Loosing confidence in my intellectual abilities!

[MedicManiac]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hello everyone.

Recently I've noticed that it is taking me longer to understand certain concepts, this is true in classes like biology and physics. In physics lab for example, I struggle to understand the concepts as fast as my peers. In the end, I do understand the concepts, but the issue is: it takes me a significant amount of time to understand these concepts. In exams, for example, I am the slowest test taker: it takes me longer than my classmates to finish.

This is leading me to doubt my intellectual abilities and it is leading me to doubt my confidence that I can be a competent MD/DO. Besides this, I also have social anxiety which makes me also doubt my MD/DO competence.

How do I gain confidence and how do I proceed with this?

 

[FalconSlice]

Practice and keep with it.

Also, wrong forum

 

[JP2740]

Losing*

 

[thepretender67]

well as long as you can score well on your exams, that's all that matters. You might be slower, but that does not necessarily make you less competent. Not all fields of medicine reward a hare over a tortoise.

Just do your best, and try to get an acceptance to medical school. Once you finish med school, you can find a residency that will tailor best to your strengths.

 

[pathologyDO]

I would be concerned too - you will be miserable in medical school if you perform at the bottom of your class IF you derive most of your positive reinforcement from outperforming your peers. If you don't care about how you do in relation to others then as long as you pass your exams... No big deal you will be fine.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Moving to pre-allo.

 

[Kelevra]

Intelligence is not black and white. Your brain will not think about every topic in the same manner and fluidity; that would mean either you think too poorly of every topic, or you're superhuman. Also, concepts are not the same across the board; physics is not the same as government, or even necessarily biology. To probe even further: specific fields (let's take physics, for example), consists of a multitude of concepts, topics, and skills, in of and themselves. Are you trying to learn the math? Are you having trouble understanding fluid mechanics, or pasquelle? Trying to conceptualize torque or solve weight distribution problems is different than trying to understand E&M, or string theory.

Also, problems and concepts we are naturally more familiar with will be more readily accessible automatically by your first-impression thoughts when confronted with a novel problem, and this is due to association. Somebody who's cousin had mono will more likely/readily have the association of enlarged spleen and immune system response (both random, specific details) due to personal experience, than somebody who's never really looked into it. It may take longer to conceptualize certain things because, while we may actually have a vast amount of "facts" and minutiae in our head that randomly comes up in thought when we hear things that are associated with them (Chile -->volcano; Clinton --> fellatio), we aren't always lucky to remember them. Part of learning things rests in our ability to "simplify" and create analogies/applications to systems we are familiar with.

That's just practice and experience. If you stayed with physics for years, you'd likely get better at it, have more associations, and be more accustomed to thinking in a "physics" way. But that's not the case; you're having to learn things that are not necessarily common sense or intuitive, and in a semester-span of time. That's tough. You need to understand that our learning is based on so much more than "being smart" or "dumb". Our wiring is complex, and you never know what people are thinking about when they learn things. You won't have it easy with everything. Nobody does. There's a reason there's so much stress and depression among students; insecurities and inferiority complexes run deep. You're not the first, you won't be the last, and this won't be the last time you doubt yourself.

Take a deep breathe and understand that anxiety uses up energy that we require for thinking, and also, that we should be rather careful to avoid mistaking/substituting not knowing how we learn with not being capable of learning.

Also: you may be the last test taker, but you don't know that everybody who finishes before you, did so because they understood it better, versus they skipped answers and completely screwed answers and simply recognized more quickly that it's a losing battle. There will be individuals in both camps. Deal with it. If it takes you years to learn what your classmates learn in weeks, then sure, grab a beer. Of course, some things will be pretty much obsolete for you. But otherwise, spending more time on it may actually help you.

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

I have slow processing speed, but do fine in class. Takes me a bit longer, but I get it in the end. I'm usually the last out of a test, and do get add'l time sometimes. I've been able to complete my undergrad in 3.5 years with a 3.9+ GPA. We all think differently, we don't have to do the same way as our peers. Let's celebrate the differently enabled!!

 

[Theafoni]

@Kelevra excellent point!

OP watch these video series about "Learning how to Learn" presented by Coursera, I think it'll change your entire perspective on learning, it certainly did for me: https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn

 

[lifetothefullest]

I think it's a positive quality to not have infallible confidence in your intellectual abilities. Because most of the dinguses I know are people who are so confident in their own intellect that they refuse to admit when they are wrong. Or worse - they refuse to admit that there are multiple answers to pressing questions of the day - any other answer than their own, that is.

But on top of that, your classes do get harder over the years. And while you think that your peers understand the material, it is just as likely that they are just as lost as you. Just because you take longer to take an exam doesn't mean that other people know the material better. Maybe you're meticulous and work out the problem with good logic. Maybe they didn't answer some of the questions. Or, maybe they simply memorized stuff and didn't understand the concepts behind it - they 'll do fine on the exam but their knowledge of the topic is just superficial.

 

[altblue]

Intelligence is not black and white. Your brain will not think about every topic in the same manner and fluidity; that would mean either you think too poorly of every topic, or you're superhuman. Also, concepts are not the same across the board; physics is not the same as government, or even necessarily biology. To probe even further: specific fields (let's take physics, for example), consists of a multitude of concepts, topics, and skills, in of and themselves. Are you trying to learn the math? Are you having trouble understanding fluid mechanics, or pasquelle? Trying to conceptualize torque or solve weight distribution problems is different than trying to understand E&M, or string theory.

Also, problems and concepts we are naturally more familiar with will be more readily accessible automatically by your first-impression thoughts when confronted with a novel problem, and this is due to association. Somebody who's cousin had mono will more likely/readily have the association of enlarged spleen and immune system response (both random, specific details) due to personal experience, than somebody who's never really looked into it. It may take longer to conceptualize certain things because, while we may actually have a vast amount of "facts" and minutiae in our head that randomly comes up in thought when we hear things that are associated with them (Chile -->volcano; Clinton --> fellatio), we aren't always lucky to remember them. Part of learning things rests in our ability to "simplify" and create analogies/applications to systems we are familiar with.

That's just practice and experience. If you stayed with physics for years, you'd likely get better at it, have more associations, and be more accustomed to thinking in a "physics" way. But that's not the case; you're having to learn things that are not necessarily common sense or intuitive, and in a semester-span of time. That's tough. You need to understand that our learning is based on so much more than "being smart" or "dumb". Our wiring is complex, and you never know what people are thinking about when they learn things. You won't have it easy with everything. Nobody does. There's a reason there's so much stress and depression among students; insecurities and inferiority complexes run deep. You're not the first, you won't be the last, and this won't be the last time you doubt yourself.

Take a deep breathe and understand that anxiety uses up energy that we require for thinking.

Also: you may be the last test taker, but you don't know that everybody who finishes before you, did so because they understood it better, versus they skipped answers and completely screwed answers and simply recognized more quickly that it's a losing battle. There will be individuals in both camps. Deal with it. If it takes you years to learn what your classmates learn in weeks, then sure, grab a beer. Of course, some things will be pretty much obsolete for you. But otherwise, spending more time on it may actually help you.

Amazing post, but you can't deny that aptitude counts for so much as well. Some people are simply smarter than others. I'm almost certain there were kids at my school who could cram for orgo exams for a weekend and leave with a solid A.

That said, the fact that the OP is able to say exactly what was wrong, and hasn't so far implied that they've done poorly, suggests that maybe they're actually pretty competent in the sciences anyway. 🙂

I'd definitely get formally tested for anxiety, or ADD though, just in case there are outside factors making test-taking more difficult. 🙂

 

[altblue]

I think it's a positive quality to not have infallible confidence in your intellectual abilities. Because most of the dinguses I know are people who are so confident in their own intellect that they refuse to admit when they are wrong. Or worse - they refuse to admit that there are multiple answers to pressing questions of the day - any other answer than their own, that is.

But on top of that, your classes do get harder over the years. And while you think that your peers understand the material, it is just as likely that they are just as lost as you. Just because you take longer to take an exam doesn't mean that other people know the material better. Maybe you're meticulous and work out the problem with good logic. Maybe they didn't answer some of the questions. Or, maybe they simply memorized stuff and didn't understand the concepts behind it - they 'll do fine on the exam but their knowledge of the topic is just superficial.

So true.

Plus, some of the stupidest people I've ever met have insisted that they're "logical" or "a genius".

 

[The Helpful Aye Aye]

Consider your self-awareness an advantage! People who end up going through college without being challenged often have a harder time adjusting to medical school since they believe that they have some innate talent to do well when, in reality, they happen to have the right study skills for the situation they're in. You have to adjust and find something that works for you. That thing probably won't work in first and second year, so you'll have to change it again.

 

[Kelevra]

Amazing post, but you can't deny that aptitude counts for so much as well. Some people are simply smarter than others. I'm almost certain there were kids at my school who could cram for orgo II exams for a weekend and leave with a solid A - I couldn't do that.
🙂

Of course; I would never deny that. However, I am saying that we have a major problem with automatically saying that people are more or less intelligent, based upon a single class. Yes, aptitude counts; but aptitude is fluid. Intelligence, you have to understand, is so difficult to characterize. Intelligence consists of many skill sets, which we can work on (up to a certain point, of course). The problem is that we often don't learn about all of the factors that influence our thoughts/learning, and we don't usually work on skill sets like we work on muscles; isolated building exercises. We usually don't actively practice attention, analyzing, organization, etc. (sure some people do, yes). We simply have to do tasks that require these skills, and the development of our skills depends on our performance/practice of the tasks. Our brains tend to use the most efficient (least energy intensive) approaches. That means that while we certainly can spend time asking five thoughtful, analytical questions at the end of each reading section, we often don't. Some people automatically think of plumbing and pressure when learning about the heart, or of wires. Others aren't used to it, and simply try to understand nodes and peripheral pressure in the context of the book. The former will likely understand better, and seem to have a better aptitude in that topic, but we'd be discounting the associations they automatically make when learning. We can override these, but if we don't, we're stuck at the same levels.

But I do agree with you that OP recognizing their limits is wonderful. And that we need to accept that we are all at different levels. The only thing more dangerous than a lack of knowledge, is ignorance to the lack of knowledge.

 

[altblue]

Of course; I would never deny that. However, I am saying that we have a major problem with automatically saying that people are more or less intelligent, based upon a single class. Yes, aptitude counts; but aptitude is fluid. Intelligence, you have to understand, is so difficult to characterize. Intelligence consists of many skill sets, which we can work on (up to a certain point, of course). The problem is that we often don't learn about all of the factors that influence our thoughts/learning, and we don't usually work on skill sets like we work on muscles; isolated building exercises. We usually don't actively practice attention, analyzing, organization, etc. (sure some people do, yes). We simply have to do tasks that require these skills, and the development of our skills depends on our performance/practice of the tasks. Our brains tend to use the most efficient way (least energy intensive) approaches. That means that while we certainly can spend time asking five thoughtful, analytical questions at the end of each reading section, we often don't. Some people automatically think of plumbing and pressure when learning about the heart, or of wires. Others aren't used to it, and simply try to understand nodes and peripheral pressure in the context of the book. The former will likely understand better, and seem to have a better aptitude in that topic, but we'd be discounting the associations they automatically make when learning. We can override these, but if we don't, we're stuck at the same levels.

But I do agree with you that recognize your limits and accepting that we are all at different levels in certainly advantageous. The only thing more dangerous than a lack of knowledge, is ignorance to the lack of knowledge.

I agree with everything you're saying. 🙂

On another note, colleges try to make sure one doesn't take a certain class before they're not ready (calc 3 before calc 1, really?), but sometimes this doesn't quite pan out. Colleges don't really have a class to specifically teach one how to efficiently memorize for biochemistry, or a class to teach one how to organize before one takes a lab. It'd be pretty inefficient and I'm not sure people would elect to take those classes (and usually what's easier is to start in an easier, introductory version of the class). A lot of the reason I've been successful in courses is partly because I obsessively sought out outside resources like Anki, started pre-planning labs, or over-preparing for tests because I was unfamiliar with college-level testing. These little things aren't taught in the course and almost seem unnecessary and gunner-like at first (like, why bother doing that?)

 

[Kelevra]

I agree with everything you're saying. 🙂

On another note, colleges try to make sure one doesn't take a certain class before they're not ready (calc 3 before calc 1, really?), but sometimes this doesn't quite pan out. Colleges don't really have a class to specifically teach one how to efficiently memorize for biochemistry, or a class to teach one how to organize before one takes a lab. It'd be pretty inefficient and I'm not sure people would elect to take those classes (and usually what's easier is to start in an easier, introductory version of the class). A lot of the reason I've been successful in courses is partly because I obsessively sought out outside resources like Anki, started pre-planning labs, or over-preparing for tests because I was unfamiliar with college-level testing. These little things aren't taught in the course and almost seem unnecessary and gunner-like at first (like, why bother doing that?)

You imbecile; you freedom hater, racist, fascist; I'll liken you to hitler!

Kidding 🙂

And yeah, it's unfortunate that it's looked at as obsessive or gunner-like (gunner is something completely different). I would figure that it's somebody's responsibility to do their own research and utilize any resource needed to learn something. I guess it comes down to being able to understand that you need help. Something along the lines of..."My book is confusing. I'm having trouble learning. Hmm: I seem to need more help. Is my problem in content memorization, math, planning, etc.? Can I google this topic, or better strategies for the issue I'm having? Can I youtube this? Can I rent a new book? Can I ask a professor or a friend?"

For whatever reason, a lot of my classmates seemed completely flabbergasted that you can learn from sources that are not your textbooks or lecture powerpoint slides. Sort of like, "wait, so you actually had the capacity to realize that if the book/lecture isn't working, you should search other things till you find what you need?"

Eh, maybe I'm being a judgmental d**k.