verty said:
I find that I am useless at looking for errors, perhaps it's a knack that some people have. For me, prevention is so much better.
I make a lot of errors but I have an extremely good error, detection rate when I pass over problems. The method that I implement is one in which you immediately go over the problem for errors, identify them and then move on to the next one. After I complete the next problem, if I have time, I will go back over the previous problem to scan for more errors. If I don't have time, I only go back through those that seem incorrect or less elegant than I had assumed it would be.
From psychology I remember reading about instances (I can't remember the name for the concept) where one selectively dismisses the same errors, because their brain perceives the errors as being correct. If you leave the problem and come back to it, your brain has a better time noticing errors, because it isn't to fully immersed in the problem anymore.
I find this is definitely true for writing (which is why you write drafts and read through it at a later date) and I adapted this method to my maths.
Try developing a system similar to this and you will find fairly quickly, that you become very accustomed to going over problems multiple times, very efficiently and quickly.
However, I also do problems (what I would consider to be) very slowly, although I've never really compared my speed to anyone elses. Going through slowly and meticulously also seems to help reduce errors but I am also not in very high level maths or physics yet, so I am more able to go through my work more slowly.
Side Question:
Is speed really important or is the understanding and ability to work through problems effectively, a better method? I feel like I watch some kids practice pure speed and I feel like they fail to develop a deep understanding of the maths they are doing, or is this my perspective?