So let me start by saying that I'm a stereotypical hypergenius and have literally never once in my life struggled to grasp something on a conceptual level.
My intuition is that you can understand the concepts just fine, but they're presented in a way that doesn't naturally mesh with your thinking style. You could practice different types of arts, even if you're bad at them, explore ideas completely unrelated to the topic at hand just to get a sense of how vast the conceptual horizon is, and just in general do things that actually provoke your curiosity. Only after you've attained a more nuanced understanding of something that interests you conceptually should you return to a topic that you're struggling with.
The simple solution is to just get a tutor who has a firm grasp on all the different wrong ways you're trying to process an idea, but that only helps you on a short-term basis. On a long term basis your goal should always be to be able to understand this stuff using your own thoughts and reasoning. I tend to think people who say that logic should be taught in school are faggots that don't understand how logic works, but this is just my own bias from being a natural born philosopher. The reality is that I'm wrong about this one and lots of people would benefit from a primer, even though fully generalized logic is literally something you can't teach because the dynamism involved demands the ability to wrap your head around logistical paradoxes. Expecting something as abstract as logic itself to be fully communicable to the average third grader is not what people mean by "teaching logic in school," and it would actually be an interesting problem to solve to figure out what pieces of logic are most relevant to teach to the people that don't get it as naturally as non-brainlets do.
