Ask Lemmy

If it works, it works. Not sure what level of math and physics we are talking about here, but university mathematics usually doesnt have "problems" in the common sense. Sure, there are going to be questions on the exam which you can solve using the theory or by remembering similar questions. But, upcoming topics are going to heavily rely on the theory, not on the applied methods for problem-solving. So you might start having problems there. But again, if your system still works for that, who cares.

Also, if you are aiming to become a Doctor / Professor / stay at university, youre going to need to remember the theory. Pretty sure there wont be a way around it.

I would say... This is exactly how you should do it, and the "conventional" way is pretty stupid.

Everything we've discovered so far in science was to "solve" some kind of "problem". I don't mean "solve problem" in the way it's usually used, like idk figure out what's the most efficient way to travel from A to B, but in the way "there's some unexplained phenomenon here and our existing models don't cover it, so we gotta figure out a solution that works (predicts it)".

For all these new problems, it doesn't help you to be able to understand a theory by reading, it helps if you know how to problem-solve, i.e. figure out ways to apply your existing knowledge in previously non-existent combinations. Of course you got to have the knowledge of the previous theories or concepts to not go down routes already traveled, so you gotta learn your theory. But the methods you're building by being problem-focused is imo exactly what you need to build to actually work in the real world and not just in an academic, "get your degree" kind of way.

Do what works if your goal is to pass exams / tests.

BUT

just be aware that past papers are not a full guide to what you might be asked, sometimes a novel question comes up that would require you to make use of the theory to find your way through

So, is this a valid way to study?

Yes, but what's your goal?

I call you an engineer. If you want to be a scientist instead, you better fix your ass on a chair and sweat all these details, one by one.

I highly recommend NOT changing a working and tailored to your brain strategy into what you believe others are doing.

As an autistic though i am heavily biased to rely on my own systems of interpretation because what is normal is alien to me

Yes of course, it's not only ok, but it's important. Even when studying theory. You get to understand theory by solving problems about how the theory works. Problems aren't just about formulas but also about reasoning.

I'd phrase it differently: make a map of how the topics / information relate and are interconnected. Keep track of what you already know and what you'll have to learn. Then focus on the latter.

I think that's a sound strategy. And you need some means to evaluate how you're doing. That's often applying your knowledge and doing some excercises. Also this makes it stick. I think those are the main reasons why professors hand out homework assignments. Because just reading the theory book won't even get you half way, and the human mind doesn't really learn by passively reading something.

So I think your strategy is the a bit more organized and self-reliant variant of what you're supposed to do. Just don't skip the theory or reading the book. Because you're not an expert yet, and you don't know what you don't know. Usually books and education material have been written in a way that teaches you the stuff in the correct order. And the right amount for a time. Otherwise you might get lost in detail. Or have a hard time because you yourself didn't get a connection. Or you'd miss a large chunk. I'd say you don't need do follow it 100%, you might be better off learning your way, but be aware of what the official material says.

Depends on what your ultimate goal is. Being able to solve common problems? Sure.