Does it ever depress you that you're not the "best?"

[blackcat]

So I'm going to do Maths + CS at university. Someone on a forum the other day posted a link to a guy called Terence Tao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao) who was a child progidy and is obviously incredible good at Maths. I just feel like what's the point when I'm never ever ever gonna be as good as he is in a 100 lifetimes. Don't get me wrong, it's not about being the best, I'm not arrogant at all, but if you want something you want to be the best at it. It's like, what can I do in maths that this guy can't? What research could I possibly do and do well that he hasn't thought of?

Of course this is just one person. There are millions of better mathematicians than me but at least not all of them are geniuses (hopefully). Obviously the right attitude is to work hard to get to the level you want to, but it's still very depressing knowing you'll never be the best, or even close to it.

[Kurdt]

Just because you're not considered the best in your field does not mean that you can't make a contribution. If everyone gave up there would be nobody publishing any research which is not the case. In some circumstances people were born with a gift that makes them excellent at one particular thing. 99.9% of the time people only appear superb at something because they put in a lot of work. So how good you are at something mainly depends on how hard you're willing to work at it.

[Chi Meson]

Consider the "best" mathematicians. Would you really want to trade lives with them?

[hypnagogue]

The affective motivation for doing academic work should be about the process rather than the outcome. In your case, the process of working on mathematics itself should be inherently rewarding enough to keep you at it; it should put you in a state of flow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)). If you have that, you needn't worry about comparing your achievements to others.

[gabee]

Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best.
--Henry Van Dyke

[Moridin]

You should not compare the level of knowledge with someone else, or the level of progress with someone else. Compare your own derivative of learning with yourself and try to find an acceptable level where you don't work yourself to death.

[humanino]

but if you want something you want to be the best at it.Don't you prefer to do things because you like doing them ? What matters is that you do your best, not the best. Otherwise, pretty much nobody would do anything at all !

[blackcat]

Hmmm

Thanks for the responses.

I do find learning it fun and exciting. But still, sometimes it just demotivates me for some reason. I think I might be seeing it as a kind of competition. Probably not a good idea.

[brewnog]

There'll always be someone better than you, and there'll always be someone worse than you. Worrying about either is senseless.

[mattmns]

Consider the "best" mathematicians. Would you really want to trade lives with them?

I wouldn't want to trade lives with mathematicians in general :tongue2:


Being the best is by definition not an easy thing to be. People like Terry Tao don't bother me, there are tons of people here at PF that are far better than I am at math, and go to better schools than I do, etc. I doubt I am even in the top 25% of math undergrads in the US. But I really don't care. I have goals, and I am doing what I can to reach those goals.


edit... I got my GRE math subject scores today, apparently I am not even in the top 65% :rofl:

[Ivan Seeking]

A friend of mine who was a nuclear engineer [Ph.D.] with GE for his entire career told me that GE once did a study to identify who the most successful employees [who had contributed the most] had been over the last couple of decades. Part of the answer: On the average, B students rated the highest [represented a disproportionate percentage of those considered].

[Danger]

Does it ever depress you that you're not the "best?"

Who says I'm not? :grumpy:

[moose]

There was one student in my high school who was slightly better than me at math. I would NEVER trade lives with him.

[Mk]

It doesn't depress you that you're not the best if you are the best at something.

I think that's the best way to go about it.

[chroot]

If I were the best at something, then it'd mean I have nothing left to learn (or at least nothing left for anyone else to teach me). Since I love learning, it'd be a sad day to find out there's nothing left to learn.

In reality, people are good at all different sorts of things simultaneously. I might have talent in doing A, B, and C, while a colleague of mine is good at doing B, C, and D. Even if he's "better than me" at B, it doesn't mean he can't learn something from me about A.

The real world's much broader than math class. In the real world, the definition of being "good at something" or "bad at something" far transcends grades and test scores.

- Warren

[Thrice]

Does it ever depress you that you're not the "best?"A bit. I deal with it by pwning some n00bs.

[mathwonk]

there was a tv spot by danny glover that i liked where he said something like: "some people are faster, some people are smarter, some are bigger, or stronger, but nobody...nobody, is better".

[loseyourname]

I kind of pride myself on being a generalist, actually. I think that people in the industrialized parts of the world specialize too much and lead narrow lives. Academically, I'm not the best at anything, but I'm good at everything. I was the best writer in a science class and the best scientist in a writing class. I'm good at a lot of sports, too, and athletically well-rounded, but I'm not great at any of them.

I suppose I can always console myself this way if I ever start to feel as you do. Even if someone is better than me at one thing, I'm probably better than him at just about everything else.

[Surrealist]

Everyone has their positives and negatives.
Some guys are "all brains" and "no penis". What good is that?

[Reshma]

"Only those beneath me can envy or hate me.
I have never been envied nor hated; I am above no one.
Only those above me can praise or belittle me.
I have never been praised nor belittled; I am below no one."

~Khalil Gibran

[blackcat]

I suppose there's more to it than just being the best. Thanks for the responses.

[Tosh]

Your viewpoint here reminds me of what someone once said. A said that her aim in life was to be "the happiest person in the world." I thought to myself "right, that is never gonna happen, because the grass is always greener on the other side," and B said, "Just aim to be happy, surely that will be sufficient."

My advice to you is that you should realise what you can offer. Remember that these geniuses/child prodigies etc. are only single people, they simply don't have the time (we can never get it back Al-Asr (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/103.qmt.html)) to do all of the other things that everyone else is doing. At the end of the day they can only focus on one aspect of a subject, at maximum a few, if they are the best at it. Most people are in balance as well, and although you needn't, you will probably find them lacking in one area if they are superior in another - even if they seem to be "the best at everything."

Those who are truly best at something, often don't consider themselves the best, and so find contentment in your very predicament.

Note on Child prodigies
Yeah, they are clever. We might like to convince ourselves that they lack any social life, or that their parents pushed them when they were younger, or that they had privileged childhoods. But really it doesn't matter, even if they are at your stage and they are ten years younger: they still haven't lived your life and you haven't lived theirs. You are only similar in career, what about the no. of siblings you have, or the time you helped someone, or when someone said something nice to you etc. I hope they live happy lives, and I hope we call all live happy lives here and in the hereafter.

To summarise: What is your measure of success; intelligence, wealth, or contentment? I say contentment, hands down.

[marlon]

If I were the best at something, then it'd mean I have nothing left to learn (or at least nothing left for anyone else to teach me). Since I love learning, it'd be a sad day to find out there's nothing left to learn.

That's a strange way to look at this topin. IMO, being the best does not equal "knowing the most". Since most learning focusses on "getting to know and absorb facts" what you say is contradictory.

But, you could say to me that learning also means "acquiring new abilities". I would completely agree with you but being the best in this case means : learning the fastest. When Mozart was a child prodidy he still had a lot to learn about how to write music. But still, he was able to write the best music using the few techniqies he knew at that age.

You see, it is not about what or how much you learn, it is all about how fast you are able to learn and what you are able to create with that knowledge. Creating with your knowledge is not the same as learning. That is why i disagree with you.

regards
marlon

[mathwonk]

actually your concept of terrence tao is wrong. brilliant as he is, it si not at all true that someone like him thinks of everything there is to think of before other people.

if you concentrate on an area that interests you, it is entirely possible that you will do something he does not do, even though he may have tried. i say this from experience.

I.e. I have done things much better experts did not do, and young students have done things in my area of expertise that I did not do.

I started to say your attitude was quite pathological, but now that I think about it, I remember having that attitude as a high school student. I think back in those days I was praised so much by well meaning teachers and parents, that I thought of myself as a genius, and that idea was a big part of my self image and self confidence.

Then when I got to Harvard and met all those really bright kids, it was startling and I did not do well there, probably partly because I was no longer the "best", and had no other motivation to work. This is a typical reaction of bright kids going to college for the first time, and especially at a top place where everyone is good.

But ultimately people usually find a subject they enjoy doing for the pleasure of doing it, and not the ego boost of being called the best, and live happily ever after. And what I said above is also true, that in a subject one actually enjoys, one can often find something they do actually extremely well, sometimes even better than the "best" people.


So now I am conjecturing you are a high school student or beginning college student [confirmed by rereading your first post], having this same syndrome many of us have lived through. You wil be fine as soon as you stop thinking about how people view you, and start thinking about the beauty of the subject you are working on. And then at some point, people will start thinking highly of you for what you have done while you were having fun at it.

[Bladibla]

I think people are being a bit too 'nice' here. I don't think 'don't worry about it' should be the right answer to such a question.

If one is not content with not being the best, then you should strive as hard you possibly can to become the best. The constraint is only mental, and best does not necessarily mean they are more intelligent, but worked more harder. If then, work harder than them! Or even if they just more naturally clever than you are, one striving to become the best should work to close the gap between natural intelligence and hard work. There is a limit to where natural intelligence will get you, wheras there is no limit to hard work, only that you be practical and selective with it (I mean, don't just blindly work).

And about 'being' the best, it really does depend on context, but whatever context your in, I think it is pretty easy to point out who is the best (relative the whatever subject) and who is the worst.

[TuviaDaCat]

the goal in life should be to be a happy.

if not being the best makes you sad, and you will never be the best, then such thought is only a source of unhappiness, therefor should be erased...

enjoying a process on the other hand is not dependent on others. if your time is spent on doing something you enjoy, there is a long term source of amusement.

human beings only bring me headaches... i prefer enjoying things which does not involve people...

[moe darklight]

Many important scientists were not "child prodigies" or abnormally genius. Darwin comes to mind, it seems to me like his biggest asset was that he was hopelessly curious :smile: . I'm sure you can figure out more revolutionary scientists and philosophers who were not child prodigies, biographies usually bore me so I don't know much about anyone.

on the other hand, if you want to get even more depressed: wikipedia "List of child prodigies" ... kids publishing papers at the age of 9! translating Latin literature at 5! O my! :surprised

[blackcat]

Thanks for the posts everyone. I think you are right in that i should stop thinking about what other people think. You can always get better! I think that's quite cool.

[fourier jr]

Many important scientists were not "child prodigies" or abnormally genius. Darwin comes to mind, it seems to me like his biggest asset was that he was hopelessly curious :smile: . I'm sure you can figure out more revolutionary scientists and philosophers who were not child prodigies, biographies usually bore me so I don't know much about anyone.
newton & einstein are the most obvious imo. hilbert comes to mind as well. iirc hilbert's mom did his schoolwork for him (except math) until he got to university.

on the other hand, if you want to get even more depressed: wikipedia "List of child prodigies" ... kids publishing papers at the age of 9! translating Latin literature at 5! O my! :surprised
others not on the list: lagrange was a lecturer at his university when he was 15 or something, paul erdos apparently discovered negative numbers at a very young age & was a calculating prodigy (unusual that he also became a great mathematician)

i think if you consider the contributions of the two most conspicuous non-prodigies (newton & einstein) it's easy to see that it doesn't really matter if someone's a prodigy or not. newton's success probably had more to do with being an insomniac & whiling the hours away studying.

[Darkiekurdo]

on the other hand, if you want to get even more depressed: wikipedia "List of child prodigies" ... kids publishing papers at the age of 9! translating Latin literature at 5! O my! :surprised
9! = 362 880.
5! = 120.

Sorry. :tongue:

[ank_gl]

There are millions of better mathematicians than me but at least not all of them are geniuses (hopefully). Obviously the right attitude is to work hard to get to the level you want to, but it's still very depressing knowing you'll never be the best, or even close to it.

people are still better than me, thatz a motivation for me to work still harder, now stop complaining and get back to work.
see you ll be the best in no time if you keep on working harder

[moe darklight]

newton & einstein are the most obvious imo.

I'm pretty sure Einstein was gifted from childhood. People like to spread the "Einstein did bad in school and didn't speak until he was five" rumor around because it makes a neat story, but it's my understanding that he was always gifted in math; the school subjects he didn't do good* on were not math related.

* or is it "well"? ... grammar police!

[Mk]

If I were the best at something, then it'd mean I have nothing left to learn (or at least nothing left for anyone else to teach me). Since I love learning, it'd be a sad day to find out there's nothing left to learn.
Uh, what? If we assumed somebody was the best who ever lived, in physics, would we say that there was nothing more to learn? Einstein couldn't have learned anything more about the universe?

[Astronuc]

Does it ever depress you that you're not the "best?" No. I'm satisfied to adequate. :biggrin: I've never worried about being better than someone else, or being the 'best' - it just doesn't matter. I do my best and that's good enough for me.

[moe darklight]

9! = 362 880.
5! = 120.

Sorry. :tongue:

:rofl:

The first time I saw "!" used, I kept thinking "those parts of the equation must be really important that they need to put exclamation marks!"

[Smurf]

no! It angers me.

Grrrrrrr...

[fourier jr]

I'm pretty sure Einstein was gifted from childhood. People like to spread the "Einstein did bad in school and didn't speak until he was five" rumor around because it makes a neat story, but it's my understanding that he was always gifted in math; the school subjects he didn't do good* on were not math related.

* or is it "well"? ... grammar police!

i've never heard that he was gifted in math, at best he was good in math & average in everything else. that's what i've always read. he definitely couldn't have been a professor when he was a teenager, or have mastered a language for every year he'd been alive by the time he was 12.

[moe darklight]

i've never heard that he was gifted in math, at best he was good in math & average in everything else. that's what i've always read.
yea that's true, I guess he wasn't exactly a child prodigy; just intelligent and interested.

[dimensionless]

It's like, what can I do in maths that this guy can't? What research could I possibly do and do well that he hasn't thought of?

Some have said that the best research occurs between fields. Remember, genomics started in chemistry, but now it is it's own distinct field. Another example is bioinformatics. There are many fields of science that have yet to emerge.


Of course this is just one person. There are millions of better mathematicians than me but at least not all of them are geniuses (hopefully). Obviously the right attitude is to work hard to get to the level you want to, but it's still very depressing knowing you'll never be the best, or even close to it.
I can say from experience that some of these people are really awful at chess.

[Stevedye56]

9! = 362 880.
5! = 120.

Sorry. :tongue:

Haha, had to know that was coming. :rofl:

[tim_lou]

I suck, you suck;
I'm stupid, and you are stupid.

Meh, at least I don't have to live up to the expectation of being smart.

Life goes on.

[-Job-]

There's a number of unsolved problems in Mathematics which Tao hasn't solved (can't solve?). There's your chance. :)

[neurocomp2003]

i blame my environment and my parents for the things i have yet to acheive or failed to have. Thats what makes me depressed...not that someone is smarter or better...but they were nourished more in that aspect of their life in someway.

[mathwonk]

this is going downhill fast, and it didn't start very far uphill.

[ice109]

i blame my environment and my parents for the things i have yet to acheive or failed to have. Thats what makes me depressed...not that someone is smarter or better...but they were nourished more in that aspect of their life in someway.

wow talk about being narcissistic

[bfr]

Although this is slightly off-topic:

Being really good at mathematics doesn't necessarily mean that somebody is smart (and by smart, I mostly been having a high IQ and being able to figure out complicated problems). It can mean that they spent a lot of time practicing, and memorizing how to solve certain problems and lots of formulas.

[dimensionless]

I personally have no reliable way to gage intelligence. All methods fail under certain circumstances. I suppose some people do come across as a bit slow, but on the other hand I was in a barber shop and the barber was telling me things I didn't know.

[dimensionless]

Don't get me wrong, it's not about being the best, I'm not arrogant at all, but if you want something you want to be the best at it.

I want to be the best I can be. At the moment I'm trying to do my own thing. If I succeed in doing this, I will be the best (or at least pretty good) by virtue of the fact that I'm doing my own thing.