From her perspective, this is literally like the following situation, where a Haskell enthusiast is trying to explain monads to you, and after having told you the technical definitions of a monad, an endofunctor category and a monoid, which you think you maybe half-understood, he asks you
"Now, when we consider monoids in the category of endofunctors, we clearly get something that reminds us of the definition of a monad. What does this mean?"
"er, I don't know"
"Well, what if I add the neutral element of a monoid to itself, what do I get?"
"uhh, the neutral element?"
"Right! So if I apply return twice and then apply join, it's the same as having applied return how many times?"
"..umm... none?"
"WHAT? Why none? That's not even the right type!"
"uhh... two?"
"Why two?"
"because a monoid means having a binary operation?"
"An operation acting on two what?"
"..two monads?"
...
And he looks at you irritated, like he thinks you're not even trying.
"Now, when we consider monoids in the category of endofunctors, we clearly get something that reminds us of the definition of a monad. What does this mean?"
"er, I don't know"
"Well, what if I add the neutral element of a monoid to itself, what do I get?"
"uhh, the neutral element?"
"Right! So if I apply return twice and then apply join, it's the same as having applied return how many times?"
"..umm... none?"
"WHAT? Why none? That's not even the right type!"
"uhh... two?"
"Why two?"
"because a monoid means having a binary operation?"
"An operation acting on two what?"
"..two monads?"
...
And he looks at you irritated, like he thinks you're not even trying.