Although this issue has been around for ages, I've only seriously given it though in the past couple of years, as I started attending harder AP and Honors courses.

There are 2 "ways of thought".

The first one is learning. A person reads an advanced physics textbook once, and just "gets" everything without repetition or too much hassle. There are different levels of being a learner, of course, starting from just easily understanding stuff, and ending with being able to read an equation in the top of the page, and deriving it and getting another one before it is introduced at the bottom of the page (I'm talking about advanced math equations, not A^2 + B^2 = C^2 type of crap).

The second thought process is memorizing. A person read a segment, and only "gets" a fraction of it. They then have to reread it/look at the end of chapter notes/ask for help, etc.. This thought process also ranges in levels, from people who have to go over the same thing 40 times to finally comprehend it, to people who just have to repeat it twice or trice before reaching a complete understanding.


I've also noticed that this mental distribution is not genetic. My cousin for example, is the last person you will ask for help with math for, yet his dad is a genius engineer with an IQ of 160, and his mom is a brilliant computer programmer.

The opposite is also true, a friend of mine has read the chem AP, Physics AP and Biology AP textbooks in about 3 weeks, and he aced every single test he took in those classes (and he also took a bunch of other advanced classes, though I don't want to get into that...). Nevertheless, his parents barely have a grasp over the English language (they are American, not foreigners), not to mention basic math or science.



I am making this thread for 2 reasons.

1. I would like to know where you categorize yourselves on the "learner/memorizer" scale. I think I am a 65% learner, as I usually get things the first time, but sometimes I have to repeat them.

2. Do you think these learning are acquired by nature or nurture? As mentioned before, and I have more examples, its not really genetic, yet studying a lot will just be "Memorizing for learning".



Thanks for all of the replies.

Interesting thread to say the least.

With me it depends on the subject in question to be perfectly honest. My reading comprehension always greatly impressed my teachers starting in middle school and I was always on a level several grades ahead. Same with history and biology.

Math however is a completely different story and I am most definitely a memorizer if even that. I was diagnosed learning disabled in math subjects during 8th grade and while I excelled at the subjects mentioned above it was amazingly difficult for me to grasp anything relating to numbers.

It depends on the situation:
Back in school I tended to simply memorize stuff I only needed to pass my tests and not any further, because I knew that I would never make use of it again.
Topics that however caught my interest (like history) were something I decided to learn. Learning imo is not just reproducing something, but to understand the "key" behind it. This "key" sometimes is hard to acquire, but I made the experience that once you nail it down, it literally opens you a lot of locked doors and you don't even need to memorize stuff, because it will flow to you simply by following that thread.
It's just a matter of how much dedication you want to put into something.

That's the point, how do you understand the "key", without memorizing? Not everyone can just get the "key", sometimes the have to check under a lot of "doormats" to find it.

What makes people simply "get" it?

As long as the person understands it in the end they have learned it, if they know what it is but don't understand it then its memorizing. With computer programming it's hard to not understand what you're doing with most languages (especially with OO ones) however with Assembly I know some stuff but its just from memorizing.

I think intelligence is to do with genetics, more often then not 2 smart parents = smart child, there are exceptions though.

I'm a learner, and I've always had a desire to learn more than necessary. The only thing I have to memorize is math, sometimes.

People understand things differently. Remember, Einstein was thought to be practically retarded as a child because he was so bad at math. His learning process was just so different. It's all in how we're wired.

Repetition is typically the key for me. It's rare that I understand something fairly complex instantly. Most of my learning comes from tons of abstract thinking where I keep going until something make sense to me. For instance, I'm currently working on this truly awful file-saving system for my work. It's about as asinine and cumbersome as you can imagine, and only yesterday (after roughly a week) did it settle in and finally start to make sense. Oftentimes, it's all in the explanation.

If it's something simple, like learning a new job or task or something, I tend to learn it after the first actual hands-on time. For complex things that I'm interested in, such as science, math, physics, astronomy, etc, my learning process isn't as great.

Learned things stick with you longer than memorized crap, in my experience. I memorized a lot of shit during my Army training. I actually have a hard time remembering it now because I don't really need it.

This is something I've noticed about my son (who is 5). I spent about an hour and a half teaching him how to count logically a couple weeks ago. It's a big challenge. He counts to 17 through memorization alone and I know that it's not going to stick that way. So we sat down and counted up to 120 together so that I could teach him to think numbers logically. Once we pass 100 it was a little tough again, but from around 40-100, he was really getting it. I was teaching him that there are only 10 basic numbers that repeat logically the higher you go. I wanted to see him thinking rather than guessing or memorizing. You count 0-9, and then start over, but with new numbers in the front, and the new numbers are "logical next steps." It was hard as hell trying not to over-complicate this to him. But he seemed to be getting it.

There was a time as a kid that I loved math. Up until the 7th grade, it was one of my favorite and best subjects. I still love the simple math in Brain Age on the DS. Pre-Algebra just killed me, though.

I'm curious, what is seen as advanced math in AP courses?

It's hardly useful to memorize physics and mathematics formulae, other than to pass an exam. Understanding the geist is the key. One remembers regularly used tools as the solution to Poissons equation, residue calculus or vector analysis just from using them so much - even if some have problems grasping them at first sight. Knowing every special Laplace transform (impossible) or even Stoke's analogies (what, are there two?) is just pointless. That's what reference literature is for.

Anyway, I understand such texts fairly easily when I read them (unless the notation is some odd variant), though there's always the nonintuitive step that gets a 30 second-stare. (Often because the writer saw fit to leave out a couple of lines.) That said, I wouldn't be able to reproduce, in a reasonably brief time, the proof of say Morera's theorem if I just read it the day before. It takes some memorizing of the outline of the proof to get it right, which I find is most easily achieved by writing it once a day a couple of days in a row - looking at notes only when they really are needed.

With me it's comprehension. I remember what I see and read, the first time I see and read it - and we can talk about it a few weeks down the road like it just happened last night.

I place it all on the shoulders one's emotional reactions to their experiences. And in my case, I get excited at the prospect of seeing/reading/learning something new and therefore react quite positively to it.

I'm a learner

I can't use something (a formula, or some statement) without knowing what's behind it. I'll usually play around mathematical equations until I figure out why each variable or value is there.

I also can remember things I understand very easily. I have no outstanding memory for stuff like "where did I put this?" or "when did that happen?", but I can remember for years notions that I learned at some point because I understand it, so it's not like I memorized it, but I can explain it back to myself. I still remember simple concepts I learned back in high school, in maths, physics or chemistry. Not because I memorized any of it though, I just learned it, and my brain just... dunno... keeps that information safe or something.
I study very little (half the time, I don't study at all) for exams, yet I get very high scores, simply because I rarely need to go back into something I already learned.

Reminds me of what Alexander the Great said about Aristotle, "He put the world in order but could not find the marketplace without a guide."

I wasn't talking about memorizing, I was talking about reading the beginning of the proof on the top of the page, and getting to the final result mentally before actually reading it.

The thing with me, I understand the concepts, and how things work, but for some reason, I can never apply them completely to a problem by myself, though when I see how its done, I hit my head on the wall and say "how come i didn't think of that?". I guess I am just very very sloppy...

The human mind is a funny funny thing.

It's basically one real-variable calculus, with a short look at plane polar coordinates and curves then? Even if done with extreme rigour I don't see why it should take 3 semesters.



I can do that, though of course not every time. Especially not in "trick proofs" or what could only be called hard proofs.

I guess that by your definitions I'm more or less a learner.



I know what you mean. I still know the atomic weight of chlorine, which is totally useless to me.

Calc BC is less then 2 semesters (the class is usually done by mid April in order to review for the test).

If I understand your definitions correctly, I'd say I'm probably 90% "learner" for subjects that deeply interest me, yet 90% "memorizer" for subjects that don't. I'll pick up on difficult concepts in, say, literature or behavioral biology very quickly, while in chemistry for example I'll have to go over something many times before I "get" it, and then I'll likely forget it soon after I no longer need to know it anyway.

I think a lot of people are probably similar, in that when they're studying something intellectually engaging they learn things much more quickly, while when something bores them it takes much longer.

Well, for me, learning is memorization - ingrained understanding. There is a superficial form of memorization, where things are memorized but not understood, but people who "get it" the first time, usually have already been accumulating knowledge that allows the knew information to be understood and retained the first time. So I guess I'm just coming from a different perspective. Right now I'm preparing for a gig this Friday of just an hour of music, but it all has to be memorized. I understand the music, but being able to reproduce it note for note requires memorization of it. And similarly, in jazz, certain forms at least, just knowing the main melodies and the chord progressions is all you need, and the majority of input you have is improvised, derived from the knowledge that you have learned previously. Can we really say these are different processes?

For number 2, it is certainly both. I've met people that, for whatever reason, just can't get it. But, since the level of education somone from Europe has compared to someone from rural India might have, it's pretty clear to me that the result of most knowledge is through the process of nurture, not necessarily through parents, but through an educational system with capable instructors.

Don't quite know what percentage I am. But basically, if I give a shit, I'll learn it in a heartbeat.

On one hand, I spent 11 and a half years learning maths at school but because I don't care, now I probably couldn't pass a grade 5 math test.

On the other hand; Something like hyperinflation, I find absolutely fascinating, so I took years worth of learning overnight and could give you the heart and soul of any hyperinflated economy whether it be Zimbabwe or post-WWII Hungary.

I learn what I want to know and memorize what I HAVE to know.

I dont know what percent I am, but I have a photographic memory so I can memorize things really easily, but I also understand what I memorise otherwise I wouldnt be at the top of my university class(The questions are based around understanding of the material, not rote learning)

Nice Thread..
As far as your 1st question is concerned, i would rate myself 50/50 on that scale.I am a medicine student,so there are certain things like doses of drugs,certain signs that i need to memorize.But there are certain topics where i need to have a grasp on the basics of the topic,so i need to understand that properly first.
So my simple answer would be Learning a topic makes it easier for you to memorize it(if at all you need it)
While if its maths or physics you are talking about,I never memorized themI somehow had a very good knack of tackling the problems easily.Only memorized few important formulae while i used to derive many commonly used equations myself rather than memorizing.
Inorganic chemistry was an exception though,Organic chem is pretty similar to mathematics.

2.As far as your second question is concerned,Learning abilities are different in different persons. for example,my cousin,He just doesnt want to learn things, he just tried to mug everything up and vomits it out in the exams and few months later all that knowledge is gone.
So learning helps you in long run while memorizing is for short term gains

People have always said that I have an "undeserved intelligence". Basically, I'm a lazy slacker (not boasting or anything, just saying) and I hardly ever used to study (when I was still in high school), yet I had a tendency to do anywhere from above average to great on tests. I'm not sure if it's because I have a good memory, or because I am able to easily comprehend/learn things easily but I always found most subjects to be pretty easy without too much effort (aside from math, which was my weak point for sure.)

My thoughts exactly. I, myself, haven't bothered learning anything new in Math since 7th grade. I don't plan on going into a Math-related field of work, so as long as I know the simple stuff, I should be okay. However, in English, I'm always up for learning something new.

lol... lazy me only read the first post, so idk if this reply is off topic is following the discussion or not...

basically I see 'learning' and 'memorizing' as actually just acquiring the knowledge in 2 different ways. For instance, you learn a concept, and you understand the underlying theory. You might memorize your multiplication tables, but this might not help you figure out what the product of two numbers is, unless it was one of the ones you memorized. However, we have all 'memorized' the alphabet and we all know without even thinking what each letter is, how it sounds, what word it makes when combined with this other letter etc.

So, in conclusion: Memorizing is a part of learning, but it is by no means the only part. Its like the difference between a tape recorder and a multitrack mixer (I am the king of analogies that confuse everyone except me)

When I was at school, I used to be pretty good at memorizing a lot of math equations and things of that nature, but now that I've been out of school for 5 years, I'd probably struggle a fair bit. I'd have to relearn all of the formulas and stuff...but because I couldn't give a shit these days, it would take a long time.

For metal, if I hear a good song, I'll remember a riff or maybe two immediately. The more I hear it, the more I will remember, even if it's technical death. For complicated songs, I will never remember every cymbal hit or guitar pick, but I'll get the general idea after enough spins. The same can go for drumming: My teacher will give me a bar of music to play, and once I attempt it a few times (for harder exercises), I'll usually remember what my hands and feet need to do at what times.

I work with communication officers in the mornings, and while I'm not one myself, working there for a few years has meant I've picked up on some of their terminology. For example, the phonetic alphabet (alpha, bravo, charlie, delta, echo, foxtrot, golf, etc.)...I never knew any of that before, but by hearing this sort of thing almost daily, I eventually memorize it. I also know some other call signs and channels they use and how they dispatch Police to various situations. So, if I ever decide I want to get a job there, I have a small advantage in the fact I already know some terminology.

To answer the question, I hardly ever "get" something at once, even for things I care about. I'm not a very bright person, so it makes everything else harder to grasp, but if I concentrate enough even on things I hate, eventually I'll get it.

As for myself, I'd say based on subject I'm usually majority one way or the other. As for things like history, music related I'm more of a learner, where as mathematics, and physics I'm definitely a memorizer.

I believe this all has to do with the way persons brains are wired / function. Like some savants whose brains are all missed wired (as per majority's normal) and yet through that attain a certain over developed functioning well beyond normal capacity.

id say when im actually paying attention that im a learner on most stuff. as for wheter its nature or nurture i do believe its how your brain is, i dont think you could learn to be a learner you get things or you dont ya know? sometimes you gotta go back.

I think the major difference between learning and rote memorization is that when you are actually learning, you are linking the information with things you already know, integrating it as you go. Therefore it becomes part of your general knowledge base, and much easier to access when you try later on the remember what the hell it was you read. It also makes the information meaningful, instead of a bunch of disconnected pieces, which is what you tend to get when you memorize. For me, if I memorize something without thinking about how it relates to other things, trying to find that little stray chunk of information in my brain later on is usually impossible, it could be anywhere. When I integrate whatever I am learning into things I already know, I tend to be able to remember what I learned later on without even having to try.

I have noticed that while I tend be a learner more than a memorizer, when I have no background whatsoever in a subject I end up memorizing unless I can find a way to connect whatever I am trying to learn to areas I do have some knowledge in.

I saw a good example for my definition of learning in the movie "Good will Hunting". Matt Damon's character was a "full" learner. He just looked at something, and understood it.


Is there a way to increase one's intelligence? I saw this http://www.intelligent-systems.com.ar/i ... ncrint.htm but I don't know anyone who ever tried it.

I think the difference is very apparent in higher level mathematics. My math teacher can usually tell the difference between a memorizer and a learner just by looking at how they do 1 problem.

A memorizer in math will look at patterns. The "I did this here, and it applies here" kind of thought. It's not thinking, it's simply applying patterns and it works on easier problems. However, once a person hits a harder problem, it becomes obvious. A memorizer will attempt to apply patterns that he got from other problems, which is what the problems are designed to guard against.

A learner will know how to apply what he learned on every problem, not simply apply working patterns. Usually, a learner will not have too much trouble with a higher level problem.

I try to be a learner, but memorizing is easier sometimes, and I do it subconsciously with some problems.

I believe I am more of a learner. As a History major - I have always excelled in the subject. I learn History far better because of the format I learn it in: a diagrammed time line. For example, how do many of you remember movies? By the sequenced plot - I simply apply the same strategy to History, really no memorization needed. I understand that propounding this idea is far from revolutionary - platitudinous at best - however it does explain a different approach to learning that many do not get about history. I read, understand, and move on. Math on the other hand, I always have had a harder time grasping due to the memorization of formulas to implement the solution understanding the answer from repetition and practice. Math, at best, can only be inculcated to me as it doesn't present itself clearly/plainly like History or English.

I would say all of this applies to more of a process of how you are taught in the early stages of development. My nephew, for example, at 2 years old can go through his ABC's and also give you each letter sound. Obviously he is memorizing, but through his memorization he also acquired the ability to understand what he is learning whereas most students cram in information for a test only to forget it within a week.

I also think part of the learning process is based on the learners interest in the subject matter. I think many people are "selective learners" - memorizing and understanding things according to their personal and initial level of interest in the subject. For instance, those who have an interest in Math will understand and memorize it better than those who have no interest whatsoever. Applying yourself in a subject you have an interest learning about will yield far better results in the end than something you are dreading to learn about or uninterested in initially.

How do you try? Please share.

Well in math, I tend to apply patterns on the easier problems subconsciously, and not work them through with thought (Related Rates comes to mind), and then when I hit a harder problem, I get my ass kicked, so I end up doing the work over again with a thought process and it takes twice as long ==;