Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
ChiranjeevSingh
Expert
Tutor
Expert reply
13 Mar 2025, 21:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Introduction
What follows is a coaching conversation I had with a student struggling with learning quant on the GMAT. As the conversation unfolds, you’ll see how we progressively uncovered deeper psychological patterns affecting the student’s approach to learning. Key insights are highlighted throughout to show how surface-level challenges often have deeper roots in our psychological makeup.
The Conversation
The student had approached me again after failing to secure admission in his target colleges. He scored in the early 600s in his last attempt and applied to B-schools with this score. In the last 2-3 sessions before his attempt, I sensed that he was making errors that I wouldn’t expect my student to make after about 20 sessions with me. I design my learning process in a way that makes deep learning possible. However, in his case, I was disappointed with myself, seeing him make such mistakes. If I made even a small change in a question, he would be stumped. As we began our first session after a couple of months, we discussed these issues. And then he said:
Student: I realized that this has been my pattern since childhood. When I learn something and I’m able to identify that it’s something I’ve already done, my confidence of actually solving it is much higher, and I’m able to do it. But suddenly if I see something new, my approach starts off from a very hesitant place, which then allows me to make other mistakes.
Even though I practice those concepts regularly, it makes me uncomfortable when I see something new. I was probably one of those students – in 10th and 12th grade, my answer to preparing for math exams was to do the last 20 years of question papers to cover all the question patterns. I don’t know what the solution to this is.
Typically, you basically solve a few variations which cover the broad category and then you’re applying the same concept in different ways. It’s a very logical way of doing things. But that’s not the case with me.
When it comes to thinking conceptually, I can do it. Like, let’s say I’m evaluating an investment where a certain pattern has played out in one industry. I can apply that parallel to another industry and say maybe this pattern can play out here too, and predict what you might need.
But the minute you give me numbers—that’s where I struggle. For some reason, it just doesn’t happen naturally for me. And then beyond a point, I start trying to force-fit a solution by saying, “Oh, I’ve done something similar before, maybe I can adapt that approach and it’ll get me there.”
But then I get stuck in a dead end because that forced approach doesn’t really work.
And I think solving this issue will help me beyond the GMAT too.
Me: What I’m more interested in is not really the conceptual clarity, but how you could not get conceptual clarity despite our process. There is something in your learning process, which could have its origin in your psychological responses or mindset issues, which hinders your ability to learn. That’s what I’m more interested in.
When you said this will help you beyond the GMAT, were you mainly talking about comfort with mathematical concepts?
Student: Yeah, yeah. Like, especially applying patterns across various versions of problems. You know, it’s like even just simple things... I mean, why do I need to solve hundreds of questions to get to the same level of learning that 10 questions can probably give me if I apply the concepts correctly?
That number-based practice for me is a way of building familiarity with as many versions as I can think of. But you change one word here and there, and then suddenly I’ll look at you as though I’ve never heard this before.
You saw this when you made a very simple tweak while teaching. It’s a very process-oriented thing for you, but I’d be completely stopped. It would take me four or five minutes to even wrap my head around it. And then after I see the insight, I’d be like, “Oh, this is what it was.”
So, for me, the way of solving problems has been to practice hundreds of questions. But obviously that doesn’t help as much incrementally because I’m assuming that the same version of questions will come the next time.
I’ll give you an analogy. In golf, my biggest constraint—and everybody tells me this—is that I’m too analytical about things, too technical. They tell me, “You just need to ensure that the result is coming right.”
There are two different things: one where you try to practice and be analytical, and another where you just focus on getting the result. And you should allow yourself to get the result using various perspectives, right? Because even when you’re playing, you don’t have to be extremely technical all the time to get the result that you really want.
You also have to be flexible enough to understand where there’s a fine line between building technical foundations and then applying those foundations in key areas. There’s a balance needed.
Even when we started doing mathematical manipulations in our sessions, my mind was like “Isn’t this cheating? How can you do this?” Even if I get the result I want, I’m not satisfied if I don’t get it the way I want. It’s like I have to do everything exactly the way I want to do it to feel satisfied. But that’s not how most things work.
Student: I feel like I become so focused on the way I’m solving it rather than WHY I’m solving it.
Me: I don’t agree with the way you (or people around you) are classifying your problem. It’s a misidentification of the problem. It’s like calling overthinking a problem—overthinking is not a problem. The problem is the presence of incorrect thoughts. If overthinking were a problem, the solution was simple: think less. However, you overthink because you jump between the correct and the incorrect thoughts. The problem is the presence of incorrect thoughts; overthinking is just a symptom of that.
The whole purpose of technicals is to optimise performance. So how can one say that being technical is a problem? The problem is not about being technical but about not understanding HOW the technicals help in the larger scheme of the game. Just as being structured and doing things step-by-step is not a problem; the problem will be not understanding how each step fits into the larger solution. If you understand the purpose of each step, you can decide which steps to omit when. Then, you will not be rigid about each step.
Student: I’m more focused on writing down the correct steps rather than actually focused on solving the equation.
Me: Why is that?
Student: I don’t know, actually. I really don’t know. I think, by doing that, I’m being extremely cautious to make sure that I don’t make mistakes. But then I don’t realize I don’t have to go down same path all the time. In my head, it feels like if I don’t go down that path, the answer will be wrong.
Whereas for verbal questions, I am just completely focused on the understanding. I didn’t think, “Does this word come over here or does this word apply over there?” I didn’t have to do that. And I could do multiple questions that way because I never felt the fatigue of thinking about it that way.
With math, after 21 questions of doing this so single-mindedly, I just get tired. It’s like when you’re focusing on something really hard for a good amount of time, and once you get out of it, you feel some kind of mental fatigue or drain.
Me: The fatigue in quant could be because of psychological stress.
Student: Yes, even if I’m solving a really hard question in verbal, I don’t feel the stress because in my head, I think “I just probably misread it.” I downplay the mistakes that I make there. Whereas in quant, if I mix up a plus or minus sign, I think “How can you do this?” Those minor things combine into psychological stress. I don’t downplay mistakes in quant like I do in verbal.
Me: Why don’t you do that in quant?
Student: Let’s say in verbal, I’ve completely misread a word. I just brush it off. But in quant... I don’t know, I don’t take it lightly...
Me: I think I understand the causality now. The reason you go so step-by-step in quant is that you don’t want to make any mistake, and the reason you don’t want to make a mistake is that the psychological response to a quant mistake is quite bad. So, you’re trying to save yourself from psychological pain by going step-by-step.
You’re not using your right brain in quant because you’re afraid of going wrong. Thus, you’re not building an overall understanding and are limited to step-by-step thinking. The right brain looks at the overall picture and has fuzzy thinking, but because you can’t go wrong, you remain completely left-brained. It means you never get an overall picture of things, which means you always remain impaired.
Student: I agree. Even when we were solving some really hard questions and you were solving them, I was just looking at you with a bit of astonishment on my face. I was being mind-blown. I was wondering, “What is happening? He is not going step-by-step, but he is not pulling rabbits out of a hat—he is just working with the information that is given.”
I remember one or two questions we were solving where at every step you were asking me, “What do you think is possible?” And then we landed up with an equation where out of three numbers, there was only one possible solution based on the constraints. Even though I got the question wrong in the end, just that process of going down that path was so satisfying to me. I think that’s the closest I’ve come to the feeling I have in verbal when doing quant.
Me: As a result of this psychological pain, we try to perform better than we can. Our anxiety to perform better than we can makes us perform worse than we could.
Student: That happens in golf too. I’ve just been going backwards. My emotional response kicks in harder to say, “Oh my God, what are you doing?” When I made mistakes, there was a time when both outwardly and inwardly, I would be in absolute disgust—you could see the disgust and annoyance on my face.
Over time, I’ve learned to control my temper. Outwardly, I project a sense of laughing it off, but internally I’m still holding it in myself saying, “What are you doing?” And that also has a threshold. There are times when you’ll see me slam the club.
There was one time where both outwardly and inside, I was genuinely laughing it off, and the minute I did that, my game turned around. The same thing happens in math now—my outward response is different, but my internal response is completely different. So apart from the stress I already put on myself, there’s that conflict also happening internally.
Me: I used to fear being pickpocketed, tripping over in front of others, and standing near rowdy people. Now, these fears have diminished. What changed? The common thread connecting these fears wasn’t about the incidents themselves, but what followed—I feared being pitied afterward, being called a “bechara” (helpless victim).
Earlier, I saw myself as bechara. And I was afraid that others would see it too—that my weakness would be exposed. Now, there is no bechara to expose. I stand on my feet. It seems to have more to do with how I fundamentally see myself. Our deepest fears perhaps sometimes reveal not what we’re afraid might happen, but who we’re afraid we might be.
Student: In golf, I’ve come up with a concept for myself. There’s a point in my round where I say, “f*** it golf.” Just screw everything. I don’t care what people think, I don’t care where the ball goes. Just go out there and hit—that’s all I want to do. And that is when I play at my best.
Even if I hit a genuinely bad shot, I think, “Oh, it’s okay. I was trying something.” That comes from a very happy place. If I’m trying to hit something over water and hit it into the water, I think, “It’s fine. I was trying a crazy shot anyway.”
Me: What is the difference between this mentality and the mentality which was initially bringing your performance down?
Student: In this mentality, there are no thoughts in my head. There’s nothing. I’m just going out there and pulling out something, and I’m just saying my body knows what needs to be done. In the harmful mentality, it’s about how do I make my body do that? It’s like the brain trying to control every aspect of my body rather than it being a little free-flowing. I think it’s maybe judgment.
Student: I think the worst thing is that in math and in golf, I’m doing basic mistakes—not advanced technical mistakes on really hard stuff. I’m doing very basic mistakes. And when I’ve put in so many hours of effort, my expectations jump up. Then when I make the same mistake again, I become harsh on myself, saying, “How can you do this? This shouldn’t be happening.”
Me: Then why is it happening?
Student: I don’t know. In that instance, when I get to the judgment phase, I become even more controlling. In golf, if I think my head is moving too much, in my head you’ll probably see someone who’s holding their head. In math, it would be something similar—holding my hand and saying one line here, one line there. My response to the judgment that arises from the controlling mindset is more control.
Me: Do you tend to punish yourself? Is there a feeling of punishing yourself?
Student: I don’t know. How do you mean by punishing yourself?
Me: You hate yourself for doing something. You’re not being gentle to yourself. You’re being harsh to yourself.
Student: Yeah, there probably was a time those tendencies were there. I think over time I’ve learned to control that a little bit more.
My tolerance for avoidable mistakes has increased over time. Earlier, after 3 such mistakes, I would be harsh on myself. Now, it’s after maybe 50 mistakes. I’m trying to be a little more patient with myself, a little more tolerant.
If someone else tries to annoy me, my tolerance is very high. Someone really has to try and actively push me over the edge to get a reaction out of me. It doesn’t bother me; it’s not my concern. But my tolerance is much lower when I am the one who’s doing it—when I am annoying myself.
Me: Why the difference? Perhaps, the difference exists because you don’t agree with their rationale when people say something to you or do something you don’t agree with. When you do it to yourself, you actually agree with the rationale for doing it.
If you laugh at me saying, “He doesn’t know how to eat,” I may not be bothered much. But if you say, “He doesn’t know how to teach,” I’d be bothered because in my mind, that’s actually a good rationale to reject that person. The reason I’m impacted by a rejection is that I agree with the reason for rejection. If I don’t agree with the reason, I won’t be bothered.
Me: So in your case, you actually agree with your reason for rejecting yourself?
Student: Yeah, I guess so.
Me: Do you consciously also agree with this reason for rejection? Have you consciously decided this value for yourself?
Student: I’ve probably not thought of that.
Me: Why would you ever consciously choose a value that will degrade yourself? It must not be a conscious decision.
Let’s say there is no justification possible for the actions you have taken. Will you then reject yourself?
Student: I don’t think so.
Me: There’s another way to look at your situation. Our irritation to others’ mistakes is always rooted in doubt about their intentions, not their skills. Think about it: in case of subordinates or house helps, we get irritated when we doubt their intentions to work. If we think it’s a skill issue, we would guide them. Anger always comes when there is a doubt on the intent, not on the skill; the doubt could be on someone’s intent to improve their skills, but the doubt is always on the intent in case of anger. In your own case, you cannot have an intent issue since you cannot have malintent against yourself. So, it is always a skill issue. And skill issues need to be addressed, not shouted at.
Student: When you think about it that way, I think that awareness itself will probably increase my tolerance, and then over time that tolerance becomes infinite.
Conclusion
This conversation reveals how learning barriers often exist in multiple interconnected layers. What began as a discussion about specific mathematical challenges progressively uncovered deeper psychological patterns involving:
The student’s rigid step-by-step approach in mathematics served as a psychological protection mechanism. By following prescribed procedures “correctly,” he created a situation where if he still got the wrong answer, he wouldn’t blame himself as harshly: “If I do correctly and then I land up in a bad outcome, it doesn’t bother me at all.”
This explained why they avoided more intuitive, flexible approaches to mathematics—such approaches left them vulnerable to making “avoidable” mistakes, which would trigger harsh self-judgment.
If you severely punish an employee for making every small mistake, the employee will forever play safe and thus will never be able to grow because growth involves making mistakes, but the employee just cannot afford to make any mistake. Thus, the employee doesn’t grow; not because they can’t but because they are not given the right environment to grow.
The path forward involves developing awareness of these patterns, recognizing the logical inconsistency in self-judgment, reframing mistakes as skill issues rather than character flaws, and cultivating access to both analytical and intuitive thinking modes.
By progressively uncovering these deeper layers, I think I was able to help the student understand the root causes of his learning barriers and open a path toward more effective and satisfying mathematical thinking.
This article was originally posted at Uncovering the Layers of Learning Barriers: A Coaching Conversation
What follows is a coaching conversation I had with a student struggling with learning quant on the GMAT. As the conversation unfolds, you’ll see how we progressively uncovered deeper psychological patterns affecting the student’s approach to learning. Key insights are highlighted throughout to show how surface-level challenges often have deeper roots in our psychological makeup.
AI Summary:
A student repeatedly struggled with GMAT quant despite extensive practice. In this coaching dialogue, it emerges that fear of making “basic” mistakes fuels a rigid, step-by-step approach—blocking deeper conceptual understanding. By comparing the student’s experience in golf (where letting go boosts performance), the coach uncovers how harsh self-judgment creates a vicious cycle of anxiety and underperformance. The solution lies in reframing errors as part of skill development rather than personal failings, enabling a more flexible, intuitive style of problem-solving. This conversation reveals how deeper psychological patterns can impede learning—and how self-compassion and balanced thinking can set the stage for real progress.
A student repeatedly struggled with GMAT quant despite extensive practice. In this coaching dialogue, it emerges that fear of making “basic” mistakes fuels a rigid, step-by-step approach—blocking deeper conceptual understanding. By comparing the student’s experience in golf (where letting go boosts performance), the coach uncovers how harsh self-judgment creates a vicious cycle of anxiety and underperformance. The solution lies in reframing errors as part of skill development rather than personal failings, enabling a more flexible, intuitive style of problem-solving. This conversation reveals how deeper psychological patterns can impede learning—and how self-compassion and balanced thinking can set the stage for real progress.
The Conversation
The student had approached me again after failing to secure admission in his target colleges. He scored in the early 600s in his last attempt and applied to B-schools with this score. In the last 2-3 sessions before his attempt, I sensed that he was making errors that I wouldn’t expect my student to make after about 20 sessions with me. I design my learning process in a way that makes deep learning possible. However, in his case, I was disappointed with myself, seeing him make such mistakes. If I made even a small change in a question, he would be stumped. As we began our first session after a couple of months, we discussed these issues. And then he said:
Student: I realized that this has been my pattern since childhood. When I learn something and I’m able to identify that it’s something I’ve already done, my confidence of actually solving it is much higher, and I’m able to do it. But suddenly if I see something new, my approach starts off from a very hesitant place, which then allows me to make other mistakes.
Even though I practice those concepts regularly, it makes me uncomfortable when I see something new. I was probably one of those students – in 10th and 12th grade, my answer to preparing for math exams was to do the last 20 years of question papers to cover all the question patterns. I don’t know what the solution to this is.
Typically, you basically solve a few variations which cover the broad category and then you’re applying the same concept in different ways. It’s a very logical way of doing things. But that’s not the case with me.
When it comes to thinking conceptually, I can do it. Like, let’s say I’m evaluating an investment where a certain pattern has played out in one industry. I can apply that parallel to another industry and say maybe this pattern can play out here too, and predict what you might need.
But the minute you give me numbers—that’s where I struggle. For some reason, it just doesn’t happen naturally for me. And then beyond a point, I start trying to force-fit a solution by saying, “Oh, I’ve done something similar before, maybe I can adapt that approach and it’ll get me there.”
But then I get stuck in a dead end because that forced approach doesn’t really work.
And I think solving this issue will help me beyond the GMAT too.
Quote:
Me: What I’m more interested in is not really the conceptual clarity, but how you could not get conceptual clarity despite our process. There is something in your learning process, which could have its origin in your psychological responses or mindset issues, which hinders your ability to learn. That’s what I’m more interested in.
When you said this will help you beyond the GMAT, were you mainly talking about comfort with mathematical concepts?
Student: Yeah, yeah. Like, especially applying patterns across various versions of problems. You know, it’s like even just simple things... I mean, why do I need to solve hundreds of questions to get to the same level of learning that 10 questions can probably give me if I apply the concepts correctly?
That number-based practice for me is a way of building familiarity with as many versions as I can think of. But you change one word here and there, and then suddenly I’ll look at you as though I’ve never heard this before.
You saw this when you made a very simple tweak while teaching. It’s a very process-oriented thing for you, but I’d be completely stopped. It would take me four or five minutes to even wrap my head around it. And then after I see the insight, I’d be like, “Oh, this is what it was.”
So, for me, the way of solving problems has been to practice hundreds of questions. But obviously that doesn’t help as much incrementally because I’m assuming that the same version of questions will come the next time.
I’ll give you an analogy. In golf, my biggest constraint—and everybody tells me this—is that I’m too analytical about things, too technical. They tell me, “You just need to ensure that the result is coming right.”
There are two different things: one where you try to practice and be analytical, and another where you just focus on getting the result. And you should allow yourself to get the result using various perspectives, right? Because even when you’re playing, you don’t have to be extremely technical all the time to get the result that you really want.
You also have to be flexible enough to understand where there’s a fine line between building technical foundations and then applying those foundations in key areas. There’s a balance needed.
Even when we started doing mathematical manipulations in our sessions, my mind was like “Isn’t this cheating? How can you do this?” Even if I get the result I want, I’m not satisfied if I don’t get it the way I want. It’s like I have to do everything exactly the way I want to do it to feel satisfied. But that’s not how most things work.
Quote:
Student: I feel like I become so focused on the way I’m solving it rather than WHY I’m solving it.
Me: I don’t agree with the way you (or people around you) are classifying your problem. It’s a misidentification of the problem. It’s like calling overthinking a problem—overthinking is not a problem. The problem is the presence of incorrect thoughts. If overthinking were a problem, the solution was simple: think less. However, you overthink because you jump between the correct and the incorrect thoughts. The problem is the presence of incorrect thoughts; overthinking is just a symptom of that.
The whole purpose of technicals is to optimise performance. So how can one say that being technical is a problem? The problem is not about being technical but about not understanding HOW the technicals help in the larger scheme of the game. Just as being structured and doing things step-by-step is not a problem; the problem will be not understanding how each step fits into the larger solution. If you understand the purpose of each step, you can decide which steps to omit when. Then, you will not be rigid about each step.
Student: I’m more focused on writing down the correct steps rather than actually focused on solving the equation.
Me: Why is that?
Student: I don’t know, actually. I really don’t know. I think, by doing that, I’m being extremely cautious to make sure that I don’t make mistakes. But then I don’t realize I don’t have to go down same path all the time. In my head, it feels like if I don’t go down that path, the answer will be wrong.
Whereas for verbal questions, I am just completely focused on the understanding. I didn’t think, “Does this word come over here or does this word apply over there?” I didn’t have to do that. And I could do multiple questions that way because I never felt the fatigue of thinking about it that way.
With math, after 21 questions of doing this so single-mindedly, I just get tired. It’s like when you’re focusing on something really hard for a good amount of time, and once you get out of it, you feel some kind of mental fatigue or drain.
Quote:
Me: The fatigue in quant could be because of psychological stress.
Student: Yes, even if I’m solving a really hard question in verbal, I don’t feel the stress because in my head, I think “I just probably misread it.” I downplay the mistakes that I make there. Whereas in quant, if I mix up a plus or minus sign, I think “How can you do this?” Those minor things combine into psychological stress. I don’t downplay mistakes in quant like I do in verbal.
Me: Why don’t you do that in quant?
Student: Let’s say in verbal, I’ve completely misread a word. I just brush it off. But in quant... I don’t know, I don’t take it lightly...
Quote:
Me: I think I understand the causality now. The reason you go so step-by-step in quant is that you don’t want to make any mistake, and the reason you don’t want to make a mistake is that the psychological response to a quant mistake is quite bad. So, you’re trying to save yourself from psychological pain by going step-by-step.
You’re not using your right brain in quant because you’re afraid of going wrong. Thus, you’re not building an overall understanding and are limited to step-by-step thinking. The right brain looks at the overall picture and has fuzzy thinking, but because you can’t go wrong, you remain completely left-brained. It means you never get an overall picture of things, which means you always remain impaired.
Student: I agree. Even when we were solving some really hard questions and you were solving them, I was just looking at you with a bit of astonishment on my face. I was being mind-blown. I was wondering, “What is happening? He is not going step-by-step, but he is not pulling rabbits out of a hat—he is just working with the information that is given.”
I remember one or two questions we were solving where at every step you were asking me, “What do you think is possible?” And then we landed up with an equation where out of three numbers, there was only one possible solution based on the constraints. Even though I got the question wrong in the end, just that process of going down that path was so satisfying to me. I think that’s the closest I’ve come to the feeling I have in verbal when doing quant.
Quote:
Me: As a result of this psychological pain, we try to perform better than we can. Our anxiety to perform better than we can makes us perform worse than we could.
Student: That happens in golf too. I’ve just been going backwards. My emotional response kicks in harder to say, “Oh my God, what are you doing?” When I made mistakes, there was a time when both outwardly and inwardly, I would be in absolute disgust—you could see the disgust and annoyance on my face.
Over time, I’ve learned to control my temper. Outwardly, I project a sense of laughing it off, but internally I’m still holding it in myself saying, “What are you doing?” And that also has a threshold. There are times when you’ll see me slam the club.
There was one time where both outwardly and inside, I was genuinely laughing it off, and the minute I did that, my game turned around. The same thing happens in math now—my outward response is different, but my internal response is completely different. So apart from the stress I already put on myself, there’s that conflict also happening internally.
Quote:
Me: I used to fear being pickpocketed, tripping over in front of others, and standing near rowdy people. Now, these fears have diminished. What changed? The common thread connecting these fears wasn’t about the incidents themselves, but what followed—I feared being pitied afterward, being called a “bechara” (helpless victim).
Earlier, I saw myself as bechara. And I was afraid that others would see it too—that my weakness would be exposed. Now, there is no bechara to expose. I stand on my feet. It seems to have more to do with how I fundamentally see myself. Our deepest fears perhaps sometimes reveal not what we’re afraid might happen, but who we’re afraid we might be.
Student: In golf, I’ve come up with a concept for myself. There’s a point in my round where I say, “f*** it golf.” Just screw everything. I don’t care what people think, I don’t care where the ball goes. Just go out there and hit—that’s all I want to do. And that is when I play at my best.
Even if I hit a genuinely bad shot, I think, “Oh, it’s okay. I was trying something.” That comes from a very happy place. If I’m trying to hit something over water and hit it into the water, I think, “It’s fine. I was trying a crazy shot anyway.”
Me: What is the difference between this mentality and the mentality which was initially bringing your performance down?
Student: In this mentality, there are no thoughts in my head. There’s nothing. I’m just going out there and pulling out something, and I’m just saying my body knows what needs to be done. In the harmful mentality, it’s about how do I make my body do that? It’s like the brain trying to control every aspect of my body rather than it being a little free-flowing. I think it’s maybe judgment.
Quote:
Student: I think the worst thing is that in math and in golf, I’m doing basic mistakes—not advanced technical mistakes on really hard stuff. I’m doing very basic mistakes. And when I’ve put in so many hours of effort, my expectations jump up. Then when I make the same mistake again, I become harsh on myself, saying, “How can you do this? This shouldn’t be happening.”
Me: Then why is it happening?
Student: I don’t know. In that instance, when I get to the judgment phase, I become even more controlling. In golf, if I think my head is moving too much, in my head you’ll probably see someone who’s holding their head. In math, it would be something similar—holding my hand and saying one line here, one line there. My response to the judgment that arises from the controlling mindset is more control.
Quote:
Me: Do you tend to punish yourself? Is there a feeling of punishing yourself?
Student: I don’t know. How do you mean by punishing yourself?
Me: You hate yourself for doing something. You’re not being gentle to yourself. You’re being harsh to yourself.
Student: Yeah, there probably was a time those tendencies were there. I think over time I’ve learned to control that a little bit more.
My tolerance for avoidable mistakes has increased over time. Earlier, after 3 such mistakes, I would be harsh on myself. Now, it’s after maybe 50 mistakes. I’m trying to be a little more patient with myself, a little more tolerant.
If someone else tries to annoy me, my tolerance is very high. Someone really has to try and actively push me over the edge to get a reaction out of me. It doesn’t bother me; it’s not my concern. But my tolerance is much lower when I am the one who’s doing it—when I am annoying myself.
Me: Why the difference? Perhaps, the difference exists because you don’t agree with their rationale when people say something to you or do something you don’t agree with. When you do it to yourself, you actually agree with the rationale for doing it.
If you laugh at me saying, “He doesn’t know how to eat,” I may not be bothered much. But if you say, “He doesn’t know how to teach,” I’d be bothered because in my mind, that’s actually a good rationale to reject that person. The reason I’m impacted by a rejection is that I agree with the reason for rejection. If I don’t agree with the reason, I won’t be bothered.
Me: So in your case, you actually agree with your reason for rejecting yourself?
Student: Yeah, I guess so.
Me: Do you consciously also agree with this reason for rejection? Have you consciously decided this value for yourself?
Student: I’ve probably not thought of that.
Me: Why would you ever consciously choose a value that will degrade yourself? It must not be a conscious decision.
Let’s say there is no justification possible for the actions you have taken. Will you then reject yourself?
Student: I don’t think so.
Quote:
Me: There’s another way to look at your situation. Our irritation to others’ mistakes is always rooted in doubt about their intentions, not their skills. Think about it: in case of subordinates or house helps, we get irritated when we doubt their intentions to work. If we think it’s a skill issue, we would guide them. Anger always comes when there is a doubt on the intent, not on the skill; the doubt could be on someone’s intent to improve their skills, but the doubt is always on the intent in case of anger. In your own case, you cannot have an intent issue since you cannot have malintent against yourself. So, it is always a skill issue. And skill issues need to be addressed, not shouted at.
Student: When you think about it that way, I think that awareness itself will probably increase my tolerance, and then over time that tolerance becomes infinite.
Quote:
Conclusion
This conversation reveals how learning barriers often exist in multiple interconnected layers. What began as a discussion about specific mathematical challenges progressively uncovered deeper psychological patterns involving:
- Rigid procedural thinking versus conceptual understanding
- Different cognitive processing styles for different subjects
- Emotional responses to mistakes that vary by domain
- Perfectionism and need for control
- Internal versus external emotional responses
- Self-image and fear of being exposed
- Unconscious versus conscious values
- Self-punishment versus skill development
The student’s rigid step-by-step approach in mathematics served as a psychological protection mechanism. By following prescribed procedures “correctly,” he created a situation where if he still got the wrong answer, he wouldn’t blame himself as harshly: “If I do correctly and then I land up in a bad outcome, it doesn’t bother me at all.”
This explained why they avoided more intuitive, flexible approaches to mathematics—such approaches left them vulnerable to making “avoidable” mistakes, which would trigger harsh self-judgment.
If you severely punish an employee for making every small mistake, the employee will forever play safe and thus will never be able to grow because growth involves making mistakes, but the employee just cannot afford to make any mistake. Thus, the employee doesn’t grow; not because they can’t but because they are not given the right environment to grow.
The path forward involves developing awareness of these patterns, recognizing the logical inconsistency in self-judgment, reframing mistakes as skill issues rather than character flaws, and cultivating access to both analytical and intuitive thinking modes.
By progressively uncovering these deeper layers, I think I was able to help the student understand the root causes of his learning barriers and open a path toward more effective and satisfying mathematical thinking.
This article was originally posted at Uncovering the Layers of Learning Barriers: A Coaching Conversation
18 Mar 2025, 17:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
Thank you Chiranjeev.
I feel this will be a helpful resource to those who freeze and are unable to solve questions that are not familiar to them. I have also added a short summary at the top of your post (AI generated) to help people get a quick sense of the article and decide if they want to read it.
I feel this will be a helpful resource to those who freeze and are unable to solve questions that are not familiar to them. I have also added a short summary at the top of your post (AI generated) to help people get a quick sense of the article and decide if they want to read it.
ChiranjeevSingh
Expert
Tutor
Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 411
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 155
Status:Private GMAT Tutor
Location: India
Concentration: Economics, Finance
Schools: IIMA (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V85 DI85 
GMAT Focus 2: 735 Q90 V85 DI85
GMAT Focus 3: 735 Q88 V87 DI84
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
GRE 1: Q170 V168
Expert reply
18 Mar 2025, 22:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
The AI summary is quite helpful! It's a useful addition to the post. Thank you!
bb
