Math, verbal, or both?

Biology is a subject that involves a lot of heavy rote memorization. Memorization is sort of the foundational skill and a prerequisite to being a good biologist. I’ve always been interested in biology, but had never been quite good at it because I think I’m not great at rote memorizing. It’s interesting because physics is sort of the opposite subject. There’s very little rote memorization in physics. In high school, I remember my biology teacher, Mrs. Heiner, distinctly saying that you’ll notice some students are better at biology and some students are better at physics. I was clearly better at physics, even though I took a more biological path. 

This got me thinking if there are people who are genuinely good at both. I don’t just mean ones that work really hard at a subject and do well, but someone who can truly ace both subjects–sort of like someone who’s talented at both the math and verbal sections of standardized exams. Maybe that’s a bit of a simple example because the SATs are, after all, not that particularly difficult an exam. But this distinction between what people are good at, which my biology teacher pointed out to me when I was still in high school (and I did not heed), is still a fascinating phenomenon. People are genuinely naturally good at some things and bad at others. 

I think this is yet another of my posts exploring the nature of intelligence and the variations among human beings. This difference has already been strongly characterized by Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner, and I think it has been an interesting and impactful theme in my education and career development. I used to think that intelligence is, perhaps wrongly, a purely growth-mindset sort of thing, but I think one cannot entirely discount the impact of innate talent. The development of intellect is probably a combination of both nature and nurture at the end of the day.