It's interesting. My first instinct was to disagree with this post, but on reflection I think I mostly agree with it. A couple useful mental models are (i) deliberate practice and (ii) train-validation-test(/out of sample) sets from machine learning
Your point (2) about compiler/interpreter in programming giving you rapid objective feedback is spot on and a vital component for deliberate practice that most people don't think on. You can kind of get this in math, in particular when you have some familiarity with the subject matter so the machinery isn't "too abstract" for you to sort through. (I.e. you should be able to confirm whether your proof/answer is accurate the vast majority of the time.) This is much trickier for first exposure to a subject though and the checking effort is on you, not the compiler.
The biggest issue I've seen with people self studying or in small math groups is your final (non-aside) paragraph which is perhaps more a psychological problem than and aptitude problem. When things get tough there's an enormous temptation to delude yourself to think you understand something that you are clueless about. The typical, schoolroom, way of mitigating this is via a final exam and you can check your grade at the end of the class; this gets typically gets short circuited in self guided study. Exams, btw, are essentially validation data sets you compare your math knowledge/model against. (We can call them 'test' sets if you prefer). The most important step really is repeatedly seeing how your knowledge works out of sample i.e. on 'new' stuff that comes out of the wood works and math.stackexchange is a perfect place for this when dealing with undergrad to mid-grad level problems. I do this all the time to get a sense of my understanding of a new subject I've recently acquired. But most people refuse this final step. People will tell me its 'too hard' and 'takes too much time' (meanwhile they start a new math book) but I strongly suspect it's in large part due to cognitive dissonance. (Another kind of out of sample test comes up when working on a subject matter that uses something you just "learned" as a pre-req, though there's a recursive element here and at some point they basically need to interact with 3rd parties.)
I suppose my relatively minor quibble is how much effectiveness depends on being "very gifted" [in some sort of math specific sense] vs understanding the basics of self-learning and being psychologically aware (astute?) enough to not go into denial. Insert quote from Feynman or whomever about how easy it is to fool yourself.
Your point (2) about compiler/interpreter in programming giving you rapid objective feedback is spot on and a vital component for deliberate practice that most people don't think on. You can kind of get this in math, in particular when you have some familiarity with the subject matter so the machinery isn't "too abstract" for you to sort through. (I.e. you should be able to confirm whether your proof/answer is accurate the vast majority of the time.) This is much trickier for first exposure to a subject though and the checking effort is on you, not the compiler.
The biggest issue I've seen with people self studying or in small math groups is your final (non-aside) paragraph which is perhaps more a psychological problem than and aptitude problem. When things get tough there's an enormous temptation to delude yourself to think you understand something that you are clueless about. The typical, schoolroom, way of mitigating this is via a final exam and you can check your grade at the end of the class; this gets typically gets short circuited in self guided study. Exams, btw, are essentially validation data sets you compare your math knowledge/model against. (We can call them 'test' sets if you prefer). The most important step really is repeatedly seeing how your knowledge works out of sample i.e. on 'new' stuff that comes out of the wood works and math.stackexchange is a perfect place for this when dealing with undergrad to mid-grad level problems. I do this all the time to get a sense of my understanding of a new subject I've recently acquired. But most people refuse this final step. People will tell me its 'too hard' and 'takes too much time' (meanwhile they start a new math book) but I strongly suspect it's in large part due to cognitive dissonance. (Another kind of out of sample test comes up when working on a subject matter that uses something you just "learned" as a pre-req, though there's a recursive element here and at some point they basically need to interact with 3rd parties.)
I suppose my relatively minor quibble is how much effectiveness depends on being "very gifted" [in some sort of math specific sense] vs understanding the basics of self-learning and being psychologically aware (astute?) enough to not go into denial. Insert quote from Feynman or whomever about how easy it is to fool yourself.