"And now for something... completely different."
In 2013, I started to think about how I could barely remember calculus. This made me a sad panda, so I started reviewing undergraduate math and then whipped out my electrical engineering textbooks (yes, I kept those). That gave way to a comprehensive review of my undergraduate that is still in progress.
In pounding through old textbooks without any teachers or tutors, I've learned that
preparing to ask for help is actually a great way to solve problems independently. It forces me to walk through my case like a lawyer and rigorously present my assertions so any contradictions are laid bare. I find it most effective when I write it down and commit to posting it on a forum or asking a friend if I don't manage to figure it out by myself. This is like a slightly more stringent form of
Rubber Duck Debugging.

I like to use several ducks at once. It's much more powerful that way. 
Here, I share two examples of this in a context that is unusual to my blog: circuit analysis. In the first scenario, I was wrong, and in the second, it was the book's fault. Thanks, book! Great job!
Currently Going Nowhere
I first got stuck on a problem that entailed analyzing multiple circuit nodes as a single "supernode". The book did not work an example with three nodes and a dependent source, so I worked the problem repeatedly, getting the same wrong answer each time. After looking at the math over half a dozen times, I concluded that I was misunderstanding how to apply the new concept in this special case (three nodes, dependent source). I tried reading several articles about supernodes and it seemed like I was doing this correctly. I finally gave in and prepared to phone a friend.
For depicting this circuit, I found a pretty cool tool provided by DigiKey called
SchemeIt. I threw together this schematic:

In the words of my EE professor: Very simple. 
Then I began mounting my case. I started with describing the currents that enter and exit the supernode (nodes 1, 2, and 3). My discussion didn't get very far:
Apply Kirchoff's Current Law to the supernode:
First, I define $i_1$ to be the same as $i$, $i_2$ to be the current from node 2 down to the reference node (through the 4ohm resistor), $i_3$ to be the current from node 3 down to the reference node (through the 3ohm resistor), and $i_4$ to be the current flowing from node 1 through the 6ohm resistor to node 3. Hence,
$i_4 = i_1 + i_2 + i_3$
Wait.
Wait, wait, wait.
This is a flawed equation. It doesn't take into account the fact that $i_4$ both leaves AND enters the supernode.
So, as far as the supernode was concerned, the current $i_4$ was going... Nowhere. It was both exiting and entering the node, so from the perspective of the supernode, $i_4$ cancelled itself out. I realized this because I took the time to carefully make my case and then the contradiction stood right out: "$i_4$ [is] the current flowing from node 1 through the 6ohm resistor to node 3" (both part of the same supernode). Onward!
This Practice Problem is Not Operational
I later ran into an issue applying the circuit equivalent model of an operational amplifier (an opamp). I ran through the same process. First, I drew my rendition of the original schematic and my equivalent model. I transformed the circuit using the "nonideal" model wherein the opamp's inverting and noninverting terminals are connected through an input resistance, and the opamp's output terminal is modeled as a voltagecontrolled voltage source in series with a small output resistance.

Equivalent. See? Very simple. 
The exercise was to find (a) the closedloop gain $v_o/v_s$, and (b) the output current $i_o$ when $v_s = 1 V$. I went to work explaining myself, walking through the application of Ohm's law to define currentvoltage relationships, Kirchoff's Voltage Law, mesh analysis, etc., until I arrived at a system of equations. I punched it all into GNU Octave and got those same old familiar answers:

Matlab, eat yer heart out! 
From the 3x1 matrix above, I concluded $i_3 = 6.5 \times 10^{4} A$, or 650 uA. Substituting some more equations, I got:
$i_o =  (650 uA) = +650 uA$
However, the book's answer was that $i_o = 362 mA$.
For the life of me, I couldn't find my error by talking it through. Before submitting the question to a friend or a forum, I thought I would work a few more examples and then revisit this one. I turned the page and worked the next example, which turned out to be a reworking of the same problem. The end of that example reads:
"This, again, is close to the value of 0.649 mA [aka 649uA] obtained in Practice Prob. 5.1 with the nonideal model."
Wait... That's... Not what the book said on the previous page! But that
is what I got, every time I worked that problem! I'd been working this problem over and over, and it was a MISPRINT. ARRRRRRGH!!
Lessons Learned
I learned two things from these exercises:
 You can become more selfreliant in solving problems if you discipline yourself to write up the details like you're truly about to defend your thought process to someone else; and,
 You're not always wrong ;)
The glory of this process is that often I can use it to ferret out my own stupid mistakes without ever having to share them with anyone (unless I decide to write a ducking blog article about it).
The experience I got from this also ties in closely with my professional observation that having to write about one's work forces the author to explain why the work is correct, which tends to yield ideas about how that work could have been done better. Which is to say, whether you're working out issues or you already think you're all the way there, reporting on your work will invariably improve the outcome.

You can celebrate by taking your ducky for a bubble bath! 
In addition to the moral of the story, I also wanted to point out the following: