Visualizing Scientific Concepts for Picture-Thinkers

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the challenges and preferences of individuals who think predominantly in pictures when learning scientific concepts, particularly in chemistry. Participants share their experiences with visualizing concepts, the limitations of traditional text-based resources, and the effectiveness of visual aids in understanding complex topics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses that they learn best by constructing moving images in their mind, finding traditional chemistry texts overly abstract and difficult to engage with.
  • Another participant notes that while they can think in sequences of static pictures, they struggle to visualize complex processes and prefer chronological lists of steps.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that anyone can develop the ability to visualize moving images, and that attaching sounds to these images can enhance understanding.
  • Some participants share a preference for seeing actual chemical structures rather than text-based reaction equations, indicating a desire for more visual representation in learning.
  • One participant mentions that while first-year chemistry may not be very visual, organic chemistry offers more opportunities for visual thinking through models like Lewis structures.
  • Another participant highlights the difficulty in explaining abstract concepts like entropy, which they represent with a single moving picture.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of visual aids in learning chemistry concepts, but there are differing opinions on the extent to which individuals can develop visualization skills and the effectiveness of various teaching methods. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approaches for visualizing complex scientific ideas.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express limitations in their ability to visualize certain chemical processes, indicating a dependence on external models and resources. The discussion also reflects a range of experiences with different branches of chemistry, suggesting that the visual nature of the subject may vary significantly.

HorseBox
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Hi. I have high functioning autism and like many other people on the spectrum I think predominantly in pictures and that's how I learn scientific concepts. Every concept I learn I represent it with a picture. Unfortunately a lot of the books on chemistry in particular (physics and biology I have no trouble with because there is far less abstraction) are torture to read. I like chemistry and when I grasp the concepts I can derive all sorts of other concepts from them but I find a lot of the books and websites really abstract and they lay out about a 10,000 words for concepts that can be illustrated with a single picture. Le Chateliers principle for example. A right pain in the *** to describe with words but its so simple to illustrate with diagrams yet I can never find any decent picture based tutorials illustrating Le Chateliers principle. It took me a long time to grasp what they were talking about in the tutorials but now I realize how extremely simple the concept of Le Chateliers principle is and I represent each scenario (pressure, temperature, concentration etc.) with a single picture in my head.

Basically the only way I can learn scientific concepts is to construct moving images of the process in my head. Even things that are non physical such as EM radiation I can easily visualize translucent, somewhat visible energy and I can easily make models for how it propagates and interacts with matter etc. Chemistry is kind of tricky though. Take stereochemistry for example. Many tutorials ramble on about chirality and mirror images but do not even provide an image of two stereoisomers to compare. Took me a very long time to fully grasp the concept of stereoisomers but if I could have just seen a picture of two stereoisomeric molecules I would have grasped the concept in the space of a second rather than reading massive amounts of words to gain a vague understanding of what they are. I'm assuming there are plenty of people here that think predominantly in pictures. Can any of you tell me your favourite way to learn chemistry concepts on your own? I'm studying chemistry in university but I like to give my self a head start by learning in my own time too.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Some of us can not think in moving pictures, but can and do think in a sequence of pictures.

Some of us who can think using a sequence of static pictures can not easily think more than one step ahead any current picture.

Written reactions of elements and compounds are actually abstract pictures, but we cannot easily apply movement to them.

Some chemical processes, methods, or procedures, when represented in worded descriptions, need to be analyzed, unscrambled, and then we must create our own list of steps or events; we keep these events in chronological order.

HorseBox, the study of Chemistry must be abstract. We live and operate at a level that we can throw objects, tie shoe-laces, open and close doors; we do NOT live and operate at a level in which plastic absorbs ultraviolet radiation, or a functional group prevents a reaction, or the several alternate double bonds absorb radiation to allow a color to occur.
 
I didn't know that. I'm sure anyone can develop the ability to apply motion to their mental images. Afterall we dream in moving pictures at night. If I was to say think of a train moving past you can picture it can't you? They're the kind of moving pictures I'm talking about. I often find it easier to visualize when I attach the appropriate sound to them. When I picture a train I'll hear the sound of it too. My mental images aren't highly vivid either when I need to visualize more complex concepts than I'm used to I have to practice to improve my visualization skills because the clearer I can see the pictures the clearer the concepts I can formulate.

Yeah I don't like text reaction equations like CH4 + O2 -> CO2 + H2O, I much rather seeing the actual chemical structures of the reactants and products. Thinking about chemical reactions I picture the solvent and semi visualize the reaction taking place within the solvent.

Yeah unfortunately we can't see what really goes on down there (in much detail anyway) but we can still make visual models. When I think of say a carboxyl group I still think of the black 2D OH-C=O but I've seen 3D models of methane so when I think of methane I think of the 3D model I've seen of it. I suppose I can come up with my own models of what really occurs during say a reductive amination of a carbonyl group. Its just laziness on my part wanting to see it with my eyes (an animation I mean). I have no idea how the things you mentions truly work so I'm reluctant to make mental images of the processes.
 
Pictures help.If a picture is worth a thousand words how many words are moving pictures worth?
 
Depends on the moving picture haha. Entropy a concept that I find it near impossible to explain to other people I represent it with a single moving picture.
 
The first year of chem was not very visual. Much of it is plug-and-chug. Very important concepts, for sure, but things like reaction rates, stoichiometry, and titration curves don't lend themselves to visual thinking.

However, I found parts of organic chemistry to be highly visual. Lewis structures give a good predictive model for reactions...very handy when studying organic synthesis.

You may find organic a lot easier than analytic.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
13K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K