Like are some people born to understand things quicker than others. I know ADD and ADHD, is hereditary, and can effect the rate of learning. But besides that are some people just faster or slower at learning than others? Or is it just how the kids were taught at a young age etc.

It's basically the nature/nurture debate, which seems to have been resolved by saying both factors play a role in development.

There is most likely some genetic basis for "intelligence" (define it as you like) but any gift must be nurtured and honed, if an extremely intelligent child was raised in a bad enviroment (abuse, etc) then his or her full potential probably wouldn't be fully realized.

I see intelligence in two categories:
Work ethic and aptitude

Work ethic means you study every night, do your homework, learn extra material, etc.
Aptitude means you are just naturally good at it. You can copy your homework and not study and still ace the test.

Aptitude is what is inherited from your parents.
But your work ethic, which is really what makes you successful in life, is what makes you appear smart and helps you get better grades. You develop this on your own.

Like the pretty true stereotypes of Asians:
Their genetics make them smart
and their culture makes them have incredible work ethic
So they study hard and are already naturally gifted.

I think ADD/ADHD is an excuse most of the time... I've rarely heard cases of ADD and ADHD in other countries like India, what those kids who supposedly have it need is just better concentration and work ethic...they just need to be engaged by something they like.

Also, Ive seen that people who learn slower often are better at the subject then people who learn faster (eventually)

You're right in saying ADD and ADHD is over-diagnosed probably 80% of the time. Nonetheless, there are still serious cases where it is an obvious problem.

As for the learning faster/slower thing, can you elaborate?

I'm guessing (BovineDesi I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or anything, you may have meant something completely different) that someone who learns a subject at a slower pace will have more exposure to the subject matter and through practice will become more proficient then someone who just speeds through something.

I could see how sometimes this could apply, but it wouldn't in all cases (probably would apply better to hands on tasks).

interest i guess too

I think that's just only situational and it kind of refers to what I said with the whole balance of work ethic/aptitude. Sometimes if you have such a good work ethic you don't even need to be smart.

Alot of time the difference between fast learners and slow learners is that those who learn fast can pick up and apply the subject material with only a superficial understanding (note, this is really just a generalization) -- they don't really need to be explained the inner workings of whats going on, they can just look at whats happening on the chalk board and say, well I can draw this connection to another problem and bam its solved.

Slow learners, generally they're the people who can't quickly realize connections because they over think the problem. Slow learners need to learn the entire subject material (for example the entire chapter instead of just a section of it) and then it'll finally all make sense to them. In this case, once they've learned it, they can more effectively understand what they're doing than those who only have a superficial understanding of the material.

I'll give you an example...me for example, I'm slow as hell to learn things -- lol I'm pretty much always lost in class and I need to sit there and think about it before it makes sense to me and my friend, he picks up things amazingly fast. In computer science, that friend of mine could catch all of his errors and could learn within minutes how to use commands that we've never learned. Me, I sucked at that, I got him to check my codes for me lol -- but I supplied the ideas, I understood what was going on. In the end, my codes took me longer to write, but were efficient while he could write up entire programs within an hour, but it would be highly ineffective.

But yes, this is all subjective and we're all good at different things...now I'm not saying that fast learners are stupid and don't understand anything -- its just that normal instinct would tell you to stop studying if you can figure out how to solve the question right? So MOST fast learners would probably not go the extra step to understand why.

I'm normally a fast learner. Normally, for math, though, I don't understand what's going on until test day. And yet I ace everything. I got a 69 on math in my PSAT
So in a way what you're saying is true. But I think for a lot of things it just has to do with your interest with the subject and your willingness to learn the material and not just memorize it. Memorizing =/= fast learning. Fast learning means a quick yet total understand of a subject.

This post was edited by kegman909650 on Dec 11 2008 07:54pm