Why do it if someone else does it better?

[atwood]

In the thread Are physicists/mathematicians dumb? Howers wrote:

Math class is where I learned difference in ability exists. In real analysis, there was a kid who practically studied the day before exams and got the highest grades. All he does is play minesweeper in lecture and in between. Kids like those are the ones who will be making progress in our fields, not I. You can always teach him work ethic. You can't teach me brilliance.

I'm in my third year of theoretical physics, and what motivates me is that I want to take part in the evolution of scientific knowledge of mankind. But what constantly troubles me is that it's the people Howers described who take the steps forward, not people like me. There's not that many positions open for theoretical phycisists, and certainly even less for those not so brilliant.

All the hard work we do when trying to understand and learn is downplayed, though not intentionally, by those who have the ability to understand at an instant, with some magical gift of intuition.
"It took me a week to get this, to really understand what's going on."
"Yeah, I know... I once had to stop playing World of Warcraft for five minutes while reading the book. Though I was vacuuming, cooking, and performing a cardiac bypass for my father at the same time."

Am I worth physics, am I justified to study it? What will I contribute to the scientific community or to the mankind when a one gifted person is worth more than 10 or 50 me? I'm just here wasting the time of those who are able, limiting their pace and making courses take longer than necessary.

These kind of thoughts are especially burdening for me, because I live in Finland and the university education is paid by society. So I'm taking a lot, but probably never giving anything meaningful back.

 

[Moonbear]

I have to disagree that it's easier to teach someone work ethic than a particular subject. I think those who don't spend much time studying eventually hit a wall, and then they fall pretty hard when they don't have the work ethic or study skills to make it over it. Those who are struggling along but constantly putting in the effort (as long as they aren't struggling so much as to be in danger of not passing their courses...I'm talking about people who can still get a B or better, but REALLY have to work hard for it) are more likely to suddenly have that "AHA!" moment when the concepts start to click, and then have the work ethic to surge ahead with that newfound knowledge.

 

[razored]

I've read that entire post and I somewhat have to agree with Howers. I will be applying to colleges soon... maybe best if I just declare myself undecided before I am positive that I want to be a physicist.

"those who don't spend much time studying eventually hit a wall, and then they fall pretty hard when they don't have the work ethic or study skills to make it over it"

That is true, I see it all the time in high school; after several years, those primal "geniuses" don't seem like "geniuses" at all after a few years.

 

[kehler]

That thought troubles me a lot too. Whilst I'm a straight As student and one of the top in my course, I find that I do put in a considerable amount of effort compared to some of my smarter coursemates. Some of them just get things so easily but I have to read and reread the material a couple of times before it clicks. And sometimes in lectures and tutes they come up with some sheer genius ideas. That doesn't happen to me.. which really makes me doubt myself. I guess I'm just a hardworking student with an average intelligence. I love Physics and would like to contribute in some way but I just can't see that happening at the moment. Maybe I should consider doing something else?

 

[SCV]

Really you guys should pay attention to the mentors and mathwonk rather than an undergraduate who is worried that he will be mopping floors or working at a coffee shop if he doesn't work as a physicist after getting a physics degree.

Research and knowledge is not a linear thing. One person might be better than another in one part but you may be better in another. Also even if someone is better than you in all aspects the two of you can get more work done than just him.

Working as a researcher is not about being able to find a solution in a few minutes it is about learning how to approach problems in many different ways (if necessary) to be able to figure out what is going one.

What do you think will happen to a person who is used to seeing solution quickly when he/she encounters a problem that does not have a quick solution?

 

[will.c]

You don't need to be brilliant; nothing you learn until graduate school isn't already well understood - grasping centuries old ideas isn't what researchers do, but until one is able (willing?) to make a mature assessment of their chances at a scientific career, it will always seem hopeless. The physicists who make major breakthroughs aren't necessarily geniuses, but they don't think about their schoolwork or their grades or if they're "better" or "smarter" than their peers. If you can't put yourself in the mindset to simply do, then you'll never be capable of getting things done. Maybe you should be a philosopher.

 

[ekrim]

You can't assume that someone is being honest about their study habits. I wouldn't put it past someone to claim they study for an hour before the test to play themselves up as the "lazy genius."

Anyways, intelligence is just one piece of the puzzle. In research, it's not as simple as finding the answer the teacher's looking for. Persistence, patience, and hard-work are required. You can't write a thesis the night before its due date.

 

[RasslinGod]

always have a backup plan in case theoretical physics doesn't work out.

 

[TMFKAN64]

I've always been of the opinion that the number of people who *really* make a difference is incredibly small. The rest of us are here for two reasons: firstly, you never know what experiments/measurements will be useful, so *someone* has to do them, and secondly, we need to keep the entire body of knowledge alive. You never know who is going to make the next Great Leap Forward... the groundwork has to be preserved for them, whenever they appear.

 

[Moonbear]

I think a few more points need to be made here, based on the follow-up discussion.

First, when you're just starting out learning a subject (college level), the amount of content the subject covers seems overwhelming. It is perfectly NORMAL to sit in a lecture amazed at how much your professor knows and wondering how you'll ever get to that level. If you keep working hard, you WILL get there yourself.

I was one of those students too. I worked incredibly hard to pull off B's. Some concept always eluded my understanding preventing me from getting the A's, and the most frustrating part of it was knowing I wasn't understanding a concept, but not finding any way to wrap my mind around it no matter how much time I put into studying.

My "AHA!" moment came after graduation from college. I took a year off, worked in a research lab, and because at the time I thought I was interested in going to med school, spent the year reviewing my old course notes to study for the MCAT. Sitting there, having had the entire course already to put things into perspective, and then going back through it all from the beginning, at my own pace, and thinking about all the subjects I'd taken together, everything started to click.

The other thing that really helped was actually working in a lab. I had always done well in my lab classes, those were the classes I got A's in while struggling through the lectures. When I took physiology, the first semester had no lab, and I struggled, then the second semester of the course was paired with a lab and concepts in that class started to click for me. Working in a research lab really helped me to see how things were done and how they worked and everything started to make sense. It turns out that I, like many others drawn to laboratory research, am more of a tactile learner. I learn best by seeing and doing, not by reading and listening. Unless you have professors who are well-versed in different learning styles who take this into account in their classes, tactile learners will struggle in lecture courses.

Another point is that those who can perform well in undergraduate courses, which really do require a lot of regurgitation of known facts, are not necessarily the most creative thinkers. A successful research career requires creative thinking, not just regurgitating old information. Many great discoveries were accidental. What distinguished the great researcher from the ordinary is they saw the opportunity in the accident and has the drive to pursue it in spite of criticism.

Work ethic is a character trait. I don't think it can be taught once someone gets past their youthful formative years, and even then, I'm not sure if it is really ever taught. If someone doesn't have a good work ethic, they will not get very far when expected to come up with new ideas instead of just regurgitate old ones back. Knowledge is something that can be taught and acquired any time in life. A gap in knowledge can be filled, a lack of work ethic will be a lifelong handicap.

always have a backup plan in case theoretical physics doesn't work out.

And this is always a good idea too. It has nothing to do with being good or bad at what you do either. Sometimes it reflects job markets, funding sources, unexpected changes in life. (i.e., what if you need to spend some years taking care of a sick relative where there is no nearby university to pursue an advanced degree, or what if you just find out you don't really like it all that much once you do start, or what if you have a kid and want to spend time with that kid rather than working 18 hour days?) One should always have a back-up plan in life. If I can't do the job that is now my dream job, what would I do instead? This is how one avoids unemployment.

 

[kirab]

I wouldn't necessarily agree that proper work ethic cannot be taught/attained. If a student with bad study habits REALLY wanted to improve the way they study, then it could be done. The problem is getting those people to be motivated to improve and work hard for this goal in the first place.

 

[mathwonk]

as it happens i just reread a letter from myself as a postdoctoral researcher, to my mom.

I said something like: " I am reminded of some of the facets of life here at [insert fancy school name] that made it almost unbearable to me as a young student,

the mean spirited behavior of people who wield a little administrative power, or the petty tendency of one student to act superior to another.

The difference this time is I understand it comes from feelings of insecurity, and I am better able to hear such comments without being hurt by them or fighting back.

It is amazing how much more powerful humility is than pride."

I hope this is relevant and helpful in this context.

 

[f95toli]

I'm in my third year of theoretical physics, and what motivates me is that I want to take part in the evolution of scientific knowledge of mankind.

If that is your only motivation you have a problem. Your main motivation should -in my opinion- be that you like physics and enjoy work you do, even when you are not making much progress (which tends to be most of the time in real science).
Moreover, there are many of examples of famous scientists that made their discoveries not because they were brilliant but because they were in the right place at the right time, had the necessary background and happened to be interested in the "right" problem. Being brilliant is no guarantee that you will make important contributions to science.
Just think of all the work that has gone into theories that we now know are wrong such as the "steady state universe" in cosmology, some of the people who worked on those theories were probably "brilliant"; they just happened to back the wrong horse at a time when no one had enough experimental data to say which theory was correct.
However, I am sure most of them still enjoyed going to work every day.

 

[Howers]

I'm in my third year of theoretical physics, and what motivates me is that I want to take part in the evolution of scientific knowledge of mankind. But what constantly troubles me is that it's the people Howers described who take the steps forward, not people like me. There's not that many positions open for theoretical phycisists, and certainly even less for those not so brilliant.

Hi, I'd like to expand on the comment I made. Yes, there is a student who practically aces everything with ease. I have spoken with him a few times, and learned a lot about him. He told me he did a lot of math when he was young. By the time he entered high school he was already starting vector calculus (according to him). He has parents that are engineers I think. I have long wondered if his gift was genetic or developed. Another possibility is that he is lying about his study habits. I doubt he is lying though, because in school he's always on the computer or playing cards or something. And on problem sets he can usually find a solution lightning fast (it is possible he done it at home and is showing off). I can't deny he is a genius. He can do 3 digit multiples in his head really fast, is very witty, and is well-read (ie. ontop of politics and good vocabulary). Something I always told myself is he already knows the material going in. Maybe my justifications are irrational because of envy, who knows. He belives his talents are partly genetic and mostly enviornmental. He says kids born to Spanish parents will be better at Spanish than anyone else, and so naturally kids born to mathematicians (well engineers) will also be better at mathematics than their peers - not because of genetics (you're not born with a Spanish gene) but because of upbringing. This is an interesting point because a lot of good mathematicians or musicians are too born to parents in related fields. Look at Mozart (dad a composer), or even Terrence Tao (father a physicst). Any Nobel winner also had a wealthy upbrining, which could afford them good education.

His "beliefs" unforunately are not law. Research certainly supports that intelligence is genetic. I mean Beethoven's dad tried really hard to make his son a prodigy from a young age, but failed. Even so, Beethoven turned out exceptional - in some regards I think superior to Mozart. And how do you explain Gauss? In science, the gloomy truth is that most of the revolutionaries share that student's traits. Ie., child prodigies, top of the class, make people's jaws drop etc. The question is whether they are genetic or enviornmental. Psychologists claim it is genetic. But psychology as a science can be questioned, have you ever studied their "scientific methods" ? If you compare that student to me, I did not take math seriously until about 16... he had atleast a 10 year leap ahead of me. If you take a guitarists with a 10 year leap and ask us to learn a new song, I wouldn't be surprised if 10 year guy could learn it in 1/50th of the time.

I'm not trying to sugar coat this and tell you that you can become a genius eventually. It is not something I, or most professionals for that matter, truly understand. Like I said most research points to the fact that brilliance is genetic, and it is the view I often believe. IQ tests do a wonderful job at predicting this. It is frustrating to see people so much better than I in a math class... and I see it every day. Why should I even bother competing. What I can tell you for certain is that you don't need to be a genius to study and master physics. To make real progress however, is another issue. I think genius is essential, and progress will get you a job. If you are not cut out, you are wasting your time. Don't let professors tell you otherwise, because they like to have as many students as possible so that their work can be exposed to a wider audience (and bigger class = more money for department). I've seen how they treat weaker students like idiots and get all jittery when a strong student makes his or her presence. They want to teach everybody, but they will only give work to the cream of the crop. It might be a subtle form of eugenics, and it certainly explains standarized tests.

In the end, I don't know what to tell you as I myself am still debating the issue. I know with practice, I got faster at math than I was when I first started linear algebra. My IQ of 115 hasn't changed though. (i expect a lot of typos, so be cautions)

 

[Howers]

Working as a researcher is not about being able to find a solution in a few minutes it is about learning how to approach problems in many different ways (if necessary) to be able to figure out what is going one.

What do you think will happen to a person who is used to seeing solution quickly when he/she encounters a problem that does not have a quick solution?

Right, and that's why brighter people are better at it because they can hold more things in their short term memory. The fact is all things aside, a higher intelligence is an advantage not a hindrance. We are not equal, so do not assume that if someone is more intelligence he or she is neccessarily coupled with a plethora bad characteristics.

Smart people are able to find solutions relatively faster, which does not neccessarily transalte into a few seconds. I think if a smart person is challenged by a problem, he will put more effort into it so not as to hurt his pride. And because of superior intelligence, probability would dictate he would be more likely to find the solution - and faster.

as it happens i just reread a letter from myself as a postdoctoral researcher, to my mom.

I said something like: " I am reminded of some of the facets of life here at [insert fancy school name] that made it almost unbearable to me as a young student,

the mean spirited behavior of people who wield a little administrative power, or the petty tendency of one student to act superior to another.

The difference this time is I understand it comes from feelings of insecurity, and I am better able to hear such comments without being hurt by them or fighting back.

It is amazing how much more powerful humility is than pride."

I hope this is relevant and helpful in this context.

Humility is good for those who are used to being wrong. Pride is for those who are used to being right.

 

[f95toli]

Right, and that's why brighter people are better at it because they can hold more things in their short term memory. The fact is all things aside, a higher intelligence is an advantage not a hindrance.

But speed is simply not an issue in real research. A 4 page letter in a good journal is likely to be the results of months (and sometimes years) of work.
Theoretical physics is perhaps is a bit different from experimental physics in this respect, but even very productive scientists (often post-docs) that work in "hot" field will struggle to publish more than perhaps two papers a year (not counting conference contributions).
Note that I am not saying being smart is a bad thing, but no one will care if it takes you 5 minutes or 1 hour to solve an equation.

 

[SCV]

Hi, I'd like to expand on the comment I made. Yes, there is a student who practically aces everything with ease. I have spoken with him a few times, and learned a lot about him. He told me he did a lot of math when he was young. By the time he entered high school he was already starting vector calculus (according to him). He has parents that are engineers I think. I have long wondered if his gift was genetic or developed. Another possibility is that he is lying about his study habits. I doubt he is lying though, because in school he's always on the computer or playing cards or something. And on problem sets he can usually find a solution lightning fast (it is possible he done it at home and is showing off). I can't deny he is a genius. He can do 3 digit multiples in his head really fast, is very witty, and is well-read (ie. ontop of politics and good vocabulary). Something I always told myself is he already knows the material going in. Maybe my justifications are irrational because of envy, who knows. He belives his talents are partly genetic and mostly enviornmental. He says kids born to Spanish parents will be better at Spanish than anyone else, and so naturally kids born to mathematicians (well engineers) will also be better at mathematics than their peers - not because of genetics (you're not born with a Spanish gene) but because of upbringing. This is an interesting point because a lot of good mathematicians or musicians are too born to parents in related fields. Look at Mozart (dad a composer), or even Terrence Tao (father a physicst). Any Nobel winner also had a wealthy upbrining, which could afford them good education.

His "beliefs" unforunately are not law. Research certainly supports that intelligence is genetic. I mean Beethoven's dad tried really hard to make his son a prodigy from a young age, but failed. Even so, Beethoven turned out exceptional - in some regards I think superior to Mozart. And how do you explain Gauss? In science, the gloomy truth is that most of the revolutionaries share that student's traits. Ie., child prodigies, top of the class, make people's jaws drop etc. The question is whether they are genetic or enviornmental. Psychologists claim it is genetic. But psychology as a science can be questioned, have you ever studied their "scientific methods" ? If you compare that student to me, I did not take math seriously until about 16... he had atleast a 10 year leap ahead of me. If you take a guitarists with a 10 year leap and ask us to learn a new song, I wouldn't be surprised if 10 year guy could learn it in 1/50th of the time.

You should never compare yourself to others. Preparation and having people guide a student make a world of difference.

Something that might give some insight as to what is going on is to see what happens in a family where there is no background of parents being professionals and so on.

I have already given a bit of my family background in your thread. I came from a very un-privileged family. We are 8 siblings. I am the oldest. When I was educated in public education and was taking algebra 1 in 9th grade. Now there is probably some genetics that plays a role in all of this, in particular two of my brothers (the two that were born after me) are not all that interested in math or education for that matter. However the next two are. When they come to my house and see some of the books I have they are interested by some of those things and that motivates them to learn. These are motivations that I did not have when I was their age. I did not even know books could be obtained from anywhere other than a library or the school until I got out of high school. One of those two is a senior in high school and he will be entering college being done with all the lower division undergraduate coursework. He will be taking upper division math as a freshman in college. There will no doubt be those who think he is a genius. Many of his classmates think he is a genius because he was in Precalculus as a freshman in high school. However, he was in precalculus as a freshman in high school because I was able to guide him. He will be done with his lower division math because I was able to guide him. Overall he has not had to work as hard as I did because I knew how to optimize his path through high school and he followed my advice. The younger one will be beyond the lower division math by the time he graduates from high school.Now I don't know that either of them are geniuses, maybe some will think that they are.

The main point is that there can be a huge difference in how smart a person appear as a result of preparation.

Now you must also remember that Gauss showed promise as a child but he had many people help him out. In particular the Duke of Brunswick funded his education and a math professor, Zimmerman, I believe it was.

Do you think that he would have done everything he did is he had not had the support of those around him?

I'm not trying to sugar coat this and tell you that you can become a genius eventually.

It doesn't take a genius to be a good researcher.

It is not something I, or most professionals for that matter, truly understand. Like I said most research points to the fact that brilliance is genetic, and it is the view I often believe. IQ tests do a wonderful job at predicting this. It is frustrating to see people so much better than I in a math class... and I see it every day. Why should I even bother competing. What I can tell you for certain is that you don't need to be a genius to study and master physics. To make real progress however, is another issue. I think genius is essential, and progress will get you a job.

How do you define genius? IQ >=130 ?

Why won't you listen to people who tell you that hard work is what matters?

If you are not cut out, you are wasting your time. Don't let professors tell you otherwise, because they like to have as many students as possible so that their work can be exposed to a wider audience (and bigger class = more money for department). I've seen how they treat weaker students like idiots and get all jittery when a strong student makes his or her presence.

You do know that there are professors that genuinely care about student learning, right?

They want to teach everybody, but they will only give work to the cream of the crop. It might be a subtle form of eugenics, and it certainly explains standarized tests.

How is that related to standardized tests? Standardized test are not for the cream of the crop.

In the end, I don't know what to tell you as I myself am still debating the issue. I know with practice, I got faster at math than I was when I first started linear algebra. My IQ of 115 hasn't changed though. (i expect a lot of typos, so be cautions)

Well what I tell you is to listen to other people who are more experienced than you are. Your classmate is more experienced since he received a privileged education. He knows what he is talking about. I have seen contrast from one sibling to the next of what even a small amount of extra education can do.

Smart people are able to find solutions relatively faster, which does not neccessarily transalte into a few seconds. I think if a smart person is challenged by a problem, he will put more effort into it so not as to hurt his pride. And because of superior intelligence, probability would dictate he would be more likely to find the solution - and faster.

Except something take a LONG time to figure out.
The problem that I will be working that will become my PhD thesis is an extension of something a fields medalist worked on. Now this guy proved something that many others worked hard at proving but could not. When my advisor asked him how he figured out how to prove that he said that he just took laplacians of things for two years until he saw one that worked. There are many mathematicians that are smarter than him in some measures but he had persistence.

 

[Howers]

You should never compare yourself to others. Preparation and having people guide a student make a world of difference.

Something that might give some insight as to what is going on is to see what happens in a family where there is no background of parents being professionals and so on.

I already agreed with the fact that preperation can make you better at one subject. But if you consistently outperform someone in all things, even trivial ones like mental calculation, you can only infer genetics play a role.

Now you must also remember that Gauss showed promise as a child but he had many people help him out. In particular the Duke of Brunswick funded his education and a math professor, Zimmerman, I believe it was.

And it was because Gauss showed promise as a child that he received privledged education. Why were the countless 1000s living in Gauss' time not offered such a privledge? Becuase people understood then as they do now that some people have better aptitude.

How do you define genius? IQ >=130 ?

Sure, we can go with that. It is the standard to be deemed gifted and be allowed to enrolled in enriched education, which leads me to believe this education has been attempted for lower scores and with less success.

Why won't you listen to people who tell you that hard work is what matters?

Hard work matters, no doubt. But why bother when you are handicapped for the rest of your life.

You do know that there are professors that genuinely care about student learning, right?

Sure they care about student learning. I don't believe they think highly of slow students though.

How is that related to standardized tests? Standardized test are not for the cream of the crop.

By definition, standardized tests are that are based on percentiles. And why do they have verbal sections that are timed? They want a rough measure of fluid intelligence.

 

[thewhills]

If that is your only motivation you have a problem. Your main motivation should -in my opinion- be that you like physics and enjoy work you do, even when you are not making much progress (which tends to be most of the time in real science).
Moreover, there are many of examples of famous scientists that made their discoveries not because they were brilliant but because they were in the right place at the right time, had the necessary background and happened to be interested in the "right" problem. Being brilliant is no guarantee that you will make important contributions to science.
Just think of all the work that has gone into theories that we now know are wrong such as the "steady state universe" in cosmology, some of the people who worked on those theories were probably "brilliant"; they just happened to back the wrong horse at a time when no one had enough experimental data to say which theory was correct.
However, I am sure most of them still enjoyed going to work every day.

I disagree.
I enjoy science and politics equally because I FEEL like I am making a difference in them.
this differs for everyone, some people teach to make a difference.BTW We are arguing over IQ AGAIN.
Feynman supposedly had a 120 IQ. Look at what he did.
I have a 138 IQ and I scrape out Bs.

 

[mathwonk]

mr howers, from your reaction to my post, i have decided you are indeed difficult to help. good advice just rolls off your back.

 

[Helical]

Howers, for someone with so little confidence in his own abilities you sure seem to think you're right about everything. To say that someone with an I.Q. of 115 is mentally handicapped is a joke. My younger brother is seven years old and can't speak a sentence or feed himself, he's mentally handicapped - it's time for you to grow up and stop with the meltdown. Clearly you are in science for the wrong reason if you are put off by others being better than you at it.

My answer to the original question is this: the ONLY reason to do science at all is because you have a passion for it. By merely asking the question you should question your motivation; people don't do science because they want prestige and influence and to me this is the only reason why you would want to make a difference in science. The joy of discovery should come from simply learning to understand the world. This means you aren't doing science to revolutionize it, merely to absorb it and enjoy it.

 

[Choppy]

One might question if the purpose if this thread is to really find an answer, or simply to vent some frustrations.

Obviously there are lots of people here, myself included, who believe that there is a point to hammering away at difficult intellectual tasks in spite of not considering themselves geniuses - or even especially gifted. And the reason for that, in my opinion, is that they understand that just because you don't win a nobel prize, doesn't mean that your work doesn't hold some value for society.

Science doesn't always advance in leaps and bounds - rather small, neccessary, incremental steps. Edison, for example, is often quoted as having discovered ten thousand ways NOT to make a lightbulb before he discovered the right way.

 

[RasslinGod]

look, if you think you got what it takes to compete for grants in academia, then go for it. If not, then it isn't for you.

 

[turbo]

Why do it?

Why not? If you have a decent idea and are willing to work your tail off and grind it out, you can certainly make contributions. There are some important niches in specialties that are not glamorous, and are not really "hot" by current standards and are therefor unlikely to attract a lot of competition. It is possible for one or more unaffiliated researchers to tackle a subject that is currently considered "mined out" and add to our knowledge. You don't have to be a "star" to contribute, nor do you have to be associated with a school with a prominent research program. You just have to be willing to work.

There are some fields, obviously, where this approach works better than in others. If you have an interest in astronomy, for instance, there are enormous databases of publicly-available observations that can be mined. I wouldn't expect that similar advances could be made in fields such as particle physics, in which affiliation with programs with access to $$$$$$$$ accelerators might be required before one could make significant contributions.

 

[atwood]

mr howers, from your reaction to my post, i have decided you are indeed difficult to help. good advice just rolls off your back.

This goes for me, too. I guess some part of me want's to be hammered down. That way it would be easier to give up, believing that I wasn't any good at it anyway.

If that is your only motivation you have a problem. Your main motivation should -in my opinion- be that you like physics and enjoy work you do, even when you are not making much progress (which tends to be most of the time in real science).

My answer to the original question is this: the ONLY reason to do science at all is because you have a passion for it. By merely asking the question you should question your motivation; people don't do science because they want prestige and influence and to me this is the only reason why you would want to make a difference in science.

I don't want prestige and influence, but to somehow justify my existence (as a physicist). I don't want to be great because of greatness itself, but because then I have probably achieved something that has any value outside my own head. Then I could say that my life hasn't been completely in vain.

Of course I have a passion for science, but that can't keep me motivated, because I feel it isn't a justifiable motivation. If I exaggerated a bit I could say I feel like a bad person because I'm not doing anything worth anything. Ask a carpenter what he did today, and he says he made a bench. Ask a doctor what she did today, and she says she saved a life. Ask me, and I say I stared at equations someone else could have solved.

(But don't get me wrong. I don't want this to go into a philosophical debate on what's the purpose of purpose or whatever. I just wanted to clarify my original post.)

 

[will.c]

You know, for all this musing on how you're handicapped from the start and have no chance of being successful and how it's irrational to continue as a mathematician... Well, Howers, you haven't told us what you're going to do now that you know! What are you better than anyone else in the world at?

... Then again, Schopenhauer never offed himself; that's why I stuck with Camus.

 

[will.c]

I don't want prestige and influence, but to somehow justify my existence (as a physicist). I don't want to be great because of greatness itself, but because then I have probably achieved something that has any value outside my own head. Then I could say that my life hasn't been completely in vain.

Of course I have a passion for science, but that can't keep me motivated, because I feel it isn't a justifiable motivation. If I exaggerated a bit I could say I feel like a bad person because I'm not doing anything worth anything. Ask a carpenter what he did today, and he says he made a bench. Ask a doctor what she did today, and she says she saved a life. Ask me, and I say I stared at equations someone else could have solved.

This is silly; that individual carpenter is not the only one who has mastered bench making. Were that doctor not there, someone else would have saved that life. This is why there is not one doctor and one carpenter in the world, chosen because they are the best and therefore no one else can contribute anything of value. Doesn't that seem silly? So why should science be so different?

 

[turbo]

This is silly; that individual carpenter is not the only one who has mastered bench making. Were that doctor not there, someone else would have saved that life. This is why there is not one doctor and one carpenter in the world, chosen because they are the best and therefore no one else can contribute anything of value. Doesn't that seem silly? So why should science be so different?

Good points. Also, if you are doing research in a scientific field, there is another dynamic. If you have an interesting hypothesis, and you do a year or two of research, and that hypothesis is demonstrated to be faulty, or even proven to be wrong, there is value is publishing the results of the research. Publish the hypothesis, the means of data-analysis, the data-reduction methods, and the conclusions. Someone else may be thinking on similar lines and can benefit from your work, and/or may be able to point out errors in your work that might have slipped past the journal's referees and expand upon your work. Research is not done in a vacuum.

 

[The|M|onster]

I haven't read the previous thread that keeps being mentioned, but it seems to me that some people are more concerned with the numbers society has bestowed upon them and not concerned enough with the simple joy of numbers.

 

[atwood]

So why should science be so different?

I guess mainly because there's much more carpenting or life-saving to be done than research in my area of science. Theoretical physics is saturated with capable people, so what gives me any justification go bothering them? It's a matter of (well-foundedly) low self-esteem, probably.

And on the other hand, even if a carpenter wouldn't be the best in his field, he would have still been able to make the bench. A better carpenter would've possibly made a better bench, but it would have still been made. A bench is a bench, whether it's good or great. But if a brilliant physicist were a carpenter making a great bench, then I would be a carpenter wasting lots of wood, paid by someone else, and producing just sawdust and chips of wood.

 

[Future-boy]

...but no one will care if it takes you 5 minutes or 1 hour to solve an equation.

Well i don't know...
Still being a student it does matter, a lot.
There it is all about how long it takes you to understand the matter.

 

[Defennder]

I don't understand what is the point of this thread. No matter how smart you are there is always someone else who will be smarter than you. There will always be someone who can do something better than you. The only reason why you're hired instead of him is because you've managed to convince your employer that at present you're the only person who can do this job reasonably well without him having to scour the whole market for the best possible job applicant.

If you applied for a job and you got accepted, are you going to tell your employer on your first day of work that you know some guy who is far more gifted and competent than you are and would be much more suitable for this job than you? Get real. The labour market isn't infinitely flexible.

 

[Howers]

I don't understand what is the point of this thread. No matter how smart you are there is always someone else who will be smarter than you. There will always be someone who can do something better than you. The only reason why you're hired instead of him is because you've managed to convince your employer that at present you're the only person who can do this job reasonably well without him having to scour the whole market for the best possible job applicant.

If you applied for a job and you got accepted, are you going to tell your employer on your first day of work that you know some guy who is far more gifted and competent than you are and would be much more suitable for this job than you? Get real. The labour market isn't infinitely flexible.

The point is this: is there any point of competing with the top tier students. Academia favors results. And top students deliver.

 

[Defennder]

Maybe some statistics would be in order. What is the proportion of first-class honours students who pursue grad studies? I don't have the answer here. If you don't think academia is for you, then go elsewhere. I had a math lecturer who worked in industry after his Master's for about 5 years before he decided to return to grad school to get his PhD.

 

[atwood]

I don't understand what is the point of this thread. No matter how smart you are there is always someone else who will be smarter than you. There will always be someone who can do something better than you.

The problem was that, when compared to those who are considerably better than me, one could say that I'm not actually good at all. The problem was that I feel like my efforts are meaningless, because I have worked my butt off to get the same results those brilliant guys could in a blink of an eye.

The point of this thread wasn't that I have to be the best. The point was that I don't want to be useless. (Of course many have already stated that one doesn't have to be a genius to be useful, so the point of this thread has been met at least partially.)

If you don't think academia is for you, then go elsewhere.

That's what at least I am trying to figure out. The problem is that in theoretical physics there isn't much work opportunities available outside academia, at least not where I live.

 

[PowerIso]

The point is this: is there any point of competing with the top tier students. Academia favors results. And top students deliver.

Of course there is a point. You will never know if you are a top tier student if you don't try. Yes, some people are very brilliant and don't have to work as much as you, but that shouldn't discourage you.

I was probably one of those "top tier" students and I used to brag about how easy concepts were for me, but as I got older, I came to the realization that your natural ability hits a wall. What makes progress is the ability to keep going even when you don't think you can keep going. Motivation, hard work, and determination is all you really need to compete.

 

[RasslinGod]

The problem was that, when compared to those who are considerably better than me, one could say that I'm not actually good at all. The problem was that I feel like my efforts are meaningless, because I have worked my butt off to get the same results those brilliant guys could in a blink of an eye.

The point of this thread wasn't that I have to be the best. The point was that I don't want to be useless. (Of course many have already stated that one doesn't have to be a genius to be useful, so the point of this thread has been met at least partially.)


That's what at least I am trying to figure out. The problem is that in theoretical physics there isn't much work opportunities available outside academia, at least not where I live.

i talked to my school' s advisor on physics grad programs. getting into a theoretical PhD program is hard. So If you don't got what it takes, then you'll prolly end up in an experimental program instead anyways. It's not likely that you'll slip through the cracks.

even otuside academia, good paying jobs w/ physics degree is hard to come by, if they exist at all. If i were you, i'd just study physics 4 funz and get a real job. Is money much of a concern for you? If not, you can go do a PhD in physics and get post-doc jobs, and hope fot the best that a tenure professorship is going to be open. You'll be compteing with hundreds of other pst-docs for that same (and few) positions. Is this huge amt of school for a not so bright future what you have in mind?


But then again, we need more physicists. they need to spend their lives figuring out the universe so that we can read about it in a popular science magazine for about 5 minutes and go on with our lives.

 

[lincs_b]

I must be really thick! I enjoy studying physics, so that's what I'll do, and I don't really care if people are academically better than me. In physics I think it is good to make mistakes, as long as you can go back and realize where the mistakes are.

 

[will.c]

This thing about hundreds of brilliant people fighting over a couple tenure-track positions gets regurgitated over and over. It's not like the only academic job a physicist can take is "string cosmologist at Cambridge." There are a lot of academic jobs, and while the competition is tough, if you're willing to work somewhere other than MIT and in a field with a reasonable amount of funding potential (sorry, string cosmologists - you can always write a popular book, though!) it's certainly not insurmountable. Is your life worth anything if you don't work at MIT and win the Nobel prize (twice)? Probably not. Oh well, at least you had fun.

 

[BioCore]

I think people over rate geniuses. Most studies that have been done over the past years and decades have shown that even geniuses if not nurtured properly will become regular people. Besides in my eyes, a genius is anyone who can understand a concept after reading it once or twice. A Scientist is one who uses that knowledge not to over boast about his abilities, but help people live better lives.

Also remember that even these so called geniuses have to do regular practice or else they will be like all the other students who just read but don't do work.

 

[Howers]

I think people over rate geniuses. Most studies that have been done over the past years and decades have shown that even geniuses if not nurtured properly will become regular people. Besides in my eyes, a genius is anyone who can understand a concept after reading it once or twice. A Scientist is one who uses that knowledge not to over boast about his abilities, but help people live better lives.

Also remember that even these so called geniuses have to do regular practice or else they will be like all the other students who just read but don't do work.

What studies show that genius is lost?

I really wish that were true but it isn't. Most geniuses don't even open a book until they get to a demanding course in college, and still get straight As. Thats exactly what a genius is, someone who can understand a concept after reading it once or twice.

I think most people under rate genius. They talk about hard work and determination, as if the genius is somehow incapable of doing that too. The difference though is you will be light years behind the genius given that you both put in the same amount of effort.

 

[Andy Resnick]

The point is this: is there any point of competing with the top tier students. Academia favors results. And top students deliver.

Says who? In my experience, there is only partial correlation between a particular student's "book smart" ability and their "lab smart" ability.

There are many students who can regurgitate course material very well. Not many of them can independently discover questions worth asking.

 

[turbo]

Let's use the example of music.
Is Bob Dylan the best singer with the best singing voice? Nope. Not even close.
Can he play guitar better than anyone else? Nope -mediocre/folky at best.
Is he the the best harmonica player around? Actually, he's terrible.
What if he had never pursued a music career because he wasn't the best (or even close) at these things? With his quirky writing and approachable musicianship he managed to sell millions and millions of albums.

Same thing with academia and work. If your talents (however modest) work together well and you are willing to find a niche, you can be wildly successful. For instance, what if you are in the bottom half of your class in engineering school, but you are pretty good at fabricating prototypes, and have a good grasp of production costs and whether you can scale a manufacturing process to the point where you can be competitive with other business and make a profit making stuff that others can't? My brother works for just such a fellow - the business makes parts out of plastics that other companies have a lot of trouble handling, and his boss is a whiz at going after contracts that are well-suited to the size of his business - too small for the big boys, too technical for most of the smaller businesses, and with quality-control standards that make his little company a "preferred supplier" for some really big names in US manufacturing. The guy is not a genius - he is a practical hard-working guy who has a talent for evaluating the market and grabbing contracts that others can't deliver on.

 

[BioCore]

What studies show that genius is lost?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids"

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coaching-the-gifted-child"


And yes Howers I read both articles from A-Z. From most of your comments Howers you seem to have just given up on the fact that anyone including yourself can be a genius. Telling yourself that it is impossible embeds a thinking in your mind which hinders your abilities and thinking prowess. This is actually a common symptom I have seen in University, I actually almost fell into it myself.

But I have picked myself up and am doing great so far just as I did in high school.

 

[qspeechc]

It's unlikely anybody is born a genius. The only way to become a genius is to work extremely hard from a young age. I read this in Scientific American, August 2006, don't know where you can get this edition/ read this article from this edition. Well, I found this:

http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=000E5E86-9BA2-14CF-9BA283414B7F0000

EDIT: I've found the article:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-expert-mind

 

[JasonJo]

Can I take a different approach?

I think I know enough about how academia works to know that I probably will not have a great shot at being a professor. However, it would kill me to not have at least tried. So right now, I'm trying my best, giving it my all. I am by no means a genius, never have, never will be.

But what is wrong with trying and having a backup plan if it doesn't work out?

Let me also reiterate, I am not trying to convince anyone to keep up with their physics or math studies. Frankly, I don't care either way. But I would like to offer the other perspective.

My plan is to give a PhD a real try, study my butt off and a few things can happen:
1) Get my PhD, no good postdoc offers. Having a PhD was one of my goals, so I accomplished my goal, could not quite accomplish the goal of getting a nice postdoc position, but it's nice to move on and try something else. I gave it an honest try. Plus having a math or physics PhD is pretty damn good. I'm sure you can get employed somewhere or enter a new field (business, finance).
2) Get my PhD, get a nice postdoc offer and the road to tenure track now depends on how I do during my postdoc
3) Not get my PhD, probably get a terminal masters and pursue some other field.

Either one of those I am fine with. I understand how the game works. I try to take on a much more basic view than the I want to pursue math to further mankind's understanding or anything like that. I like doing math. If I can get paid to do math, then I will try like hell for that, if I can't, i'll move on, hopefully to something related to math.

I can understand why there is this "If I'm not the best, then why bother" since all of us have admired the great mathematicians. But in reality, most mathematicians will not be remembered. Most of them will not have a great theorem named after them, most of them will not produce any kind of ground breaking results. This includes PhD's from Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Berkeley, etc. I would say well over 50% of mathematicians and physicists will go by the wayside, never to be mentioned again.

So it's not the worst thing in the world. Plenty of good mathematicians go "unnoticed" over time. Yes as a graduate student or as a professor you will know more mathematicians than an undergrad would, but I think my point is still valid. Not every PhD from Harvard or MIT go onto to become studs, in fact, most do not.

With all that being said, it makes sense to me, to just pursue what I want to pursue and try to take an original view on the subject matter. That to me is the best way to produce a meaningful result.