3 ms·
I saw the same thing in college, but I narrowed it down not to intelligence, but aptitude for abstract vs concrete thought. In high school everyone either stru
by spiffytech 4y ago
I saw the same thing in college, but I narrowed it down not to intelligence, but aptitude for abstract vs concrete thought.
In high school everyone either struggles with geometry or algebra, while finding the other relatively accessible. College magnifies this effect.
I intensely struggled with calculus, far and away my hardest subject. Friends those raw intelligence was similar to my own found calculus to be laughably easy - I complained about how poorly our textbook explained new concepts, and my friends praised exactly the traits I criticized.
I also found that some people had to learn computer science bottom-up, while others (like myself) had to learn top-down. Some friends couldn't get comfortable with high-level concepts until they understood how every piece worked, down to the metal, while I couldn't wrap my head around the low-level concepts until I understood how they fit into the big picture of problem solving.
I've seen this pattern repeat again and again during and after college. And it doesn't help that the people who like teaching abstract subjects are the people who never found those subjects a struggle.
- exolymph 4y ago> not to intelligence, but aptitude for abstract vs concrete thought. But this is simply a dimension of intelligence. All of our cognitive abilities are.
- spiffytech 4y agoYeah, I didn't word that very well. What I'm trying to say is that people who are considered smart in the traditional sense won't always be good at math (or any other specific subject). The difference is something more nuanced than "I'd be good at math if I was smarter".