> Some people walk out of lecture understanding the concepts clearly, whereas some need to spend hours struggling with it to get that same level of understanding.
So suppose there were three people who received the same lecture:
A's mind naturally and enthusiastically is drawn to considering the concepts discussed in class; without any conscious prompting or effort, for the pure joy of it, their brain spends a few hours in the day after the lecture chewing over the content and assimilating it.
B's mind has no such natural draw; their brain only goes over the material of consciously prompted -- but at least when this conscious review is being done, their brain dutifully considers and chews over the material.
C's mind actively dislikes the material. They have to expend willpower every moment that they're studying; and their brain is always looking for excuses and other things to do.
Now, it will appear that A has spent very little looking at the material, because they have spent no conscious study time looking at it; but in fact, if you could measure actual brain engagement time, A has spent hours and hours engaging with the material.
Similarly, it will appear that C has spent hours and hours looking at the material, because they have spent hours trying to study it. But because they're working against their brain's inclination, their brain has actually only spent a fraction of that time actually engaging with the material.
Thus it appears that A achieves mastery without practice, B achieves mastery with practice, and C fails to achieve mastery even with practice. But in fact, A has practiced the most -- driven to because of their natural interest in the subject; while C has practiced the least -- impeded by their natural aversion to the subject.
ETA: I should note this is no moral judgement on either A or C: far from it. In high school almost all subjects were interesting, and thus easy for me; when I got to university, I began to find certain subjects less interesting, the result was that I avoided taking classes in those subjects if I could.
So suppose there were three people who received the same lecture:
A's mind naturally and enthusiastically is drawn to considering the concepts discussed in class; without any conscious prompting or effort, for the pure joy of it, their brain spends a few hours in the day after the lecture chewing over the content and assimilating it.
B's mind has no such natural draw; their brain only goes over the material of consciously prompted -- but at least when this conscious review is being done, their brain dutifully considers and chews over the material.
C's mind actively dislikes the material. They have to expend willpower every moment that they're studying; and their brain is always looking for excuses and other things to do.
Now, it will appear that A has spent very little looking at the material, because they have spent no conscious study time looking at it; but in fact, if you could measure actual brain engagement time, A has spent hours and hours engaging with the material.
Similarly, it will appear that C has spent hours and hours looking at the material, because they have spent hours trying to study it. But because they're working against their brain's inclination, their brain has actually only spent a fraction of that time actually engaging with the material.
Thus it appears that A achieves mastery without practice, B achieves mastery with practice, and C fails to achieve mastery even with practice. But in fact, A has practiced the most -- driven to because of their natural interest in the subject; while C has practiced the least -- impeded by their natural aversion to the subject.
ETA: I should note this is no moral judgement on either A or C: far from it. In high school almost all subjects were interesting, and thus easy for me; when I got to university, I began to find certain subjects less interesting, the result was that I avoided taking classes in those subjects if I could.