Each person has his or her own way of understanding. It could be said that it is a quirk of the person's way of thinking.
I'd like to start by talking about what quirks I have when it comes to understanding something new.
I seem to have a habit of looking at specific information and then abstracting it in my own way to figure out the big picture before dropping it into something else.
For example, if you look back at the time when you studied mathematics as a student, you would look at a lot of practice problems with various patterns, instead of looking at mathematical axioms and theorems and thinking about them, and you would get the whole picture.
This habit of thinking takes time to grasp what the other person is imagining, unless the person has a similar pattern of thinking to some extent.
I don't think I'm very good at explaining things to people, but when others explain things to me, I often can't capture the image when I'm the type of person who gives detailed instructions.
Now, on a different note, I sometimes hear people say that people who are really smart are good at explaining things to others, but I don't feel comfortable with that kind of talk.
Conclusively, I don't think I'll have it at all. For this reason, I believe that people who are good at explaining things are only good at imagining the abstract into the concrete.
Even the best professors at universities have had the experience of lectures being incoherent and difficult to understand. Therefore, it is sometimes said that the professor is not really smart (compared to other professors who are good at giving lectures) and therefore the quality of his lectures is poor, or that he is a person who specializes only in his own field of expertise and is bad at teaching people who are not in that field.
However, I think that would be a mistake for the aforementioned reasons. In other words, if it was a pattern of thinking that could be understood as an abstraction, the professor would explain it to the person in a straightforward, abstract way.
At least in the academic world, it is natural that no concrete image of a theory should intervene. So, going back and forth ⇆ abstract ⇆ concrete often does not help understanding. Much less, there is a good chance that the specific information coming in will hinder understanding.
Going back to my story, if my habit of thinking is to observe and abstract all things, it may be said that it is so-called inductive thinking.
That said, it's not like people can divide their way of thinking into two patterns, and I'm not talking about which is better. Dare I say it, it's different in that situation and it's both.
I guess it's better to know your own habits of thought and gather information that is easy to adapt to your own habits so that you don't get confused when you understand something.
Tweet© 2020 ZUUHE