The markets have been uponly since 2020 in general, so no surprise if one were invested, especially in technology, that one would have done well.
OP is not aware of what he is not aware of (as we all are).
I have the feeling (though I could be wrong) that you might very well sort out the exercises and problems that are presented in the platform, but what about tackling for example Project Euler? How far can you go with the knowledge that you acquired from this platform after 3 years of daily usage?
Please note that I'm not trying to diminish the value of the mentioned platform but I believe that tackling problems that force you to hit your head on the wall and/or figuring out things by yourself with maybe some books, makes you learn in a completely different and richer way.
I think mathacademy is excellent for developing the skills necessary for solving the problems on mathacademy (which largely are the problems on math exams).
But if your goal is understanding rather than application, then mathacademy is more similar to duolingo than it is to language immersion. You can go quite far in mathacademy (and much of performative mathematics) without really having thought about anything. It is procedure learning rather than understanding.
How do I get to a stage where I can just do math for the sake of understanding it.. to enjoy working on it.
I'm happy to "just do it" but is there some branch of match that might feel familiar and less removed from the real world?
For "basic math" up to high school algebra and such, having an intuitive understanding of this lets me quickly do back of the envelope math anytime I hear something that sounds off, or something matches a "pattern" of a type of math I've done before.
Two concrete examples of this are:
- doing drop rate calculations in games (probability)..i.e. I've killed 500 of these, and it is interesting to note that I should've gotten this drop 93% of the time. I'm mathematically unlucky.
- trying to calculate how much it is worth to me to drive at 80mph vs 55mph to get to work, and the relationship between gas prices and my willingness to drive fast (algebra, physics, etc)
People who I know who are actually really good at math (and are paid for it) say that there is no shortcut to interest and wrestling/thinking about the problems. You have to mule over things. You have to pack and unpack it over and over in your head.
If I had to put it in a phrase, it would be, "there is no shortcut to understanding without thinking".
But I am just not convinced it can ever (especially, in isolation, which you never claimed) lead to you being a good mathematician in the sense of having internalized the material. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I think it is similar to the feeling you get when you are some high level in duolingo and realize you still can't follow daytime soaps. You have the rigid intelligence, but not the fluid (internalized?) one.
But the platform does have its issues. I should probably do a writeup someday.
The most important thing to understand about Math Academy is that it's all problems, problems over and over again, with just enough pedagogy to get you from one kind of problem to the next. It's a form of spaced-repetition system (often with the repetition cleverly arranged through interleaved topics, so that solving problems in the "next" unit also depends on techniques from the previous) and a drilling tool.
I'd echo any other observation about that structure being limiting for deeper understanding. The thing about that is, though, we already have ample resources for deeper understanding! For my part, GPT4 and GPT5 were more than enough supplementation, to drill into topics, connect them to other topics, ask "why the fuck does this work", etc.
When I got to Calc II (in Math Foundations III), Herbert Gross MIT lectures were super handy too. If you're doing Linear Algebra, I'd pair Math Academy with Strang's lectures.
To me, the limitations of the approach aren't interesting. The problem Math Academy is solving is the limiting reagent for self-study: boundless exercises and worked examples, a clear syllabus, and a forcing function for actually doing the problems. If you're self-studying math, you probably don't need extra structure to get you to read about math; you need the structure to get you to do math.
Easily the most valuable learning resource I've ever spent money on. Highly recommend.
Why does this sound so familiar...?
/s