Read on Twitter
Besides being an asshole, Bean Dad makes a really basic common teaching mistake: starting with what you know & how you understand it, then waiting for student to guess it. This is not going to work, as well as being cruel and stupid.
The other way to do it is to start where the student is and explore together, being or finding the resources they need as they learn.
Here's an example of how that could go with the can-opener. Teacher: want to learn how a can opener works so you can do this yourself whenever you want (not: "to please me")? Student: Ok.
T: Show me how you think it works
S: (same explanation of wheels and gears)
T: Show me how you think it works
S: (same explanation of wheels and gears)
T: Trying clamping those wheels together and see what happens
S: opening can. Neat!
T: Can you see why it works, too?
S: Sure, the clamping turns these two wheels into a rolling scissors
T: Neat!
S: opening can. Neat!
T: Can you see why it works, too?
S: Sure, the clamping turns these two wheels into a rolling scissors
T: Neat!
It may seem like there's not much of a difference there, or that the second version is "giving the answer away" but the diff is huge & the student is LEARNING in the 2nd and learning only to hate Dad in the first.
Dad never fucking learned to use a can opener by intuiting clamping. Dad didn't INVENT the fucking can opener. Dad learned how to use it by seeing it used, then understanding the mechanism.
I have no idea who invented the can opener, but that person probably already knew by experience the idea of clamping pressure added to two sharp thingies (scissors!) and added rotation (wheels!). He didn't INTUIT the whole mechanism.
Ex post facto knowledge often gets confused with the how and why of getting there. It's toxic to teaching.
