Knowledge of Details is Never Required for Learning

The deliberate exposure to details is never required to learn something.

There is no task that cannot be learned implicitly (and many that only can).

Details are a residue of what actually is. They are a story of what is happening, not what is happening.

You can start with those residues, and eventually discard them as you transition to fluid performance. But this is not a good premise for arguing that details are required for learning. Nor does it serve as a justification for using details to learn. Again, details are a story. A residue.

This does not mean details don’t exist. It also does not mean they are not being used by the mind. But details are found after the fact by those who create. They were not an explicit part of the “path” there. They are a post-hoc signature of structure; an echo of a thing’s true identity.

Today’s scientific paradigm will tell you abstract reasoning is a shortcut. A way to lower the cognitive load that would otherwise be required to process all the details. A lesser form of pure analysis.

No. That is not how complexity works. That is not how nature processes. The essence of a thing exists on its own, in its own scale and of its own accord. The parts of its construction have nothing to do with its current existence. To know the starting pieces is to know nothing of how it functions.

Never let the scholastic narrative of detailed learning stop you from taking on a task. There is a reason those who remain in academia are only rewarded for continuous detailed work; they cannot perform.

Knowledge of details is never required for learning.