Eh, monads are an extremely simple concept with a scary-sounding name, and not the only example of such in Haskell. The problem is that Haskell encourages a degree of abstraction that would be absurd in most other languages, and tends to borrow mathematical terminology for those abstractions, instead of inventing arbitrary new jargon the way most other languages would. So you end up with newcomers to Haskell trying to simultaneously: * Adjust to a degree of abstraction normally reserved for mathematicians and philosophers * Unlearn existing habits from other languages * Learn about intimidating math-y-sounding things And the final blow is that the type of programming problem that the monad abstraction so elegantly captures is almost precisely the set of problems that look simple in most other languages. But some people stick with it anyway, until eventually something clicks and they realize just how simple the whole monad thing is. Having at that point, in the throes of comprehension, already forgotten what it was to be confused, they promptly go write yet another "monad tutorial" filled with half-baked metaphors and misleading analogies to concrete concepts, perpetuating the idea that monads are some incredibly arcane, challenging concept. The whole circus makes for an excellent demonstration of the sort of thing Eliezer complains about in regards to explaining things being hard.