I'm not convinced. The lengthy description of the obvious causes you to waste a load of time for no benefit. The concise description of the obscure will also take some time to figure out, but at least it was time well spent!
There is that. In practice what I do at that point is go off and look at the web for other explanations of the same thing. If even that doesn't help then you were likely doomed before you started...
More than that; the effort required to work through the concise description will do a far better job of lodging the understanding in your mind, than skimming lightly over the paragraphs muttering "yes, yes, yes" to yourself.
A colleague has observed that, from a perspective of 25 years on, it's the really craply lectured stuff that he can now remember well; the brilliant crystal-clear lectures have descended into a kind of "oh I remember understanding that" kind of state. I think I've found the same (to a lesser degree).
What isn't nice is inadequate and concise descriptions, or ones where the author is trying to conceal their dodginesss of grip by blurring what they say.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
A colleague has observed that, from a perspective of 25 years on, it's the really craply lectured stuff that he can now remember well; the brilliant crystal-clear lectures have descended into a kind of "oh I remember understanding that" kind of state. I think I've found the same (to a lesser degree).
What isn't nice is inadequate and concise descriptions, or ones where the author is trying to conceal their dodginesss of grip by blurring what they say.
no subject