I'm an intuitive learner. I learn by constantly asking questions, the answers to which i can then effortlessly remember. By messing around and seeing what happens, and then asking why. Lecturers have been enthusiastic about my approach but said I'm going to struggle because the school system in my country wasn't designed for people who learn like this. I want to kill myself.

The way I see myself learning stuff:

• Here's a fresh store-bought kombucha scoby
• Here's a scoby from the same store that I've been growing for 6 weeks
• If I sequenced the DNA from equivalent cells in each of these scobys, would I find any differences? Why?

The way we are actually expected to learn stuff:

• Listening to a lecturer talk for 12×2 hours, and/or reading the referenced literature. Anything mentioned could be on the test.

I have been trying to do it the mainstream way anyway, but I am getting such bad grades that I've had to re-take a year. Even if I found strategies to help me focus I'd still clearly have a competitive disadvantage to people to whom this approach comes naturally. This feels unfair since I know there is a way that I could learn about my field as effortlessly as other people do listening to these lectures.

How does someone like me succeed in academia instead of just scraping through?

I understand that my prefered methpd which I outlined is what you do at PhD level. I'm afraid that by force-feeding my brain all this information that it currently sees as irrelevant, I will kill my curiousity, which I don't want to do because it's the thing that's allowed me to get this far with practically no effort (I went through the archetypal Smart Kid thing in middle school).

For context, I'm in 1st year bachelor's biochemistry (repeating the year). Although I think that at least in my country, all university courses have the format I described.

Since I am also struggling with ADHD I honestly feel like giving up on Uni and going for some sort of apprentiship-style thing. I would like to have a degree though because it's sort of a requirement nowadays and I am genuinely interested in my subject area. Alternatively, what kind of professions seek my method of inquisitively deep-diving into stuff, as I described?

Curious if there are movements within the governance or research pertaining to the field that act to promote or suppress certain ideas? Was watching the “Infinity explained in 5 different levels” and thought… maybe there are trends for or against interpretations and/or abstractions that get a rise in people…

I've been struggling with finding a good workflow for taking notes on the journal articles which I read. I collate articles using Zotero, yet its in-built notetaking features (and comment scraping from PDFs) is quite poor. So, my alternative so far has been to write up notes by hand, but this is pretty cumbersome and makes it take some time to refer to my notes. My approach is clearly not effective!

How do you take notes on the papers which you read? Do you prefer to use written notes, or do you type your notes? In any case, what is your preferred means of storing and categorising your notes? And are there particular software which you use, if you opt for typed notes? (At present, I use an A5 notebook. Yet, this is not alphabetised or organised by topic, which compounds my struggles.)

https://undark.org/2023/07/05/neglect-of-a-museums-collection-could-cause-scientific-setbacks/

IN A DUSTY ROOM in central Florida, countless millipedes, centipedes, and other creepy-crawlies sit in specimen jars, rotting. The invertebrates are part of the Florida State Collection of Arthropods in Gainesville, which totals more than 12 million insects and other arthropod specimens, and are used by expert curators to identify pest species that threaten Florida’s native and agricultural plants.

However, not all specimens at the facility are treated equally, according to two people who have seen the collection firsthand. They say non-insect samples, like shrimp and millipedes, that are stored in ethanol have been neglected to the point of being irreversibly damaged or lost completely.

When it comes to how the FSCA stacks up with other collections she’s worked in, Ann Dunn, a former curatorial assistant, is blunt: “This is the worst I’ve ever seen.”

Experts say the loss of such specimens — even uncharismatic ones such as centipedes — is a setback for science. Particularly invaluable are holotypes, which are the example specimens that determine the description for an entire species. In fact, the variety of holotypes a collection has is often more important than its size, since those specimens are actively used for research, said Ainsley Seago, an associate curator of invertebrate zoology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.

A paper published in March 2023 highlighted the importance of museum specimens more generally, for addressing urgent issues like climate change and wildlife conservation, with 73 of the world’s largest natural history museums estimating their total collections to exceed 1.1 billion specimens. “This global collection,” the authors write, “is the physical basis for our understanding of the natural world and our place in it.”