andyhan

^just to what extent, though? I've been doing research on psychometrics and cognitive psychology, and it appears that there are certain things that are improvable, and certain things that are not. Your general intelligence seems to be entirely fixed by adulthood, which I am fine with - my general intelligence is probably fairly high. Specific cognitive abilities, which I presume would include spatial-mechanical abilities such as object rotation or a particular handiwork, are trainable, but their generalizability to other spatial tasks may or may not be significant. Of course, I'm not an expert in these fields by any means, so I would appreciate info from anyone who is.

It's difficult to describe. I suppose I do try to visualize hypothetical solutions and mechanisms before I try it with my hands, and part of the problem may just be that I'm somewhat clumsy with these things, so even if I understand how to fix something, I mess up when I actually try it. But it may also be that I have a hard time visualizing complex systems that aren't easily distilled logically/mathematically. That is, in a sense being able to understand calculus geometrically involves easier visualizations than your bathroom toilet, with the difficult part being the analysis, which taps into abstract reasoning, something I am very comfortable with. Mechanical problems, on the other hand, may be too non-mathematical and complex to understand this way, and so there may be an intuitive aspect that I lack. I've noticed that I am usually very good with understanding something visually so long as it does not involve complex movements. I seem to struggle in rotating objects mentally, but I have no reliable standard to judge how my performance compares with that of the general population. For all I know, I might be relatively very good at this. I'm also really bad with directions, but this seems to be a combination of inexperience (never really had to figure out directions on my own, either as a child or now as a college student) and memory/attentiveness. I'm interested in whether or not there is a psychological or neurological explanation for this. In particular, how much of this flaw is malleable? I've never undergone any rigorous attempt to improve these abilities, and I want to know if doing so is physiologically possible, preferably from legitimate research and not wishful thinking/motivational speaking.

For example, figuring out how patio doors lock, doing basic handiwork around the house, how unorthodox showers function, etc. This one especially embarrassing moment came in high school when I couldn't figure out how to fold a nametag properly and had to look to peak at others' for help. Particularly in academic subjects such as physics or engineering classes, I would breeze through all of the theoretical coursework but feel completely helpless during labs. My performance on informal spatial reasoning tests range wildly from abysmal to noticeably above average. Granted, some of the examples I just provided were from my childhood, and I feel as though I've improved significantly since then. But I still feel an uncomfortable anxiety whenever I have to do anything mechanical in front of other people. What makes this all especially confusing is that I consider myself to be very good at spatial visualization in the aforementioned subjects, often times preferring to think of things in terms of pictures, charts and diagrams. And my fine motor control isn't particularly bad. Why is it that I have the spatial skills to understand higher level physics and mathematics, but not to figure out how to pry a door open? Is it just anxiety and a lack of exposure on my part? I had a similar problem when it came to language a few years ago, when I would do abysmally in English class no matter how hard I tried (granted, abysmally by the standards of my "IB" peers). Then, something just clicked somewhere in the 10th grade, and I suddenly was acing my humanities classes with barely any effort, and having teachers use my writing as examples for other students. There have been other strange periods in my youth where I would have stretches of complete ineptitude in a particular field prior to a sudden growth spurt.

I've always known that I've had a peculiar problem with certain cognitive tasks. I am absolutely horrible at working with my hands, and my sense of direction is similarly atrocious. I consistently score in the 98%/99% percentile in all other aptitude tests and do remarkably well in all of my academic subjects, but for some reason there's something about taking things apart and putting them back together that leaves me clueless and embarrassed. Most of what I've read online suggests that this has to do with a deficiency in spatial reasoning. This didn't seem to make any sense to me, since I'm very, very good at maths including, even especially, maths such as geometry and portions of calculus that involve visualization. Indeed, I find that I typically prefer to solve such math problems, and also some problems in physics and other sciences, through geometric visualization. It is also the most powerful tool I have for understanding physical concepts, and I appear to be remarkably above average at this. Yet, I've taken several "spatial reasoning" tests online, and have done horribly on most of them, horribly as in substantially below the average test score. I understand that internet tests typically aren't the most reliable or scientific, but it seems to fit with the trouble I have with basic spatial tasks. So, I concluded, maybe my spatial reasoning is just really bad. Yet I consistently read that people with poor spatial skills tend to struggle immensely in math fields that involve spatial reasoning (obviously). Am I some sort of extreme data point? I could understand why the two types of "spatial reasoning" would be unrelated. Being able to rotate 3d objects in your head seems somewhat different from what's needed in most math and science concepts. Personally it seems a rather silly "cognitive" task to me; how does this involve reasoning rather than a simple intuitive skill, and in what realistic context would you need to mentally rotate something without any markers or guidelines? But the research seems to suggest a strong correlation between this and g factor (which I would, to be blunt, imagine to be very high on my part due to my achievements in other academic fields), and aptitude in geometrical math (which is also very high on my account). This deficiency of mine is really beginning to piss me off, because it really holds back a lot of my career ambitions and, quite frankly, self esteem. It just doesn't make any sense that I fit every single attribute needed to succeed in STEM fields except for this one. I would appreciate any info. (well, I've since taken a few more spatial tests and my scores are weirdly sporadic; I'd sometimes score extraordinarily well and other times have no idea what's going on. Obviously, these are random online assessments taken alongside currently growing sleep deprivation, but still...)