Tfw wasn't born a child prodigy

>tfw wasn't born a child prodigy
Is it even worth trying to become a great personality in science/mathematics like this?

Other urls found in this thread:

terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/work-hard/how
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Nope.

When it comes to math, youre pretty much a perma brainlet if you arent a child prodigy

is wrong. Many a child prodigy has "burned out" and become nothing special in adulthood.

On the other hand, Minkowski, Einstein's math teacher, called Einstein a "lazy dog". Einstein's grades weren't that great (though it is not true that he flunked math) and he couldn't get an academic job. That's why he wound up working in the patent office.
Newton was also an undistinguished student before the Plague closed schools and gave him time alone to think.

That doesn't mean brainlets automatically become super-geniuses, nor vice-versa.
It DOES mean that you shouldn't automatically give up.

You were born a prodigy, you just never worked hard enough to realise it. Your pictures is very fitting.

I was born a child prodigy, they claimed, in Kindergarten, I had a "Grade 12 reading level" and wanted me into advanced classes but once I got there I dicked around and didn't do fuck all. As a result I didn't go to university, and generally slacked through most of my life until I decided to get a graduate degree (still doing it).

It's all about hard work terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/work-hard/how hard you work

This is what an untermensch looks like.

While it's true that working hard can compensate your lack of talent, I don't think you will ever be a "great" mathematician if you're not a child prodigy, because in the end life is finite so the more time you spend on learning the basic stuff, the less time you have left for the hard stuff. So genius talent + average hard work will always trump over average talent + very hard work.
It's like geniuses have a 2x speed multiplier, and if they make good use of it, you will never catch up.
Think about all the famous names in maths and physics, were they ever just "above average"? No, they were the creme de la creme, who also worked hard.
But it's not wrong to work hard for it if you enjoy it of course, just dont expect too much of yourself.

this is an accurate explanation

don't listen to this faggot, he's wrong and probably 16.
What do you think is a "great personality in science/mathematics"? Almost all scientist are recognizable only in their specific fields. You can be a great researcher without being a child prodigy. But doing research is a complex task for everyone, including very gifted people.

Supposedly 'child prodigy' here too. I gave up during HS, there is no reason to work that hard. You can have a fulfilled life without all that trouble and if you want to feel smart you can just pick up difficult things and play around until you get tired.

I feel that it is especially hard to work hard if you are smart. There is so many ways to cut corners and achieve the same ammount of perceived 'success' in life, you need to be highly ingenuous to work like that. Some may think they are cheating themselves by giving up or cutting corners but it's not really true, they would be cheating themselves too if they were working hard. They would be giving up great thing for the sake of their work. Success is not something you want to achieve for yourself. You can overcome obstacles for the sake of yourself but the need to be 'great' or a 'success' comes from a desire of being acknowledged. You can have the acknowledgement of your intelligency by doing easier, more pleasurable things and with a higher chance of having your hard working being paid off -- because there's nothing that ensures that your hard work will be paid.

I love mathematics and science but they are not worth so much trouble, not in todays age, not for myself. I think it's necessary a great deal of self hate to spend time working with it. I hate myself but not enough to make searching for success doing science my life purpose. This post probably sounds like sour grapes and it may be a bit true, since It was for my lack of will to continue working hard that I gave up my childhood dream. But childhood don't last forever and when you grow up you learn things that you didn't know existed. There is no reason to hold to a conception you made when your brain was not even fully formed, more so when all evidence points out that you were wrong (naive in my case) when you were thinking like that. I am happy right now doing half assed job in my brainlet job but having fun while I am at it.

>tfw autistic
someone else?

Einstein mastered calculus at 15, that is pretty good.

anyone who was a great personality only got that on the side of pursuing some real goal. you're flawed from the start since you just want fame and you don't actually want to know anything

Most child prodigies don't become famous scientists or mathematicians later in life. We're not that good at predicting success, the children who show the most promise usually just end up as normal people (or maladjusted autists).

Former child prodigy, started college for biochem at 12 but washed out about halfway through. I am 27 and I am currently experiencing what feels like dementia. I forget where I am or what I am doing and even that I forgot in the first place. I am ready for death.

Calculus is only seen as difficult because we are taught it later down the road, if it were taught earlier it wouldn't be seen as particularly more difficult than other math.

But it's taught later specifically because it builds on things you need to learn first earlier. Like you couldn't teach a kid calculus first and algebra second, right?

I think it could be taught in steps, so when introducing graphs there could be some Riemann sums, some simple derivatives when talking about the slope and stuff like that. I have no idea what user meant by Einstein mastering Calculus, I don't think it's that difficult unless we're talking about rigoristic calc.

If you want to become famous there are probably a lot easier ways than proving Riemann's.

desu, "child prodigies" who only skipped years dont feel like real prodigies, it is more the result of a perceptive teacher or parent who realizes how little difference in difficulty there is in primary education.
Every slightly smarter child could skip years, because the difference in difficulty in the first years of education is so insignificant, but this difference will get bigger and bigger as you get older. So it is a clever move to let your child skip classes early on in life, but it does not really indicate whether the child is talented or not, because he doesnt do anything that other children will also eventually have done.
I'm much more impressed by children who win olympiads or who do original research at a young age and I think this is a much better predictor of success.

Lemme tell you something. The child prodigies are fucking swell because their brains and dicks are bigger.

olymiad people are literally just brainlets who work hard to solve the problems that require very little creativity, at least in math/physics, I dont know about other fields. I competed in both IMO and Ipho and I was surrounded by asain brainlets who memorized every single theorem in the "problem practice book" but didn't know what a fucking norm was or didn't know what an abelian group is.

I agree with you about the research though, haven't done any myself but soon

don't believe all the hype kid no matter the discipline If it concieved by a human mind it can be learned

when you think about it, high school courses are so fucking easy that a child really could go through them with relative ease as long as they had a not so rare level of maturity and focus

plus, a kid doing this would have a crazy amount of time on their hands- no job, no sports, dont have to worry about college at all, etc

Wrong again brainlet, the true prodigies of the mathematical kind dont actually need to put any work in, they just know the stuff way better than the average kid. When you see the little asain and indian kids then you know they have no real talent just hard work but most of the time just memorization.

People say most mathematicians are dead at the age of 40 and they start malfunctioning at the age of 27. Think about it, that's before people in most fields even get their phd. You literally need as many years as you can get to be a mathematician, youd be hard pressed to find a mathematician/physicist who wasnt a prodigy to some degree. Although there are a few (Stephen Smale for example).

To the OP: Best bet for you is chem or bio (boneless science)

I assume by presonality you meant fame in math/physics. Brainlet you dont need prodigy to be Neil degrasse tyson or my nigga carl saga

knowing the methodology is one thing, understanding and applying the material is another

You sound like an engineer or someone thats just salty that they aint mathematicians/physicists

mathematics is a powerful tool that makes even the most illogical people logical, the applied sciences like physics for instance requires great intelligence that can not be taught

is this bait or are you actually fuckng serious, brainet?

hey man don't shit on my field, I enjoy saving people lives. have you done anything meaningful with your degree

I'm actually fucking serious try using pure brainpower rather than learning little tricks to improve your shit reasoning

what exactly is your field? And dont take the high road on this one. I doubt you ever saved a life and even if you did, why did you really become a what you are, ill tell you, to make more money.

fuck yeah

have you ever heard of sutton's law

So how can you come out and be the intellectual here? Crawl back into your shithole you asain/jew

I'm not claiming to be an intellectual, im just a guy with a family to support and I happen to have devoted my life to science

How can you call what you do science?
Firstly have ever wrote a paper in academia or are you just a doctor? But let me tell you the point of science is not to apply the methodology, thats engineering. There is a famous mathematician named GH hardy who literally wrote a book on how nice it is to know that his revolutionary ideas will never see practical use.

I'm not a doctor im a PA, i had a b.s. in biology and chemistry and Master's in Physician Assistant studies. What's the point in devoting your life to come up with ideas with no practical use, I don't care how smart you are because that's just retarded.

this. you have to be willing to put in the amount of time needed and thats all it really comes down to. I'm a reasonably intelligent person, and when I took calculus i realized that its not just a quick scan through a chapter and I have it mastered. I had to put in a considerable amount of effort to truly master calculus. I'm not a math guy by any means and i'm sure i'll be called a brainlet by everyone here, but this user is right. Anything can be learned. It just comes down to how much effort you're willing to put forth

Everything can be learned after some time but you cant come up with the ideas that einstein or galois had no matter how much time you put in. And let me ask you, how dare you talk to people like us about math and science when you had to work to master basic calculus? And Im sorry my dude but chances are you didt even master that. No amount of work will make you a mathematical genius, you just have it or you dont. However a clever doq can be taught by a patient human to take derivatives.

The problem here is you dont acutally know what science is. Taking calculus 1 for biologists doesn't give you the slightest idea of what math is. When it come to actually writing the papers and producing new mathematics as mathematicians do you can't simply follow directions to calculate slope, you need the insights of prodigies/a genius.

Learning mathematics on the other hand is mostly just lots of work, less if you are talented, but at the higher levels (grad level) it becomes less and less hard work and more who really has it in them to become a great scientist.

You can't become a great mathematician/physicist by simply putting in the work. You need some genius behind it.

i'm guessing this post is directed towards me. On some level I agree with you. I will never be a pioneer in the field of math because of my basic knowledge of calc. But what I meant was, I was never a math guy so the idea of even doing calculus was something I never thought I could do but once you open your mind up you realize you're capable of more than you ever thought possible. So all i'm saying is you don't have to be a child prodigy to make it. If math was my passion I have no doubts now that I could do it.

Math is probably the field where this is the least true. You do need to be a child prodigy to make it in math, it's commonly said in math that you are dead by 40 and past your twenties all your good ideas are gone. Could you be reasonably proficient in math just by studying hard? For sure, you could probably get a phd that way too and have some results but those results will never be important and you won't be a famous mathematician.

Also I don't quite get what OP means by math personality. If OP wants to be the people from numberphile (I assume those are great personalities) then no, you don't have to be a prodigy.

I am confident I could've mastered calculus at 15 if I'd not wasted two years dicking around.

Are you a NEET?

Literally anyone can master the calculus they teach you in AP calculus or freshman year at uni at the age of 15. Just memorize the derivative formulas, methods of integration and convergence tests and you're set.

You sound like an interesting individual user.

Remember that one child prodigy that everybody remembers? Me neither.

>mastery
>memorizing forumulas
spotted the brainlet

Everyone remembers Mozart

Gauss?

No popular personality was a child prodigy

Thats all it takes to master the calculus taught in high school or as a freshman.

No, that's all it takes to ace the exams. Memorizing formulas will not give you a mastery of any subject.

Omg, so could-have-been-child prodigies exist and I'm not just overthinking my abilities? Holy shit! When I was 8 I drew people and things hyperrealistically - as in VERY detailed. I also could take apart and build stuff very well. Seriously, why weren't my parents keen on getting me some guidance or something? I could have had a much better academic past.

Einstein?

/thread

Six foot tall twelve year-olds usually don't grow up to be 20ft tall adults. Child prodigies are a lot like that. For whatever reason their brains develop to being able to handle undergrad level math and science as children; but that doesn't turn them into Einstein as adults. The gap between them and people of the same age decreases with time.

>like this
...like *what*, brainlet? Crying and whining?

hard to tell if training discipline imposed by his father contributed to his success more than natural talent

Read wikipedia from Noether or Leibniz. They had no idea what math is before their twenties. Especially Noether was not suspicious in any way.

What if I just want to be a statistician or actuarian,is 130 IQ ~ enough?

nope sorry. go get your engineering degree, brainlet

>In early 1666, at age 19, Leibniz wrote his first book, De Arte Combinatoria (On the Combinatorial Art)

Maybe a couple centuries ago but now even child prodigies cant do shit

what do you consider "prodigy"?
does winning your country's math competition make you one?
(10 mln people)

calculus is brainlet tier you ape, unless he mastered low-tier analysis too you are claiming a feat comparable to "mastering" arithmetic.

>Winning math competition implies prodigy level in research math
Found the brainlet.