How do you feel about normies?

Do you ever open up IRL about your knowledge?
Some "geek" talks about the implications of the double slit experiment while you've gone through Griffiths, Cohen and Gasiorowicz.
What do? I just listen politely until we change subject.

Come back after Landau, Sakurai and Weinberg

The simulation implications of the double slit experiment are relevant and worth discussing.

>normies
• go to zoo
• observe chimp enclosure
• see normie behaviour
How the fuck do you think I feel, user?!

>Come back after Landau, Sakurai and Weinberg
Landau is too hard.
You need a solid mathematical background since it is not your usual mathematical physics textbook.

Naa, it was just an indirect way of telling that the term "normies" is totally subjective.

As a more serious answer, I believe that especially since you are familiar with the subject you should engage in conversation. Are they saying something completely wrong? Correct them politely and try to explain it in your own words (you'll both benefit from this). Are they saying something correct? There's your chance to converse on something you have studied, outside your academic circle.

It's tough.
They might be open to learning or they might just be trying to show off "knowledge" to impress people.

If they are open to learning you could enlighten them.

If they are showing off, correcting them might make you the know-it-all asshole.

If there is an ignorant audience present, it's even tougher. Sometimes the best solution is one where everybody gets to save face.

I'm usually stubborn and deliberately ignore what I just said and correct them anyway.

Is it autism if you recognize these things but ignore them anyway?

>How do you feel about normies?

Like they are mind controlled zombies, working for the meme-plexes of the deep state.

Not every normie is stupid, perhaps you need to stop being so arrogant.

I have plenty friends who live normie lives but are smarther than me, but they're not as educated in mathematics and science.

being a normie is relative. you are a normie to someone else regarding subject X, while everyone else may be a normie to you regarding Subject Y.

this.

if you think everyone around you is stupid you're the stupid one

Before starting, I will point out that I used to consider myself a turbo procrastinator, but the following events drastically changed my vision.
>need to research something on a harmful subject for English class (CE school)
>choose popsci with the intent of researching the thing, making polls and sheeit
>three fuckers join my group
>I'm literally the only guy with 2 years in math and physics while the little bastards did nothing but CS
>within a few days they take over and subvert the thing into a "VSAUCE YAY" circlejerk
>they don't even understand babby's first mechanics
>they know so nothing about it that we can barely agree on an outline, let alone look for serious documentation
>agree with them to meet up after a mock TOEIC to shoot the video presentation
>nobody shows up
>rushed the shooting two days before the presentation
>I then have to do the montage within one day while they promised to plan the commentary and write the written document
>presentation day
>I literally slept less than 5 hours and missed the morning class (graph theory) just to get the video rendered with this Vegas piece of shit that crashed all the time
>presentation starts
>they were absolutely not prepared, everything was improvised and almost no comment we agreed on was made
>I already did almost everything for the presentation, so I refused to do anything on the written document
>as expected, they did nothing at all
I AM NEVER, EVER SEEING THOSE FUCKING RETARD NORMIES AS EQUALS ANYMORE!!!

And somehow an unfortunate experience with 3 individuals suddenly classifies as proof of one's superiority over every "normie"?

>Not every normie is stupid, perhaps you need to stop being so arrogant.
I specifically made an example of a field that needs mathematics to be discussed.
You don't know mathematics?
Do not peak about QM.

Ah, so all of a sudden science consists of fields only open to those who academically study them. I mean, of course, how does anyone who hasn't written a thesis on Fock spaces dare talk about a video they probably saw on youtube and found interesting? I also propose we burn at the stake anyone who dares question the origin of the universe, without having published 6+ papers alongside Hawking.

>if you think everyone around you is stupid you're the stupid one
I am specifically referring to hard sciences and subject that need a good mathematical understanding to be discussed.
I don't know about philosophy or religion.
But what's the point of trying to convince me about the existence of multiverses when you haven't a proper education, and neither I who have studied physics can whether what you're saying makes sense or not?
I'm very grounded.
Let's talk about continuous functions and we'll have a productive evening.

>Correct them politely
How do I tell people politely when they have no idea wtf they are talking about

It's easy, just don't be autistic about it. It may also help if you say something like "recent literature has shown" so they can save face a bit

this isn't related to the thread but can you guys list off the books you're talking about? I have limited knowledge on that topic and want to lrn mor

>Am I wrong, user? Why?
>Oh, you mean the definition of the zeta function is not the same on this part of the complex plane?
>But user, the sum works!!!
>But user, this guy with a PhD said so!
>But user, it seems rigorous to me! I see no calculation mistakes.
>But user, people with a PhD know more than you!
>But user, this YouTuber has millions of subscribers. How many subscribers do you have? Then who should I believe?
>So how do you explain this sum, user?
>user, you should use more simple terms. It's not thanks to people like you that I know the second law of thermodynamics means the universe is more and more random.

Beginner/Undergrad Level:
- David J. Griffiths: Introduction to Quantum Mechanics
- Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Bernard Diu, Frank Laloe: Quantum Mechanics
- Stephen Gasiorowicz: Quantum Physics

More advanced/Grad Level:
- Lev D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz: Quantum Mechanics - Nonrelativistic Theory

- Lev D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz: Quantum Mechanics. A Shorter Course of Theoretical Physics

- J. J. Sakurai: Advanced Quantum Mechanics

- S. Weinberg: Lectures on Quantum Mechanics

you're a saint

Coming from a math background I really liked

- Basdevant and Dalibard: Quantum Mechanics

Mathematically it is quite rigorous without being outright crazy as Landau, Lifshitz.

Just gave it a look, it looks pretty well written and covers pretty much all the basic undergrad qm.

The "outright craziness" of Landau and Lifshitz is one of the qualities I enjoyed while studying some books from their series. The books are not easy to read, since each word hides entire sentences, but they give you much food for thought and encourage you to conduct your own independent research, just in order to follow their train of thought on some matters. I'd never suggest any of Landau's books (except classical fields maybe) for undergrad studying, but for personal studying? Pure genious.

There is a quote of Mao Zedong in that book.
Why not quoting Hitler?

which quotation are you referring to?

i just smile and ask more about their opinion. if i see an opportunity to inject some knowledge i do but i'm really not too concerned with enlightening the masses.

sakurai is good. basically you just need the first chapter.

Sakurai's qft book, or the "normal" quantum mechanics?

i only read his qm book

Excellent book as well, I only asked because the first chapter in his qft book is about classical fields!

>Double slit experiment
>not important

This is why mathematics will always be the beta of STEM fields.

Mathematicians are beta providers.

double slit experiment is just kinda confusing the path integral is where the intuition gets kicked into high gear