Komentārs no paziņas-rakstnieka:

I'd say that it is common for artists (not ubiquitous, just common) to have an inner web of connections which are particular. Those resurface time and again as "motifs" in their work.

The connections can be irrational from the outside, but can't be irrational from the inside - since no system is irrational according to its own principles. However, a system can lead to ridiculous convolutions, if its axioms guide it there (imagine a system where instead of two opposite half-lines of positive and negative numbers, you had to the left the negative numbers, to the immediate right the positive numbers, but then another half line of negative numbers which are "more negative" than the original line.

In such a system, there is indeed one final positive number (well, at least if we assume the line doesn't extend past the second negative half-line).
In some cases, particular systems can lead to not understanding things at school, for purely psychological reasons.

Kafka mentions in his diaries that as a kid/teen, each year he was certain he would fail the class. I suppose that passing all of his classes was due to discovering ways to see patterns while retaining the sense of not understanding. If it was a matter of insufficient intelligence, on the other hand, provided they had passed, you'd more than likely get someone who doesn't understand they don't understand (= treating the mental tricks as understanding).

On the other hand, it can be easily argued that if you have a love for something, you are far more likely to seek understanding than a shortcut - whether shortcuts exist or not.