Well, you just found your problem right there!

Some languages actually require reading. You have to study and think, not just do, for some languages. Especially those where the compiler does a lot of thinking for you: you need to understand how to split up the thinking between yourself and what you tell the compiler to do for you.

If that doesn't suit your personality, no worries--there are plenty of alternatives where you just go for it.

In certain areas, like algorithmic trading (unfortunately), the people with other personality traits may have a big advantage over you, but that's easily avoided by simply not working in the areas for which, in practice, you're not suited. And you can't really tell about the practice without trying it.

I have a very different personality type. I adore Rust (and Scala, and Julia and Haskell are pretty cool); I find Python and JS an inconsistent mishmash of under-performing unhelpfulness. If I get examples and no docs I'm annoyed--yes, I can do what you did but how do I understand what else could I do? But I recognize that this is a me thing. Some people push Python code to production after passing all the unit tests (unit tests that, incidentally, took them ten times longer to write than the code itself), only to have the thing fail at runtime six hours in because the data types didn't match somewhere because you upgraded a package that altered the defaults on some internal method, and go, "Well, that's coding! Sure am glad that import matlibplot as plt is so easy!" They take it in stride and are happy because they got the sorta working prototype up fast. I do not take it in stride and I am not happy.

But I am happy that there are languages that suit people with different proclivities.