A little lost

[LughLongarm]

Ok a little bit of background on me. I recently was tested using the WAIS III to determine my intelligence as part of my therapy for post traumatic stress disorder due to combat exposure in Iraq. I scored within the top .001 percentile and was told the test didnt go high enough to give an accurate gauge of my intelligence. I want to clarify I am not bragging at all. I never thought of myself as smart and always learned that my frustration with other people was my fault. I am not well educated either so while I have the intelligence it means nothing without the knowledge to use with it. My problem is in studying. I have decided that I want to make something of what I have been given other than wasting my life, but cant seem to get through any text books. . . . for example: "Centrioles behave as train conductors of the cell. They organize microtubles, which help move the parts of the cell during cell division." Ok easy enough to read but I read this and I think "how do they organize them? What is the process that physically does it? Its not like they have little hands to move stuff. . .? How do they know where to go? How do they know when to do it?" Every line I read in text books to learn new things just gives me 50 more questions!? Are these things I should already know? Am I supposed to just memorize the material and repeat it like a trained parrot without ever understanding the full scope of the subject? Should I maybe start with something simpler? The more I try to learn the more questions I have, the dumber I feel, and the more I would almost rather go back to playing video games, and working my not so important 9-5 job taking out the trash. . .

[hypervalent_iodine]

It is often the case that text books either gloss over complicated processes either because the mechanisms are not fully understood or because the target audience for the books themselves is not at a level at which a complicated explanation is necessary. For undergraduate, asking a student to just accept that this thing does that is quite common place, because of time restraints or because it is simply to complicated for their level of education. University level text books will generally assume no more than a high-school equivalent knowledge (sometimes, they won't even assume that), so no, the things you mentioned are not things you should already know. If you have questions like that, the best place to search for answers is by reading scientific literature. You can search topics on Google scholar if you do not already have access to a scientific journal search engine. Pubmed is another site that may provide a wealth of knowledge (although not all of it is accessible).

 

Or, you could always ask specific questions here. There are a lot of biologists, chemists (such as myself), physicists, etc. who would be more than willing to help understand

[Horza2002]

The thing with text books is that they are designed to get poeple to the next level of basic understanding (i.e. get you to a basic level to pass a degree). As Hypervalent has just said, sometimes certain processes are just glossed over because either the mechanism is not know/fully understood or it simply just too complicated and would omly serve to confuse people who are trying to learn about it...too much information in one go is often far more problematic when learning a new area than too little I have found in my experience.

 

That is the of the wonders of science...the more you learn, the more questions it raises. Don't be downheartened at all! That is a completely normal response to people, especially when they are just starting out to learn about science as it appears that you are. I am currently a PhD student in chemical biology, it has taken me 4 years of training to get this far...it is certainly not a quick fix.

 

It will also depend on the subject you are studying about whether you just have to memorise stuff. To some extent, all subjects require you to memorise stuff. However in my experience, biology is just simply remember all of this stuff and be able to use it. Chemistry is more remember these few basic rules and then use them to understand situations that you havn't seen before. Physics is also similar to chemistry, you just need to understand some basics to be able to move on.

[ewmon]

I'm guessing you're a bit like me. Most students around me were able/happy to accept one layer of understanding at a time; however, I often found (and still find) myself needing some in-depth (ie, deeper layers of) understanding before "accepting" what was being presented to us. I'm the type to ask questions -- lots of questions -- and questions to which co-workers or bosses may not have the answer. Most workers are happy to do their work superficially; I'm not.

 

the more you learn, the more questions it raises.

... and it never really ends. I know a fellow of supposedly "average" intelligence who wanted to play the organ at his church, so he began learning music, then chords and harmonics and frequencies, and then algebra, which then led him to calculus and differential equations!!! And he did this on his own, self-taught from books.

 

To some extent, all subjects require you to memorise stuff.

Hopefully people will find ways of organizing information, and I believe that almost all information has some organization to it. For example, imagine the arduous task of trying to memorize the list of elements without the periodic table.

 

PS -- Because of this need for more info, it may seem that you are "slow". Also, you (or others) may feel that you take time to respond or draw conclusions to scientific matters or everyday events, and that you aren't quick to judge. I'm tempted to clump together all these characteristics (mentioned in this post) and attribute them to my manner of perception. Maybe I'm thinking with the so-called "parallel" side of the brain instead of the "serial" side.

Edited March 23, 2011 by ewmon

[Blahah]

As others have said, it's perfectly common among curious people to firstly find textbooks are a very linear method of gaining knowledge, and secondly knowledge generates questions faster than answers.

 

My own solution to the textbook problem is about how I take notes and study. When reading a textbook I always have a notebook and a laptop, I take notes when I feel it's necessary and always write my own questions about the material in a different colour. When I finish a small topic I review the notes and research all the questions I came up with on the internet. Usually this takes considerably longer than the textbook topic, and often generates a whole new set of questions. It can take days, but satisfying your curiosity rather than suppressing it is one of the most satisfying things there is.

 

Often you will come up with questions (especially in biology) that nobody knows the answer to. The subject is growing extremely fast and this makes it exciting as a research area. Keep them in mind, because as you learn more you might start to think of new ways to tackle problems and there's a good chance you could add something valuable to the subject.

 

Never be afraid to post all your questions on here if you want to quickly get pointed in the right direction. Forums are great for non-linear learning.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Blahah

[Mr Skeptic]

If you don't like textbooks, you could study online. One fairly good source is Wikipedia; you can use that to get a broad overview of just about any topic, and it also contains plenty of references. Other than that, there are some more specialized sources for information elsewhere online, but you need to know how to search to find them.

[Marat]

An interesting study was done a number of years ago to determine why non-mathematicians tended to panic when they were introduced to new and unfamiliar areas of mathematics while mathematicians could just passively absorb the new information gradually without panicking until their initial questions were clarified. It turned out that non-mathematicians are uncomfortable with moving ahead in any subject unless they feel that they have an absolutely solid comprehension of each step and all its implications before the next step appears, while mathematicians could just relax and take in ten or twelve totally foreign, incompletely or totally uncomprehended formal concepts, and then hold them all in suspension until their logical interconnections were fleshed out.

 

Perhaps you just have an extreme version of the non-mathematical mind, which can be a very important thing to have since you will be more vigilant in spotting false steps and assumptions en route to any conclusion, though perhaps less efficient in absorbing totally new material in a provisional way.