specific cognitive problem

[andreinikolov]

Hi all,

please read my post.

I have the following cognitive problem :

 

let us say that i study biology; then :

 

1.i read the study book.

2.i have to be tested.

- a laboratory practical task is given. i recall the information from the book in the stages, in which it is needed.

- a theoretical task is given; for example to write an essay or defend a thesis. i recall these fragments of the imformatio, which are necessary to construct the argumentation.

- a written exam is given; for example "write about cell metabolism". and there is the problem.

3.the problem constists in the following :

- i have memorized the whole information from the book.

- if i am asked to present the content of one notion i do it easily.

- if i am asked to present all ideas of one author, or all authors of one theme (including there ideas), i have a hard time answering.

 

the problem can be reduced to the following :

- i can not connect a set of ideas to concrete author.

- i can not connect a set of authors to concrete theme.

- even if i have connected the ideas to the author or the authors to the theme, i can not connect all ideas together, or all authors together, and can not do it consecutively. for example, if the question is about the ideas of one author i will start to recall facts in random order, and it can not be predicted how much time will it take to recall all of them. it seems that i have the knowledge for when certain part of it is needed, but just can not reach to the whole knowledge at once. one more example for clarification : if i know everything about a nail, and i am asked questions like "what is the nail's lenght" or "what is the neil's head's lenght" i will answer easily, but if i am asked questions like "present all facts that you know about this nail" i will have a hard time answering.

 

i hope someone has some ideas. i am thinking on this problem for years, but can not find a neurological or psychological explanation, i can only find means fot compensation in studying; and i need explanations. but even with these means it is still taking me too much time to study, which does not correspond to my intelligence.

 

thank you, ideas are much appreciated.

[CharonY]

I too am actually rather bad at connecting authors with e.g. specific papers (I remember the outcome or the interesting parts, but unless it is a name that pops up often I simply forget it since I often do not feel it is that important, I am somewhat wrong there, though).

 

However, what you describe sounds pretty much like an issue of organizing the info, which is pretty common.

You seem to memorize a lot of facts but to not condense it into little concise stories that are organized withing a certain context. If you are tested with regards to authors (which I am not terribly fond of in most areas) you would have to think about what the stuff was that a given author has worked with, what was his field and what were the discoveries. Then organize your memorized facts (only the important ones) around these questions, for example.I tend to think about functional contexts (say, response to a specific stress) and organize what I know on different levels (e.g. type of organism, phenotype/physiological consequences, global findings, specific mechanisms). One tricky thing that comes with experience is figuring out what you need to know in order to understand a given context (instead of trying to randomly memorizing everything).A good exercise is trying to explain a specific topic to someone else (or even to yourself aloud). If you flood them with little details that make them lose the plot, you are focusing too much on details, if you have logical holes, you are lacking something.

 

So if you are asked to write about metabolism, it is worthwhile to think first, what the topic is about. E.g. are we talking biochemical reactions (e.g. anabolic or catabolic reactions?) or are we talking about principles (what does a cell need?). Just filling it up with memorized facts is usually not what we are after.

Edited November 13, 2012 by CharonY

[andreinikolov]

CharonY, you are probably right. but I :

1.did not thought that it is normal for a men with good or more than good memory to have to place additional effort to organize the material. i could not imagine that those, who speak clearly and with no pauses in an oral examination were previously laying on books, trying to organize material. for example in school, when the material was less i studied 15 minutes before exam, and thought that this is normal for a guy with my memory. that was the first base of my wandering.

2.am usually organizing material - i mentioned in the first post that i have found "means for compensation" - but this is quite annoying and it is not easy for me to consider it normal. also, i know what to ask myself when presented a theme, in order to find what must be said first, i even constructed systems to address this issue; but i think the normal is to naturally think of these things, not because you learned to do it. for example i can never be like those people on the news, which, when asked a question like "what is the nature of your work on this project" are able to summarize all their thoughts and knowledge on the theme in two sentences; in the same situation i will be making a large pause in search for what has to be said, and i can avoid that only by preparing myself before the interview.

thank you.

[lassez]

Seems you had some of my problems, i have Asperger/ ADHD, always had problem not to focus to much on parts on what I am working with. When i try to explani something I mostly go to deep into just the part I see as most important, and do not remember all the things that are necessary for others to understand. I always go to deep into parts of the problem, loosing a loot of the overall knowledge.

 

 

I have got a good explanation to my problem in a book i recently reed "The Gift of adult ADD" by Lara Honos-Webb.

 

Even if you don't have ADDHD/ADD it is a interesting book for all kreative people.

[CharonY]

I am not sure what you consider normal. I found that memorizing to be far easier than actually organizing the information. For the latter you actually require a certain understanding of the material. In school the material is trivial enough that you can get by just by memorizing it prior a test.

But anything past entry-level college material will require organization of the information as it is much more complex than just a list of "facts".

The summary of a given topic in a few sentences is what is often referred to as elevator talk. It actually takes a lot of practice to summarize a more or less complex topic in such a way that it can be clearly expressed. It is certainly not normal. Some have a knack of speaking freely, but if they did not invest time in understanding and organizing the info, it comes over as bullshitting (trust me, a lot of students try that).

 

I think you are overestimating the ability of people to absorb and communicate complex topics (note that speaking confidently is not the same as actually conveying info correctly).

Unless previously prepared everyone should actually take a pause before answering.

Edited November 15, 2012 by CharonY

[andreinikolov]

lassez, yes, that is close to what i am talking about. i will try the book, thank you.

charonY, it is also possible that i am "overestimating the ability of people to absorb and communicate complex topics" to some extent. it is true that the base of my confusion was my unawareness of others experience with learning. thank you.