You might think you are saying the opposite, but you're not. Everything you are saying in these sentences is based upon the assumption that all of us that memorized our multiplication tables were never given the chance to understand it first. Why are you making this assumption? Why are you assuming that everyone that teaches memorization (today or in the past) skips the concept parts and only teaches memorization?No, that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that by forcing you to memorize them by default you were robbed of the chance to learn to think about multiplication in a more intuitive way.
Your argument might appear one way in your head, but go back and read the first post I responded to and this very one here as well. Every time you equated memorization with not being given "the chance to learn to think about multiplication in a more intuitive way." Which is not only a baseless assumption, but also immediately puts the rest of us in a lesser category (in your eyes) because you supposedly learned how to visualize rows of rabbits all by yourself, because you're so much smarter than the rest of us. You might not intend for it to sound like I just stated it, but that's how you are coming across.
Just from the responses here, I can assure you that almost everyone here, even Lendarios, was taught the theory behind multiplication ALONG WITH memorizing them after the fact. Why is this so hard for you to understand and accept?
- 2