What does it take to be a distinguished physicist?

[ModusPwnd]

I would pose the question, what does that even mean? Any average human is capable of studying physics, that's my premise. Furthermore, anyone who studies physics is capable of making contributions to the field given time and resources.

To suggest everyone can emulate someone, well that's impossible, as differing environmental, dumb luck, and interests in a topic also play a role (as well a thousand other factors that might impact said emulation.) What I’m arguing is there is nothing magical or ingrained that can be isolated and studied that will predict ones success in any given area.

There is no intelligence factor, Einstein, Feynman, Neumann, they were all average men who did amazing things. Thats the distinction that needs to be kept clear.

Sounds like a high school teachers platitude. You don't actually believe this do you? Its seems extreme. How can genes affect all of our traits, yet somehow magically all humans have the same potential when it comes to this narrow metric. Except those that dont, they are labeled "retarded" and don't count for some reason. Give me a break...

 

[R136a1]

If you actually read the link you posted you’ll see what I mean... So let's discuss your evidence... the first paper in the foot notes has this to say:



Or the fact that the heritability calculations also are based mostly on environmental factors, small sample sizes, and testing methods that are called into question.

Contrary to your belief perhaps, but I did waste quite a bit of my time reading the wiki and papers.

That's a bit of a controversial article. So you should expect that there are many papers claiming the opposite:

http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/visscher_hill_wray_nrg2.pdf

Despite continuous misunderstandings and controversies over its use and application, heritability remains key to the response to selection in evolutionary biology and agriculture, and to the prediction of disease risk in medicine. Recent reports of substantial heritability for gene expression and new estimation methods using marker data highlight the relevance of heritability in the genomics era.

 

[Student100]

Sounds like a high school teachers platitude. You don't actually believe this do you? Its seems extreme. How can genes affect all of our traits, yet somehow magically all humans have the same potential when it comes to this narrow metric. Except those that dont, they are labeled "retarded" and don't count for some reason. Give me a break...

Oh please, it was quite clear in the initial argument that we were discussing the average billions of people who don’t suffer from a mental disability. That there is no physical mechanism or magic quality in your genes that say genius, or gifted.

R1,

From the second wiki, nature article I particularly like this:

Is the use of LTWM and episodic memory structures the principal factor differentiating prodigies from normal people, and if so, at what age or stage does this occur? Gamm said that at school he was “very bad at arithmetic” because the teachers never explained the concepts in ways he could understand10. Being able to
grasp the meaning, structure and relationship of objects in the expert domain seems to be critical in setting up easily retrievable structures in long-term episodic memory, just as it is in our mastery of language. This study, though focused on a remarkable individual, illuminates the unremarkable as well as the extraordinary skills we all possess.

This suggest an environmental factor for child prodigies, not a physical one. I still can’t find any evidence for a physical mechanism in your posts.

 

[Student100]

That's a bit of a controversial article. So you should expect that there are many papers claiming the opposite:

http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/visscher_hill_wray_nrg2.pdf

From what I gathered reading them, they’re all somewhat controversial.

 

[R136a1]

This suggest an environmental factor for child prodigies, not a physical one. I still can’t find any evidence for a physical mechanism in your posts.

I never claimed that only genetics are responsible, did I?? Clearly, both nature and nurture are important! So indeed, I never denied an environmental factor in intelligence.

 

[R136a1]

Oh please, it was quite clear in the initial argument that we were discussing the average billions of people who don’t suffer from a mental disability. That there is no physical mechanism or magic quality in your genes that say genius, or gifted.

And why exactly are we excluding people who suffer from mental disabilities? Because they don't fit your belief system?

 

[Student100]

And why exactly are we excluding people who suffer from mental disabilities? Because they don't fit your belief system?

You're also arguing nature plays a role in intelligence, not just nurture as I posit.

I don’t include them because I believe the body of research that suggests physical genetic variations can result in a developmental disability. I have no belief system, I’m countering against something that hasn’t actually been shown to exist. We can’t quantify intelligence in people without disabilities, and no physical mechanism that can studied allows us to do so.

Nowhere has the debate about nature and nurture been so controversial as in the study of mental ability in humans5,90,91. Controversies about the concept and use of intelligence quotient (IQ), a phenotypic measurement of relative performance on a series of mental ability tests, are manifold. They include: its definition (‘intelligence is what intelligence tests measure’90); documented historical abuse relating to eugenics; inference about the cause of observed differences between ethnic groups (see BOX 2); incorrect statistical inference from observational studies90; and disputed implications of IQ differences between individuals and groups on social and economic interventions92,93. We will not discuss the uses and abuses of measures of cognitive ability, but we will point out that there is abundant empirical evidence that shows that IQ is a good predictor of outcomes in life, including educational attainment, income and health94. Controversy about IQ is by and large because of social, not scientific, reasons. Here, we focus on one point of controversy about IQ: its heritability.

Right afterwards they go on to claim that IQ is genetic, but without addressing any of the above. No where is the above addressed.

 

[ModusPwnd]

We can’t quantify intelligence in people without disabilities, and no physical mechanism that can studied allows us to do so.

How do you think people get quantified as mentally disabled to begin with? Its not a line where everyone falls on a side, its a continuum from very high functioning to very low functioning and everywhere in between. If there is one retarded person out there that is mentally incapable of being a physicist (distinguished or otherwise) then not all people can be physicists. Retarded people are people too. As you go up the continuum you get to people that are not so retarded that they get SSD, but they are borderline. They are going to have a real hard time being a physicist. Many of them can barely maintain the basics of life without the help of friends and family.

Have you ever worked with a disadvantaged population? If you did I doubt you would be making these claims. Its a ridiculous politically correct fantasy that anybody can do anything if they try. That a lie that teachers tell students to keep them motivated and its a way that smart people convince themselves they earned their status rather than being born well equipped.

 

[Student100]

How do you think people get quantified as mentally disabled to begin with? Its not a line where everyone falls on a side, its a continuum from very high functioning to very low functioning and everywhere in between. If there is one retarded person out there that is mentally incapable of being a physicist (distinguished or otherwise) then not all people can be physicists. Retarded people are people too. As you go up the continuum you get to people that are not so retarded that they get SSD, but they are borderline. They are going to have a real hard time being a physicist. Many of them can barely maintain the basics of life without the help of friends and family.

Have you ever worked with a disadvantaged population? If you did I doubt you would be making these claims. Its a ridiculous politically correct fantasy that anybody can do anything if they try. That a lie that teachers tell students to keep them motivated and its a way that smart people convince themselves they earned their status rather than being born well equipped.

Go on misrepresenting the argument, that's fine. Border line what? How much of that not so retarded isn’t an easily diagnosed genetic defect and instead environmental opportunity.

There have been no genes linked to a preposition of physics learning ability. The Flynn effect basically shows that a genetic correlation for IQ, if it exists which hasn't been shown, contributes a far smaller amount to what we call intelligence than environment.

We can’t even accurately define intelligence, let along quantify it and show the physical mechanism.

Again, we already know the silencing or damaging of certain genes can result in developmental issues, we aren’t talking about this group.

 

[R136a1]

Go on misrepresenting the argument, that's fine.

Now you're just avoiding the argument. If he's misrepresenting the argument, point out where and set straight what your actual argument is. No need for passive-aggressive replies such as this one. This is not youtube.

 

[Student100]

Now you're just avoiding the argument. If he's misrepresenting the argument, point out where and set straight what your actual argument is. No need for passive-aggressive replies such as this one. This is not youtube.

I’m quite done with the argument, actually. I don’t think it’s getting us anywhere.　

 

[R136a1]

I don’t think it’s getting us anywhere.　

Agreed!

 

[D H]

I don’t think it’s getting us anywhere.

This makes for a good ending point for this thread.

Thread closed.