I actually believe the mindset this author has (along with many university professors) makes learning far more difficult for students and discourages them from staying in STEM (math and science) degrees.
I have consistently found that for me to tackle difficult concepts I need multiple points of view, specifically views that simplify the topic tremendously. My professors never encouraged me to seek multiple sources and usually pushed overly complex, decades-old textbooks on my peers and I. The "masters" typically write to a niche, university-based audience and do not tailor their original works for the masses.
I certainly agree that if one wants a complete understanding of a field or subject they should eventually study original works, however to encourage them as a starting or leverage point for understanding difficult subjects is poor advice in my opinion.
I completely agree. As a high-school student, I was completely turned off by the quality of books that I was reading ('textbooks that conform to the curriculum set by the education board'). It was only when I started reading the masters (in this case Resnick Halliday for physics, Thomas & Finney for calculus) that I really started to like math and physics and chose to major in engineering
I have consistently found that for me to tackle difficult concepts I need multiple points of view, specifically views that simplify the topic tremendously. My professors never encouraged me to seek multiple sources and usually pushed overly complex, decades-old textbooks on my peers and I. The "masters" typically write to a niche, university-based audience and do not tailor their original works for the masses.
I certainly agree that if one wants a complete understanding of a field or subject they should eventually study original works, however to encourage them as a starting or leverage point for understanding difficult subjects is poor advice in my opinion.