Is having a genius IQ a prerequisite to be the next Einstein

[BlunderingGod]

I graduated from high school last year, and I didn't have the class rank that I wanted (I was stupid number 2 in the class) after lots of hard work. It all turned out that my hard work was wasted to get some stupid title, but it got me thinking that I probably wasn't genius enough to be ranked number 1 in the class. I certainly wasn't the best in a few of my classes no matter how hard I try. I hardly got 5s on any of my AP exams even though I studied hard to earn 5s while others got 5s with ease. It was a wonder how I was ranked number 2 for four years in a row while there were others who were studying in much less time than I did. They would easily beat me in class rank if I studied for far less time. I was never in the gifted and talented program in all of my years prior to college. I was unrecognized by my teachers or by anyone else which is such a disappointment to me. One of my former teachers even picked the person who was ranked number 1 over me even though she was a cheater (I have seen her cheat by asking people, who had already taken the tests before she did, what will be on tests and for strategies on getting a great grade on tests). I was very much ridiculed all throughout middle school and high school because I acted like a retard to them. After I kept practicing day after day after day to make the All-State band, I didn't make the All-State band. This went on for four years much to my disappointment and embarrassment. I guess I wasn't gifted enough?

Now that you know my situation, is having a genius IQ a prerequisite to earn a Nobel Prize in Physics? I do wish to become the next Einstein and Newton, but I feel that my possibly low IQ would destroy those chances. All subjects, including math and physics, don't come easily to me for some reason. Sorry if my post is unclear. I'm in a depressed and hopeless state.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Nobel Peace Prize in Physics

 

[BlunderingGod]

Anyway, I'm going to have my IQ tested next month. Hopefully it will be a genius IQ. I took the Mensa Practice test and I scored like a 109 IQ with a 10 SD, which is absolutely BS. I can't be that average.

 

[phoenix95]

This post might start off in a discouraging manner, but read it till the end.

I do not know what your IQ level is, and

I was stupid number 2 in the class

I do not clearly understand what you meant by above. Did you mean to say 'the second least performing' or the '2nd rank but still stupid'? If you meant the first read paragraph 1 and skip the 2nd. If you meant otherwise do the opposite.

Paragraph 1. Although it is not a requirement to have genius IQ to be successful in science, most of the successful people have had more than average IQ. It's a bad strategy to think oneself as the 'special one' and going incredible lengths to prove it. If you keep this on you will risk ending up seriously wrecked. It's not an easy journey, and it's definitely not worthwhile. In this case, I highly recommend trying doing something else.

Paragraph 2. Congrats on rank 2. If you think science comes easily to intelligent and above average people, you are seriously mistaken. At present science(physics at least) is a product of more than 300 years of careful research, and review, having thousands of thousands worked on it. THAT is a learning curve. And if a guy thinks he is going to be successful with just pulling stuff out of his mind, and doesn't even try to study and work out what previous research implicates is an absolute idiot. You were right to work hard. Here's Feynman on this.

Now, it is often a misconception that the only way to be successful in science is to win a Nobel prize. And It is dangerous thinking to say "The only way I will be appreciated in life is by winning a Nobel prize, and proving to everybody that they are wrong". It says to me that you are surrounded by toxic people. Nobody has to prove anything to anyone, especially to people who don't care. Get rid of those guys in your social circle that make you feel this way. Because it will probably be hell for you even if you even a Nobel prize. For now, take some time off. Go talk to your closest, explain them your situation. If you feel like it, take a vacation or something. In any case, there is a lot more to do in science, than just win a Nobel prize. For instance, you could be a science communicator. Or an author. Or even a youtuber. Being a science teacher is also not that bad an idea. Try to explore those career options as well, because they might be the ones you are good at. It's too early in your career for you to say this is exactly what I am going to be and right now I am a failure at that.

Looks like previous posts pose the possibility of making this post look cheesy/cringe-worthy motivational rant. Oh, well

 

[fresh_42]

Moderator's note:

I removed all ridiculous posts in this discussion and the answers to it.
Please try to keep at least a minimum of seriousness. We do not allow trolling, even in the General Discussion Forum!

 

[symbolipoint]

Now that you know my situation, is having a genius IQ a prerequisite to earn a Nobel Prize in Physics? I do wish to become the next Einstein and Newton, but I feel that my possibly low IQ would destroy those chances. All subjects, including math and physics, don't come easily to me for some reason. Sorry if my post is unclear. I'm in a depressed and hopeless state.

Anyway, I'm going to have my IQ tested next month. Hopefully it will be a genius IQ. I took the Mensa Practice test and I scored like a 109 IQ with a 10 SD, which is absolutely BS. I can't be that average.

That is mostly nonsense.

The mention of "AP" indicates you probably are in U.S. and can at least go to a community college to build your knowledge and credit to continue studying something in the physical sciences or mathematics or computer science. You may need to study hard; you might need to repeat some courses; but effort and true interest are things which nobody should ignore. Genius is not a requirement for earning a degree in something. Hard work is usually necessary for everyone.

 

[BWV]

There is no such thing as the ‘next einstein’ or ‘next Newton’. No matter how smart you are, there likely no new fundamental physics that can be discovered by an individual theorist

 

[fresh_42]

There is no such thing as the ‘next einstein’ or ‘next Newton’. No matter how smart you are, there likely no new fundamental physics that can be discovered by an individual theorist

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." (Lord Kelvin, 1900)

Edit: This popular quote is apparently a misattribution:

As far as I can tell he never said that. According to Wikipedia the quotation has been widely misattributed to Kelvin since the 1980s.

The quotation seems to be often attributed to the speech he gave to the Royal Institution in 1900 entitled "Nineteeth-century clouds over the dynamical theory of heat and light." The theme of which, ironically, as you can glean from the title was the very opposite!

So sorry, Lord Kelvin.

The idea behind, however, is still true. At any ages there always have been people who declared something to be achieved or done, resp. further achievements to be impossible, let it be scientific development or technical inventions. History has always proven them wrong, and I do not see how or why this mechanism would have changed. We already know, that we do not know what the dark area really is, nor did we have a satisfactory GUT. So apart from searching them with big machines and a huge amount of manpower, there is still the lack of a theoretical explanation - one which might well be achievable by a single person at his desk!

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Adding to what @BWV said, you should try to be the next "yourself" rather than Einstein, Newton, Feynman or anybody else.

Max Ehrmann wrote in his poem "Desidarata":

If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

 

[DaveC426913]

Anyway, I'm going to have my IQ tested next month.

Don't.

You are obsessing over a non-issue. The only thing an IQ test can do is give you reason to doubt yourself if it's not what you expect.
Just study, do the hard problems and stay focused. Don't let some useless test tell you what you can accomplish.

 

[BWV]

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." (Lord Kelvin, 1900)

Of course, that is not what I said, but like everything else, physics is finite and subject to diminishing returns. The pace of new discoveries is slower and requires far more resources than in Kelvins day, despite a greatly expanded talent pool and availability of information.

 

[phinds]

Of course, that is not what I said, but like everything else, physics is finite and subject to diminishing returns. The pace of new discoveries is slower and requires far more resources than in Kelvins day, despite a greatly expanded talent pool and availability of information.

And you think that was not true in Stephen Hawking's early years? How much "resources" do you think he used outside his brain?

 

[BWV]

And you think that was not true in Stephen Hawking's early years? How much "resources" do you think he used outside his brain?

Hawkins discoveries were more marginal than, say, Feynman and the next generation will have an even more difficult time finding anything new. The last example you can come up with is a guy who made his advances decades ago. Today, Feynman’s 50+ year old lectures cover what, 95% of physics? Can you imagine a physics student in 1950 being able to learn most of his disclipline from what was known in 1900?

 

[DaveC426913]

... requires far more resources than in Kelvins day..

Sounds like you're talking practical physics.
I think the OP is into theoretical physics, which requires a pencil and paper.

 

[BWV]

Sounds like you're talking practical physics.
I think the OP is into theoretical physics, which requires a pencil and paper.

They go together - theoretical can’t sustain itself without experiment otherwise it’s just mathematical masturbation

And given that it’s cheap to produce, theoretical physics is more subject to diminishing returns than experimental. The talent pool of theoretical physics is what, 1000x what it was in Einstein’s day? but the results continue to decline

 

[gleem]

Two quotes of Einstein stand out.

“Genius is 1% talent and 99% percent hard work...”

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

The mention of "AP" indicates you probably are in U.S. and can at least go to a community college to build your knowledge and credit to continue studying something in the physical sciences or mathematics or computer science.

As background, OP is at UCLA and livid that it's not Caltech. That thread in the guidance forum did not go well. I see another train wreck looming.

 

[phinds]

As background, OP is at UCLA and livid that it's not Caltech. That thread in the guidance forum did not go well. I see another train wreck looming.

It was even more on the way before @fresh_42 got rid of a lot of silliness.

 

[BWV]

I graduated from high school last year, and I didn't have the class rank that I wanted (I was stupid number 2 in the class)

I was ranked number 2 for four years in a row while there were others who were studying in much less time than I did. They would easily beat me in class rank if I studied for far less time.

One of my former teachers even picked the person who was ranked number 1 over me even though she was a cheater

I kept practicing day after day after day to make the All-State band, I didn't make the All-State band.

I'm in a depressed and hopeless state.

Perfectionism is a jerk and a recipe for depression. These are great experiences - you demonstrated you can set a goal and work hard at it - that is a far more valuable skill than a test score or GPA. Even more valuable is that you have failed at reaching a goal.

I worry about too many college students who have never failed at anything and can only perform under very proscribed academic type tasks. Find something you are passionate about that can also support you financially and apply yourself to that. Dont worry about measuring yourself relative to others

 

[pinball1970]

Two quotes of Einstein stand out.

“Genius is 1% talent and 99% percent hard work...”

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.

Einstein was described as a 'lazy dog' by one of his professors, he was more than just one %

 

[Dr Transport]

Question to the OP, so what is so great about Cal Tech and for that matter MIT? I work with a graduate of both of them and frankly he is running around with a chip on his shoulder whining that he can't do research because everyone around him is an idiot and incompetent. We are so ticked off at him that it gets hinted pretty regularly that he find another place to work.

 

[DaveC426913]

They go together - theoretical can’t sustain itself without experiment otherwise it’s just mathematical masturbation

And given that it’s cheap to produce, theoretical physics is more subject to diminishing returns than experimental. The talent pool of theoretical physics is what, 1000x what it was in Einstein’s day? but the results continue to decline

So ... you're saying physics is a dying field? No more jobs?

 

[BWV]

So ... you're saying physics is a dying field? No more jobs?

No, just that physics had its golden age in the last century and there are few major discoveries left (at least that are possible to make with our brains and technology). Its becoming a mature science. Probably are too many theoretical physicists relative to their usefulness to society. Better to study more complex things we don't know that much about about like genetics or the brain

 

[Nik_2213]

"...and there are few major discoveries left "

Funny, that's what the Victorians said, too.

And, for a while, the mid-20th century seemed headed that way. Then look what happened !
Quarks, plate tectonics, the Big Bang, gravity waves, neutrino morphing etc etc.

Just takes one 'Hmm, that's interesting' to blow a dozen fields open. Just takes one 'Aha !' for a 'minor' finding in another branch of math to 're-normalise' those infuriating infinities and kick-ass across eg quantum gravity or string theory..

IMHO, at least a dozen different fields are so close to 'boiling over' that it almost hurts...

Hard, hard work, reading widely, serendipity and, yes, a stubborn persistence will take you far.
As for genius...
IMHO, tested IQ does not guarantee ingenuity, innovation or success. Like a million dollar trust fund, though, it may help.

Worse, a lot of people with sky-high IQs feel 'entitled', and I've seen their problems when the 'Real World' (TM) fails to comply.
Don't go there.

Some of the cleverest people I've met were 'dull as ditch-water'. Others were so focused, they could not think 'outside their box'. Others were genuine polymaths, whose nimble wits left me awe-struck.

My dear wife was an ingenious genius, breezed through the MENSA test but refused to join. Wasn't interested. My wits are 'Little League' compared to hers, but I'm good at spotting connections, eg By inspection, I saw how to deconstruct a complex intelligence assessment test to let me score whatever I pleased in a fraction of the allotted time. Given that would be cheating, I refused to do the test. Now, does that make me more intelligent than the many truly clever folk who sweated their results ?

 

[DaveC426913]

No, just that physics had its golden age in the last century and there are few major discoveries left

Which brings us right back to the Kelvin quote.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no such thing as the ‘next einstein’ or ‘next Newton’. No matter how smart you are, there likely no new fundamental physics that can be discovered by an individual theorist

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." (Lord Kelvin, 1900)

Which brings us right back to the Kelvin quote.

Of course, that is not what I said, but like everything else, physics is finite and subject to diminishing returns. The pace of new discoveries is slower and requires far more resources than in Kelvins day, despite a greatly expanded talent pool and availability of information.

Please note that the Lord Kelvin quote is not a response to the point that was being made. The point was about the difficulty of having a major impact as an individual today. I think it's likely true. It wasn't saying that there's no new science to be discovered.

But I will up the ante and say that one implication of "The Relativity of Wrong" is that over time discoveries become less and less impactful. And also, Lord Kelvin's position was an odd one to take at the time since it is my understanding that the flaws in physics (gravity and the constant speed of light, that led to Relativity) were well known at the time.

 

[BlunderingGod]

Question to the OP, so what is so great about Cal Tech and for that matter MIT? I work with a graduate of both of them and frankly he is running around with a chip on his shoulder whining that he can't do research because everyone around him is an idiot and incompetent. We are so ticked off at him that it gets hinted pretty regularly that he find another place to work.

Greatest quality education + being around highly intelligent people like possibly myself + best astrophysics school + NASA JPL (where I want to work at). I refuse to believe that I do not belong at Caltech.

That graduate you spoke of sounds like an arrogant brat, the worst kind of individual I have ever encountered in high school. It is a wonder how he got into those schools.

 

[symbolipoint]

Greatest quality education + being around highly intelligent people like possibly myself + best astrophysics school + NASA JPL (where I want to work at). I refuse to believe that I do not belong at Caltech.

That graduate you spoke of sounds like an arrogant brat, the worst kind of individual I have ever encountered in high school. It is a wonder how he got into those schools.

Some information is not clear unless I missed finding or reading it. You graduated last year from high school, so now you have been in maybe university or college. Taking what kinds of courses? How well are you doing in these? This could indicate what you may be able to do and where you could be headed. Consider your current academic knowledge and you academic and practical skills you have NOW. You'll need to decide maybe with guidance, how to direct your path.

 

[BlunderingGod]

Some information is not clear unless I missed finding or reading it. You graduated last year from high school, so now you have been in maybe university or college. Taking what kinds of courses? How well are you doing in these? This could indicate what you may be able to do and where you could be headed. Consider your current academic knowledge and you academic and practical skills you have NOW. You'll need to decide maybe with guidance, how to direct your path.

Astronomy, physics, math. I am doing well in all of them. All As, where I should be. Studying is not much of a big deal since they are easy. They are needed for my major. I guess I'm fully capable of becoming the next Einstein; I haven't realized it.

 

[PeroK]

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." (Lord Kelvin, 1900)

As far as I can tell he never said that. According to Wikipedia the quotation has been widely misattributed to Kelvin since the 1980s.

The quotation seems to be often attributed to the speech he gave to the Royal Institution in 1900 entitled "Nineteeth-century clouds over the dynamical theory of heat and light." The theme of which, ironically, as you can glean from the title was the very opposite!

 

[BlunderingGod]

I do not believe that an ordinary guy can become the next Einstein like Feynman had said. John von Neumann... I have lost a substantial bit of confidence in myself after learning about him.

 

[symbolipoint]

Astronomy, physics, math. I am doing well in all of them. All As, where I should be. Studying is not much of a big deal since they are easy. They are needed for my major. I guess I'm fully capable of becoming the next Einstein; I haven't realized it.

I do not believe that an ordinary guy can become the next Einstein like Feynman had said. John von Neumann... I have lost a substantial bit of confidence in myself after learning about him.

You are trying too hard to compare yourself to others who may or may not have been geniuses.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

Greatest quality education + being around highly intelligent people like possibly myself + best astrophysics school + NASA JPL (where I want to work at).

actually this is wrong. Caltech is a research institution with pretty bad undergrad teaching. You seem to be confused. MIT is rather different.

A friend of mine is a a caltech grad with a math major. A lot of them are gathering in less than 24 hours for a serious math + beer competition, like the old days. I can poll the audience if you want, though I'm willing to bet on the outcome (i.e. poor undergrad teaching). If you're actually interested in Math, learning directly from MIT, or from Tao et. al at UCLA seems hard to beat.

I refuse to believe that I do not belong at Caltech.

A basic bayesian analysis would be to count all the people who think they belong at caltech and had at least a 3.9 at high school (and generously ignore all the C's you must have had given a ##\lt 3.0## gpa in college). Then compare that to the number of admissions to caltech. It's a very small school. If you are actually interested in maths, studying probability could potentially save you from the Wile E. Coyote effect (i.e. you've already fallen off the cliff, but won't crash until you look down).

TLDR: focus on getting good grades in undergrad, and then worry about whatever outstanding grad school after you have 3 years of good grades (and learning) under you belt.

 

[BlunderingGod]

actually this is wrong. Caltech is a research institution with pretty bad undergrad teaching. You seem to be confused. MIT is rather different.

A friend of mine is a a caltech grad with a math major. A lot of them are gathering in less than 24 hours for a serious math + beer competition, like the old days. I can poll the audience if you want, though I'm willing to bet on the outcome (i.e. poor undergrad teaching). If you're actually interested in Math, learning directly from MIT, or from Tao et. al at UCLA seems hard to beat.A basic bayesian analysis would be to count all the people who think they belong at caltech and had at least a 3.9 at high school (and generously ignore all the C's you must have had given a ##\lt 3.0## gpa in college). Then compare that to the number of admissions to caltech. It's a very small school. If you are actually interested in maths, studying probability could potentially save you from the Wile E. Coyote effect (i.e. you've already fallen off the cliff, but won't crash until you look down).

TLDR: focus on getting good grades in undergrad, and then worry about whatever outstanding grad school after you have 3 years of good grades (and learning) under you belt.

Caltech students get drunk?

I'm aware that I'm not special whatsoever.

Though, it will be hard for the elite colleges to reject me in grad admissions since I will be godlike. I was thinking of trying to transfer to Caltech after two years, but I think that the better idea would be to stay at UCLA and become a god here by winning lots of prestigious awards with a high GPA (probably will be a 3.94 in the end) and make the elite colleges believe that they had made a big mistake overlooking me in undergrad admissions. I will make sure that this happens.

 

[BlunderingGod]

You are trying too hard to compare yourself to others who may or may not have been geniuses.

Are you saying that John von Neumann the polymath was not a genius? Some people have said that he was on a different level from Einstein in terms of intellectual ability.