Knowledge

I often describe the two as reasonable knowledge and mathematical-type knowledge, or something similar. One is the type I have trouble with, and I feel it all stems from mathematics. Still get tongue-tied on elementary arithmetic but a lot is basic enough to get, as robotic and inefficient as it seems to my brain; 347 + 52..4+5=9 and 7+2=9 = 399? count the lines on the written four..count my fingers..I guess so? Okay, google confirmed too. See how awkwardly this works? It doesn't feel natural whatsoever to me, almost nonsensical, or magical in that I have to pray to God I'm right, and when I am, it's a blessing of mercy rather than something I can understand. Algebra and Geometry are harder. Calculus and Trigonometry I hated. I had to take Algebra III in HS, and a beginner's course for dummies in college. Stats faired better, but slightly harder than arithmetic. Physics and chemistry are very similar, and language as well. But wait, isn't language always related to philosophy and the like? Not to me. Meanings might, but sentence structure, grammar, etc. are very close to math, and I always get them confused. I can repeat over and over for months, slowly, every day, and still have very little progress outside of the adrenaline of a test (I magically do well in tests in general. I can't explain it.). I still say I don't understand the English language for this reason. Never understood its inner, mechanical, robotic working that make as little sense as math and sciences for me. Computers are exactly the same. The extremely angry bulletin I made is a good indicator of how utterly frustrating mathematical-styled knowledge is for me. It makes no sense to me, upsidedown elephants doing cartwheels and exploding into cheese in multiple realities in one reality makes more sense than the sort of incomprehensible gibberish of mathematicals, in the very worst cases.

Reasonable-type knowledge, however, deals with concepts and ideas, though not mathematical abstracts, as those seem concrete and empirical to me. Logic I can get, but is so mathematical as to be quite difficult to follow. Philosophy more broadly is generally quite easy, though a lot of more mathematical or scientifically-based types get progressively harder to closer to math and science they are. History is easy. Geography is easy as well, though a bit harder to fit within this box. I like to and have a near compulsion to categorize and compare. I make lists, family trees and craft histories of relations all the time for nearly everything I can. Overall, reasonable-type knowledge here is harder to define, but seems linked. It's more intuitive. I often see many sides to things (though choosing one is hard, I think I see too much to actually make good decisions most of the time, and am always frustrated and disappointed at the results), and can come up with scenarios others don't, at times. It's almost magical, I read how the introverted-iNtuitive function is often described that way.

I think another way of describing it all is the difference between precision and accuracy. Precision is empirical, sensory, you can liken it to math, or to my abysmal motor skills such as how I walk weird or can't catch anything. Accuracy is reason, it's right, correct, but not necessarily exact.

So what does this tell me? I know a strength and weakness, but how do I properly define it and move on? I'm not entirely sure.