Theoretical Physics (and Math) genius cult

[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.