AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:
Since you like science but worry about math, you might have a preferred cognitive style of story/narrative, say similar to the case study approach of law, medical, or business school. I'm kind of this way. And I can do well at technical classes but have to really put the time in. For example, I need to be able to describe verbally at least to myself what a graph is doing. I can't just look at a chessboard and 'see' it, like apparently some people can. So ideally, I like to take only one technical class at a time, or pre-study even a little bit and that can be helpful.
To me, biology and geology feel like nontechnical sciences or very much lend themselves to the narrative approach. Whereas chemistry and physics feel like technical subjects.
In a speech from around 2007, Temple Grandin said persons on the Spectrum tend to have one of three cognitive styles, with some overlap of course:
1) abtract thinkers, who can dive into math, chess, and maybe music,
2) narrative thinkers like myself, and
3) people who think in pictures, visual thinkers, like Temple herself.
I totally agree with you on both cognitive style and the "nontechnical sciences" and "technical science" part. Just like you, I also do better in the "nontechnical sciences" and need to spend time on changing the concepts in "technical sciences" into a more cognitive-friendlier way. I'm pretty good at logical reasoning but the sense stopped working when it related to numbers and calculating. I think I'm somewhere between visual thinking and narrative thinking, much closer to the former one when I was young but not rely on it entirely now (perhaps because of the training through the school years).
And thank you, I really enjoy watching the speech! =)