Functions and Science?

[Venom]

* = not freshman bio

So I just failed a biology test* and I was googling around and look at what I found:

Everybody's different, but I hope you get usable advice here.

My question is about your general approach to learning -

Do you first understand the concepts, which leads to grasping the details (common in biologists), or do you have to go through a lot of the details before the bigger concepts become clear (common in chemists)?

Do you need lots of examples to "get" the material (common in physicists), or is it critical that you understand how today's material is different from other material learned earlier (common in artists)?

If you strongly lean in one of these directions, but the exam-writer leans another way (I had this problem in organic chemistry, but I didn't know it at the time), you may need to tailor your studying toward their approach, so you know the material the way they know the material.

Did this person basically just say that biologists are Ne, chemists are S's, physicists are Ti and the NFs/SPs just never really pay attention?

I thought it was humorous enough to post
---------------

I know for me that I have to "reach critical mass" when I study. I basically cross a threshold where I'm going to get a 100%, and before that point I'm going to metaphorically fail (C's etc). I'm never in the B range.

I cant study a little by little and "learn a little bit more each time". I have to "swallow" the material whole. I literally have to circle back over material enough times until it all seems to be "one unit of information". This goes for facts mainly. This is obviously a curse when it comes to classical biology where its lots of life cycles, normal names, genus, species etc...I just CANT FUCKING COMPARTMENTALIZE all this shit! they are all so damn similar! :steam:

Concepts... I usually learn those the first time they are presented...

I should have been a different major ...Kids DONT convince yourself that you're cut out for medschool!!! that place is for ISXJs!
If this is annoying memorization of sr year bio I cant even imagine how horrible medical school is...

 

[Little Linguist]

I usually scored 90% on average for physical science, biology and chemistry, and I was a total failure at physics.

My Ti is in the basement.

That would provide an interesting reason why I was a physics FAIL.

 

[d4mselfly]

Biology is a strong point of mine (except cell/molecular, which is very detail oriented and more like chemistry in that sense... I'm more of an evolutionary biology or zoology person), and I suck at chemistry. I never took physics.

I'll probably come back here to reflect on my studying style after my biology exam. I really have one. I don't think it's going to be pretty, either... too many receptors and transport proteins to remember.

 

[Matthew_Z]

In an effort to talk more about myself without really contributing much, behold my post.

I'd consider myself a concepts person. In Biology, I had a horrible memory for names. However, using my visual memory which I've talked about on several occasions, I can recall a diagram relatively accurately. The function of something was easy to remember. The name was always harder. Molecular Biology was easier because of how often the name relates to the form. Lots of terms made from modifying existing terms. Plant Biology, on the other hand, is much harder to memorize because human fascination and study of plants traces back to days before anyone thought of using consistent terminology. (a side rant, but it always threw me off how the male reproductive organ of a flower was the Stamen while components of the female reproductive structure were Stigma and Style.) Evolutionary Biology was cake because of how visual it was. Again, names were an annoyance, but I can memorize an evolutionary tree with ease. Adaptations allowed for further, thus evidence of what "caused" what being always present.

Chemistry was a different brand. My visual memory helped in knowing the structure and composition of a molecule, how it would break apart, how it would function in a solution with a given pH, etc. Chemistry has the nice aid of seeing how the micro level effects structure on larger levels. While the precision was often attractive, it always seemed like chemists were too devoted to testing everything and not getting anywhere.

Physics... now that's orgasmic. They don't lie when they say math is to masturbation as physics is to sex. Being able to convert energy and find out how it would transform an object is rather awesome.