Imagine Person B of your OTP having a really bad day that ends up getting progressively worse and trying to hide their stress from everyone else. At the end of the day Person B manages to come back home where A is patiently waiting for them and ends up finally breaking down in the comfort of Person A’s arms.
So it really depends on what the subject is… but I can almost always find a way to rephrase textbook information into diagrams, flowcharts, concept maps or lists. I like doing that because it all just seems more organized that way.
If it’s a subject that has a lot of information about structures (take anatomy for example), I will draw and label bones and muscles. I am more likely to draw flowcharts for courses of the nerves and blood vessels. In this case, I’d draw them like they appear in any atlas and add necessary details. For example: when I label the popliteal artery, I would add something like “pulse felt at depth of popliteal fossa” and more importantly, I add clinical correlations “likely to be injured in femoral fracture or knee dislocation” and so on. See what my flow charts look like here.
It differs for a subject like pathology. If I’m studying a disease, I’m more likely to make a concept map. In this case, I’d write the name of the disease in the middle and draw around that everything that has to do with the disease (etiology, pathogenesis, clinical picture etc). How does this differ from a list you ask? Well I tend to link things in a way that helps me have a full idea about the pathology. For example, if a certain drug works by inhibiting a step in the pathogenesis; I mark that step in the pathogenesis and make an arrow to where I wrote down the treatment.
Here’s an example of one of my computerized concept map drafts from when we were doing blood disorders:
Hope this helps, thank you for viewing and happy studying! :)