Theoretical Physics (and Math) genius cult

[Rika]

After reading this:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=402926"

or this:

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/02/out-on-tail.html"

I am speechless.

As far as I know in every field of science you need skills and luck in order to succeed. Yet it seems that only in math and theo physics ppl are obssesed with IQ, being genius and Feynman. Even great ppl such as Landau felt inferior to him. I can't also understand this "look, I do theo physics/math, I am so smart, god-like IQ, yay" attitude. Seriously, what's wrong with those people?

 

[luma]

small penises and self esteem

 

[TubbaBlubba]

small penises and self esteem

Yeah, seriously. If you honestly need to become renowned to feel satisfied with yourself, you have deep, deep issues.

 

[Jack21222]

After reading this:
Yet it seems that only in math and theo physics ppl are obssesed with IQ, being genius and Feynman. Even great ppl such as Landau felt inferior to him. I can't also understand this "look, I do theo physics/math, I am so smart, god-like IQ, yay" attitude. Seriously, what's wrong with those people?

It probably has to do with being told by everybody around them all their lives how smart they are. It's hard to keep an even keel when everybody around them smothers them in adulation about their intelligence.

Professor Brian Cox was on Jonathan Ross a few months ago, and he tried saying "I'm no cleverer than you" to which the audience started laughing. I don't think that was intended as a joke. Society doesn't let physicists pretend to be humble.

I'm still a physics undergrad, and just telling people my major draws reactions from people along the lines of "Wow! You must be really smart."

I don't think you can blame some people for just going along with it. I spent most of my life pretending to NOT be.smart, so people would stop raising expectations of me. It wasn't until a few years ago that I decided to go along with it; around the same time I went back to school.

Yeah, seriously. If you honestly need to become renowned to feel satisfied with yourself, you have deep, deep issues.

No, that's called ambition. That's a positive quality to have. Not everybody can be content with mediocrity.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

It probably has to do with being told by everybody around them all their lives how smart they are. It's hard to keep an even keel when everybody around them smothers them in adulation about their intelligence.

Professor Brian Cox was on Jonathan Ross a few months ago, and he tried saying "I'm no cleverer than you" to which the audience started laughing. I don't think that was intended as a joke. Society doesn't let physicists pretend to be humble.

I'm still a physics undergrad, and just telling people my major draws reactions from people along the lines of "Wow! You must be really smart."

I don't think you can blame some people for just going along with it. I spent most of my life pretending to NOT be.smart, so people would stop raising expectations of me. It wasn't until a few years ago that I decided to go along with it; around the same time I went back to school.

I'm a few years younger than you (18), but I can sort of see your position on this. I know from personal experience that getting told that you're a genius, people imagining that you're omniscient or god knows what gets REALLY OLD really quickly. I generally just grunt and shrug whenever someone tries to bring it up. I don't act smarter or dumber than I am, I'm just me. I make the comments and answers questions as I see fit. I don't really see how I could either "embrace" or "reject" a perceived image of myself other than starting every sentence with "Well, being intellectual...".

No, that's called ambition. That's a positive quality to have. Not everybody can be content with mediocrity.

"Mediocrity" would be a carreer of burger-flipping. If you doctorate in physics you're already part of an intellectual elite. If you have to become a nobel prize winner to feel satisfied with your life, you have issues. There's nothing wrong with aiming high, but having to become the next Feynman or whatever to feel satisfied is just torturing yourself. You probably wouldn't be happy with being the next Feynman either, because you'd still be pissed at not becoming even GREATER than Feynman.

 

[Rika]

It's strange. Society belives that physicists are smarter than let's say biologists. So physicists start to believe it. What's so special about math and physics? I don't think that other fields are for less intelligent people.

What I mean by obsession - people truly believe that in order to become top theorist you need to be some sort of "magical genius" while you don't see this kind of attitude in other fields. You don't see Pasteur cult in chemistry/biology or Hesse (or other nobel prize in literature winner) cult in humanities. What's more people don't see Pasteur or Hesse as people with god-like IQ while Einstein or Feynman are consider to be the smartest people in the world.

 

[alemsalem]

no u should become an even greater Feynman
I usually get jealous when i hear about those great physicists and mathematicians but that's mainly because i want to understand as much as possible not just from those guys' ideas but also through my contribution,, i try very hard not to get too interested in recognition it's a by product of the idiot human nature.

 

[Pjennings]

I think it is a lot easier for a lay person to look at the works of Hesse and understand them because Hesse used language to convey his ideas; however, if they were to look at the work of a physicist or mathematician they would be less at home with the mathematical symbols and reasoning being used.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I really enjoyed reading what Stephen Wolfram wrote about Richard Feynman.

I first met Richard Feynman when I was 18, and he was 60. And over the course of ten years, I think I got to know him fairly well. First when I was in the physics group at Caltech. And then later when we both consulted for a once-thriving Boston company called Thinking Machines Corporation.

I actually don't think I've ever talked about Feynman in public before. And there's really so much to say, I'm not sure where to start.

But if there's one moment that summarizes Richard Feynman and my relationship with him, perhaps it's this.

It was probably 1982. I'd been at Feynman's house, and our conversation had turned to some kind of unpleasant situation that was going on. I was about to leave. And Feynman stops me and says: "You know, you and I are very lucky. Because whatever else is going on, we've always got our physics."

Feynman loved doing physics. I think what he loved most was the process of it. Of calculating. Of figuring things out.

It didn't seem to matter to him so much if what came out was big and important. Or esoteric and weird. What mattered to him was the process of finding it. And he was often quite competitive about it.

Some scientists (myself probably included) are driven by the ambition to build grand intellectual edifices. I think Feynman--at least in the years I knew him--was much more driven by the pure pleasure of actually doing the science. He seemed to like best to spend his time figuring things out, and calculating.
[Please read on . . . ]
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/recent/feynman/

\

 

[Count Iblis]

I think a big difference between physics and math on the one hand and subjects like biology on the other hand is that the high school curriculum in physics and math only covers the very elementary stuff. What passes for physics and math in high school is actually so abominable that it hardly can be called physics or math at all.

You then get the effect that people who want to study math and physics at university have read about these subjects a lot themselves while in high school. And studying at an early age makes you more of a genius than you would have been had you not done that.

Compare this to people who do well in athletics, games like chess, playing musical instruments etc. etc. In school you hardly get music lessons, so you really need to study a lot yourself to get into music academy and do well there.

 

[Mathnomalous]

After reading this:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=402926"

or this:

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/02/out-on-tail.html"

I am speechless.

As far as I know in every field of science you need skills and luck in order to succeed. Yet it seems that only in math and theo physics ppl are obssesed with IQ, being genius and Feynman. Even great ppl such as Landau felt inferior to him. I can't also understand this "look, I do theo physics/math, I am so smart, god-like IQ, yay" attitude. Seriously, what's wrong with those people?

Specific to pure mathematicians and theoretical physicists, my opinion is that many of them work in some kind of "special reality" where their work is not easily applicable to the practical world and is generally only understood by them. Similar to how the life experiences of wealthy people cannot be easily applied to the life experiences of poor people. Does not mean pure mathematicians and theoretical physicists are superior but simply that they have special training to deal with their specific work; again, similar how it takes a special kind of human with specific training to run into a fire to save other people. Probably does not happen as much in other areas of physics, chemistry, and/or biology because their work is more applicable to the practical world and more people are able to understand the practical world.

Don't worry too much about this, though. The knowledge we posses today is the result of thousands of years of work, insight, and/or luck by thousands of individuals. The idiots will obsess over I.Q. or "genius" while the intelligent people will concern themselves with their work.

 

[LBloom]

I think to a certain extent its because of the history of Physics. The people who helped lead the scientific revolution were people like Newton, Galileo and Copernicus, all people whose work would fall under physics (or for astronomy, at least the Physics department :) )
Also, Einstein's work is more inherently interested and kind of out there to the average person on the street, as opposed to Pasteur. Physics just seems to have more strange characters like Einstein, Feynman, Newton, Hawking etc.

Physics is interesting for the same reason philosophy is interesting, it seeks to explain the world around us and how it works (which is why it was originally called Natural Philosophy)

Personally, I just shrug off comments and try to get across that you don't have to be that smart to do Physics, you just determination and an open mind.

 

[Leptos]

In most education systems, less motivated students tend to be dissuaded from theoretical physics and pure mathematics. Various pressures selecting against less motivated/less intelligent students combined with pressures selecting for more motivated/more intelligent students results in the elitism we see today in theoretical physics and pure mathematics. It may be that theoretical physicists and pure mathematicians feel a need for recognition because unlike with other fields, their work isn't as readily understood by laypeople.

That being said, I doubt that people prefer theoretical physicists/pure mathematicians over biologists. I'm pretty sure the biology department funding will soon far exceed the physics department funding at major research universities. Some have claimed that this may even be the century of biology whereas the 20th century was the century of physics.

 

[haael]

"look, I do theo physics/math, I am so smart, god-like IQ, yay"

Wow, it's my usual pick-up line towards girls.

 

[Klockan3]

This is like asking why an athlete cares so much about who is/was the best sprinter, who is/was the best boxer etc. The easier and more accurate you can measure something the more competitive will people be about it.
For example it is quite hard to not put Einstein at the top since his contributions are just so big for physics, but it is quite hard to say which guys to put on top in most other fields, for example is Herman Hesse the greatest writer in history? Debatable.

 

[xxChrisxx]

No, that's called ambition. That's a positive quality to have. Not everybody can be content with mediocrity.

That's where you are wrong. Doing what you do becuase you love it and want to be the best at it is ambition. The acutal recognition for being the best is irrelevant to most people who truly love what they do.

Doing something purely for recognition; the need to be recognised for what you do, and not even attempting it unless you are going to be recognised is called obsession not ambition.

 

[Jack21222]

That's where you are wrong. Doing what you do becuase you love it and want to be the best at it is ambition. The acutal recognition for being the best is irrelevant to most people who truly love what they do.

Doing something purely for recognition; the need to be recognised for what you do, and not even attempting it unless you are going to be recognised is called obsession not ambition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ambition

1 a : an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ambition

a. An eager or strong desire to achieve something, such as fame or power.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ambition

an earnest desire for some type of achievement or distinction, as power, honor, fame, or wealth, and the willingness to strive for its attainment

The English language would disagree with you.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Fair enough on strict definitions, no real argument there. Connotation has more meaning than anything.

The point stands that if you seek fame for the sake of fame, you are a deeply sad individual. True greatness doesn't need to seek recognition, recognition will find true greatness.

I suppose I should have used the word driven or motivation, rather than ambition. That would have been more fitting.

 

[Jack21222]

Fair enough on strict definitions, no real argument there. Connotation has more meaning than anything.

The point stands that if you seek fame for the sake of fame, you are a deeply sad individual. True greatness doesn't need to seek recognition, recognition will find true greatness.

I suppose I should have used the word driven or motivation, rather than ambition. That would have been more fitting.

You're using a lot of words, but I'm not sure you're saying anything with substance. Plus, you keep using the word "fame," when the original word used was "renown." They're a little different. Paris Hilton is famous. Dr. Lisa Randall is renowned. Dr. Randall isn't well known outside of physics, but she is one of the most cited physicists in the world. I'd call that renown.

One of the reasons I plan on going to grad school when I finish undergrad (in 2 years) is because I think I'll like the reaction of people when I tell them I have a Ph.D. in physics. If everybody shrugged their shoulders at physics Ph.D.s, then the hassle of grad school might not be worth it to me. To steal a phrase from my manager, "the squeeze might not be worth the juice."

Does that make me a sad individual, or does it simply make me human? Not everybody can be a Grigori Perlman.

 

[xxChrisxx]

You're using a lot of words, but I'm not sure you're saying anything with substance. Plus, you keep using the word "fame," when the original word used was "renown." They're a little different. Paris Hilton is famous. Dr. Lisa Randall is renowned. Dr. Randall isn't well known outside of physics, but she is one of the most cited physicists in the world. I'd call that renown.

The original context as far as I'm aware is that someone said there is no point in doing maths unless you were the next Euler and the fact he will not be the next 'big thing' makes him feel unmotivated.

Becoming the next Euler is a very different level of success from being a very talented and renowned mathematician.

One may be industry renowned, the other is bordering on fame (to the educated). Einstein would be a modern physics equivilant, it's like saying unless you are the next Einstein there is little point in pursuing physics.

Further to this, the OP was talking about people who pursue something specifically for the recognition it gives them. Less so becuase they love doing what they do.

One of the reasons I plan on going to grad school when I finish undergrad (in 2 years) is because I think I'll like the reaction of people when I tell them I have a Ph.D. in physics. If everybody shrugged their shoulders at physics Ph.D.s, then the hassle of grad school might not be worth it to me. To steal a phrase from my manager, "the squeeze might not be worth the juice."

Does that make me a sad individual, or does it simply make me human? Not everybody can be a Grigori Perlman.

If your sole motiviation for doing a PhD is to get people blow smoke up your arse, then yes that does make you sad. If you are doing it becuase it will improve your employment chances, and you like doing physics, etc then it's not.

Put it this way, if you were a successful physicist with grants coming out of your ears and being constantly invited to conferences (by all accounts a very successful person). Would you really care that someone wasn't impressed when you say you've got a PhD?

 

[NeoDevin]

That's where you are wrong. Doing what you do becuase you love it and want to be the best at it is ambition. The acutal recognition for being the best is irrelevant to most people who truly love what they do.

So winning gold in the Olympics is "irrelevent" to athletes?

 

[xxChrisxx]

So winning gold in the Olympics is "irrelevent" to athletes?

Ok, obviously I'm not explaining this clearly enough as you totally missed the point I was trying to make.

I'm also glad you used an olympic athlete as an example. The goal of most top level athletes especially, is not to beat others. It's to beat and further themselves, if they win gold and the world record. They will still be out there monday morning trying to go even faster, higher, etc etc.

The gold at the olympics is a huge bonus, and is incredibly important goal to any athlete, I don't think anyone could argue differently. It's not their main motivation for doing what they do though.
I think it's narcissism that I find sad. In Jacks case, getting a PhD simply so people will be impressed when he tells then is an incredibly narcissistic motivation. Narcissistic motivation can be successful in the short term but is ultimately psychologically very destructive, it's why so many celebrities go mental when the spotlight shifts to someone else.

 

[rewebster]

I think its starts out early in life. When you're young, say 5 to 10 years old, if you show any 'signs' of being smart, teachers (and the school) put you in the more advanced classes with the more advances students--the most common of the more advanced classes is math. Its half meant to challenge you. If you get put in a class that that's too easy for you, you may act out from boredom (it happens).

If you stand out in those classes, you keep being put in the more advanced classes and keep getting more praise, and suggested to take on more challenges--if you keep doing well, you get more and more praise.

It is of the classes that are available (usually math and science) that are 'considered' to be the hardest in the young years----it is of society and culture that most of the advances for technology that people are hoping you will advance in some way. The praise and recognition (and sometimes monetary rewards) are just about the only that society has to 'pay' those people. ---sometimes it goes to their head (raised ego/self importance).

 

[Galteeth]

I think it that trying to advance human knowledge is truly admirable. I think it is more meaningful then a lot of things. I don't know about ego, but as I get older, more and more I find the people I have respect for are the great minds who were able to shed light on existence. We are all aspects of the universe, but we are the only part of the universe that can be aware of itself, and increase the complexity of subjective experience. People often seek meaning from religion, politics, whatever, but the thoughts of God so to speak are written for everyone to see. It requires work and dedication, but the mysteries can be unraveled. I am envious of people who have the ability and situation to advance human understanding.

 

[Jack21222]

I think it's narcissism that I find sad. In Jacks case, getting a PhD simply so people will be impressed when he tells then is an incredibly narcissistic motivation. Narcissistic motivation can be successful in the short term but is ultimately psychologically very destructive, it's why so many celebrities go mental when the spotlight shifts to someone else.

See, you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument. I said ONE OF THE REASONS I desire a Ph.D is the recognition. You said my reason is "simply" for the recognition.

The terms "simply" and "one of" are opposites. If it was just for recognition, and not knowledge about the universe and the fact that I can get paid to do something I love, I wouldn't get the Ph.D. either. It's a combination of all of those factors.

You might live in a world where everything is black-and-white, but I certainly don't.

 

[xxChrisxx]

See, you're intentionally misrepresenting my argument. I said ONE OF THE REASONS I desire a Ph.D is the recognition. You said my reason is "simply" for the recognition.

The terms "simply" and "one of" are opposites. If it was just for recognition, and not knowledge about the universe and the fact that I can get paid to do something I love, I wouldn't get the Ph.D. either. It's a combination of all of those factors.

You might live in a world where everything is black-and-white, but I certainly don't.

Try acutally reading my previous posts and not just scroll up to the last one where you see your name which was not responding to you anyway. It was addressing a different point that people can have positive and negative motivation, it was highlighting that the condition of you soley pursuing a PhD for recognition ties in with the narcissistic motivation. If you had read post 20 before this you would see that I wasn't having a go at you.

So your poor scroll wheel doesn't get worn out:

If you are doing it becuase it will improve your employment chances, and you like doing physics, etc then it's not [sad].

Put it this way, if you were a successful physicist with grants coming out of your ears and being constantly invited to conferences (by all accounts a very successful person). Would you really care that someone wasn't impressed when you say you've got a PhD?

If the SOLE motivation is to get people to be impressed with you, it's narcisstic and sad.

If your sole motiviation for doing a PhD is to get people blow smoke up your arse, then yes that does make you sad.

In this case it's clear you are going it becuase you like physics, and the recognition is a bonus, therefore you are perfectly normal.

 

[Noxide]

This thread is stupid.

 

[Evo]

I think its starts out early in life. When you're young, say 5 to 10 years old, if you show any 'signs' of being smart, teachers (and the school) put you in the more advanced classes with the more advances students--the most common of the more advanced classes is math. Its half meant to challenge you. If you get put in a class that that's too easy for you, you may act out from boredom (it happens).

If you stand out in those classes, you keep being put in the more advanced classes and keep getting more praise, and suggested to take on more challenges--if you keep doing well, you get more and more praise.

It is of the classes that are available (usually math and science) that are 'considered' to be the hardest in the young years----it is of society and culture that most of the advances for technology that people are hoping you will advance in some way. The praise and recognition (and sometimes monetary rewards) are just about the only that society has to 'pay' those people. ---sometimes it goes to their head (raised ego/self importance).

Maybe that's true in *some* schools now, but it wasn't true when I was growing up. And it wasn't true when my girls grew up. My parents were called in by the school and told they needed to take me out of the public school system.

This thread is stupid.

Yes. What you do is more important than a title.

 

[rootX]

I can't also understand this "look, I do theo physics/math, I am so smart, god-like IQ, yay" attitude. Seriously, what's wrong with those people?

They self contradict themselves as soon they make this claim . More you learn, less you know ..

 

[chiro]

For me personally what I've come to acknowledge over the years is that intelligence by its definition is very ill-defined not only by psychologists, neuroscientists, and other scientists but also by general laypeople.

There are a lot of people who aren't mathematically inclined that show tremendous amounts of intelligence by coming up with creative solutions to a wide variety of problems that would stump many mathematicians and physicists.

Many people who succeed in todays world truly put their money (and time and effort) where their mouth is. Whether its a musician, a business person, a teacher, a manager, a scientist, an inventor, or any other recognised occupation, many of these require creative solutions to innovate and "get the job done".

I agree to the sentiment of the above person that said that (some) people let it get to their head when showered with praise (often excessively). It happens to all of us at one point or another. One of the problems that concerns me is that when people are so used to praise and then suddenly get feedback that they "made a mistake", got a "B+ instead of an A" or are simply "mediocre" then only after this do they realize that they aren't "god". The ones that get this earlier in my view tend to have a more balanced outlook on life, any insecurities they may have (had), and on dealing with a wider range of people.

We all like to hear about the "superstars" of whatever we follow whether its Jack Welch for CEO idol, Albert Einstein for physics, or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart for music, but frankly if you look at most of these superstars you'll find that most of them a) have access to great environments that are able to nurture any existing potential they have b) would probably work to achieve their goal in the absence of recognition (not sure about CEOs though!) and c) are naturally driven to learn and succeed in their craft at any cost

The more you get out of your "comfort zone" the more you realize just how "mediocre" you really are. Sure you can do a triple integral in your head, but could you do cold sales on the street? Could you effectively teach and bring a class of 30 students from a poor socioeconomic area up to a high class grade point average in a particular subject? Can you make an invention that is simple and elegant and solves a great outstanding problem or need? Could you solve a murder? Could you work as an undercover agent and possesses the street smarts to not get your cover blown and killed and complete your mission?

Now I'm not saying maths or physics is easy. I'm a math major myself and I'm lucky that I can "get it" quicker than others but I do know that life has taught me that when my comfort zone is expanded it shows me how little I really know and can put a lot of things in perspective.

I can also see why a lot of people really dislike math and physics as well. There are probably a lot of very bright people out there who really despise math who say its simply boring and in various ways I can empathize with them. Some people like to live "outside their head" and I really don't blame.

Personally I see the education system and process as something that destroys creativity and sucks the motivation out of people who wish to pursue things in any depth. Its more of an indoctrination of teaching people "this is how you think" which for the ones who have a lot of creativity will tend to reject and rebel against. Even in a tertiary scenario I don't see this as being dissimilar to the high school experience.

When the scientists have a less broad and less naive version of intelligence, only then will I start to pay attention to what IQ scores represent but quite frankly I don't see that coming about any time soon.

 

[Klockan3]

When the scientists have a less broad and less naive version of intelligence, only then will I start to pay attention to what IQ scores represent but quite frankly I don't see that coming about any time soon.

Scientists knows that IQ is not a perfect measurement device for "intelligence". No test will ever be able to put accurate numbers on anything resembling the ill defined quantity "intelligence". So IQ test scores will never be anything more than just something which correlates with intelligence, but correlation is good enough for most statistical needs.

But it is the same as with everything else, your high school grades don't tell you how well you will do in college, it do however correlate with success in college which is why it is used as a way to differentiate between applicants. I am sure that there are plenty of cases of person A and B where person A with score 3.0 would perform better academically than person B who has 4.0, but we got nothing else to go on so the guy with 4.0 gets the spot.

It isn't scientists who overemphazise IQ btw, it is the laymen who thinks that IQ is intelligence and things like someone with 200 IQ would be able to factorize 6 digit numbers in seconds. And physics majors etc don't see themselves as geniuses, they do however see those who studies something else as people taking the easy way out since the material is easier and they often have better job prospects. Thinking that studying physics makes you a better person is a psychological defense mechanism to ward off psychological attacks of the form "Why don't you study business? It would be less work and more pay!".

 

[shinkyo00]

After reading this:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=402926"

or this:

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/02/out-on-tail.html"

I am speechless.

As far as I know in every field of science you need skills and luck in order to succeed. Yet it seems that only in math and theo physics ppl are obssesed with IQ, being genius and Feynman. Even great ppl such as Landau felt inferior to him. I can't also understand this "look, I do theo physics/math, I am so smart, god-like IQ, yay" attitude. Seriously, what's wrong with those people?

What IS wrong with people like that? Nothing. People value different things and this is exemplar of that.

On the other hand, you might note that what you described is very one-sided. There are also people who think "Look, I do theoretical physics/math, but I am middle of the pack in my field, I am NOT so smart, I DON'T have astronomical I.Q., BOO as far as competence is concerned."

 

[Rika]

What IS wrong with people like that? Nothing. People value different things and this is exemplar of that.

On the other hand, you might note that what you described is very one-sided. There are also people who think "Look, I do theoretical physics/math, but I am middle of the pack in my field, I am NOT so smart, I DON'T have astronomical I.Q., BOO as far as competence is concerned."

I was talking about 2 things:

1. Most people think that in order to suceed in theo physics/math they need to have astronomical IQ and be like Feynman or other fameous scientist.

2. Those who do theoretical physics/math think like you mentioned but at the same time they feel superior to the other scientists.

 

[Klockan3]

2. Those who do theoretical physics/math think like you mentioned but at the same time they feel superior to the other scientists.

It is a common trait among people to value their profession higher than other professions in general. In the same way as the theorists feels superior the other scientists feels that the theorists are "useless" since they in general know nothing about the real world and can just manipulate formulas.

Also I can bet you a lot that the other scientists feels superior to for example carpenters just because scientists requires a lot more theory. It isn't strange at all and this is found everywhere in all professions.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

1. Most people think that in order to suceed in theo physics/math they need to have astronomical IQ and be like Feynman or other fameous scientist.

Well, even if you don't have his intelligence, I can't really see anything bad about wanting to be like Feynman.

 

[Rika]

It's not bad. But it's not wise to think that you need to be Einstein/Feynman/Dirac in order to do theoretical physics/math successfully. Other scientists do not think like that. You don't see experimentalist talking about Rutherford or genius.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I know. I just pointed out that Feynman was awesome.

 

[Andre]

Maybe the urge to be the best is a tightly embedded instinct, related to the individual survival of the fittest in the evolution of the species. So depending on your speciality, there is an urge to be the fastest runner, the strongest warrior, the most creative artist, the smartest scientist, etc. And -for reproduction purposes equally important- to be recognised as such.


What could be wrong with that?

 

[Dr Chaos]

Physics is interesting for the same reason philosophy is interesting, it seeks to explain the world around us and how it works (which is why it was originally called Natural Philosophy)

Personally, I just shrug off comments and try to get across that you don't have to be that smart to do Physics, you just determination and an open mind.

A quote from Rutherford: "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." Thus I like to think of physics as the only science; hence what makes it so special (to me at least). The irony is that Rutherford actually managed to get a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, which perhaps goes to show that "The acutal recognition for being the best is irrelevant to most people who truly love what they do." ^{xxChrisxx - Post 16}

 

[shinkyo00]

Maybe the urge to be the best is a tightly embedded instinct, related to the individual survival of the fittest in the evolution of the species. So depending on your speciality, there is an urge to be the fastest runner, the strongest warrior, the most creative artist, the smartest scientist, etc. And -for reproduction purposes equally important- to be recognised as such.


What could be wrong with that?

I agree 100%. G.H. Hardy once said that he wouldn't hold it against a mathematician if his sole reason for producing significant results is to be remembered or honoured by them, i.e. doing math for fame or pride.

 

[shinkyo00]

I was talking about 2 things:

1. Most people think that in order to suceed in theo physics/math they need to have astronomical IQ and be like Feynman or other fameous scientist.

2. Those who do theoretical physics/math think like you mentioned but at the same time they feel superior to the other scientists.

#1 is partly true though, depending on what is considered "successful". Unless a person is at least above average in ability, that person will not be able to do theoretical physics/math at the graduate level. I know for a fact that some professors won't take certain students if they think they're not outstanding in ability or don't have a very impressive background.

Now, this is just getting the post-grad degree, i.e. getting a grasp of the subject. To really succeed in the subject (probably if they're thinking like you noted, then they want to achieve something significant or publish a lot), they will NEED to be considerably above average. In terms of I.Q. I'd say at least 2-3 s.d. to the right of the mean on the relevant sub-scales.

#2 is understandable, I think. Everyone has something to take pride in. You can likewise note that those in the Arts or Humanities often like to think they're much more creative than those in the Sciences, even though it's not always true.

But anyway, you're right in saying that if they're always thinking like that, then it's very bad. Humility can be good for personal growth.

 

[Klockan3]

#2 is understandable, I think. Everyone has something to take pride in. You can likewise note that those in the Arts or Humanities often like to think they're much more creative than those in the Sciences, even though it's not always true.

Most of them definitely think that they have much better social skills than those in the natural sciences and value that higher than intelligence.

 

[Rika]

#1 is partly true though, depending on what is considered "successful". Unless a person is at least above average in ability, that person will not be able to do theoretical physics/math at the graduate level. I know for a fact that some professors won't take certain students if they think they're not outstanding in ability or don't have a very impressive background.

I don't know about US but in EU you need to have impressive background in order to do PhD. However those who want to do experimental physics have the same level of ability as their theoretical friends.

Now, this is just getting the post-grad degree, i.e. getting a grasp of the subject. To really succeed in the subject (probably if they're thinking like you noted, then they want to achieve something significant or publish a lot), they will NEED to be considerably above average. In terms of I.Q. I'd say at least 2-3 s.d. to the right of the mean on the relevant sub-scales.

It's true that you need much more people to run experiment and experimental paper has much more co-authors than theoretical ones but still if you want to succeed in any field of science you need skills and luck. I don't think that top experimentalist is less intelligent than top theorist.

What I mean - theoretical physics isn't magical field for magical people. It's normal field of science. Yet people seem to think different.

 

[Leptos]

"Why don't you study business? It would be less work and more pay!".

I'd rather have a medium sized wallet doing a tough job I love(e.g. an interesting job that I'd be willing to do for free if money wasn't an issue) than a big fat wallet doing a trivial job I hate where I have to go to the bar and a psychologist every other day.

Look at the codemonkeys working on huge enterprise databases, sure the pay is great, but is it really enjoyable to use the same cookie cutter patterns of software development and dry designs day in and day out? Sure it might be easy and it may pay a lot, but it's repetitive and mind numbing.

 

[Klockan3]

I don't know about US but in EU you need to have impressive background in order to do PhD. However those who want to do experimental physics have the same level of ability as their theoretical friends.



It's true that you need much more people to run experiment and experimental paper has much more co-authors than theoretical ones but still if you want to succeed in any field of science you need skills and luck. I don't think that top experimentalist is less intelligent than top theorist.

What I mean - theoretical physics isn't magical field for magical people. It's normal field of science. Yet people seem to think different.

I don't know but to me it seems like you are obsessed with intelligence as well, why else would it be so important for you to explain that experimentalists are as smart as theorists?

I'd rather have a medium sized wallet doing a tough job I love(e.g. an interesting job that I'd be willing to do for free if money wasn't an issue) than a big fat wallet doing a trivial job I hate where I have to go to the bar and a psychologist every other day.

Me too, but people just don't see it that way since they don't understand how anyone could be interested in this. I tried online poker for a while, sure you can make money on it but god it was the most boring thing I have ever done!

 

[Rika]

I don't know but to me it seems like you are obsessed with intelligence as well, why else would it be so important for you to explain that experimentalists are as smart as theorists?

As senior undergrad who wants to do theory it bothers me a lot. Not because I am concern with my abilities but because (maybe it's just me) almost all young students who share my interests are assholes. No, they didn't hurt me (yet) but they are saying stuff like "those who do computional condensed matter physics are doing some crap and not physics" or "look at them (some normal physics students) - their physics abilities are near zero" or if you ask them a question about physics they will tell you some bullgarbages (and yet they are so confident in their abilities!). So yeah..it bothers me a lot...and I am trying to understand this behaviour and try to convince myself that it's not me who is wrong and it's just my bad luck..or maybe there is sth wrong with me if I'm bother by it? I just want to do physics, that's all. But I don't want to meet people like that in grad school and work with assholes.

Me too, but people just don't see it that way since they don't understand how anyone could be interested in this. I tried online poker for a while, sure you can make money on it but god it was the most boring thing I have ever done!

Me too but there are some people who desire "easy and well-paid job" so that they can have as much free time as they want and spend it (and their money) on sth that they love.

 

[shinkyo00]

I don't know but to me it seems like you are obsessed with intelligence as well, why else would it be so important for you to explain that experimentalists are as smart as theorists?

Me too, but people just don't see it that way since they don't understand how anyone could be interested in this. I tried online poker for a while, sure you can make money on it but god it was the most boring thing I have ever done!

^This guy hit the nail right on the head about online poker. My personal experience was similar. You need more patience than the monks chanting mantra!

 

[shinkyo00]

As senior undergrad who wants to do theory it bothers me a lot. Not because I am concern with my abilities but because (maybe it's just me) almost all young students who share my interests are assholes. No, they didn't hurt me (yet) but they are saying stuff like "those who do computional condensed matter physics are doing some crap and not physics" or "look at them (some normal physics students) - their physics abilities are near zero" or if you ask them a question about physics they will tell you some bullgarbages (and yet they are so confident in their abilities!). So yeah..it bothers me a lot...and I am trying to understand this behaviour and try to convince myself that it's not me who is wrong and it's just my bad luck..or maybe there is sth wrong with me if I'm bother by it? I just want to do physics, that's all. But I don't want to meet people like that in grad school and work with assholes.



Me too but there are some people who desire "easy and well-paid job" so that they can have as much free time as they want and spend it (and their money) on sth that they love.

I'm sure that's just your bad luck to run into assholes like that. Age is also a factor (consider how arrogrant most teenagers tend to be, then consider the fact that most first and second year university students are basically still teenagers).

I think if you run into another person who says some arrogant thing like that, you should tell them that Feynman (whom they probably consider a God) once said that any subject is interesting if you explore it deep enough, and that you can learn something from everyone (he said this about some drunk involved in a bar fight, after the bar maid commented that the world needs less of people like those).

Anyway, I don't think you should be so concerned with this... there is nothing you can do about it and even if you change their attitudes, what then? There isn't any immediate good that is obtained from that.

 

[Dembadon]

After reading this:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=402926"

or this:

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/02/out-on-tail.html"

I am speechless.

As far as I know in every field of science you need skills and luck in order to succeed. Yet it seems that only in math and theo physics ppl are obssesed with IQ, being genius and Feynman. Even great ppl such as Landau felt inferior to him. I can't also understand this "look, I do theo physics/math, I am so smart, god-like IQ, yay" attitude. Seriously, what's wrong with those people?

We should let people live their lives without being judged for having values other than your own (to a certain extent, or course)? They value prestige and being recognized, so what?

Everyone has different things that bring them fulfillment and satisfaction in life. I enjoy the process of discovery, along with the discovery itself, and could care less whether or not I get a pat on the back.

If someone values recognition and prestige, I say let 'em have at it. I don't find anything "wrong" with it, nor do I lose any sleep over it whatsoever, so I say leave 'em be.

 

[sponsoredwalk]

I'm still struggling with the math and physics & working my *** off but I was in the shop yesterday & I met this girl I hadn't seen for ages & she asked me what I was doing & I mentioned I'm studying theoretical physics.

Her eyes went wide, she laughed & said "well I wouldn't be able for that now".

I replied, "I didn't think so either until a year ago, I failed all my math in school for 6 years of high school & was almost worse than everyone else ".

I hate the idea that you have to be a genius to learn this stuff, it's 100% about putting in the time & caring about it. If an idiot like me can do this stuff, anybody can. My no.1 inspirational paraphrase is of Penrose who said that as a child he used to have to be kept in class at school breaks to do the basic math he was failing while other kids were getting it. Here's a quote that works well with that "Take it easy, but take it" - Woody Guthrie

That said, I don't think there's a cult among people who actually study this stuff. I don't really know anyone in my day to day life that likes physics tbh but even online I haven't read about a cult-like following of physics unless it's to do with the mysticism of QM by people who don't know any of the math.