In high school, I seldom studied. Despite that, I graduated 2nd in my class. In university, I generally studied less than an hour or two before major examinations. But over 4 years, my GPA always sat between an An and an A+. Latterly I had to write a law exam worth 100% of my last grade. Sadly, I was out of the country and didn't get back by plane till late Sun. night.
I had to pen the test at 9 am Monday morning. I got an An after sixty minutes of review on the aeroplane. Right now, I am making a guess almost all of you believe I am merely an conceited jerk. And, if the story stopped there, you would most likely be right. The truth is most of my achievements are relatively common-or-garden. I have had an opportunity to meet polyglots who talk 8 languages, folk who've mastered treble course loads and scholars who went from C or B averages to straight A+ grades while studying less than before.
The tale isn't about how great I'm (I'm certainly not) or about the wonderful financial accomplishments of other learners. The tale is about an insight: that smart people do not just learn better, they also learn differently. It's this different plan, not just blind luck and audacity, that separates quick learners from people who struggle. Most sources say that the difference in IQ scores across a group is approximately half genes and half environment. I definitely will not discount that. Some people got a bigger sip of the genetic cocktail. Some people's folks read their kids Chaucer and tutored them in
I had to pen the test at 9 am Monday morning. I got an An after sixty minutes of review on the aeroplane. Right now, I am making a guess almost all of you believe I am merely an conceited jerk. And, if the story stopped there, you would most likely be right. The truth is most of my achievements are relatively common-or-garden. I have had an opportunity to meet polyglots who talk 8 languages, folk who've mastered treble course loads and scholars who went from C or B averages to straight A+ grades while studying less than before.
The tale isn't about how great I'm (I'm certainly not) or about the wonderful financial accomplishments of other learners. The tale is about an insight: that smart people do not just learn better, they also learn differently. It's this different plan, not just blind luck and audacity, that separates quick learners from people who struggle. Most sources say that the difference in IQ scores across a group is approximately half genes and half environment. I definitely will not discount that. Some people got a bigger sip of the genetic cocktail. Some people's folks read their kids Chaucer and tutored them in
quantum-level mechanics. However , in spite of those gifts, if rapid learners had a different system for learning than normal students, wouldn't you want to grasp what it was?
The simplest way to understand the strategy of rapid learners is to take a look at its opposite, the approach most people take: rote memorization. Rote memorization is based on the concept that if you look at information enough times it'll magically be stored within your head.This wouldn't be a horrible speculation if your cortex were like a computer. Computers just need one attempt to store info fantasically. However , in practice rote memorization means reading information again and again. If you had to save a file 10 times in a computer to guarantee it was stored, you'd likely throw it in the garbage. The method of rapid learners is dissimilar. Instead of memorizing by rote, rapid learners store info by linking ideas together.
Instead of repetition, they find connections. These connections make a web of knowledge that will succeed even if you forget one part.When you concentrate on it, the assumption that successful learners create a web has intuitive appeal. The brain is not a computer hard drive, with millions of bytes and bits in a linear sequence. It's an interwoven network of trillions of neurons. Why not adopt the strategy that sounds correct with the way your brain really works?
The simplest way to understand the strategy of rapid learners is to take a look at its opposite, the approach most people take: rote memorization. Rote memorization is based on the concept that if you look at information enough times it'll magically be stored within your head.This wouldn't be a horrible speculation if your cortex were like a computer. Computers just need one attempt to store info fantasically. However , in practice rote memorization means reading information again and again. If you had to save a file 10 times in a computer to guarantee it was stored, you'd likely throw it in the garbage. The method of rapid learners is dissimilar. Instead of memorizing by rote, rapid learners store info by linking ideas together.
Instead of repetition, they find connections. These connections make a web of knowledge that will succeed even if you forget one part.When you concentrate on it, the assumption that successful learners create a web has intuitive appeal. The brain is not a computer hard drive, with millions of bytes and bits in a linear sequence. It's an interwoven network of trillions of neurons. Why not adopt the strategy that sounds correct with the way your brain really works?