11 ms·

If Susan Can Learn Physics, So Can You (2013)

210 points by sebg 10y ago

mikebenfield 10y ago
I wholeheartedly endorse the idea that people should learn more physics and math, but I'm not sure the author's personal story supports her apparent message. She apparently went from 6th grade math to graduate quantum mechanics in a year and a half. This is highly atypical and is surely not an example of a "not smart" person overcoming and managing to learn some physics.
- aisofteng 10y ago
  I find that progression of mathematical maturity highly unlikely. It is possible and I won't discount it, but compressing 4+ years of study into 1.5 is not something that more than a few people can do.
  - 112012123 10y ago
    I tend to agree. Having gone through a full undergraduate and graduate physics program, and having met more than a few Nobel Laureate level physicists, I don't think I've met a single one that could go this fast. This is 5 to 6 years of just concentrated college-level physics, to say nothing of all the mathematical prerequisites.
    - keldaris 10y ago
      As a recently minted theoretical physics PhD, I feel rather the opposite way on this. The vast majority of Nobel laureates still went through the usual university progression, which isn't at all designed to cater to the smartest students, but rather to ensure that a substantial part (~15-20% or so in my program, but this varies greatly) of the student population can actually graduate and do at least some research work afterwards. Notwithstanding the actual thesis research, I feel like my program could have easily been compressed by a factor of at least 2x (dispensing with much of the repetition that goes into making sure most people can do the exercises and internalize the concepts) without compromising the final state of my education. Furthermore, if your goal isn't to do research work but rather to be able to follow along an average research article using the basic framework of QFT, you can also cut out much of the lab work. Susan is clearly considerably above average in intelligence and a quick study, and I'm impressed by her perseverence, but I don't think this is at all beyond what any good theoretical physicist could have done. It's just that they went a different path, going through the university system, a path with its own advantages, but brevity is not among them.
  - vixen99 10y ago
    In spite of Susan, seems you're hell for leather determined to set low levels on people's expectations. Albeit in the physical domain (actually it's more restrictive for reasons of actual capacity unlike mental activity)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-minute_mile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-minute_mile has something to say on the subject.
    - jackmott 10y ago
      There is something to be said for realism. The four minute mile didn't just topple for psychological reasons. It happened due to the development of better strategy (pacers), and continued to drop from there due to better training, better track materials, better shoes. The idea that it was purely a mental barrier is popular mythology.
  - paulpauper 10y ago
    her IQ could literally be one in a billion rarity
  - brianon99 10y ago
    That is definitely 5-6 years of study, because QFT is not taught in undergrad level in most cases.
- paulpauper 10y ago
  It def. seems unlikely to be able to learn advanced math and physics so quickly unless you have an IQ of 160+ or something, in which case why in the 21st century America with modern schooling and education, why would someone with such a high IQ enter college not knowing 6th grade math. I'm not a teacher, but aren't there clues of profound giftedness that manifest early in life? EDIT: she was homeschooled, which explains it...more info https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2016/8/15/20-unconventional-books-that-changed-my-life https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2016/8/15/20-unconventiona... Obv. profoundly smart The question is, is her almost overnight success reproducible by other smart people. Let's say you know calculus and linear algebra, QM is doable, I suppose. But still...mind blown. Even Ed Witten with a physicist for a dad still took 4-5 years to learn the stuff.
  - selimthegrim 10y ago
    There are stories floating around where Ed Witten supposedly tore through Jackson in two weeks flat.
  - dvtv75 10y ago
    I was under the impression that, due to the changes in the brain's plasticity, if you didn't pick up maths before a certain age you probably wouldn't be able to pick it up with ease after that. If this is correct, and she was older than that age, then there's a good possibility that there's not just IQ involved here.
- cbennett 10y ago
  The author's story is undoubtedly inspirational, to the point of being on the verge of unbelievable; and yet, the titular goal seems positively unattainable for not only average folk , but even above average folks , and possibly reserved just for those with an iq of 125/130+ (at least 2stdevs+) to even have a go at such an auto-didactic trial by fire at the frontiers of physics. What may be MORE interesting to see, not just for HN folks but in general, would be a parameterized set of possible/reachable (as well as 'stretch') goals, for folks interested in learning more about math/physics/cs at various bands of natural/innate ability. While these bands may not be set in stone and raw effort may help level up someone up one tier above their 'home' range, it is for instance frankly impossible for at least 99% of folks to ever become competent at QFT - and likely, 95-99% cannot even grok it in part.
danso 10y ago
FWIW, the author of this post is also the author of the "A Strange Year at Uber" post making the rounds. She also authored this previously discussed post about physics: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691963
grzm 10y ago
(2013)
dpkonofa 10y ago
How did she get through high school without taking algebra or geometry or any higher-level math courses? Aren't they required in the US?
- gexla 10y ago
  They would likely be on the typical graduation track, but there are alternatives for students with special circumstances.
- theparanoid 10y ago
  Homeschooling is fairly common in the US. Only the end of year state assessments are required for primary and middle school. Instead of highschool I took the GED, which is typical.
- Baeocystin 10y ago
  Not speaking to her case, but it happens. My family moved frequently, which meant hopping schools in different states. As a result, I missed many 'required' math classes, simply due to coincidences of scheduling. (This was in the 80's, well before the current attempts at cross-state standardization.) In my case, it did not cause me any particular trouble, as I was able to teach myself what I missed. My parents had predicted that this could be an issue, so they made sure I had the resources I needed. But if they had not been proactive, I could have easily graduated HS without ever having taken certain core classes.
- paulpauper 10y ago
  her story which explains how https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2016/8/15/20-unconventional-books-that-changed-my-life https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2016/8/15/20-unconventiona... scored very high on verbal part of ACT and got scholarships
gexla 10y ago
> I spent every minute of my days trying to learn everything I had never been able to learn from 6th-12th grade physics and math. I had the most difficult time possible taking intro physics and the beginning calculus courses. I kept going. I knew that if I was ever going to learn this stuff, I had to learn it now. If you have the drive to put in this "most difficult" effort, utilizing "every minute" of your days closing the gap then you can learn like Susan. I think the people who aren't "math people" or aren't "physics people" just aren't willing to put in much effort to learn it. They probably aren't all-consumed by it like Susan is. It's not that these subjects are inaccessible to some people, it's that some people don't want to learn these subjects.
jwdunne 10y ago
Hrm. Learning anything requires sustained and consistent focus on the subject. I don't think I can. I have tried learning physics, linear algebra, calculus, abstract algebra, discrete maths, proofs, drawing, game development, compiler construction, operating systems, to write, sound synthesis, music in general and many more. In the past year. I'm not thick so I have varying degrees of success but I never make much progress. The interest lasts from a few days to a few weeks. Computer science and programming are ones I just so happen to keep coming back to at closer intervals. I just wish I wrote more code, built more projects. There's a lot to learn and that is what lies in larger, more important projects. I know if I could get past this, I could make a positive, if only somewhat, contribution to our field. I have ADHD, I take my medication everyday. It helps but it isn't a silver bullet. I have learned more in the past year with medication that I have the years before. It is a problem that does not seem to be going away. Sorry Susan, I really admire your path. You've done well and it's inspirational. I just don't think I can learn psychics like you.
- fusiongyro 10y ago
  Maybe for her it's a linear progress down one path, but maybe for you it's more of a spiral across many topics.
  - jwdunne 10y ago
    That certainly sounds right! I documented my general process above and it pretty much makes a spiral pattern of filling deficiencies as they arise.
- adamnemecek 10y ago
  How much time have you devoted to learning these? I felt like I was in the same boat until I was able to fully devote myself to learning things at my pace. The worst part about the structured environment is that you go through things only once.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
misotaur 10y ago
Here is her recommendation for a study plan (2016) https://fledglingphysicist.com/2016/08/14/so-you-want-to-learn-physics/ https://fledglingphysicist.com/2016/08/14/so-you-want-to-lea...
melling 10y ago
Previous discussion with some good comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691963
- acqq 10y ago
  That's another article she wrote, and that one links to the article now discussed.
neutronicus 10y ago
Wherever she started, I'm impressed that her first reaction to QFT was anything other than "I thought this would blow my mind, but, dear God, it's impenetrable!"
- aisofteng 10y ago
  Why is that impressive? QFT was developed by humans. Humans are therefore capable of studying it, even if doing so requires substantial effort.
  - neutronicus 10y ago
    Because, in several years at a highly-regarded physics program, I've met very few people who understood QFT after their first (or second...) brushes with it. She may not have been "a physics person" for a long time, but she certainly became one!
    - aisofteng 10y ago
      It takes time to understand a new topic, and sometimes more than one try. However, that is the expected difficulty level for someone with an undergraduate degree in a related field. Going from middle school algebra to QFT in 1.5 years is technically possible, I suppose, but it sounds like a big load of bullshit to me.
      - paulpauper 10y ago
        it's odd how her blog posts from 2013 have amazon aff links in them ..but I think her story is real, its just that her iq is astronomically high. John Moffat, the inventor of the theory of Modified Gravity, went from learning calculus to general relativity in a year, and this was in the 50's, so there was no internet to help him.
        cbennett 10y ago
        I didn't notice about the affiliate links, but her story is undeniably real: reading some of the posts on her fledling physicist blog (previous one) , one is struck with the sense of an immediate and lucid understanding of deep physics problems that probably take other early stage academics many years to grok. And , as GP stated, QFT is notoriously thorny, and an immediate comprehension of that is the hallmark of something very special. I don't know what her IQ really is, I don't think astronomical, but it is certainly very anomalous. I only have a truly deep perspective on my own abilities, and just based on this I think I can say somewhat confidently she is at least a generation above mine in general ability-, for myself, having jumped from standard engineering undergrad, to software engineering and algorithm design, to applied physics, and now finally to nanoelectronics , each of which I can say I somewhat mastered within the space of a year-1.5yrs, and statisically I konw I am 3.5-4 standard deviations above mean (at age 10 and 14 I tested 164 and 158 respectively), but all of that did not give me the power to so quickly grasp QFT- remained incomprehensible to me in my first year grad school classes, and probably always will, unless I invested massive time into mastering it. But I want to comment on another thing I find highly strange, which is that someone of such rare intelligence would leave academia (ostensibly she was at one time considering staying in Physics as a grad student) back to software architecture, rather than gravitating to the edge of mathematical physics- or continuing to follow that road to reality, to riff on Penrose. Indeed, I found myself following the inverse path. And ultimately, Moffat & his correspondents in our generation,- possibly another lady, like Pasterski looks like one possible member of this cohort- will be the ones to pave the next part of it.
sna1l 10y ago
A big problem with schools in the US is that grades carry so much weight. Taking a class which you don't have an immediate aptitude for is frowned upon. Kids should be allowed to take more risks to learn different things.
- paulpauper 10y ago
  agree. A human lifespan is 80 years, but society makes the first 18 count the most, neglecting or overlooking the rest
dkarapetyan 10y ago
http://duncan.mkz.com/what-one-fool-can-do-another-can/ http://duncan.mkz.com/what-one-fool-can-do-another-can/ “Right. I don’t believe in the idea that there are a few peculiar people capable of understanding math, and the rest of the world is normal. Math is a human discovery, and it’s no more complicated than humans can understand. I had a calculus book once that said, ‘What one fool can do, another can.’ What we’ve been able to work out about nature may look abstract and threatening to someone who hasn’t studied it, but it was fools who did it, and in the next generation, all the fools will understand it. There’s a tendency to pomposity in all this, to make it deep and profound.” – Richard Feynman, Omni 1979
james_niro 10y ago
While I was in college I didn't pursue Physics , math or or computer science due to bad entrance advisement and knowledge of English language. Two years ago, I decided that I want to code and pursue computer science, I loved every minute of it, from there I gained interest in physics and math. Now I am back in college pursuin computer science and taking physic and math classes. I really enjoy my classes, great stuff
MatekCopatek 10y ago
In my experience, this is even more true for art. Where I live, physics and math are a part of obligatory general education, so you'll definitely have to study them until you're 15. After that, if you stay in the general education system (which is true for 95% of people who plan to go to college), you'll have to learn them for 4 more years. Sure, some people will develop a likeness/talent for it and others will hate it, but everyone needs to pass. Only when you go to college at 19 will people start telling you that perhaps you need to be a physics person to study physics and that it's not for everyone. Art, on the other hand, is considered something magical and depending entirely on your talents right from the start. Art subjects barely touch on any practice, you have to learn a bit about the history and you pass. But I feel it's absolutely the same. Everyone can (and IMHO should be forced to) learn to read sheet music, play a simple tune on the recorder, draw still life with correct shading and proportions, write a short poem etc. Personal involvment would give people a much deeper understanding of the topic. I mean, imagine if physics only consisted of everyone learning about Newton, Galileo and Einstein with just the smart kids doing calculations.
- option_greek 10y ago
  Can we take a step back and make the physics/math optional instead of forcing art too on people :) I never understood why things are mandatory in education. Given a choice I would skip history (apart from reading on my own time what ever interests me),civics and anything that end up quizzing my memory instead of skill (aka memorized processes).
  - HarryHirsch 10y ago
    I never understood why things are mandatory in education. Perhaps it's to combat entrenched prejudice. Back then we would make jokes about "Physics for Women", i.e. the non-calculus kind for non-majors. Everyone who would joke like that would know that physics is for anyone, just look around the lecture hall where 25 % of the audience are female, but talking like this he would pretend to be a Neanderthaler from an era thankfully past. Forward to the present, where in Britain they make physics more "accessible" by watering the subject down. That doesn't help groups that are traditionally excluded, they need to be included, forceful if necessary. Same thing holds true for the Arts.
paulpauper 10y ago
Tired of these 'how I learned XYZ really fast' stories. I think all it shows it that extremely high-IQ people can learn things really fast.
- cbennett 10y ago
  Each of us has the unfortunate case of being a population sample size of n=1. I think each of us, on some deep level , have met and recognized our own learning rates- and not only the linear rate, but derivative- and I agree with you that this rate of change is deeply linked to fluid intelligence
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- fizixer 10y ago
  > ... extremely high-IQ people ... Don't underestimate the drive for people to lie or greatly exaggerate their achievements over the internet. I personally find the post not entirely believable. E.g., - First she says "I had learned nothing beyond sixth grade math: no algebra, ...". Then she says "I had been lucky enough to be introduced to ... some algebra ..." - "You see, I had no formal education". Oh wait, that still leaves out the possibility of thousands of hours of khan-academy, and youtube and what not, for math, physics, programming, during high-school, summers, evenings, freshman college, sophomore college, etc, etc. (Yeah no.). - She was ignorant in math and physics in June 2012, took a QFT class around Dec 2012, and had an eye opening experience. It's good poetry but not clear what she meant by that. (could be as simple as sitting in a QFT class without credits, and being able to follow some of the discussion) - She was taking QFT in Dec 2012, and yet she graduates with BA in physics as last as May of 2014 (from her profile page). So very likely QFT was a giant namedrop, and if you ignore that, spending 2 years on undergrad math and physics coursework, when you've already taken logic and set theory, leading up to a bachelor's degree is pretty routine for most students. - She worked on the ATLAS project. But. Doing data analysis and "helping design electronics". That sounds like a computer nerd who liked to dabble into physics just for the sake of picking a major for the degree (not that hard).
geff82 10y ago
I feel the same with Computer Science. It is so freaking complicated! I work in IT, I can program, I am totally immersed in UNIX culture. Yet I don't manage to sit down and study CS as I would like to, as I fear I won't get over the rather theoretical subjects. But you know what? Somehow this short article really resonated. I will sit down and hunt my degree, starting today. (Disclosure: I am already enrolled in a online-university program here in Germany, which is almost free, but so far I only took two exams on rather practical subjects I had no problems with).
- ejanus 10y ago
  Is your school English based ?
  - geff82 10y ago
    No, pure German. www.fernuni-hagen.de. It is an official state run university.
afarrell 10y ago
Does anyone have any ideas how to persuade someone that they are capable of learning things? My mother, ex-girlfriend, and now wife have all been firmly convinced that they were too math-dumb to learn physics or programming. Its fine if people don't have an interest in something of course. What I'm wondering is that if you know someone to be intelligent and you are able to offer support in learning a subject, is it possible to persuade them that they are mentally capable of learning it? I worry that after I adopt, my daughter is going to fall into the same trap.
- facepalm 10y ago
  If they make that claim as an excuse for not having to learn things, probably you won't be able to change their "beliefs". Otherwise maybe point out other complex things that are doing.
- watwut 10y ago
  "is it possible to persuade them that they are mentally capable of learning it?" Depends on why they think they are incapable of doing it. Whatever the reason, it is possible that they do not see value in learning it and putting in effort. It might be that they failed in the past - or never tried because they always assumed they can not do it. However, if your worry is the kid, then talk about that worry with them directly. Don't go around trying to manipulate them into learning something they do not care about. Just say that you worry about the baby picking up the attitude and thus having less options in life (and growing up less capable as a result). Healthy kids are super good in picking up attitudes like that, so the worry is well grounded. Your wife might be more open to not make herself less capable then she is in front of kid for the sake of kid then to spend a lot of effort on something she does not care about.
Shinchy 10y ago
Or if you just want the basics... watch Cosmos.
paulpauper 10y ago
I would be curious to see a study of people with average IQs, to see if they can learn very advanced math and physics concepts, with large monetary rewards for successful completion. An offer of $100k to learn General Relativity may entice someone with only an IQ of only 90-100 to be so motivated as to learn it and understand it. The large monetary reward is an important component, because people won't be motivated to something unless it's worth their time. If it's successful, the learning techniques could be applied to the general population.
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  Many studies show monetary rewards make it less likely people will learn things. So you've basically set things up for failure. As Susan points out in the article learning physics for her is about mental and spiritual enrichment. By introducing money into the mix you are changing the framing and putting things into an economic frame. The rules are different in economic frames.
- dvtv75 10y ago
  Look up the Flynn effect on Wiki, it's not directly related to what you've asked but it may lead you in the right direction.
ancarda 10y ago
This is half a rant and half a cry for help. I see topics like this on HN often; "Anyone can learn math!" but I really don't think I can. Not because I'm a defeatist and have given up but because I've tried basically all my life to understand math and I've never managed to grasp anything but the most basic concepts. I've tried different teachers, my friends have tried tutoring me, I've tried Khan Academy. No matter what I do, the information just won't stick. The connections in my brain aren't made. What I don't understand is I learn other subjects relatively well. It's just math I can't grasp which really sucks because I love science and cryptography; two fields I imagine I could appreciate more with a solid mathematical background. It's worth noting I have some of the symptoms of dyscalculia, so perhaps my brain isn't really built to do math and is why I struggle so much? It's frustrating when I see "anyone can learn math!" because I've gotten shit from people in the past like "you can't be a good programmer if you're bad at math". I feel like we need to be more accepting that people have strengths and weaknesses in different areas. I'm tired of feeling ashamed to be bad at math, especially as I'm not sure it's even my fault anymore.
- paulpauper 10y ago
  It's not your fault...her IQ is probably one in 100 million ...it's called winning the genetic powerball. Like why is Ed Witten so smart at math and physics? His brain is wired that way to understand those concepts very easily relative to the amount of effort required. If we break down IQ into verbal and math components, some people have very high verbal IQ and only average math; some both. Learning QED and general relativity is often unobtainable even for people who are 'good at math'.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    > If we break down IQ into verbal and math components, some people have very high verbal IQ and only average math; some both. Yes but note that verbal and math scores are highly correlated. Likewise, basketball and football are different skills, and some people are much better at one than the other, but if we look over a population, being very good at one is a strong predictor that you are much better than average at the other.
- 10y ago
cauterized 10y ago
This article makes a major point that a lot of comments seem to be missing. She's criticizing how people get pigeonholed -- not just early in their careers but early in childhood -- as being "math people" or "physics people" or "humanities people". And that those categories and labels limit people who in fact are capable of learning and enjoying STEM subjects. It's like how there's an unspoken rule in some corners of the tech industry that someone who first picked up programming later than high school can never be a "real programmer". Which is bullshit and does both individuals and the industry a major disservice.
rokosbasilisk 10y ago
I dont think this is fair. Susan is a genius, she has multiple degrees from top universities. The average person hears things like this and only gets demoralized. Its just like the lean in campaign. What worked for the 1% isnt going to work for the average person.

210 points by sebg 10y ago

I wholeheartedly endorse the idea that people should learn more physics and math, but I'm not sure the author's personal story supports her apparent message. She apparently went from 6th grade math to graduate quantum mechanics in a year and a half. This is highly atypical and is surely not an example of a "not smart" person overcoming and managing to learn some physics.

aisofteng 10y ago
I find that progression of mathematical maturity highly unlikely. It is possible and I won't discount it, but compressing 4+ years of study into 1.5 is not something that more than a few people can do.
- 112012123 10y ago
  I tend to agree. Having gone through a full undergraduate and graduate physics program, and having met more than a few Nobel Laureate level physicists, I don't think I've met a single one that could go this fast. This is 5 to 6 years of just concentrated college-level physics, to say nothing of all the mathematical prerequisites.
  - keldaris 10y ago
    As a recently minted theoretical physics PhD, I feel rather the opposite way on this. The vast majority of Nobel laureates still went through the usual university progression, which isn't at all designed to cater to the smartest students, but rather to ensure that a substantial part (~15-20% or so in my program, but this varies greatly) of the student population can actually graduate and do at least some research work afterwards. Notwithstanding the actual thesis research, I feel like my program could have easily been compressed by a factor of at least 2x (dispensing with much of the repetition that goes into making sure most people can do the exercises and internalize the concepts) without compromising the final state of my education. Furthermore, if your goal isn't to do research work but rather to be able to follow along an average research article using the basic framework of QFT, you can also cut out much of the lab work. Susan is clearly considerably above average in intelligence and a quick study, and I'm impressed by her perseverence, but I don't think this is at all beyond what any good theoretical physicist could have done. It's just that they went a different path, going through the university system, a path with its own advantages, but brevity is not among them.
- vixen99 10y ago
  In spite of Susan, seems you're hell for leather determined to set low levels on people's expectations. Albeit in the physical domain (actually it's more restrictive for reasons of actual capacity unlike mental activity)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-minute_mile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-minute_mile has something to say on the subject.
  - jackmott 10y ago
    There is something to be said for realism. The four minute mile didn't just topple for psychological reasons. It happened due to the development of better strategy (pacers), and continued to drop from there due to better training, better track materials, better shoes. The idea that it was purely a mental barrier is popular mythology.
- paulpauper 10y ago
  her IQ could literally be one in a billion rarity
- brianon99 10y ago
  That is definitely 5-6 years of study, because QFT is not taught in undergrad level in most cases.
paulpauper 10y ago
It def. seems unlikely to be able to learn advanced math and physics so quickly unless you have an IQ of 160+ or something, in which case why in the 21st century America with modern schooling and education, why would someone with such a high IQ enter college not knowing 6th grade math. I'm not a teacher, but aren't there clues of profound giftedness that manifest early in life? EDIT: she was homeschooled, which explains it...more info https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2016/8/15/20-unconventional-books-that-changed-my-life https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2016/8/15/20-unconventiona... Obv. profoundly smart The question is, is her almost overnight success reproducible by other smart people. Let's say you know calculus and linear algebra, QM is doable, I suppose. But still...mind blown. Even Ed Witten with a physicist for a dad still took 4-5 years to learn the stuff.
- selimthegrim 10y ago
  There are stories floating around where Ed Witten supposedly tore through Jackson in two weeks flat.
- dvtv75 10y ago
  I was under the impression that, due to the changes in the brain's plasticity, if you didn't pick up maths before a certain age you probably wouldn't be able to pick it up with ease after that. If this is correct, and she was older than that age, then there's a good possibility that there's not just IQ involved here.
cbennett 10y ago
The author's story is undoubtedly inspirational, to the point of being on the verge of unbelievable; and yet, the titular goal seems positively unattainable for not only average folk , but even above average folks , and possibly reserved just for those with an iq of 125/130+ (at least 2stdevs+) to even have a go at such an auto-didactic trial by fire at the frontiers of physics. What may be MORE interesting to see, not just for HN folks but in general, would be a parameterized set of possible/reachable (as well as 'stretch') goals, for folks interested in learning more about math/physics/cs at various bands of natural/innate ability. While these bands may not be set in stone and raw effort may help level up someone up one tier above their 'home' range, it is for instance frankly impossible for at least 99% of folks to ever become competent at QFT - and likely, 95-99% cannot even grok it in part.

danso 10y ago

FWIW, the author of this post is also the author of the "A Strange Year at Uber" post making the rounds. She also authored this previously discussed post about physics: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691963

grzm 10y ago

(2013)

dpkonofa 10y ago

How did she get through high school without taking algebra or geometry or any higher-level math courses? Aren't they required in the US?

gexla 10y ago
They would likely be on the typical graduation track, but there are alternatives for students with special circumstances.
theparanoid 10y ago
Homeschooling is fairly common in the US. Only the end of year state assessments are required for primary and middle school. Instead of highschool I took the GED, which is typical.
Baeocystin 10y ago
Not speaking to her case, but it happens. My family moved frequently, which meant hopping schools in different states. As a result, I missed many 'required' math classes, simply due to coincidences of scheduling. (This was in the 80's, well before the current attempts at cross-state standardization.) In my case, it did not cause me any particular trouble, as I was able to teach myself what I missed. My parents had predicted that this could be an issue, so they made sure I had the resources I needed. But if they had not been proactive, I could have easily graduated HS without ever having taken certain core classes.
paulpauper 10y ago
her story which explains how https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2016/8/15/20-unconventional-books-that-changed-my-life https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2016/8/15/20-unconventiona... scored very high on verbal part of ACT and got scholarships

gexla 10y ago

> I spent every minute of my days trying to learn everything I had never been able to learn from 6th-12th grade physics and math. I had the most difficult time possible taking intro physics and the beginning calculus courses. I kept going. I knew that if I was ever going to learn this stuff, I had to learn it now. If you have the drive to put in this "most difficult" effort, utilizing "every minute" of your days closing the gap then you can learn like Susan. I think the people who aren't "math people" or aren't "physics people" just aren't willing to put in much effort to learn it. They probably aren't all-consumed by it like Susan is. It's not that these subjects are inaccessible to some people, it's that some people don't want to learn these subjects.

jwdunne 10y ago

Hrm. Learning anything requires sustained and consistent focus on the subject. I don't think I can. I have tried learning physics, linear algebra, calculus, abstract algebra, discrete maths, proofs, drawing, game development, compiler construction, operating systems, to write, sound synthesis, music in general and many more. In the past year. I'm not thick so I have varying degrees of success but I never make much progress. The interest lasts from a few days to a few weeks. Computer science and programming are ones I just so happen to keep coming back to at closer intervals. I just wish I wrote more code, built more projects. There's a lot to learn and that is what lies in larger, more important projects. I know if I could get past this, I could make a positive, if only somewhat, contribution to our field. I have ADHD, I take my medication everyday. It helps but it isn't a silver bullet. I have learned more in the past year with medication that I have the years before. It is a problem that does not seem to be going away. Sorry Susan, I really admire your path. You've done well and it's inspirational. I just don't think I can learn psychics like you.

fusiongyro 10y ago
Maybe for her it's a linear progress down one path, but maybe for you it's more of a spiral across many topics.
- jwdunne 10y ago
  That certainly sounds right! I documented my general process above and it pretty much makes a spiral pattern of filling deficiencies as they arise.
adamnemecek 10y ago
How much time have you devoted to learning these? I felt like I was in the same boat until I was able to fully devote myself to learning things at my pace. The worst part about the structured environment is that you go through things only once.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

misotaur 10y ago

Here is her recommendation for a study plan (2016) https://fledglingphysicist.com/2016/08/14/so-you-want-to-learn-physics/ https://fledglingphysicist.com/2016/08/14/so-you-want-to-lea...

melling 10y ago

Previous discussion with some good comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691963

acqq 10y ago
That's another article she wrote, and that one links to the article now discussed.

neutronicus 10y ago

Wherever she started, I'm impressed that her first reaction to QFT was anything other than "I thought this would blow my mind, but, dear God, it's impenetrable!"

aisofteng 10y ago
Why is that impressive? QFT was developed by humans. Humans are therefore capable of studying it, even if doing so requires substantial effort.
- neutronicus 10y ago
  Because, in several years at a highly-regarded physics program, I've met very few people who understood QFT after their first (or second...) brushes with it. She may not have been "a physics person" for a long time, but she certainly became one!
  - aisofteng 10y ago
    It takes time to understand a new topic, and sometimes more than one try. However, that is the expected difficulty level for someone with an undergraduate degree in a related field. Going from middle school algebra to QFT in 1.5 years is technically possible, I suppose, but it sounds like a big load of bullshit to me.
    - paulpauper 10y ago
      it's odd how her blog posts from 2013 have amazon aff links in them ..but I think her story is real, its just that her iq is astronomically high. John Moffat, the inventor of the theory of Modified Gravity, went from learning calculus to general relativity in a year, and this was in the 50's, so there was no internet to help him.
      - cbennett 10y ago
        I didn't notice about the affiliate links, but her story is undeniably real: reading some of the posts on her fledling physicist blog (previous one) , one is struck with the sense of an immediate and lucid understanding of deep physics problems that probably take other early stage academics many years to grok. And , as GP stated, QFT is notoriously thorny, and an immediate comprehension of that is the hallmark of something very special. I don't know what her IQ really is, I don't think astronomical, but it is certainly very anomalous. I only have a truly deep perspective on my own abilities, and just based on this I think I can say somewhat confidently she is at least a generation above mine in general ability-, for myself, having jumped from standard engineering undergrad, to software engineering and algorithm design, to applied physics, and now finally to nanoelectronics , each of which I can say I somewhat mastered within the space of a year-1.5yrs, and statisically I konw I am 3.5-4 standard deviations above mean (at age 10 and 14 I tested 164 and 158 respectively), but all of that did not give me the power to so quickly grasp QFT- remained incomprehensible to me in my first year grad school classes, and probably always will, unless I invested massive time into mastering it. But I want to comment on another thing I find highly strange, which is that someone of such rare intelligence would leave academia (ostensibly she was at one time considering staying in Physics as a grad student) back to software architecture, rather than gravitating to the edge of mathematical physics- or continuing to follow that road to reality, to riff on Penrose. Indeed, I found myself following the inverse path. And ultimately, Moffat & his correspondents in our generation,- possibly another lady, like Pasterski looks like one possible member of this cohort- will be the ones to pave the next part of it.

sna1l 10y ago

A big problem with schools in the US is that grades carry so much weight. Taking a class which you don't have an immediate aptitude for is frowned upon. Kids should be allowed to take more risks to learn different things.

paulpauper 10y ago
agree. A human lifespan is 80 years, but society makes the first 18 count the most, neglecting or overlooking the rest

dkarapetyan 10y ago

http://duncan.mkz.com/what-one-fool-can-do-another-can/ http://duncan.mkz.com/what-one-fool-can-do-another-can/ “Right. I don’t believe in the idea that there are a few peculiar people capable of understanding math, and the rest of the world is normal. Math is a human discovery, and it’s no more complicated than humans can understand. I had a calculus book once that said, ‘What one fool can do, another can.’ What we’ve been able to work out about nature may look abstract and threatening to someone who hasn’t studied it, but it was fools who did it, and in the next generation, all the fools will understand it. There’s a tendency to pomposity in all this, to make it deep and profound.” – Richard Feynman, Omni 1979

james_niro 10y ago

While I was in college I didn't pursue Physics , math or or computer science due to bad entrance advisement and knowledge of English language. Two years ago, I decided that I want to code and pursue computer science, I loved every minute of it, from there I gained interest in physics and math. Now I am back in college pursuin computer science and taking physic and math classes. I really enjoy my classes, great stuff

MatekCopatek 10y ago

In my experience, this is even more true for art. Where I live, physics and math are a part of obligatory general education, so you'll definitely have to study them until you're 15. After that, if you stay in the general education system (which is true for 95% of people who plan to go to college), you'll have to learn them for 4 more years. Sure, some people will develop a likeness/talent for it and others will hate it, but everyone needs to pass. Only when you go to college at 19 will people start telling you that perhaps you need to be a physics person to study physics and that it's not for everyone. Art, on the other hand, is considered something magical and depending entirely on your talents right from the start. Art subjects barely touch on any practice, you have to learn a bit about the history and you pass. But I feel it's absolutely the same. Everyone can (and IMHO should be forced to) learn to read sheet music, play a simple tune on the recorder, draw still life with correct shading and proportions, write a short poem etc. Personal involvment would give people a much deeper understanding of the topic. I mean, imagine if physics only consisted of everyone learning about Newton, Galileo and Einstein with just the smart kids doing calculations.

option_greek 10y ago
Can we take a step back and make the physics/math optional instead of forcing art too on people :) I never understood why things are mandatory in education. Given a choice I would skip history (apart from reading on my own time what ever interests me),civics and anything that end up quizzing my memory instead of skill (aka memorized processes).
- HarryHirsch 10y ago
  I never understood why things are mandatory in education. Perhaps it's to combat entrenched prejudice. Back then we would make jokes about "Physics for Women", i.e. the non-calculus kind for non-majors. Everyone who would joke like that would know that physics is for anyone, just look around the lecture hall where 25 % of the audience are female, but talking like this he would pretend to be a Neanderthaler from an era thankfully past. Forward to the present, where in Britain they make physics more "accessible" by watering the subject down. That doesn't help groups that are traditionally excluded, they need to be included, forceful if necessary. Same thing holds true for the Arts.

paulpauper 10y ago

Tired of these 'how I learned XYZ really fast' stories. I think all it shows it that extremely high-IQ people can learn things really fast.

cbennett 10y ago
Each of us has the unfortunate case of being a population sample size of n=1. I think each of us, on some deep level , have met and recognized our own learning rates- and not only the linear rate, but derivative- and I agree with you that this rate of change is deeply linked to fluid intelligence
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
fizixer 10y ago
> ... extremely high-IQ people ... Don't underestimate the drive for people to lie or greatly exaggerate their achievements over the internet. I personally find the post not entirely believable. E.g., - First she says "I had learned nothing beyond sixth grade math: no algebra, ...". Then she says "I had been lucky enough to be introduced to ... some algebra ..." - "You see, I had no formal education". Oh wait, that still leaves out the possibility of thousands of hours of khan-academy, and youtube and what not, for math, physics, programming, during high-school, summers, evenings, freshman college, sophomore college, etc, etc. (Yeah no.). - She was ignorant in math and physics in June 2012, took a QFT class around Dec 2012, and had an eye opening experience. It's good poetry but not clear what she meant by that. (could be as simple as sitting in a QFT class without credits, and being able to follow some of the discussion) - She was taking QFT in Dec 2012, and yet she graduates with BA in physics as last as May of 2014 (from her profile page). So very likely QFT was a giant namedrop, and if you ignore that, spending 2 years on undergrad math and physics coursework, when you've already taken logic and set theory, leading up to a bachelor's degree is pretty routine for most students. - She worked on the ATLAS project. But. Doing data analysis and "helping design electronics". That sounds like a computer nerd who liked to dabble into physics just for the sake of picking a major for the degree (not that hard).

geff82 10y ago

I feel the same with Computer Science. It is so freaking complicated! I work in IT, I can program, I am totally immersed in UNIX culture. Yet I don't manage to sit down and study CS as I would like to, as I fear I won't get over the rather theoretical subjects. But you know what? Somehow this short article really resonated. I will sit down and hunt my degree, starting today. (Disclosure: I am already enrolled in a online-university program here in Germany, which is almost free, but so far I only took two exams on rather practical subjects I had no problems with).

ejanus 10y ago
Is your school English based ?
- geff82 10y ago
  No, pure German. www.fernuni-hagen.de. It is an official state run university.

afarrell 10y ago

Does anyone have any ideas how to persuade someone that they are capable of learning things? My mother, ex-girlfriend, and now wife have all been firmly convinced that they were too math-dumb to learn physics or programming. Its fine if people don't have an interest in something of course. What I'm wondering is that if you know someone to be intelligent and you are able to offer support in learning a subject, is it possible to persuade them that they are mentally capable of learning it? I worry that after I adopt, my daughter is going to fall into the same trap.

facepalm 10y ago
If they make that claim as an excuse for not having to learn things, probably you won't be able to change their "beliefs". Otherwise maybe point out other complex things that are doing.
watwut 10y ago
"is it possible to persuade them that they are mentally capable of learning it?" Depends on why they think they are incapable of doing it. Whatever the reason, it is possible that they do not see value in learning it and putting in effort. It might be that they failed in the past - or never tried because they always assumed they can not do it. However, if your worry is the kid, then talk about that worry with them directly. Don't go around trying to manipulate them into learning something they do not care about. Just say that you worry about the baby picking up the attitude and thus having less options in life (and growing up less capable as a result). Healthy kids are super good in picking up attitudes like that, so the worry is well grounded. Your wife might be more open to not make herself less capable then she is in front of kid for the sake of kid then to spend a lot of effort on something she does not care about.

Shinchy 10y ago

Or if you just want the basics... watch Cosmos.

paulpauper 10y ago

I would be curious to see a study of people with average IQs, to see if they can learn very advanced math and physics concepts, with large monetary rewards for successful completion. An offer of $100k to learn General Relativity may entice someone with only an IQ of only 90-100 to be so motivated as to learn it and understand it. The large monetary reward is an important component, because people won't be motivated to something unless it's worth their time. If it's successful, the learning techniques could be applied to the general population.

dkarapetyan 10y ago
Many studies show monetary rewards make it less likely people will learn things. So you've basically set things up for failure. As Susan points out in the article learning physics for her is about mental and spiritual enrichment. By introducing money into the mix you are changing the framing and putting things into an economic frame. The rules are different in economic frames.
dvtv75 10y ago
Look up the Flynn effect on Wiki, it's not directly related to what you've asked but it may lead you in the right direction.

ancarda 10y ago

This is half a rant and half a cry for help. I see topics like this on HN often; "Anyone can learn math!" but I really don't think I can. Not because I'm a defeatist and have given up but because I've tried basically all my life to understand math and I've never managed to grasp anything but the most basic concepts. I've tried different teachers, my friends have tried tutoring me, I've tried Khan Academy. No matter what I do, the information just won't stick. The connections in my brain aren't made. What I don't understand is I learn other subjects relatively well. It's just math I can't grasp which really sucks because I love science and cryptography; two fields I imagine I could appreciate more with a solid mathematical background. It's worth noting I have some of the symptoms of dyscalculia, so perhaps my brain isn't really built to do math and is why I struggle so much? It's frustrating when I see "anyone can learn math!" because I've gotten shit from people in the past like "you can't be a good programmer if you're bad at math". I feel like we need to be more accepting that people have strengths and weaknesses in different areas. I'm tired of feeling ashamed to be bad at math, especially as I'm not sure it's even my fault anymore.

paulpauper 10y ago
It's not your fault...her IQ is probably one in 100 million ...it's called winning the genetic powerball. Like why is Ed Witten so smart at math and physics? His brain is wired that way to understand those concepts very easily relative to the amount of effort required. If we break down IQ into verbal and math components, some people have very high verbal IQ and only average math; some both. Learning QED and general relativity is often unobtainable even for people who are 'good at math'.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > If we break down IQ into verbal and math components, some people have very high verbal IQ and only average math; some both. Yes but note that verbal and math scores are highly correlated. Likewise, basketball and football are different skills, and some people are much better at one than the other, but if we look over a population, being very good at one is a strong predictor that you are much better than average at the other.
10y ago

cauterized 10y ago

This article makes a major point that a lot of comments seem to be missing. She's criticizing how people get pigeonholed -- not just early in their careers but early in childhood -- as being "math people" or "physics people" or "humanities people". And that those categories and labels limit people who in fact are capable of learning and enjoying STEM subjects. It's like how there's an unspoken rule in some corners of the tech industry that someone who first picked up programming later than high school can never be a "real programmer". Which is bullshit and does both individuals and the industry a major disservice.

rokosbasilisk 10y ago

I dont think this is fair. Susan is a genius, she has multiple degrees from top universities. The average person hears things like this and only gets demoralized. Its just like the lean in campaign. What worked for the 1% isnt going to work for the average person.