seriously disabled Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Why are some people so good in physics and math while others constantly fail at these areas? How does genetics and cognitive psychology play a role in someone being very good in physics and math? How does the brain and genes of people like Albert Einstein, Paul Dirac, Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku differ from those who are not good at physics and math? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Lots of curiosity and lots of practice. People sometimes like to attribute this kind of stuff to external factors like brain hard-wiring, when in reality I think the vast majority of people who are considered "geniuses" simply got very interested in a subject and pursued that line of research. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Concentration (not easily distracted) and dedication i.e committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sato Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I think you are misunderstanding the mental ability needed to do mathematics and physics, and other such intellectual work; most people have sufficient memory, concentration, and visual-spatial skills to understand and practice even the highest level (more aptly, most obscure) maths and physics. The distinction, I think, between who appears to be a "genius" and otherwise, is that to excel one needs to spend lots of time studying the necessary material and understanding it. I've also read some studies that purport that people, given a set of tasks requiring intellectual activity, performed noticeably better after being shown a comedy routine and laughing, and so it is reasonable to infer that a strong intrigue or passion with the subject of study can weigh strongly in one's creative ability in it. That was in regard to your question about the place of cognitive psychology, but I do not believe that genetics plays much of a role, unless in the case of someone with a significant mental disability. Also, the scientists you mentioned vary strongly in their mathematics and physics prowess and, besides being scientists, only share one common quality: fame. (Albeit maybe with the exception of Dirac). Einstein derived his fame from his contributions to physics in his pioneering relativity and quantum mechanics; Hawking derived his fame from his stature as a figure of perseverance in the way of great physical adversity; Kaku did so by way of his science popularization and books (as did Hawking partially). Although each of them of course studied physics and made some contribution, it appears that this was the primary method of your selection; there are many mathematicians and physicists who have been just as or more productive in obscurity. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobox Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Denying the central role that individual traits play in math/physics ability is an error. There is significant degree of variability of human brain's aptitude in certain intellectual endeavors. I tend to believe that math/physics ability is related to hormone exposure as a fetus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 That there is variability isn't being contested, only why. Factors such as fetal conditions may well play a part, but i think the greater variability comes from passions and interests. My physical education teacher said it well; 'sports is about 5% talent and 95% hard work'. I believe it's the same for maths/physics, certainly it's the only factor i can control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobox Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Passion is just another predisposed (or cultivated at very early age) brain preference and can be viewed as part of the aptitude just like 'hard wire'. It is hard to conceive that one person is passionate at something that his brain rejects intellectually. Keeping that passion up is what what makes a predisposed strength to shine. But it does not disprove that some predisposition is determinant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Angel Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I don't think that there is a uncontroversial standard for being good at physics and mathematics. The people called "string theorists" would consider themselves good at physics and mathematics. And while it could be conceded that they are clever in the way that they use mathematics, physicists such as Laurence Krauss don't consider their work to be of value in terms of being relevant to the important issues in physics, because their predictions can't be verified or refuted by measurements or experiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Passion is just another predisposed (or cultivated at very early age) brain preference and can be viewed as part of the aptitude just like 'hard wire'. It is hard to conceive that one person is passionate at something that his brain rejects intellectually. Keeping that passion up is what what makes a predisposed strength to shine. But it does not disprove that some predisposition is determinant. Since neither of us has provided any evidence we are just exchanging opinions. I'm not sure there is sufficient evidence at the moment to quantify the claims we are making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnocrat Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I think you will find number one requirement is a high IQ. The famous persons mentioned will all at least be above 140 the minium requirement for Mensa. Having the basic ability then application and hard work will pay off. If you are born with an IQ of 80 then no amount of hard work will do the job. I'm a good example my IQ is about 105, so I will find understanding general relativity immensely difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seriously disabled Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Although I'm not an expert on cognitive psychology and neuroscience I think that high intelligence must be genetic. Some people have an eidetic memory and excellent problem-solving skills which makes them very good at things like chess, physics and mathematics. The very best chess players probably have this kind of eidetic memory and excellent problem solving skills which makes them able to see far ahead into the game tree and remember variations in the game. For me chess, physics and math is extremely difficult because I don't have such a good memory and I don't have so good problem-solving skills. On a intelligence test I'll probably score about 70 which is low IQ. Edited February 16, 2015 by seriously disabled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRoseElephant Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I've seen a lot of answers that just barely scrape the surface of the question. Yes, people with passions for math and sciences are likely to be more curious about the subjects, and therefore be good at it. The question, I think, is what in the brain determines this skill? Does preference determine skill, or does skill determine preference, and what in the brain decides either of these? Is it the psychological composition of the brain from birth, or does somebody develop an interest through their experiences in life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now