Power learning - 16 hours a day

[WWGD]

I think he meant Einstein as in Einstein Bagels ; ).

 

[Niflheim]

You have a source for these numbers? Or did you just make them up?

Tell me that you haven't heard of any modern "child geniuses". Off the top of my head I know of Jacob Barnett, Mikaela Fudolig,and Tanishq Abraham. Look up "modern child prodigies" and look at the dozens of lists of child geniuses. Heck, there have been shows about them. And that's just in the past few years.

 

[IGU]

Tell me that you haven't heard of any modern "child geniuses". Off the top of my head I know of Jacob Barnett, Mikaela Fudolig,and Tanishq Abraham. Look up "modern child prodigies" and look at the dozens of lists of child geniuses. Heck, there have been shows about them. And that's just in the past few years.

Sure I have. But, as I suspected, you have no idea how many there are, at what age they matriculate, or how well they do in their studies or after. All you know is that you've heard of a few. Please don't spread misinformation here -- there's enough nonsense floating about elsewhere. As well, the successes and failures of such unusual people are not much of a guide to those asking questions here. Even among prodigies, each one is unique.

If you do hope to have any future in science, you'll learn not to make statements like "...for just about every one of them, either they get burned out, or can only learn and not actually think..." without some actual data to support them.

 

[Intrastellar]

Just look at the hundreds of supposed child geniuses who go to college at 10. Everyone says that they'll be the next Einstein, but for just about every one of them, either they get burned out, or can only learn and not actually think and do anything useful like real research.

Sounds like a good excuse to justify your failure to measure up to that standard.

 

[x86]

Yes, I also strongly believe that learning all this math (if I succeed) will make me much more intelligent and smarter. I'll be able to learn faster, have a sharper brain, and just generally be better.

I will improve in coding, algorithms, physics, math, concentration, probably grades too.

I've noted that people like Newton reached their peak after studying books like Euclids elements.

If I succeed, even if I forget everything afterwards, I would have gained something invaluable: a stronger brain; I will easily be able to relearn this material, and anything after that, and master power learning.

 

[homeomorphic]

Tell me that you haven't heard of any modern "child geniuses". Off the top of my head I know of Jacob Barnett, Mikaela Fudolig,and Tanishq Abraham. Look up "modern child prodigies" and look at the dozens of lists of child geniuses. Heck, there have been shows about them. And that's just in the past few years.

I don't know those other guys, but I can say Jacob Barnett is a PhD student, right now. As far as I'm aware, it would be seriously jumping the gun to say he was a flop at this point, just because he hasn't been in the news for a year or two. Historically, there have been a lot of child prodigies who were very successful, like Norbert Weiner, Mozart, Gauss, and fairly recently, Terence Tao. Your whole idea of people who can think versus people who can only learn suggests a certain naivete about what it is like to actually do research. I think it's almost more a matter of having a strong stomach, so to speak, than being able to think, in my experience. Or 99% perspiration, as Edison put it. Of course, it helps to be really interested in your work, so that you don't have to have quite as strong of a stomach to make it through. Someone who does a PhD in math or physics or even gets into the program is generally relatively good at thinking. Not everyone can solve those textbook problems. It's not just a matter of being able to learn and not think.

 

[Niflheim]

I don't know those other guys, but I can say Jacob Barnett is a PhD student, right now. As far as I'm aware, it would be seriously jumping the gun to say he was a flop at this point, just because he hasn't been in the news for a year or two. Historically, there have been a lot of child prodigies who were very successful, like Norbert Weiner, Mozart, Gauss, and fairly recently, Terence Tao. Your whole idea of people who can think versus people who can only learn suggests a certain naivete about what it is like to actually do research. I think it's almost more a matter of having a strong stomach, so to speak, than being able to think, in my experience. Or 99% perspiration, as Edison put it. Of course, it helps to be really interested in your work, so that you don't have to have quite as strong of a stomach to make it through. Someone who does a PhD in math or physics or even gets into the program is generally relatively good at thinking. Not everyone can solve those textbook problems. It's not just a matter of being able to learn and not think.

I was making a generalization, and of course I'm not suggesting all child prodigies aren't brilliant. I'm saying that I'm tired of people overreacting every time some kid who went to college early makes the news, and I'm making sure the OP knows that there is more to research than reading textbooks and getting good grades.

 

[Niflheim]

Sounds like a good excuse to justify your failure to measure up to that standard.

Really? My saying that the majority of promising children don't live up to our expectations is me making an excuse? When did I ever say that I was as smart as them? When did I even say that I DIDN'T live up to that standard?

 

[Niflheim]

Sure I have. But, as I suspected, you have no idea how many there are, at what age they matriculate, or how well they do in their studies or after. All you know is that you've heard of a few. Please don't spread misinformation here -- there's enough nonsense floating about elsewhere. As well, the successes and failures of such unusual people are not much of a guide to those asking questions here. Even among prodigies, each one is unique.

If you do hope to have any future in science, you'll learn not to make statements like "...for just about every one of them, either they get burned out, or can only learn and not actually think..." without some actual data to support them.

I think you're misunderstanding my intent here, I'm definitely not trying to suggest that child prodigies aren't brilliant and interesting people. I'm emphasizing to the OP that ability to learn does not always lead to a successful research career.

 

[homeomorphic]

If I succeed, even if I forget everything afterwards, I would have gained something invaluable: a stronger brain; I will easily be able to relearn this material, and anything after that, and master power learning.

You might not want to plan on just forgetting everything. If you just forget everything, then I would question whether you have mastered any kind of learning. If you click on the video I linked to earlier and go to YouTube for his other videos, that guy has some advice on not forgetting quite so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacing_effect

Quality of learning matters, too, not just quantity.

 

[IGU]

I think you're misunderstanding my intent here...

I can't read your intent, only what you write.

I was making a generalization, and of course I'm not suggesting ...

Again, I'll suggest that if you have any hope of a future in science that you don't make misleading statements unsupported by data. Defending such a statement by asserting that you were "making a generalization" is just digging the hole deeper.

I'm saying that I'm tired of people overreacting every time some kid who went to college early makes the news

What you actually wrote is that you wanted to emphasize the importance of thinking (something I quite agree with), but then you produced this bogus illustration. Do you seriously want to defend the position that Barnett (your example) doesn't know how to think?

I'm making sure the OP knows that there is more to research than reading textbooks and getting good grades.

The OP wrote:

I want to attain mathematical maturity and be really good at math and solving problems, because you never know when it will come in handy.

Nothing about an interest in grades or research, just learning stuff. An admirable goal for an engineering student.

To make this slightly relevant to the OP: if you spend time studying hard, thinking deeply about the material in ways that make use of it to solve problems, then you won't be wasting your time. You should examine what techniques you use in learning things that stick; what don't you forget? People are very different in this and it will help you if you know what works for you. I'm sure Niflheim and I can agree on this.

 

[Niflheim]

IGU, we can go back and forth all day on this, and nothing will come out of it. Let's just stop now to save both of us a lot of trouble.

 

[Evan Maxwell]

In all honest, I think some people can handle spending 16 hours or so a day learning a set of subjects for at least a temporary period. But doing it too long and too early in your academic journey can also have the side affect of burning you out entirely on the concept of learning new material in math and physics. Remember that depending on how far you go in your academic career, you will be in situations where you have to spend upwards of 16 hours a day trying to master a type of material whether you are interested in doing that or not. When it comes to spending 16 hours a day on something over the course of many years, there are very few people who can do that; those who can become famous or indeed legendary figures in science for a reason. Not being able to replicate how they work is not something worth holding your head in shame over.

So I would try that for one week first, then take a couple days of relative rest where you are not spending that much time on the subject, and then during that rest period evaluate how you feel and evaluate your ability to function after doing it for one week.

 

[heatengine516]

Sounds like a pretty crappy way to spend a summer. What I would do is pick one book to work on a couple hours a day. Also join a noise band or something.

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

Black metal > noise

 

[heatengine516]

I whole-heartedly agree.

 

[Loststudent22]

This sounds unhealthy to be honest and the fact your putting in 10 hours a day to just studying already is also not that healthy.

Why not look for internships instead, they will hold a lot more value for an engineering student then trying to force yourself to study for 16 hours a day which is not likely to happen.

It reminds me of people who do crash diets to look good, while it might work short term long term is not the best strategy.

 

[x86]

This sounds unhealthy to be honest and the fact your putting in 10 hours a day to just studying already is also not that healthy.

Why not look for internships instead, they will hold a lot more value for an engineering student then trying to force yourself to study for 16 hours a day which is not likely to happen.

It reminds me of people who do crash diets to look good, while it might work short term long term is not the best strategy.

Unfortunately for me, I'm not the only one studying 10 hours a day. It's pretty common in engineering at my school. Everyone I know studies at least ~40 hours a week, on top of class. (~80 hours a week)

I also don't like engineering, and I'd rather acquire knowledge and advance my math skills than gun for a top-notch engineering job. My interests are 100% in math, computer science, and security (cracking <-- most of my interest in computer science relates to this). But everyone I know has found out I'm doing engineering, and if I switch people will remind me every day about it, believing that I dropped out because it was too hard.

Besides, the circuit knowledge might come in handy one day if I get into embedded systems or cracking video game consoles.

I'd gain more benefit from coding/doing math than getting an engineering internship. Haven't learned anything in first year.

 

[WWGD]

One thought, most likely my last one. Maybe a good idea to use the posts in here to allow you to consider the possible pitfalls, obstacles you may face in your plan and change the plan accordingly. Good luck on your plans.

 

[x86]

One thought, most likely my last one. Maybe a good idea to use the posts in here to allow you to consider the possible pitfalls, obstacles you may face in your plan and change the plan accordingly. Good luck on your plans.

Yes, indeed. People have given me great advice here that I plan to follow.