/sci/ - Science and Mathematics

My guess is that the upvotes are there because they a) don't want to discourage him entirely and b) a lot of people optimistically feel the same way.

I agree with your concerns. The poster probably does not even have a feel for what mathematics really is or how research occurs on a practical level. Whatever the case, it's the answers that matter more than the question itself. So if it takes several upvotes for people to see an answer that will set them straight in their thinking, then all the better.

I think what he is saying is that he has learned Math to MSc level and doesn't want to waste time wading through the academic degree mill.

This is a real problem. A lot of super-smart people drop out of the system from boredom and frustration. See eg http://polymatharchives.blogspot.in/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html

>reddit

>>2574

Good point.

Also the only people today who are rich are greedy jews, because capitalism selects for greed. Therefore when they get retardedly wealthy to the point where they have literally more money than they know what to do with, none of them are interested in funding groundbreaking science.

Though then again, science these days is hard. I wonder if it's even possible without a PhD. I'd say yes, especially if academia wasn't so stuffy and obsessed with inflating credentials to attract grant money.

>>2540

>voting on shit

nope

if you think that being off the street is more important than your research, then you're a fucking pleb.

>>2583

This is retarded, you can't do research at all if you're on the street.

>>2593

Yeah, it's usually easier to just get a studio apartment and work a minimum wage job 3 days a week than to live on the streets. You're going to live years longer, anyway.

>>2596

How are you going to do research when you have to work 3 days a week?

>>2600

I don't think I've ever met a scientist who worked that little and still got serious research done.

>>2601

> I don't think I've ever met a scientist who worked that little and still got serious research done.

1. Studies of top tier professional musicians show max 3-4 hours of deliberate practice a day.

2.Read the book Daily Rituals. They have examples of high achievers across the board.

3. The average professional scientist spends a lot of time on hack work - writing grant applications, committee meetings, lecturing students in '1xx-3xx' courses etc. If you can really do 4 hours of really hard mental work a day you are ahead of just about anybody.

>>2603

Interesting case study of someone who was frustrated by academia and went and made enough money to fund himself. Jeff Hawkins https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines/read

>>2603

>>2604

So basically there hasn't been a single scientist who successfully managed to work "4 hours a day max". Figures.

>>2606

> So basically there hasn't been a single scientist who successfully managed to work "4 hours a day max". Figures.

No you can work > 4 hours a day, but not at the highest level. So yes you can sit in committees, supervise PhD students, repeat the same lectures you gave last time.

My personal experience is I can do it for a while but I get burned out.

In the case of concert violinists one of the differentiators of those who got it so first tier soloists was that they had a nap at lunchtime which enabled them to do an extra hour of hard practice a day.

Try it - working at the limit of your ability is damn hard.

>>2597

>How are you going to do research when you have to work 3 days a week?

by doing research on the 4 other days…what kind of question is this?

>>2630

Lol, who gives a fuck about violins?

Serious research on 4 hours a day isn't gonna happen. The whole idea is ridiculous, it's also completely counter to what most successful researchers in the natural sciences do, and there's never been any researcher who got shit done with this retarded approach.

I asked you how many times to provide proof but all you have is bullshit. Science takes time and work, faggots. 4 hours a day ain't gonna cut it, ask any scientist.

>>2631

Good fucking luck getting anything done working 4 days a week when everyone else is working 7.

Have any of you wishy washy faggots ever so much as set foot inside a lab? It's unbelievable how disconnected you are from reality.

If you want to say creative work like art or writing, or math, or even social "science" can be done with comparatively little work every day then fine. But if you're about to claim that it's rational to expect to spend less than 4 hours a day and accomplish anything worthwhile in physics, chemistry or biology… Hahaha, hell naw niqquh get #rekt.

>>2638

As previously explained this does not mean you only work 4 hours a day, but 4 hours a day at the highest level.

Most scientists - and I know a few - spend most of their day doing drudge work of one kind or another. Grant applications etc.

Read some biographies.

You are showing your ignorance by suggesting that practising a musical instrument is not hard work. It is exhausting if you are doing it right.

>>2660

Look at what Einstein accomplished when working a full-time job in the patent office.

>>2540

He types like an Indian/Paki. Given he's in Australia that's probably quite likely

>>2540

Honestly if he actually is that smart then hell just have to make do with what he has.

If he isn't I'm sure real math will bring him down a notch.