Sometimes it is better to learn from someone who struggled to learn something. People that do not struggle with a topic sometimes do not have the experience to explain the topic. One cannot just "do the thing", one must see the potential points of difficulty, separate the concept into component parts, put the needed steps to learn those parts to words, and know how to address the steps in an learning environment.
Show me two teachers. One that from the first moment the concept was presented she saw it as one idea, and effortlessly conceptualized the whole. Then show me a teacher that needed to study the concept and build the hole out of many parts. The one that sees a concept as a whole can be a disadvantage teaching the concept to beginners. To learn a new concept I would pick the teacher that had to learn the bits-and-pieces slowly to put it all together. Perhaps the other teacher would be likely a better fit for advanced students.
This reminds me of the YouTube videos where the narrator goes into excruciating detail over what something is, and what something is not. For example, it drove me crazy to hear a 3-5 minute explanation of what an orphan is, and what an orphan is not. For a non-native, younger, or mentally-disadvantaged English language speaker it could be just what they need to get the concept. Generally I go nuts and just want to hear the story about the topic, without excoriatingly detailed conceptual building blocks of words people likely know when they are in the 3rd grade.
I was watching a religious video teaching the supernatural history of popular story trope. All of the verbal rituals breaking up the explanation of the story slowed down the telling of the story considerably. I am sure for a native of the religion it would not have been so very distracting to be interrupted so often. If teaching a non-native of the religion, then I would perhaps lighten up on all of the verbal rituals, for example. Something invisible, becomes visible, and perhaps distracting to a non-native.
-----
Usually flowers and such are part of the courtship ritual to attract a mate. He has already swayed your opinion of him for you to date him. Your co-workers liking the fact that he sent you flowers would have less impact on your opinion of him. The goal is for the guy to use peer-pressure to manipulate the opinion that the girl has of him so that they could obtain a first or subsequent date early in the relationship. I know . . . what a romantic I am.
Some people find sharing to be more enjoyable for some reason. It would also up the peer-pressure and talking about the guy. "Wow these are good, who sent them to you?" might be exactly the response that would be needed to secure a better opinion, possibly one to get the guy that first or subsequent date. It is all seemingly about manipulation. It kind of seems creepy, but that is the ritual that we have.
Early on people don't.
That seems to be the point. Public (and privet) displays of wealth sacrifice to encourage the girl to agree to date the guy. I already said it, it seems kind of creepy to me when I break it down, but that is the ritual that we have. It is like a PR campaign. It must work.