The issue I think is that difficulty and complexity get conflated: in an effort to simplify, they reduce both depth and difficulty, which reduces the total value of the subject. The problem primarily being that this conflation isn’t widely recognized, so usually efforts towards broader reach produces worse outcomes. Even worse, these efforts (stripping difficulty while maintaining depth) often assume their own success, and remove access to the difficult (and deeper) material.
You see this in software as accessible vs power users
Frameworks to simplify web development
Libraries do it gp’s example
Schools do it by simplifying the literature selection/ topic breadth
Etc
Anytime you have management without a minimum “gate”, the issue occurs, because the conflation exists but no one admits it, and with the goal of widespread accessibility, it gets further embedded each iteration.
In other words the quote “if you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it” is misread to “if you can’t explain it in six minutes, you don’t understand it”, and then everything gets “simplified” right out of existence
You see this in software as accessible vs power users
Frameworks to simplify web development
Libraries do it gp’s example
Schools do it by simplifying the literature selection/ topic breadth
Etc
Anytime you have management without a minimum “gate”, the issue occurs, because the conflation exists but no one admits it, and with the goal of widespread accessibility, it gets further embedded each iteration.
In other words the quote “if you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it” is misread to “if you can’t explain it in six minutes, you don’t understand it”, and then everything gets “simplified” right out of existence