We could simplify it even further: it's all about intellectual stamina.

From my personal experience and from my observations of others, the limiting factor to learning is the availability of mental energy to persevere/endure in the learning process.

You have a problem. Either an academic homework problem or a real-world problem of some sort (think error message in the console). You try one thing but it doesn't work... then another, and still you're not making progress. You're starting to realize solving this problem is not obvious and will require some "brain sweat" and you have to make a choice whether to invest the hour (or day!) of your time to learn enough to solve your problem.

Learners willingness to persevere in their efforts to solve the problem depends on lots of factors, but most importantly they are conditional on the level of learners' interest/motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic). Ideally, learners will be motivated purely by the "knowledge buzz" of learning new concepts and seeing the connections between them, but any source of motivation is OK: as long as it pushes/pulls you enough to go through the necessary learning and solve the problem.

I recognize that learning to learn is a useful multiplier, but learners need to have base rate of (1) intellectual stamina (brain muscles?) and (2) interest/motivation to push through. Otherwise learning is not going to be happening.

first off it doesn't seem to be taught at the moment, but also I'm pretty sure that has always been the most important and foundational skill, and it seems like there might be an upper bound for what percentage of people can actually learn it.

As a Curriculum Designer and OG dial-up Millennial I agree wholeheartedly. Too late though. Enlightenment, collaboration, and advancing human experience isn't profitable.

In other words, until one learns how to hammer a nail, it's unreasonable to assume knowledge of how to tell another to do so. AI is no exception. It's speed-running US society's final threads being severed, and okay, sigh, here we go. No, I'm not interested in fixing the problems he's identifying.

My ex had a saying from bench science..."if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitant." That part. Off to go live in a van down by the river...

I'd place this skill, "Learning how to Learn", with Cal Newport's notion of "Deep Work". Part of me wants to say that the latter is a precondition of the former, but I'm not sure that's the case.

Learning is a nontrivial skill even though it has historically been treated as such. It requires an embodied understanding of concepts from basic cognitive psychology, expertise theory, behavioral-affective psychology, metacognition, and more. Until people stop with the platitudes of "learning how to learn is important" and start teaching/training the subject directly as a skill that must be acquired, this will not change.

Simply showing a learner a few slides on spaced retrieval will not cut it.

there is a book/course by that name, it's decent I would say https://www.amazon.com/Learning-How-Learn-Spending-Studying/... https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn

Google's top AI scientist says 'learning how to learn' will be next generation's most needed skill

https://techxplore.com/news/2025-09-google-ai-scientist-gene...

For decades, I've said

You don't go to college to get a job

You don't go to college to get a degree

You don't go to college to learn things

You go to college to LEARN HOW TO LEARN

If you do that, all the other things will come to you.

If you get out of college and have not learned how to learn, your "degree" is toilet paper.

One of my favorite pieces on this topic is this talk "Stop Treading Water: Learning to Learn":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0XmixCsWjs