Hi Lemmy! It is obvious that being a fast learner is advantageous. People like people that can get up to speed quickly and contribute to a project or team. Heck, I could put ‘fast learner’ on a resume and no one would think that’s weird. But what about slow learners?
Is there ever a time where it would have been better to learn a skill or get acquainted with something more slowly?
Are there any general benefits across all circumstances where being a slower learner can be advantageous?
And if there are any positives to taking more time to learning, is it something you could ever bring up on a resume or job interview? Would you ever find yourself saying to a hiring manager “I’m a slow learner, and here’s why that’s a good thing for your organization.” Or is it some abstract, unquantifiable positive thing like “I struggle to get good at things and that has built character,” or something like that?
TL;DR: In Avatar the Last Airbender terms, if you could have a choice between being a slow learner and struggling with everything (child Zuko) or learning fast and dominating at everything (child Azula), why would anyone ever choose the former?
If you want to teach a thing, slow learners have a huge advantage. They know the steps they took to figure it out. It wasn’t just instinct.
Also, you will definitely find some things hard to learn, at some point in your life. That’s when you develop learning strategies and problem solving skills. If you’re struggling more when you’re younger, you’ll build those skills at a younger age. Some people coast through school, and then they get into college without ever having asked for help. And then their pride gets in the way, because now they’re finding out they aren’t perfect and don’t know how to handle it.