Undeniable proof!

[KrazyHorse]

This simply assumes that physics is the highest form of intelectual thinking. You've now crafted a circular argument.

No, you dimwit, I did not. He asked me to assume that physics was the highest form of intellectual thought and to use this to demonstrate why the brightest would choose to do it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Without regard to compensation both monetary and (as flubber quite properly includes) non-monetary?

I think you are incorrect.

Wow. I think you've read the words "tend to" in a completely different way than is generally meant.

[Flubber]

Leaving aside the financial consequences, the most highly intelligent may compose music of incomparable beauty or intricacy , or compose poems, or or or . .. . .

It is the heights of arrogance to think that just because a person is extremely intelligent they would pursue physics or even find it interesting. Perhaps they grew bored by the early courses where you can score 100% with a mere glance at the texts

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Flubber
Leaving aside the financial consequences, the most highly intelligent may compose music of incomparable beauty or intricacy , or compose poems, or or or . .. . .

Poetry and music (other than the kind of pop produced by low IQ types) is for wimpy liberal arts types, no real man who can do FIZZIX would be interested in that.

Nor of course would they choose medicine cause they want to heal people, or law cause they want to protect peoples rights, nor would they want to pursue social change via politics. We're dealing with a very limited view of what has value here. At best.

[Meticulous Man]

At least I suck at math and natural sciences not because I'm stupid but because my interest in them was killed very early on by the school system. The teaching methods did not suit me at all, many of the teachers hated me and the atmosphere was competitive and discouraging. It wasn't until after high school that I found out that math and sciences can actually be pretty interesting, though it was by then practically too late for me to make any kind of career of that stuff.

[padillah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

This simply assumes that physics is the highest form of intelectual thinking. You've now crafted a circular argument.

No, you dimwit, I did not. He asked me to assume that physics was the highest form of intellectual thought and to use this to demonstrate why the brightest would choose to do it.

I am not a dimwit and it most certainly does form a circular argument. Thast someone else asked you to craft it this way is irrelevant.

I am forced to agree with Flubber and others and pose the question: why, if I know others of my intelectual equal are going to be competing against me, would I choose physics and not a lesser demanding field?

Why must I strive to be the most intelligent? If I am the most inteligent why not just rest in the comfort of knowing that and relax?

Tom P.

BTW, is name-calling an indication of 'being the brightest'? (and not even very good name calling. I'd expect better from someone as smart as you.)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by padillah


This simply assumes that physics is the highest form of intelectual thinking.

THat was the base assumption.. NOw he seemed to make that assumption all the time anyway . I just chose to assume it for the moment for the purpose of discussion even though I see it as a highly debateable point.

But I wanted to leave it aside for the moment. Basically its irrelevant since what I am pursuing is the idea of whether or not the very smartest people would tend to pursue fields that are intellectually the most difficult. Which field is not even that important.

Among the set of university students, I think the opposite was true and people would "tend" toward the course/class known as an easy "A" rather than the super-tough but challenging class. But this behavior might not hold true for the gifted or genius groupings.

[Jon Miller]

Physicists base some of their ego on relative failures (in physics) going to other fields and producing great results (thinking of Biology and Economics in specific here).

JM

[Jon Miller]

I haven't met many people in other fields doing the field because they were looking for a challenge. I met numerous people in undergraduate who were in physics for that reason, and people in graduate school who picked physics over other sciences out of wishing to be the "best"...

Jon Miller

[lord of the mark]

person A fails in field X. Person A then succeeds in field Y. Does that imply field X is more difficult, or just that person A is more suited to field Y?

The response would be that not many people fail in field Y and succeed in field X. But what if fields X and Y are not equivalent in their age profiles? Mathematics and physics, esp I think theoretical physics, are noted for success by the relatively young. Much more so than most other fields (other than classical music, which is an interesting factoid) So how likely is it that a failed lawyer, or economist, would, at the ripe age of 26, or 28, switch to a successful career in math or physics?

[Jon Miller]

Person A and Person B and Person C all try field X. Person C doesn't do so hot so relatively early goes into field Y and has some success. Person B continues on in field X for longer, but still does not have great success so at a later date goes into field Y and acheives great success. Person A stays in field X and acheives great success.

This would seem to me to imply that field X is more selective than field Y, and so more difficult.

JM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I haven't met many people in other fields doing the field because they were looking for a challenge. I met numerous people in undergraduate who were in physics for that reason, and people in graduate school who picked physics over other sciences out of wishing to be the "best"...

Jon Miller

forgive my stubborn resistance to learning HTML

let Usubxsuby be the utility individual x gets from field y.

Usubxsuby = f(C,M,O)

Where C is challenge, M is money, and O is other compensations.

Assuming C, M, and O are the same for a given field for all individuals, we would expect a field that provides the most challenge and the least money and other benefits to have the most individuals looking for challenge. Of course C, M and O from any given field will differ by individual, but I think its unlikely that the distribution would be such that there we be lots of people largely motivated by other factors going into a field that provides MOST individuals mainly with challenge.

Im not going to make it any more precise or quantitative than that unless you pay me.

[Jon Miller]

Physics and Mathematics are the pinnacles of analytical thinking... Comp Sci also, perhaps.

If you start considering other types of genius, like musical or other sorts of arts, or the like then I would say that it was another axis. However, in areas of analytical excellence the above fields dominate. (and these skills are the ones in demand in lots of other fields, including economics)

JM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Person A and Person B and Person C all try field X. Person C doesn't do so hot so relatively early goes into field Y and has some success. Person B continues on in field X for longer, but still does not have great success so at a later date goes into field Y and acheives great success. Person A stays in field X and acheives great success.

This would seem to me to imply that field X is more selective than field Y, and so more difficult.

JM

Not at all. People drop out of field Y as well when tehy dont do so hot in it. The question becomes do the dropouts from Y do as well as dropouts from X? Now Im willing to buy (since Im assuming you got the names of ex-fizzics types who did well in biology and econ, and that theres no one who went into fizzics at say 26 whos become a star) that Fizzics has the edge in "late career" swithces. But is there really empirical evidence that folks who switch from say, Bio to physics as college sophomores do worse than those who switch from physics to bio at the same age?

[Jon Miller]

I don't know of anyone who switched from bio to physics as college sophmores... I know of people who switched the other way though. Earlier, maybe, but even as college sophmores you are still on intro stuff.

JM