Success Through Comprehensive Study of Physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion emphasizes the impracticality of attempting to study every aspect of physics without specialization, arguing that such an approach leads to mediocrity and limits career opportunities. Participants highlight that true success in academia requires focusing on specific areas to conduct meaningful research and contribute to the field. While some advocate for a broad understanding of various topics, they acknowledge that without specialization, one may struggle to secure academic positions or engage in cutting-edge research. The consensus suggests that while it's beneficial to have a general knowledge base, mastering a particular field is essential for professional advancement. Ultimately, the conversation underscores the importance of balancing broad learning with focused expertise in physics.
  • #31
pivoxa15 said:
So you think maths is in your genes? Imagine what you would achieve had you tried harder. In fact Ian Stewart said he didn't try that hard either when he was a student and also admited that he had talent. Why don't you pursue pure maths?

I'm not trying hard either and that's with every subject. I just assume that's above average intelligence. That's all.

I don't think there is a math gene specifically.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
pivoxa15 said:
So you think maths is in your genes? Imagine what you would achieve had you tried harder. In fact Ian Stewart said he didn't try that hard either when he was a student and also admited that he had talent. Why don't you pursue pure maths?
I certainly think there is such a thing as a natural ability.

Loads of people say they're rubbish at maths and can't grasp it.

I believe them -- eg. my gf is brilliant in what she does (English), yet admits she has no ability for maths.

However, in the genes? That's very hard to say -- I was the first in my close family (bloodline, say) to pursue my education to university, so I can't tell if any of my family were naturally good at maths...

And, "had you tried harder". Well, I like to think of myself as quite young still :wink: And, pure maths? This goes back to the same old argument of what is pure maths... some of the thing's I do, regarding "functional analysis" could be described as pure. However, I prefer to have some application at the end of it. Though this just throws up the question of the fluidity between pure and applied again :biggrin:

<e2a: Reading this post and the one I quoted a few posts earlier, they sound quite arrogant. I don't mean them to :smile:. I think the talk of nature of nurture is an interesting one.>
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
562
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K