The point is that the widespread passive application of concepts or certain ideas even in everyday life does not inform the usefulness of in depth understanding of the theories behind them.

Thats why I pointed out traffic engineering and linguistics, because the surface concept is extremely simple but in depth understanding is a hard field to get into.

I work in rail traffic engineering. I use the phrase (translated to english) "light blue EnKo coming, get 28504 to 503 so turn off autoswitching and dont forget short entry or use DRGT quickly" a decent amount. I would probably need a day or two to explain to you what that even meant, and a decent amount longer to have you fully grasp why everything works the way it does in that specific instance.

Yet it is a standard operation that gets used here in variations thousands of times a day.

High level mathematics are not valuable for a sizeable amount of the population. Which is why they're used as a brain tester instead.

And most people do not like getting passively tested on their learning capability with arbitrary excercises designed to weed you out instead of making the concept itself accessible to you. Hence the hatred of math as a teaching subject.

Oh and yes, I too was taught standard electronics. I bet you still can't instantly fully grasp and explain the relay plan of an industrial power plant. That's the whole problem.

It's the difference between knowing of E=mc² and understanding the proof behind it. Maths as a subject wants you to do the latter, almost every other subject is fine with the former.