This comment is hilariously on the nose for how a lot of math texts read (at least in my experience)

$SIMPLE_CONCEPT that you’re trying your best to understand is easy if you think of it as a specific example of $MORE_COMPLICATED_CONCEPT that you surely can’t understand without understanding $SIMPLE_CONCEPT

Wait till you get into Theoretical Physics, where the same thing is being explained by people who don't even have a firm grasp of $MORE_COMPLICATED_CONCEPT, but know just enough to be dangerous with it.

E.g.: I distinctly remember that many of the original articles about the Amplituhedron spent like a page explaining what a triangle was, then jumped straight into functions over higher-dimensional analogues without explaining any of the intermediate steps. Something-something-logarithm-of-a-simplex.

I can grok what a simplex is, but they literally just hand-waved over the bit where they take a logarithm of it in some way.

The page of explanation of what a triangle is was of zero assistance.

That was quite an eye opener though when we were taught polynomial division in high school. Not necessarily for how long division works because I already understood that, but because it was an example where short division could not be used.