/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11496379
Prodigies never turn out remarkable. Take the humble-hardworker-pill, and spit on the face of (social) media

>>11496379
can some physicist chad clarify if her accomplishments as incredible as wikipedia makes them out to be?

>>11496379
her forehead though, goddamn.

>>11496379
>Trust fund kid hyped by the media turns out to be a talentless hack

How could this happen?

>>11496379
she is now a postdoc at princeton. and she has private funding coming in for her to be a part of a new “center” for theoretical physics. she did E X T R E M E L Y well

>>11496449
she did good work on the strominger triangle, between memories and soft theorems and asymptotic symmetries. this is not mainstream enough to have a wiki page on it, but in my opinion it is important fundamental work. stroking ed is a master (probably a grandmaster but in chess there are many grandmasters who are crappy compared to Carlsen just like in physics there are relatively crappy grandmasters compared to Witten) and she did substantial enough work to get her name added to Strominger’s in reference to his (her) triangle.

her arxiv has not been super great since moving to princeton, but that is typical. even great geniuses need a year or two to get into the postdoc groove. i think it will all hinge on whether these soft theorem related ideas make any difference. maybe they will, as strominger says, but honestly who cares about low energy infrared stuff? it might turn out to be useless and sabrina will become a footnote because it’s uninteresting. but maybe not. who knows

>>11496379
she is now a postdoc at princeton. and she has private funding coming in for her to be a part of a new “center” for theoretical physics. she did E X T R E M E L Y well

>>11496449
she did good work on the strominger triangle, between memories and soft theorems and asymptotic symmetries. this is not mainstream enough to have a wiki page on it, but in my opinion it is important fundamental work. strominger is a master (probably a grandmaster but in chess there are many grandmasters who are crappy compared to Carlsen just like in physics there are relatively crappy grandmasters compared to Witten) and she did substantial enough work to get her name added to Strominger’s in reference to his (her) triangle.

her arxiv has not been super great since moving to princeton, but that is typical. even great geniuses need a year or two to get into the postdoc groove. i think it will all hinge on whether these soft theorem related ideas make any difference. maybe they will, as strominger says, but honestly who cares about low energy infrared stuff? it might turn out to be useless and sabrina will become a footnote because it’s uninteresting. but maybe not. who knows

(reposted because autocorrect hilariously corrected “strominger” to “stroking ed”)

>>11496379
>> Publishes physics paper leeching off the work of other physicists
>> "The Next Einstein"
That's accurate though. Sounds correct.

>>11496616
follow-up:
if anyone wants to know what sabrina worked on under strominger then he summed it up in these grad-student-level lectures
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.05448.pdf

>>11496458
>not being attracted to large forebrains
never gonna make it (it being a large nursery of genius kids)

>>11496379
the media found another """female""" to push their feminist agenda with.

>>11496379
>>11496449
Sometimes importance of luck is overlooked.

>>11496781
who?

>>11496379
She honestly doesn't seem that bad. Personally states she doesn't believe in iq and has a pretty based attitude.

https://physicsgirl.com/1993.pdf

You people have unrealistic standards for prodigies. A tiny tiny percent of scientists become famous for their discoveries. Nobody can predict the next Einstein. Even if a prodigy like her is 100x more likely to become famous than a random grad student, her actual chances in absolute terms are still abysmally low.

If she is actively publishing within her field and well respected by the five or so experts sharing her area of research then she has made it and is a success story.

>>11498029
>You people have unrealistic standards for prodigies.
Being a 'prodigy' is nothing more than people having unrealistic expectations of you.

>>11496422
Sounds like you'd go out of your way to impede a prodigies progress

>>11498007
>she doesn't believe in iq
IQ is the most tested theory in psychology. people who don't believe in IQ are massive retards.

>>11498073
Einstein, Hawkings never tested for iq and didn't believe in the iq meme.

>>11498007
>Personally states she doesn't believe in iq

given high IQ is an unearned privilege which comes primarily from your genetics + early developmental randomness, it makes sense many smart people would prefer to believe their accomplishments are due to hard work rather than just a good spin of the genetic recombination lottery

honestly browsing your link it seems like an extremely lucky privileged person (her father was an electrical engineer IIRC) is trying to downplay how much her success has come from factors outside of her control, but w/e

>>11498081
never tested doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
your cognitive skills seem pretty poor. are you ESL? no wonder you're questioning IQ.

>>11498081
How is that germane?

>>11498081
Einstein existed during a time when IQ wasn't all that reliable. Hawking didn't take it because everyone thinks he has 180 IQ and so it would detract from his precious ego.

>>11496379

Gray descent

>>11498060
Almost everybody does, which is the true reason why they rarely amount to anything.

>>11498208
Basically prodigies are held back by human ego and crab in the bucket personalities. Imo most people should kill themselves and stop getting in people's ways so that real work can be done

>>11498208
>>11498221
Is it so hard to believe that most prodigies simply don't pan out for no reason other than because the prediction that they were going to be amazing was simply wrong?

>>11496616
>her arxiv has not been super great since moving to princeton

I feel that at this point we need to focus much more on quality than quantity. We have had such a, 'publish or perish,' mindset that it has led to a current state of high volumes of articles that are, perhaps, 'noise.' Granted someone in the future may stumble across it and find it useful, but many are just erroneous in methods, analysis, etc.

>>11498227
Yes, I've seen people stagnate due to others firsthand. Most people are stupid, even on this board, and refuse to believe that there are people echelons above them.

Failing at something you're a prodigy at is caused by other people. If Jacob Barnett fails, for example, it will be due to others.

Trust me, you haven't been near the top enough to see how toxic md how much gatekeeping there is. Its pretty much a boys club

>>11498245
"Being a prodigy" isn't some objective thing. It's just an opinion other people have about you. Sometimes people believe things about others that turn out to be wrong.

>>11498247
Prodigious means you're ahead. If you're doing hardcore physics at 14, and you fail, you failed because some old kike was jealous and barred your entry

>>11498247
Sometimes people are too stupid to venture into the genius prodigy territory. Most people dont know, and those big heads with huge ego will outright say you're wrong without even verifying

>>11498253
>you failed because some old kike was jealous and barred your entry
Or because you got lazy, complacent, bored, started drinking too much, bumped your head, got unlucky, etc.

Your worldview is much too conspiratorial.

>>11498255
You're wrong.

>>11498285
Kill yourself moron

>>11498242
Graduated PhD with 10 publications, zero post doc offers mostly due to lack of conferences

>>11498284
Laziness, complacency, and all of those dont matter as long as you get the results in the same time frame. Your perception of someone doesnt change their results, and if you think this is important you are a moron who can't separate the need of objectivity from his own subjectivity.

>>11496379
>>11498297
>Middle English prodige (“portent”), from Latin prōdigium (“omen, portent, prophetic sign”).

How could prophecies be wrong????? Surely if anybody is prophesied to greatness and fails to live up to those expectations, they must have been held back by malcontents!

>>11498299
You idiot it's not failing to live up to expectations. It's being blocked. How can you not fucking understand the difference? It's literally written out you fucking imbecile. Clearly you've never been smart enough or around smart people for this to have ever materialized in your surroundings

>>11496379
How much did she leech off other scientists? Did she build her own house on the foundation? Or did she drive in a mobile home?

all low iq kikes seething that a female has gone ahead of them.

>>11498297
>still thinks explicating subjective and objective are a sufficiently significant contribution of novel thought
>moron
Go away. The 18+ rule is so I don't have to read your nonsensical half-thoughts, not to shield your babby eyes.

>>11498315
What is this shilling for? >>>/pol/

>>11498320
>provides no argument, instead gives empty reference to existing arguments
>doesnt know the arguments they are referencing
>clearly is 18 or 19

Lmao I feel stupid for arguing with a child

>>11498333
>no u
Leave.

>>11498227
I think what most geniuses struggle with is the fundamental battle of whether it means anything. When you are really intelligent you get to a point where you think about meaning deeply. You realize that all the accolades, money, or power means nothing, and you are left with a mind that is beyond most everybody and you are left with a supreme emptiness. Not only realizing the futility of it all, but you also realize you are alone. It’s a tough thing to work through. Some geniuses are able to push it, others drink.

>>11498338
I actually provide value to the world. Gtfo and apologize to the trees for working hard to replace the air that you waste

>>11498327
not an argument

>>11498339
High IQ post

>>11498339
Nihilism isn't a realization and futility or loneliness isn't intelligence. It's confusion.
>>11498347
Leave. You are not welcome. goddamned stupid kids
>>11498350
Why would I provide an argument to your practical non-post? If you want to shill for feminism whilst affecting you're "one of us" by misusing placement of "kike," you're on the wrong board.

>>11498361
You have no idea what you're talking about. Read a fucking book you larp

>>11498364
>Read a fucking book
unironically
>>>/pol/
I'm merely pointing you in the right direction.

>>11498361
I disagree, it isn’t realizing that nothing matters, it’s realizing the things that should matter don’t.

>>11498367
Here's 2 years of work. Maybe you should get rid of your undeserved ego. Peasant

>>11498373
And this brings the futility and loneliness. And the fact you don’t understand that proves my point.

>>11498361
>Why would I provide an argument to your practical non-post?
you're just larping and seething that you cant be labeled as next einstein.

>>11498400
Glad someone else noticed

>>11498073
Yes it being well tested is the reason why some people don't "believe in it"
The correlations between success and IQ are not all that impressive which means most people (especially here on sci) greatly overestimate how effective of a predictor IQ is. Putting too much weight into IQ ends up limiting you to the point where you would be better off being completely ignorant of it.

Humans tend to suck at Bayesian inference unless they are doing it formally by crunching numbers (which only highly educated people can do anyway).

We all just do black and white reasoning like either IQ == intelligence or IQ != intelligence. How is anyone supposed supposed to intuitively grasp the meaning of a Pearson coefficient of ~0.5 (just to pick a random number). Nobody's intuition can run calculations with error bars and properly deal with uncertainty.

What this means is that any piece of info that isn't a VERY strong predictor will end up causing more harm than good. For example, stereotypes with a low but better than random accuracy are better off being ignored because non-Bayesian monkey brains routinely overestimate their reliability.

>>11498284
>>11498299
>there are no smarter people than me
>there are no smarter people than me
>there are no smarter people than me

>>11498413
Bayesian reasoning is arguably far more intuitive than frequentist statistics.

>>11496379
> Publishes physics paper leeching off the work of other physicists
> "The Next Einstein"

Pretty accurate, I'd say.
There's a reason he worked at a patent office.

Prodigies often don't amount to shit purely because they aren't creative people. They're extreme rule followers and very hard working which allows them to absorb knowledge at breakneck speed but there's a reason almost none of them actually make any groundbreaking discoveries as adults. They simply lack the creativity to do so.

These aren't people who take in all their info during school hours, they'll work dawn till dusk for the first 18 years of their lives non-stop and sacrifice basically everything else to get there.

>>11498284
>Or because you got lazy, complacent, bored, started drinking too much, bumped your head, got unlucky, etc.

People spiting you is more common than you suddenly losing interest in your passion. In fact, people can work to make you lose your interest.

Trust me, it's pretty common in this world for people to be crabs dragging down their betters, because that's easier than trying to improve themselves.

>>11498339
> t. self-proclaimed smart but lazy

>>11496616
What is her IQ compared to the likes of Feynman, Einstein or Von Neumann?

>>11498339
literally every 17 year old has had these thoughts and if you don’t grow out of them by the time you’re 18 you’re a terminal midwit

>>11498911
how would i know, nobody even knows those guys' IQs (except iirc Feynman took an IQ test and got a lowish score, probably on purpose)

i've heard Sabrina talk, and my take on her is that she is very much a normal modern-day physicist. even in high-energy theory (the descendant field that came from what Einstein and Feynman worked on) there is a tendency to not philosophize like Einstein did, and not to have such a cult of personality like both Einstein and Feynman did. she is very down-to-earth and tries to keep it to business. so her personality is quite different from those guys. (Von Neumann i think was more of a mathematician and had more of the mathematician personality so i think he is out of context)

i mean, Einstein would ramble on about politics and the philosophy of Mach and ideas about an impersonal god. Feynman would ramble on about how the field of psychology is nonscientific and how you should go to hippie meetings at Esalen to explore your mind, bro, and also "i don't give a fuck, i like strippers!"

physics has moved away from those types of personalities. physicists are more disciplined now. and i think sabrina has embodied that very well. i think a large part of her success is that she has very little to say that is controversial. her only real political stances she makes is that "go women in stem!" but she moderates it with "no, i don't think physics is inherently sexist" which i think fits the typical academic politics but defending the field from accusations of sexism just makes her more endearing to the male physics establishment that struggles with these same feminist issues

>>11496422
"Never" is a strong word. See Neumann, Ramanujan and Wolfram. But yeah, most prodigies don't live up to the hype

god i want to lick her forehead, do you think it would taste salty?

>>11498081
room-temp iq. referring to sm1 who 'doesnt believe' in smthn is not a valid argument. iq is generally a good measure of intelligence and is cross cultural, the only thing im susspicious of is folks who wil be able to train for the test, something worth looking into

>>11496379
If she truly is the new Einstein, I suggest looking for her in patent offices

>>11498085
Well that pdf is put up on her personal website. So I think to some extent it’s true. I do genuinely believe that smart people are humble and don’t talk about iq because they’re too busy loosing their passion. It’s only the insecure ones who’ll brag ‘I have 140iq, look how smart I am!”. The same went for Hawkings and Einstein also.

>>11498091
Not esl. But smart people don’t care about their iq. They not follow their passion and are generally more based than others. Unlike you who’s insecure and has decided to judge someone else. High iq people don’t care about what others think and never talk shit about others just because that guy has low iq.

>>11498413
Very true. Also success in general comes from hard work and is irrespective of your iq. You could be high iq and lazy or low iq and slightly hard working. The outcome for both these guys is the same I.e. no success.

>>11498981
Nice post

>>11499669

its hilarious you think being a patent officer is demeaning or lowers the status of a person

you have to basically know every single invention ever made and patented and understands its intricacies so you can judge whether something is truly novel or not

it's actually a very difficult job to get into and you usually need a very solid background

einstein being a patent officer is also the reason why some peopel suspected he might have stolen some ideas because that might very well have been the case at that time

>>11498911
the other anon summarized it quite nicely here >>11498981
fields as a whole have become more disciplined/sophisticated and the 'romantic' era of math and science no longer exist. Having said that, I think those three guys are among some of the most sharpest minds to ever walk this planet.

misogynists BTFO

>>11499164
Ramanujan isn't the best example here. Dude died before he really accomplished anything.
Most of the proof for his intuitions were done by people after he had died.

>>11498007
>https://physicsgirl.com/
Kek

>>11498085
even the ability to work hard is also outside of your control, and subject to external factors such as how you were raised. But like intelligence, it is still a desired trait.

>>11501113
Yeah Ramanujin was more of a tragic young prodigy cut short. Even his intuitions are undeniably relevant though. It is so rare for a person to have such a natural instinct for mathematics.

>>11498245
>Yes, I've seen people stagnate due to others firsthand. Most people are stupid, even on this board, and refuse to believe that there are people echelons above them.
I have met a researcher in tiers well above mine, well into superhuman territory. And she was held back before she left the country and gained a proper position abroad.

>>11498377
these are grade school tier lmao

>>11499763
there's nothing smart about being a theory-stealing nigger

>>11496379
>The Next Einstein

Oh? Who's discoveries is she taking credit for, then?

>>11498339
not all geniuses are in pure math :^)

>>11498361
fighting the good fight anon

>>11498377
nigga did you really just post your desk? what r u doing? lmao

>>11499763
why

do

you

type

like

this

reddit

>>11496379
She turned into a bird and flew away.

>>11496422
>Prodigies never turn out remarkable. Take the humble-hardworker-pill
Massive amounts of cope.

>>11496458
>he doesn't express the phenotype

>>11501498
Do I really have no hope, then? Am I always going to be a chronically lazy waste?

>>11498981
what happens when "those types of personalities" do attempt to become physicists?

>>11498413

didn't know maureen ponderosa was a physicist

>>11498377
Is this supposed to be impressive? Because it isn't. In the slightest, in fact.

>>11496379
is she a polish-spanish mix?

>>11499763
Apparently being a patent office clerk wasn't much work during those times, which is why he had so much free time to study physics in the first place. Also, I'll never understand this "he worked in patents he stole it lol" argument. Physical knowledge cannot be patented, so it wouldn't have been of any use. The reason why he is accused of stealing stuff is because he didn't cite things properly. We will never know why he didn't. Probably because he didn't fucking care.

>>11496379
she cute

>>11496379
What the hell is up with that face? Looks like some sort of alien life form, or an on a computer crappily drawn cartoon character that was 3D printed with some bio-printer.

>>11498073
>>11498007
>>11498081

> About IQ & Intelligence
https://files.catbox.moe/j1wck8.webm