comes along. But deep and sustained thought for any length of time increases the chance that I'll become aware that I'm thinking and then get stuck in a fruitless meta cognition spiral.

An analogy occurred to me the other day that it's like diving into a burning building to rescue possessions. If I really go for it I could get lucky and retrieve a passport or pet, but I'm just as likely to come back with an egg whisk!