Undeniable proof!

[Flubber]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lori

Originally posted by padillah


You are, without a doubt, the nicest person to tell me I'm full of s***.

Point taken.

Tom P.

I do it every day in my job

[Asher]

Originally posted by Pekka
Jeesh, people getting worked up for nothing. You're all intelligent. And huge.

Ok?

Are you huge? Pictures!

</unintelligent>

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Flubber


I don't see why really.

Because (theoretical) physics is far more difficult in terms of pure analytical abilities than is almost anything else.

Math and compsci compare, but are different in that they tend to involve solving more well-defined problems. You tend to get less structured but more creative thinkers in physics.

I get that yuo are in an elite physics environment from what you have said. . . . . perhaps some of the the very smartest people in that field.

I am not. I am at a second-tier institution. Perhaps bottom of the first tier.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Asher

Are you huge? Pictures!

</unintelligent>

ASher why go for pictures only. I was proposing that a male homosexual apolytoner do an in-person inspection.

I thought that such an inspector would have sufficient experience with the subject matter to render an opinion.

[KrazyHorse]

How much time have you spent hanging with the smartest chemists, doctors, lawyers, engineers etc etc. ???

I am basing on undergraduates and graduate students I know (comparing at same institutions)

Do you think you could even understand the basics of the conversation when the elite in these fields are discussing the intricacies of their work ( in fields completely unrelated to yours).

Yes, actually. You can teach a physicist to do chemistry. Most chemists cannot do theoretical physics, period. And IQ tests, even though I dispute their accuracy at the highest levels, reflect this.

Physicists, mathematicians and theoretical compscis are the only people in the world who deal with truly difficult concepts.

[Kuciwalker]

You can teach a physicist to do chemistry.

I disagree. I could do physics but I do not have anything approaching the patience to study chemistry.

[padillah]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Lori

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

http://physics-astronomy.jhu.edu/people/Directory/index.html#m

Umm, that says "Mr." Why doesn't it say "Dr."?

How far along are you?

Tom P.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Because (theoretical) physics is far more difficult in terms of pure analytical abilities than is almost anything else.

Opinion.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Math and compsci compare, but are different in that they tend to involve solving more well-defined problems. You tend to get less structured but more creative thinkers in physics.

I can accept the logic of this but doesn't the lack of structure and in many cases any practical way to test . . .. means that the brilliant theories can be completely wrong without people having any way to judge

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I am not. I am at a second-tier institution. Perhaps bottom of the first tier.

Humility. I like it. The fact that you downgrade your surroundings adds credibility to your other statements.


But overall I find that anyone that is working in an extremely specialized area .. . areas that 99.9% of the population would have difficulty even understanding the basic language . . . get an elevated view of their own intelligence

[Kuciwalker]

The reasoning in math (of which CS and physics are particularly important applied disciplines, to a degree) is necessarily more difficult than in any other field, because once reasoning is difficult (and can be treated formally) it becomes the domain of the mathematicians.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lori

Originally posted by padillah


Umm, that says "Mr." Why doesn't it say "Dr."?

How far along are you?

Tom P.

I have never claimed to have a doctorate. I am ~1.5 years from having one

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Flubber



Opinion.

Based on how badly other people do in physics and how well physicists do in other things.

Most importantly, based on where other people fail at physics and where physicists fail at other things.

[KrazyHorse]

Mathematicians can generally do physics, but tend to go slowly over areas physicists go quickly, because they have less physical intuition (and less intuition in general). Physicists can do mathematics, but tend to skip important steps. They are less formal thinkers.

Nobody who can't do mathematics at a high level can be considered an extremely analytical thinker.

[laurentius]

IQ tests are so expired

[padillah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Nobody who can't do mathematics at a high level can be considered an extremely analytical thinker.

This one I gotta say 'no' to.

Analysis has little to do with math. As a computer system designer I have analysed various systems from nothingness into being and used math very little.

I worked with people that designed and implemented rules-based hierarchical code but turned to me to make the bookkeeping areas because they didn't understand the concepts.

Heck, our favorite game has tons of analysis but very simple mathmatical concepts.

They are not dependant.

Tom P.

[KrazyHorse]

While an analytical thinker might not currently know math (though the pool of such people in the first world is relatively small today) the question is one of ability to learn it.