How much of a topic clicking is just reading from several different sources, rather than one source being particularly "good"? I often joke with a coworker that we don't fully understand a topic until we have read several textbooks/papers on it. It doesn't really matter how good any one text is. I've always wondered what the mechanism is for this. Is is just a certain amount of exposure to a topic? Or is there truly something different enough about the way different authors present material that once you have read from a few, things connect differently?
That being said, how many people are citing specific sources, when it was really just additional exposure to a topic that helped something "click"?
Came here to say this. Often I give too much credit to the "last" source, but it's a bit like "your keys are always in the last place you look".
You definitely get good sources and bad ones, and discovering a good one after weeks or months of wrestling with bad ones is hugely satisfying, but sometimes the journey really is the destination.
It's just focused practice. Something about the brain requires frequent breaks but with repeated focused practice it seems to reach almost an autopilot like ability.
That being said, how many people are citing specific sources, when it was really just additional exposure to a topic that helped something "click"?