I am in deep thought really analyzing my brain last night and what its most receptive too. I am finding appreciation for and value in criticial thinking as well. Such a powerful trait to possess. But anyway, I am a teenager trying to find how my brain best works so it can perform tasks efficiently. I came across 3 learning types on the internet but I know there are more. Here are some:
1)Listening learners
2)Seeing learners
3)Touch / experience learners

Now i know there are more and if you know of any please inform me. But which of those types of learning do you feel lead to "quicker" success(for lack of a better word). I feel as though I like to see and listen before I touch and do. Poker is a great example. I like to study beforehand and listen before I ever physcially get involved with the game because I feel my mental preparation has to be in order for me to experience the "right" experience. I am not one for trial and error but for contingency planning and preparation. I want my brain to understand.

From a website I got:
"People learn in different ways. And no one has a better learning style than anyone else. Some experts say there are as many as seven different learning styles; but it's easier to narrow it down to three types of learning . . . we'll call them:

Listening learners
Seeing learners
Touch / experience learners

It's simple really. Think about one of life's earliest lessons - often taught by our mothers: The Stove Can Burn You.

1)Listening learners heard their mother, believed the information, and never touched a stove.
2)Seeing learners watched their brother touch the stove, and never touched it.
3)Experience learners touched the stove; but only once!

Id rather go with option 2 since with option 1 I feel i can be told misleading information. I wont judge the situation but provide my own perception of the stove. I am not going to go with option 3 because I dont like to do things I dont understand or havent researched for the mot part. I liek to gather information about a subject than review the information critically. What option would you choose and why??

First things first. Some people are immensely better learners than others so I don't think you should take that internet article too seriously.

Secondly good learning can indeed be...er...learned.

And there are tons of material and tons of research and tons of bad stuff and tons of good stuff on the subject. Personally I think the old adage "practice makes perfect" is still pretty damn good.

I got ya. Nah im not taking it too serious. Im using other websites and doing my own approach as well. Analyzing my own brain and taking suggestions to critically review it and see if it fits in my brain. But I have to disagree with this comment

"First things first. Some people are immensely better learners than others so I don't think you should take that internet article too seriously."

How can you be the judge of what a better way of learning is? I am just curious to your response. What makes someone a better learner than another and how can you determine that?Whether you learn through experience, listening, or watching it fits your style and one is not particularly better than the other. There are also other ways of learning as well.

If I can't judge what better learning is, then why do you ask about this issue at all?

Nah, you said this from the article "And no one has a better learning style than anyone else". I disagree with that because you don't need more than your own observation skill to see that some do indeed learn better than others.

Not a big fan of learning styles. Sure, some techniques will have a greater impact on some students than others, and I've been plenty annoyed myself when teachers teach to a "learning style" that isn't my own (this was pretty much always the case until college). At the same time, the view that some have of "learning styles" being the sole determinant of performance is ridiculous.

And anyone can benefit from any learning style, learning can't really be divided into discrete "styles" in the first place, I think some of the opposing axes used by theorists like Kolb are absurd, I could go on.

If you want to be an effective self-directed learner, I would ignore which "type" of learner you are. Try different things, see what works for you, if you have a preferred "style" then you'll naturally favor habits that support that style. On the other hand, if you try to judge your "style" and then fit your studies to that style, you'll likely **** it up in all sorts of ways. For example, the idea that someone who listens to their mother is necessarily a preferentially verbal learner is a little broken.

there are poor and good learning techniques in general, but there are also people with very different modes of learning and no amount of training will switch them although it will improve their learning ability.
Sequential/detail or holistic/conceptual.
This is not a learning example but it illustrates the different ways of viewing the world that underlies the two approaches --
My wife and I flew into a strange city and the car rental company gave us a one page line by line directions to our hotel across the city, in bold print. Oh, great. by the time we reached the parking lot I was feeling very uneasy and I said, "I need a map". My wife, "why, this is perfect instructions?"
I went in and got a map, located the airport and our hotel on it and felt a great relief and comfort. She didn't even look at it.
Learning for us works that same way. I need/do maintain an overview of the situation that can start very hazy (equivalent to "they're in the same city...") that I modify with each morsel of info that pops up. Following a recipe without a clue about what the big picture is a very tough way for me to learn. My brother and my wife ( and the majority of people I know) need the sequential approach which also tends to go with a need for hands on.
I learn best and easily with a concept modification approach, they are sequential detail follow-the-trail learners. The split into listening,seeing or touching doesn't create useful categories although perhaps they could be shoehorned into the holistic-sequential categories.

I agree with everything said so far. Also, make sure you don't fixate on the symbolic/abstract component of learning. Even though we have to explain our thought processes through symbols (language, maths, etc.)---this is never the full story.

An example: poker. Learning poker in the obvious symbolic sense means memorizing strategic concepts, hand ranges, odds, etc. But learning poker in the subtle "actually win lots of money" sense is quite different.

VanVeen put it this way:

-------------

"decisions at the poker table are not the end result of a deliberate conscious process. they are instead the emotional outputs of subconscious risk/reward calculations (which may be guided in part by stuff you learned on 2p2). the risk/reward calculations use probability models that are refined over time through experience. the accuracy of those models depends in no small part on emotional feedback loops. if you receive disproportionately negative feedback when you lose your mental model will be 'skewed': your memory will exaggerate the frequency of negative results. if youre working with a skewed model your decisions will be off.

there are plenty of other potential reasons why someone bright might not succeed at poker while some nitwit makes millions. it isn't that surprising if you know a little bit about cognition."

-------------

What's the take home? Spend a lot of time on self-awareness. This can even mean just asking yourself from time to time, "How is this making me feel? Can I find a different emotion to use here?" It might sound silly or beside the point---but it's not!

You have to want to do what you're doing. That's the hard part I reckon. Also if you want to learn something real good then you need to find a good teacher, which maybe involves luck.

1. Assume that anything you say is subject to being wrong.
2. Say things.
3. Find out where they go wrong.
4. Repeat.

Thanks everyone. I got some valuable perspectives. Definitely incorporate this new information into my daily living. I realized I like to approach things from a sequential/detail point of view. I appreciate it everybody.

1. Assume that anything you say is subject to being wrong.
2. Say things.
3. Find out where they go wrong.
4. Repeat.

Yeah scorcher. Thats definitely true. I think its a huge downfall for people when they dont assume their wrong and just talk not wanting to be corrected. You know pushing their opinion as fact and when offered to be corrected their ignorance and ego tends to reject it. Hence, rejecting knowledge. I noticed that a lot lately. People dont want to be corrected and than when are they say they dont care or you cant prove it. I find people sometimes can distinguish fact from fiction. Its scary.

i agree with the sentiment of learn to ditch the ego, it's the most important thing. the emotional response of our inner ego or whatever you want to call it isn't really useful in todays world BUT we still need to service those kind of thoughts as humans. there are pretty easy ways of satisfying the need for status, ****ing with people is probably the easiest way to go about it