# Are you good in math or physics?



## alte (Sep 4, 2010)

If you are, have you always been this way? Why do you think you are able to do well in these subjects? Do you have a strong working memory (able to hold ideas in your head, manipulate them easily without forgetting specifics)? Can you think abstractly very easily? Or is it something else?


----------



## Random Dude (Feb 27, 2012)

Math is tough. Physics itself is really easy, but 80 percent of physics is math, so the subject is equally challenging. Sadly, if you are not comfortable with math, you can't be comfortable with physics either.

I'm not outstanding in maths, but I'm good enough to get by:boogie. Sometimes just... I study engineering, so we have pretty tough maths and physics classes among other things. I would say the one thing that you need to be good at math is determination. You have to practice. There is no other way. I think if you are smart then you have to practice less, but in the end it is not your intelligence but the amount of work you put in that is the limiting factor- at least while you are still studying.

I am fascinated by physics, but I find math to be absolutely torturous and mind numbingly dreadful . I know it is in fact quite interesting and indeed amazingly useful, but I am attracted to slightly different things. The only thing that motivated me through most of my math classes was that I had to study to pass the tests and to be able to understand physics better. Sadly I don't have physics classes anymore, so the only motivation left is the fear of failing, but it's not really working right now . I would say that really, as with everything people do, to be good at something one has to be interested in it and put a lot of work in. If you just want to pass your math classes though- it's hard when you could care less, but it's doable if you can see how math is tied to your individual goals.

Working memory, processing speed and abstract thinking are skills that anyone (provided they are fully sane and have no problems with their head) can learn/develop if they so desire. No doubt these are useful.


----------



## alte (Sep 4, 2010)

With interest and practice, you can improve many different skills. However, what is it that makes someone gravitate towards math/physics and excel at it? Is it only hard work? Other than determination and perseverance, is their any specific skill that makes you better suited to these subjects?

What area of physics do you like? I find comsology/quantum mechanics fascinating but haven't studied either beyond a few undergrad. courses.


----------



## Koloz (Nov 11, 2011)

Math is horrid for me, I have dyscalculia, I'm trying to get into special ed math at school..


----------



## mezzoforte (May 16, 2010)

Math and physics are my favorite subjects. I've always been good at math.
It seems like with math and physics, if I'm shown how to do something once, I know how do it. Most people in my class need more reinforcement and practice. I also think it helps that I find physics extremely sexy.


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

The skills you need vary depending on stage of study or career. 

When you're taking courses, it helps to have a good memory, but that's the case for most exams anyway. A good IQ helps of course. Good working memory helps too of course, as with anything.

For me I was drawn out of fascination and curiosity, but also because I'm logical and very systematic. I like rules. I'm drawn to understanding systems of all kinds and relations between them.

Later on, such as in research, you specialise, and different branches of physics (e.g. experimental and theoretical) suit different brains. They all require much perseverance, tolerance for repetition and isolation, and ability to think and work independently. Visualisation skills can come in useful, and especially attention to detail and wanting to get at the essence of the subject matter.

I was good in all respects except I used to have big issues with the material being too abstract and the lack of examples (especially concrete ones). I remember it was like having to learn another language, but at some point it just clicked.


----------



## Marlon (Jun 27, 2011)

Math and physics are my two favorite subjects as well. I'm sure the main reason people do well in these subjects is because they have a particular interest for it.

Math and physics classes are not the same though. Physics is much harder because of the word problems.


----------



## alte (Sep 4, 2010)

odd_one_out said:


> I was good in all respects except I used to have big issues with the material being too abstract and the lack of examples (especially concrete ones). I remember it was like having to learn another language, but at some point it just clicked.


Are you better at working with abstract material now that you have had practice doing it? About how far along did you notice it getting easier?


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

I'm much better working with abstract material but still struggle with pure maths because it's the ultimate in abstract and I don't get much practise with it. I can grasp areas like statistics easily, however. I only like applied maths and get bored otherwise.

I think it was at the end of the first year at university when the main click occurred. I spent summer in the garden studying for exams. With the maths modules, I hadn't studied all year (and have never been able to follow lectures in any subject) so had to teach myself from scratch by doing multiple examples. 

In retrospect there was another click during my postgrad research, where I had to use a lot of code. That changed my thinking too and I was better able to deal with the less concrete. For instance I had to start seeing images as arrays of numbers rather than how we normally think of them.


----------



## alte (Sep 4, 2010)

odd_one_out said:


> I'm much better working with abstract material but still struggle with pure maths because it's the ultimate in abstract and I don't get much practise with it. I can grasp areas like statistics easily, however. I only like applied maths and get bored otherwise.
> 
> I think it was at the end of the first year at university when the main click occurred. I spent all summer in the garden studying for exams. With the maths modules, I hadn't studied all year (and have never been able to follow lectures in any subject) so had to teach myself from scratch by doing multiple examples.
> 
> In retrospect there was another click during my postgrad research, where I had to use a lot of code. That changed my thinking too and I was better able to deal with the less concrete. *For instance I had to start seeing images as arrays of numbers rather than how we normally think of them.*


How does thinking this way help?

ps. did someone just delete a post? I didn't get a chance to read it. Now I am wondering what it was about.


----------



## cavemanslaststand (Jan 6, 2011)

alte said:


> How does thinking this way help?
> 
> ps. did someone just delete a post? I didn't get a chance to read it. Now I am wondering what it was about.


Sorry about that! It was me, I have a habit of removing posts. Besides, I was just droning on about stuff. If I remember what was said:

Agree with one_and_out on perseverence and brute force derivations/calculation.

* Took calculus and physics at the University of Minnesota at age 12, and finished engineering at age 18. It was mainly to get out of poverty as Minnesota had nice programs to attend a major university while in HS.

* Joined the nuclear Navy.

Said something to the effect that modern physics remains brutally difficult, then more obvious stuff that everybody already knows:

* Without basic calculus training, out of reach are most classical mechanics such as most applied engineering.

* Without advanced calculus (differential equations and vector calc) training, out of reach are most modern physics derivatives such as nuclear physics, computational chemistry, astrophysics, statistical mechanics, plasma and vacuum science, etc.

Just felt I was just stating boring points so deleted it. Cheers!

By the way, regarding programming, data structures (arrays), and algorithms, it helps because you are mapping abstract complex physical problems and modeling them with computation (example would be finite elements).


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 19, 2004)

I am good at math but terrible at physics.

I have only taken first year physics and stuff and univ, but it was just so visual and kinetic. Ramps and movement and pictures. I have never been good at either visual or kinetic learning. 

Math on the other hand was awesome. I never had those issues since there were not a lot of visual questions.


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

Thinking this way is necessary in the example I provided because images these days are produced using detectors which are digital, unlike traditional photography. The detectors are silicon chips consisting of pixels. Each pixel can produce a discrete electronic signal when hit by photons. The amount of light a pixel receives determines the number it has within a 2-dimensional array. Each pixel of the detector is associated with a number that's dependent on the light it received (i.e. the signal value), and so you have a whole array of numbers you can work with using a computer to process the image.

Here's an array:

0 0 2 0 0 
0 1 5 3 1
1 8 9 2 0 
0 1 7 4 1
1 0 0 2 1

In the example, the more central pixels produced more signal. The edges of the image are pretty dark.

You can have a few of these arrays and average them using normal arithmetic to get a new array/image. You might want to remove noise this way, by averaging it out.

You can display all the images on a monitor by having them show up as different levels of brightness depending on the signal value (for instance the 9 in the above example will be bright) with some manipulation. 

To summarise - digital cameras allow you to study and manipulate images in a way you can't with traditional photography. You can remove noise, calculate intrinsic brightness of an object, rotate, invert ... pretty much anything.


----------



## IfUSeekAmy (Oct 5, 2011)

Good in math. But I suck at physics. I love Algebra


----------



## Random Dude (Feb 27, 2012)

> What area of physics do you like? I find comsology/quantum mechanics fascinating but haven't studied either beyond a few undergrad. courses.


I like almost all of physics. We have the capability to understand this amazing world we live in and we can describe, quite accurately, almost every phenomenon you witness every day, we can even predict an outcome of a process if we know the primary conditions. We are also able to peer into the unknown- the atom, the edges of the universe, back in time, out to other dimensions... It is pretty breathtaking really. I like cosmology and quantum mechanics very much too. However I other aspects of physics to be quite fascinating as well. Classical mechanics are probably my least favorite topic, probably because as I'm studying mechanical engineering it is something I had to do a lot and got rather bored with(because of abstract, theoretical, not practically applicable problems we had to solve repeatedly), still- to say it is useful would be an understatement . The one thing I would like to explore some day, that I haven't ever touched on, is string theory, but my math is really not up to par right now .


----------



## kosherpiggy (Apr 7, 2010)

i don't think i ever took physics. i'm pretty good at math, if i actually like pay attention lol. i failed geometry though >.>. i failed algebra 2, but that's probably cuz my best friend was in the class and i was always talking to him haha. i was always getting good grades in math from elementary school to like middle school. i could have been in honors math in high school if i did my homework in middle school lol. both sides of my family are good with technical things.


----------



## Uranium (Jun 14, 2011)

I destroy any math or science but suck at english and history.


----------



## coldmorning (Jul 4, 2007)

cavemanslaststand said:


> * Took calculus and physics at the University of Minnesota at age 12, and finished engineering at age 18. It was mainly to get out of poverty as Minnesota had nice programs to attend a major university while in HS.
> 
> * Joined the nuclear Navy.


Oh wow... that's really impressive. I knew a few people who finished college around 18 and they were all brilliant.


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

Math is my strongest subject but that really ain't saying much.


----------



## Luka92 (Dec 13, 2011)

I suck at both, especially at physics. I was never interested in natural sciences.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

I've always been good at them, and the reason is that I like them very much. That is by far the most important factor that enables success in these fields. It's true to a certain extent for all fields, but especially so for math and physics. It is very sensitive to your state of mind, so if you don't like the subject matter very much or are unmotivated, or if you are experiencing anxiety or depression when you're trying to learn or do the stuff, or you're not feeling confident in your abilities for whatever reason, it can make your performance significantly worse. 

I've had to learn this the hard way. I used to read calculus books for fun around age 12 or 13, and until near the end of undergrad math and physics were always very personal subjects for me, so I excelled. Then when I got to grad school I had a lot of stress because it was all about talking to others and working with professors and stuff, so in my mind physics stopped being personal and was more like it was something these other people owned and I was just doing their subject and trying to please them. So because of all the anxiety and this lack of a 'personal' connection to the subject, I became unmotivated and depressed and sucked very much in the first few years of grad school. I've slowly gained back a lot of the motivation since then by doing my own personal studies on various aspects of the subject, but I'm still not completely recovered.

So anyway, the point is that being good at math/physics has much more to do with your state of mind than with your actual skills. It's amazing how much more nimble my mind is on days when I'm excited about what I'm doing compared to days when I'm depressed. It's like abstract thinking becomes a piece of cake on the former, and even basic logic becomes a chore on the latter.


----------



## Define Lies (Jan 17, 2012)

I've always been good with math and words. I'm an okay problem solver but im not taking physics this year, just Chem and bio


----------



## odd_one_out (Aug 22, 2006)

Ape in space said:


> I've had to learn this the hard way. I used to read calculus books for fun around age 12 or 13, and until near the end of undergrad math and physics were always very personal subjects for me, so I excelled. Then when I got to grad school I had a lot of stress because it was all about talking to others and working with professors and stuff, so in my mind physics stopped being personal and was more like it was something these other people owned and I was just doing their subject and trying to please them. So because of all the anxiety and this lack of a 'personal' connection to the subject, I became unmotivated and depressed and sucked very much in the first few years of grad school.


This happened to me but in the opposite direction. I had to do more interaction in undergrad and it felt like other people owned the subject. I couldn't face doing any work until it became absolutely necessary because my anxiety was off the scale.

It didn't help that doing physics was a very late decision - I'd originally thought either art or biochemistry. At school I joined the physics class late, not intending to make it a career, and had to catch up. I didn't take any maths courses. When I applied to university they offered me a place despite not studying maths. They saw my academic record and thought me capable enough to just pick it up once I got there.

I'm sure that added to my anxiety. It was only in postgrad I felt like I owned the subject, because I was left alone and worked independently, largely from home, and made all the decisions about the directions my research took. I couldn't handle anything to do with people (beyond my supervisor) and avoided all the other aspects of postgrad life.


----------



## alte (Sep 4, 2010)

cavemanslaststand said:


> Sorry about that! It was me, I have a habit of removing posts. Besides, I was just droning on about stuff. If I remember what was said:
> 
> Agree with one_and_out on perseverence and brute force derivations/calculation.
> 
> ...





Perfectionist said:


> I am good at math but terrible at physics.
> 
> I have only taken first year physics and stuff and univ, but it was just so visual and kinetic. Ramps and movement and pictures. I have never been good at either visual or kinetic learning.
> 
> ...





odd_one_out said:


> ..
> You can have a few of these arrays and average them using normal arithmetic to get a new array/image. You might want to remove noise this way, by averaging it out...
> 
> *So, to remove noise, you use different arrays to sense the same stimulus. Averaging it, the number for noise should be lower. I think I get it. *





Random Dude said:


> The one thing I would like to explore some day, that I haven't ever touched on, is string theory, but my math is really not up to par right now .
> 
> *String theory is fascinating. What is the chance that it is accurate? *





Ape in space said:


> ...So anyway, the point is that being good at math/physics has much more to do with your state of mind than with your actual skills. It's amazing how much more nimble my mind is on days when I'm excited about what I'm doing compared to days when I'm depressed. It's like abstract thinking becomes a piece of cake on the former, and even basic logic becomes a chore on the latter.
> 
> *You said that you read about this since you were 12 or 13. Counting till today, that's many years of practice. Do you think that because of this you are more capable, a better problem solver (in general) or quicker on your feet now compared to the average person? I wasted my teen years playing video games. The difference in lifestyle has to amount to some difference in ability. *


(bolded my comments)


----------



## Marooned (Feb 20, 2004)

This is an interesting topic and the replies so far very insightful. The extent of my formal mathematics training only includes up through the first two years of calculus here in the US, and while I'd always done well in these courses, I've since attributed it to the poor quality of the institutions I attended rather than any proficiency on my part. Much of what was taught was too formulaic and disjointed: Learn a theorem and the various situations in which it can be applied, memorize, regurgitate, repeat. My first year of physics (classical mechanics) was much the same, only requiring a bit more creativity. While I never got far enough to get at the core of either subject as it were, neither did I feel I had been adequately prepared for what was to come. 

Based on my limited exposure, this type of learning has never posed too much trouble. I can follow a proof and see how a theorem was arrived at and appreciate the myriad ways it can ingeniously be put to use. Yet, while there is a certain joy to be found in absorbing and applying the discoveries of our forebears, there is still something deeply unsatisfying for me about not being able to arrive at the fundamentals on one's own. It feels too much like following a recipe in that the results seem preordained, no matter the unique skill required in achieving them or what future discoveries can be built upon such knowledge. 

While I know it is futile, counterproductive, even presumptuous to want to try to recreate mathematics from the bottom up, still I strive to see, at least in part, what those great thinkers of the past were able to see, even if it requires a bit of prompting. Without this ability, I am inclined to consider myself inept mathematically. I've recently embarked on a journey to go back to the beginnings, to what I never had the opportunity to learn in school, and set myself on a more rigorous footing. I'm currently working my way through elementary geometry, trying my hand at proving theorems, looking in vain for ways to construct regular polygons, and overall enjoying the beauty of the deductive system. Unfortunately, I am also quickly learning that I lack the same patience or capacity for abstract thought that those great thinkers had and will very likely need to adjust the standards I've set for myself if I'm to have any success.


----------



## cafune (Jan 11, 2011)

Talking about math has been a sore spot for me for a while. I used to consider it "my" subject. It was something I was good at with not too much effort until last year. This year just added to the fire: we've finished our calc course, and reached integration and differential equations. We've been going at such a rapid pace which makes it difficult to both understand the content and store it in memory. I haven't doing much to help it along though as I have no motivation to bother with the homework. As a result, my confidence is completely shot and I have a very depressed state of mind now. However, I do think that skills can be developed with perseverance and diligence. I pretty much agree with what Ape in space said: it is definitely a subject in which your state of mind matters. This is a lesson I've been learning all year long. 

As for physics, I found it much easier but only because I found the math easier. I also think it's pretty fascinating so that acted as motivation. I was able to wrap my head around the concepts with not too much difficulty either. Hopefully this will not change once I get to undergrad though.


----------



## Ashley1990 (Aug 27, 2011)

well maths isnt my fav - but i was good at it...!!!
physics is boring- but unluckily i was good at it too..


----------



## alte (Sep 4, 2010)

Marooned said:


> While I know it is futile, counterproductive, even presumptuous to want to try to recreate mathematics from the bottom up, still I strive to see, at least in part, what those great thinkers of the past were able to see, even if it requires a bit of prompting. Without this ability, I am inclined to consider myself inept mathematically. I've recently embarked on a journey to go back to the beginnings, to what I never had the opportunity to learn in school, and set myself on a more rigorous footing. I'm currently working my way through elementary geometry, trying my hand at proving theorems, looking in vain for ways to construct regular polygons, and overall enjoying the beauty of the deductive system. Unfortunately, I am also quickly learning that I lack the same patience or capacity for abstract thought that those great thinkers had and will very likely need to adjust the standards I've set for myself if I'm to have any success.


Interesting. That's a difficult goal to set for yourself, to try to match the ability of the well known mathematical geniuses. I wonder what made them unique. Was it perseverance and an interest in the subject or were they born with a rare talent? If so, what was it, specifically? I want to read their biographies now but don't have time.:no


----------



## Marooned (Feb 20, 2004)

I don't think it can be pinned down to any one factor or another but is rather likely a combination of things--genetics, environment, even chance. Some people are just naturally predisposed to excel at certain types of learning, but a predisposition is no guarantee of success, nor do I believe not having one must make it an impossibility. The type of environment one exists in, life experiences, social expectations, competition, and various other elements can all have a bearing on how one approaches a subject and defines his or her goals.

One's state of mind, as Ape in space keenly noted above, I think is paramount. Mathematics requires focus, patience, and diligence regardless of intrinsic aptitude. If one does not love the pursuit and cannot engross himself or herself in it for extended periods of time, success is unlikely to be achieved. There is the story of the ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes, whose last words spoken before being slain by a Roman soldier were, "Do not disturb my circles," in reference to the problem he was working on at the time. Though unlikely to be entirely true, it nevertheless serves as a fine illustration of how important a role immersion plays in the process of discovery.

My own goals are still rather undefined. I know that I will never be on a par with the masters of antiquity or today. Whether all of the determining factors just didn't align or came out in the wrong proportions, or whatever the reason, I know that it is the height of absurdity and hubris to set genius as the bar for success. My ideas of what it means to be good at math have their basis in my own unsatisfying experiences in the classroom and, as I'm learning, serve best as guidelines rather than as strict rules. As Newton said, even if only giving voice to his modesty, "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants." Human knowledge is accumulative, and I think I and anyone else with this misguided tendency to want to achieve complete understanding and mastery on his or her own would do well to heed his words, some more of which I include below.

_To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing._ - Sir Isaac Newton

_I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me_. - Sir Isaac Newton


----------



## Meta14 (Jan 22, 2012)

wow, graduating at 18. Sounds like a dream. I'm struggling to pass pre-cal at a percent of 85+ (which I should be studying for right now since I have a test tomorrow >.<).


----------



## kpinky (Apr 13, 2012)

Well my daughter was poor in maths and good in science. Later her teacher suggested me online maths lessons which needs to be practiced by her http://www.youtube.com/user/GuruBix?ob=0&feature=results_main i recently started teaching her at home now she has picked up very much. I have also thought of hiring a tutor or agency to teach her but i was not in a position to believe them so i am teaching by myself


----------



## squidlette (Jan 9, 2012)

I'm good at both, but I don't necessarily learn them easily, if that makes sense. I do best with things I can intuitively figure out, and if it's not taught in a way that I can naturally justify in my mind, I have a heck of a time making it stick. Trigonometry is evil, for instance, because I just can't find the right hook to evaluate trig functions with. I do just fine in calculus, though, because it's using trig identities algebraicly, in a sense, and I can derive the things I need from the things I know rather than having to memorize every formula I encounter.

Physics has been even easier because I can "see" it. It's more tangible. Even the abstract stuff has sense that just clicks intuitively for me.

The class I'm dreading in the future has to be p-chem. I have a feeling that's just going to tear me a new one no matter how well I do with calculus, chemistry, OR physics.

I should add that I am a gigantic math fan-girl. Even though I'm not a math genius by any means, I love it for its unambiguity. You get "right" answers and "wrong" answers regardless of how the person grading feels about you personally. There are rules and it's a puzzle with a correct answer to solve - whether you're capable of solving it or not. Getting a good grade in math or science always feels more like "winning" than getting an equally good grade in the nonSTEM classes.


----------



## Shaned0000 (Feb 21, 2012)

I love maths. It will always be my favourite subject. I gave grinds during college last year and I have never felt more enthusiastic or unashamed about loving maths. I guess its just the way that when you solve an equation or derive a proof you get a feeling that what you have just done is going to remain true for the rest of time.


----------



## Yankees1212 (Apr 10, 2012)

I absolutely love both math and physics. I feel that the latter is much more difficult since it requires an understanding of the material instead of just mere memorization. Last year, I was one of the top students in my physics class since I personally became so thoroughly invested in the material. I struggled with kinematics, but I enjoyed learning about magnetism and electric fields. Currently, I'm in Calculus AB and I understand the material, but I fail to see its applications in the real world.


----------



## Marlon (Jun 27, 2011)

Yankees1212 said:


> I absolutely love both math and physics. I feel that the latter is much more difficult since it requires an understanding of the material instead of just mere memorization. Last year, I was one of the top students in my physics class since I personally became so thoroughly invested in the material. I struggled with kinematics, but I enjoyed learning about magnetism and electric fields. Currently, I'm in Calculus AB and I understand the material, but I fail to see its applications in the real world.


electricity and magnetism is easy until you get to the calculus, you will see 

Calculus has many applications in the real world. One for example is position, velocity, and acceleration. Velocity is the rate of change of position, and acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. Another example is calculating the half life of a substance, I don't think you can do that without calculus. And calculating the volume of strange solids... lots


----------



## Yankees1212 (Apr 10, 2012)

Marlon said:


> electricity and magnetism is easy until you get to the calculus, you will see
> 
> Calculus has many applications in the real world. One for example is position, velocity, and acceleration. Velocity is the rate of change of position, and acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. Another example is calculating the half life of a substance, I don't think you can do that without calculus. And calculating the volume of strange solids... lots


Oh yeah calculating the volume of strange solids with integration..lol, solids of revolution makes my head hurt. Throughout my life, I loved math EXCEPT for the topic of geometry.


----------



## squidlette (Jan 9, 2012)

Yankees1212, it's interesting that you an I are polar opposites on the memorization thing. I loathed geometry, too. With my trig issues as well, it seems I just don't get along with maths that end in -metry.


----------



## InMyDreams55 (Apr 1, 2011)

Hell no and no.


----------



## Zil (Feb 5, 2011)

I honestly don't know how I've managed to do all these Math and Physic's courses up till now. I never had good grades in high school, at some point in my life I've given myself a wake-up call and started studying more consistently, I rarely get 90% in exams, but I usually am a little over the average.

I think the key to success is to do your homework and all of the exercises given out by your teacher as soon as you get them, when you are done you get feedback by meeting your teacher. Then you usually do the prep exam before the real thing, and clarify any points that seem ambiguous.

It has worked for me.

If you need to know, I've never had this natural ease of learning, hard work and a bit of determination go a long way.


----------



## kpinky (Apr 13, 2012)

squidlette said:


> I'm good at both, but I don't necessarily learn them easily, if that makes sense. I do best with things I can intuitively figure out, and if it's not taught in a way that I can naturally justify in my mind, I have a heck of a time making it stick. Trigonometry is evil, for instance, because I just can't find the right hook to evaluate trig functions with. I do just fine in calculus, though, because it's using trig identities algebraicly, in a sense, and I can derive the things I need from the things I know rather than having to memorize every formula I encounter.
> 
> Physics has been even easier because I can "see" it. It's more tangible. Even the abstract stuff has sense that just clicks intuitively for me.
> 
> ...


 Hi squidlette now my kid is able to solve maths http://www.youtube.com/user/GuruBix?ob=0&feature=results_main she attended a maths exam yesterday..need to see how she has performed


----------



## Lacking Serotonin (Nov 18, 2012)

I like chemistry best, but math goes hand in hand.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

When I was young I was but just solely focusing on anxiety and lying on the table the whole lessons so I can't remember anything. Somehow I got a B in both Maths and Physics but if I was properly into it and not just a paranoid weirdo I'd like to think I'd of at least gotten A's.


----------



## Morumot (Sep 21, 2011)

Good at math, suck at physics.


----------



## nullptr (Sep 21, 2012)

I'm fairly good at math, ok at physics, suck at chemistry.


----------



## Unnecessary (Nov 16, 2013)

I suck at both, and also at chemistry as a bonus.


----------



## Raeden (Feb 8, 2013)

My best subject is math. I'm also good at physics and chemistry.



alte said:


> If you are, have you always been this way? Why do you think you are able to do well in these subjects? Do you have a strong working memory (able to hold ideas in your head, manipulate them easily without forgetting specifics)? Can you think abstractly very easily? Or is it something else?


No, I wasn't always this way. I'm pretty sure that I was even having trouble with math around age 7. However, then I started studying a lot, so I quickly caught up and became competent in math because I realized that being good in math would enable me to enter a high paying career.

Nah, I'm not one to do stuff in my head. I can hardly even multiply 3 digit numbers in my head, nor less do anything advanced. I always just write my work on paper unless it's something really simple.

I think everyone can think abstractly. I haven't been around other people enough to know whether I'm better or worse at this compared to the average.


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

So far I've liked Math because I've understood it (up to Integrals), but I'm not sure if I'll still do as sh!t turns crazier in the next semesters...


----------



## Testsubject (Nov 25, 2013)

I like both. Grade wise I'm average in both.


----------



## Partridge (Jan 11, 2014)

I was good at math because I studied math ahead of time. Complete Idiot's Guide to Algebra/Precalculus/Calculus are well-written. The corny jokes are present and make the subject less dry, but don't get in the way of your understanding. (Danica McKellar's book on Geometry is also very good, if you can get past the girly packaging.) Khan Academy will often be able to clear up anything you don't get from reading books, as long as you remember that his lectures are too long and vague to be used as a primary instructional material.

I could never find the same quality resources for self-study in any other subject.


----------



## BAH (Feb 12, 2012)

Okay


----------



## Machala Chonga (Oct 24, 2012)

Yes. Always. I've always effortlessly cruised through academics until I became a shut in and did literally nothing in school


----------



## Crimson Lotus (Jul 26, 2013)

I'm absolutely terrible at most everything that isn't humanities.


----------

