Type, Memorization, and Concepts

[gmanyo]

I wanted to know what types are better at memorization learning and what types are better at understanding larger concepts and which are better at rote learning and memorization, and also what you, dear reader, are better at on a personal level. I think this would usually be a big N vs S thing (Ns = conceptual, Ss = rote learning).

As a side note, I should probably stop making new topics now. I think this is my fourth one today.

 

[Owfin]

I hate rote learning. Hate. I only understand a concept if I know why it works, and rote learning almost never tells you that. It's just knowing what the results are.

 

[Kierva]

I hate rote learning. Hate. I only understand a concept if I know why it works, and rote learning almost never tells you that. It's just knowing what the results are.

I second this.

 

[Randomnity]

Is it understanding concepts or memorizing concepts? Understanding them is generally the easiest part of a class, it's being able to spit them onto paper out of nowhere that's difficult. I still have fond memories of the undergrad physics course I took that required NO memorizing of anything, we were given all the formulas on the exam and just had to apply them to the concepts we had learned. So no studying necessary. That is not exactly common in university! I did very well in that class AND spent very little time studying/working on concepts, it was great.

i.e., for me, understanding concepts (is easier than) memorizing rote facts (is easier than) memorizing complex concepts

It also really depends on the amount of information you're memorizing. It's easy to memorize a page or two of random things, can be done in a few hours. It gets much much more difficult when it's a large amount of random facts, and in that case memorizing concepts becomes an easier task, since it has some organization to it.

and obviously not all concepts are created equal. wrapping your mind around how more than 3 dimensions might "look" is a lot different from, I don't know, understanding the life cycle of a tapeworm or something.

so I don't think it's really a simple answer, at least for me.

 

[strychnine]

I definitely prefer understanding concepts. Over the years I've learned that my memory is truly atrocious, even memory aids like acronyms don't help because I forget the acronym or confuse it with another acronym.

Even with an understood concept, I can have difficulty explaining my knowledge. Even when I understand it very well, it's like a vague impression or blob in my head, so I don't know where to start when explaining it to others/ on a test.

 

[skylights]

these seem like very different (on a conceptual level) tasks to me and not necessarily type related. and i do not think they are inversely related to one another.

for instance, i am very good at short-term rote memorization, but that says nothing about whether i understand the concept. to understand a concept i must start with an overview, so i can understand where to "fit" those details in. i don't understand how to string the details together unless i have the big picture... they all just seem a messy muddle of irrelevant facts to me otherwise. if i have the big picture, i can fit the details in and keep the memory - otherwise, the rote peaces out after a short while.

i do not personally think that there is a connection between N = conceptual and S = rote. i think Ns, especially doms, tend to need to start and end with the conceptual, and Ss would prefer to start and end with "world units" - ie pieces of reality. but that does not correspond to big picture vs rote detail - i know a Se dom friend of mine who is a big picture thinker because she tends to see things in "environments", much like i do (though hers are more temporal, and linked outside of time via Ni, while mine are more timeless and linked within time via Si).

thus i think the difference between N and S is more about theory vs reality as opposed to concepts vs rote.

so essentially as far as i understand it is like this:

Ne user - focus on big conceptual picture, made up of Si world-pieces
Se user - focus on big environmental picture, linked via Ni connection
Ni user - focus on series of archetypes, made up of Se instances
Si user - focus on series of world-pieces, linked via Ne connection

and we are all best at our personal focus. but that does not necessarily have anything to do with how good we are at rote memorization. i do think Si and Ti types have the most facility with taking a set of details and making use of them, since they are experts in piecing small units together.

 

[Randomnity]

yeah, what [MENTION=10496]skylights[/MENTION] said.

 

[gmanyo]

I feel like it might even have more to do with upbringing than type. Since I spent all of my high school years in Taiwan at an American school, there was a large cultural diversity. You could clearly see that the American cultured kids (not talking about race: this included Asians who lived most of their life in America) were generally better at getting concepts, and the Asian cultured kids were much better at memorizing facts and getting good test scores.

Then again, there were a couple Asian kids who were fucking amazing at both, so maybe rote learning is mostly being good at hard work, and conceptual understanding is more of a born-in thing.

 

[Asterion]

Rote learning and conceptual learning come hand in hand. Once you are familiar enough to know where everything is, you piece together each purpose to get the whole picture, or you get a brief big picture and then look at each part in depth. I think that you must exercise both to learn well.

Most sensors I know do enjoy focusing on specific details. I prefer to focus on the idea of a topic, some of the guys at work will discuss how many runs Clarke made in cricket, but I like to wonder why are runs important? Why are they called runs instead of points? I think this is the difference between S vs N. N topics are about ideas, S topics about facts and details, each preference can bring something to the table too, it's not like Sensors refuse to accept Intuitive insights or vice verse (unless they are dickheads, lol).

 

[Owfin]

The thing is that detail is not simultaneous with rote to me. It might be for Ns, which would be the cause of the confusion. I want to know why every piece works, and then I can build up a whole system.

 

[Southern Kross]

^ Interesting point. How would you define the difference? Can you give any examples?

All I know is that I'm bad with memorising anything, including detailed concepts. It is easier for me to remember things if I have been shown the connections between concepts and/or a significant meaning that can be taken from them. I need to know why it is important, what the effects or implications are, what pattern it creates within a system of ideas and what this pattern tells me; otherwise all I remember are vague aspects and broad strokes at best because it all just looks like random data to me.

 

[Owfin]

^ Interesting point. How would you define the difference? Can you give any examples?

When I get a formula in math, I need to know what X is doing, why X works, what Y is doing, why it works, why you can make it into a different equation, why you can graph it this way or that. I get a really thick understanding of it.

I am not sure what exactly it would be like for types with different perceiving function orders.

 

[gmanyo]

When I get a formula in math, I need to know what X is doing, why X works, what Y is doing, why it works, why you can make it into a different equation, why you can graph it this way or that. I get a really thick understanding of it.

I am not sure what exactly it would be like for types with different perceiving function orders.

This is why I hated pre-calc, and found it significantly harder than Calculus. It was just memorizing equations, and you just had to trust that they made sense.

 

[skylights]

When I get a formula in math, I need to know what X is doing, why X works, what Y is doing, why it works, why you can make it into a different equation, why you can graph it this way or that. I get a really thick understanding of it.

I am not sure what exactly it would be like for types with different perceiving function orders.

cool. my questions tend to run: why do i want to know this formula? where does it get me? why should i care about wherever it gets me? is it interesting? if not, is there a faster way of doing this?

and then later if it passes my "importantance testing" i will ask similar questions to yours.

this might in part be Pe vs Pi difference too, though. Ne is indeed a skimming function.

The thing is that detail is not simultaneous with rote to me. It might be for Ns, which would be the cause of the confusion. I want to know why every piece works, and then I can build up a whole system.

i think detail can seem rote to us because in general it seems not to carry very much importance (besides certain details at certain times).

 

[lauranna]

I find it easy to memorise word for word large amounts of information. I can still remember most of a translation of a passage about ten pages long I learnt for Latin GCSE which was about 13 years ago. So I always scored very highly (often 100%) on any exams which you could pass by memorising information.

Anything which requires understanding of concepts, i have to actually be interested in it to learn it. Otherwise I just don't.

 

[CuriousFeeling]

I have poor skills in rote memorization. If I am to memorize something, I have to set it to something musical/poetic, or use flash cards. I am much better at applying concepts, extrapolating/interpolating/interpreting data. The way that I end up memorizing things like formulas and reagents to use in chemical reactions involves doing a lot of practice problems that it ends up becoming second nature, or finding a connection to said idea/reaction/mathematical formula to a larger concept.

Detailed data to memorize causes information overload for me, and my brain shuts down. Give me the general concept that is at play, then I tend to remember things best. Additionally, give me a procedure that something operates by, step by step process for doing something, and have it as a succinct outline, I do much better with it.

 

[Orangey]

I think I am incapable of doing any rote intellectual activity because I am incapable of withstanding the torture of prolonged mental boredom. I'd rather not do any of that sort of work, save it all up for the last minute, and have to rush to get it done just to make it a more exciting activity. And even then I don't really "learn" anything. That's basically how I got through school.

So, yeah, "rote learning" is kind of a contradiction of terms.

Also, I'd like to agree with the person who said that a distinction needs to be made between learning details and rote memorization (namely, you don't need the latter to do the former.) If you don't like details, how do you gain a refined knowledge of anything at all?

 

[CuriousFeeling]

I think I am incapable of doing any rote intellectual activity because I am incapable of withstanding the torture of prolonged mental boredom. I'd rather not do any of that sort of work, save it all up for the last minute, and have to rush to get it done just to make it a more exciting activity. And even then I don't really "learn" anything. That's basically how I got through school.

So, yeah, "rote learning" is kind of a contradiction of terms.

Also, I'd like to agree with the person who said that a distinction needs to be made between learning details and rote memorization (namely, you don't need the latter to do the former.) If you don't like details, how do you gain a refined knowledge of anything at all?

And there's also a difference between parroting the details vs. actually achieving a deep understanding of what those ideas mean. Gaining refined knowledge of the details begins with synthesizing them together, and then forming an insight about them. If I'm given details, I'm terrible at recalling them exactly, but I can give you the general concept that weaves the details together.

 

[Owfin]

And there's also a difference between parroting the details vs. actually achieving a deep understanding of what those ideas mean. Gaining refined knowledge of the details begins with synthesizing them together, and then forming an insight about them. If I'm given details, I'm terrible at recalling them exactly, but I can give you the general concept that weaves the details together.

Not for me. I work the other way around. Gaining a refined knowledge of the whole begins with understanding the details.

 

[gmanyo]

Straight up memorization is required in some areas, though. Language, for example, requires a lot of memorization, and there's not really an "understanding" component once you already know the grammar and you're just trying to learn vocabulary.