Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Physics - An XNTp subject and other stereotypes...

  1. #1
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    943
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Physics - An XNTp subject and other stereotypes...

    I have another thought that's somewhat relevant to my previous post on logic and ethics. In socionics, there is sometimes a stereotype about physics, computer science, and philosophy being super abstract, theoretical subjects that draw in a whole slew of 'E5,' 'INTp/ENTp' intellectuals similar to Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein. I have real experience in all three fields, and while there are some professors doing really abstract, cutting-edge research in each one, I find undergraduate physics and CS almost like engineering, and philosophy almost like literature or English. I have a degree in CS, and a number of the professors and student body fit the description of of a prototypical engineer - serious, organized, structured, and practically skilled. Basically, right in between INTJ and ISTJ in the MBTI. As I said, this applies to both the student body and the faculty. Now, some would object and say, "Well, the ones who are INTp or ENTp are doing the cutting edge research, and the others who are more like engineers are structural logic - maybe also Ti." I find this wrong. For instance, there were those with the engineering temperament like Dirac, Heisenberg and Schrodinger in physics who worked on the super-theoretical foundations of quantum mechanics, and the one's like Brian Greene or Stephen Hawking in any area of physics are usually few and far between. Also, the engineering temperament isn't just in science - there are a ton of them in accounting, finance, economics, etc. who are organized, structured, and practically skilled. In any event, socionics portrays physics and CS like it they are some super-abstract, Einstein-esque subject, but look at this in phyisics, which is at the college-level (and which involves almost zero math for those who don't like math) and tell me that this is some super-abstract subject, exactly opposite to engineering: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/...w-introduction.

    Now, with respect to philosophy, I have noticed again that *some* faculty-members are working in cutting-edge areas. There was one professor in my department who was working with a computer science student and using cutting-edge technology to analyze facial symmetry and facial attractiveness. He was 'inventor' personality type IMO and he won an award for his research. There was also a part-time professor who was 'inventor' who lectured on all kinds of sci-fi-esque topics like cryogenics and cloning. He didn't do research, but he was interesting. However, the rest of the faculty were all over the map, and the student-body were almost all E4 'humanist' or 'lyricist' types that you would probably find in an English literature class. Even most of the graduate research was in areas like Foucault or Heidegger and didn't interest me. But here we have it again: philosophy is some kind of 'super-E5' subject that attracts a whole bunch of 'Einstein prototypes,' but look at what it's really like...

    Anyway, I'm probably ranting, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter...
    Last edited by jason_m; 02-05-2019 at 05:40 AM.

  2. #2
    a two horned unicorn renegade Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    Ne-ILE-C 7 ELFV?
    Posts
    4,148
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not sure about that as I have seen bunch of LIE's and LII's in physics. Anyways, does the physics curriculum encourage imagination? I doubt. Furthermore in science I noted that lots of students in examinations have come to a halt where I have shined. Aka very distant application that was not discussed before whereas I have struggled more with basic challenges.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I donít care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.

  3. #3
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    943
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007 View Post
    Not sure about that as I have seen bunch of LIE's and LII's in physics.
    But where are the ILIs and ILEs the field is supposed to be filled with? Further, (depending on the interpretation) I have seen the same 'LIEs' and 'LIIs' in accounting, business, finance, etc.

  4. #4
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    943
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    One could also argue that this has something to do with the Fi/Te axis for me. However, it's not that I don't find physics and cs practical enough, and therefore there's 'not enough Te' in the subject(s). It's that I find Te so dry and there is so much of it out there that people who seem like they should be in banking or accounting are creeping up into physics and the hard sciences. WRT the Fi/E4 stuff like Foucault or Heidegger, I find that stuff basically just intellectual crapola, and I don't even want to talk about it... Maybe even subjects in literature like Proust (which I could see people putting me in) are crapola to me as well. But I wouldn't know, because I haven't studied them...
    Last edited by jason_m; 02-05-2019 at 07:52 AM.

  5. #5
    nefnaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Speculating a bit here but in physics you are very likely to encounter NT types but also a healthy proportion of every introverted type, perhaps excepting ESI. (I have met ESI professor in philosophy, but not in physics or chemistry.) You are least likely to encounter SEE and ESE.

    Grad students in physics, chemistry, and math are heavily skewed towards introverts, in my experience.

  6. #6
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,981
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Physics is a generally NT subject - it uses Ti, Te, Ne, and probably also Ni (though its role is a bit harder to articulate...). It's sort of in the middle when it comes to Te/Ti, with the theory of math and application to reality of engineering.

    I disagree about Dirac, his approach was pure Ti (LII). He believed physics should be expressed by "beautiful equations".

    You have other famous physicists of different types, usually NT: Einstein ILE of course. People have mentioned Bohr and Pauli as ILI but I haven't researched them as much. Faraday is an SLI example.

    Philosophy has less Te, mostly Ti and Ni. Ti and Ni are the most "abstract" elements.

    CS is also kind of a mixed bag but even the theory is more about practical things.
    Last edited by thehotelambush; 02-05-2019 at 12:33 PM.

  7. #7
    Nertle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,357
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    When I was a science major, I came across many that would stereotypically fit the NT/ST temperament. I found many of my fellow students lacked any interest in deep insight and philosophy, and lacked imagination. Few would truly come up with original ideas and many seemed like they were on the spectrum. However, they were more "successful". While they were busy kissing their professors' asses and doing research so they could progress into grad school or medical school, I was busy drawing pictures of naked women, reading material on philosophy, especially the philosophy of science. None of my professors seemed all that abstract. Whenever I would ask deep probing questions, I never really got an answer, not even an "I don't know". But I was also an art major for a year and tended to merge the artistic and the scientific. My scientific endeavors were side tracked with questions about the scientific method and epistemology, which led me to philosophy on the side.

  8. #8
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,837
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I took poetry, creative writing and literature as my side classes. I didn't find a lack of imagination in my fellow students, with one glaring exception: the pre-med students. They'd fill up some of my Biology courses and wow were they as a whole rather ignorant. Good at memorization though. The type to sit in the front of the class, diligently taking notes, being good little boys and girls, but not thinking for themselves at all. The rest of us would rather be out in the field - I think they were probably the only ones who didn't show up for the early mornings on the leks to watch the prairie chickens etc. They'd rather be inside memorizing stuff than experiencing things. . . so idk.

    I had some really great professors, and some who . . . ugh, although one who I generally didn't like that much did surprise me once. He gave us an assignment towards the end of the semester to sum up the ideas we'd learned that year and asked how they connected to one another and maybe how they could be applied elsewhere (I don't remember exactly it was 20+ years ago,) so I asked him, "Do you want us just to draw from your class, or can we bring in things we've learned in other classes, non-Bio classes too?" And he told me I could use anything from anywhere that I'd learned that semester. So that was awesome because I was already thinking about (I don't remember now but I think) an intro to the new testament class, and maybe a fiction class or psychology or speech and how concepts from each tied together and to Botany (his class)

  9. #9
    Nertle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,357
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    I took poetry, creative writing and literature as my side classes. I didn't find a lack of imagination in my fellow students, with one glaring exception: the pre-med students. They'd fill up some of my Biology courses and wow were they as a whole rather ignorant. Good at memorization though. The type to sit in the front of the class, diligently taking notes, being good little boys and girls, but not thinking for themselves at all. The rest of us would rather be out in the field - I think they were probably the only ones who didn't show up for the early mornings on the leks to watch the prairie chickens etc. They'd rather be inside memorizing stuff than experiencing things. . . so idk.

    I had some really great professors, and some who . . . ugh, although one who I generally didn't like that much did surprise me once. He gave us an assignment towards the end of the semester to sum up the ideas we'd learned that year and asked how they connected to one another and maybe how they could be applied elsewhere (I don't remember exactly it was 20+ years ago,) so I asked him, "Do you want us just to draw from your class, or can we bring in things we've learned in other classes, non-Bio classes too?" And he told me I could use anything from anywhere that I'd learned that semester. So that was awesome because I was already thinking about (I don't remember now but I think) an intro to the new testament class, and maybe a fiction class or psychology or speech and how concepts from each tied together and to Botany (his class)
    so much of science today is taught as rote memorization. What is lacking in classes is its underlying philosophy. This may be due to the influence of logical positivism, but as a biology major I was very interested in the philosophy of science and the philosophy of biology. My professors barely touched upon them, it was probably their publish or perish anxiety projected onto the students to remain focused on the utilitarian, practical aspect of science.

    I could see poetry, creative writing, and literature classes being filled with more creative types. There were exceptions in my science classes, but many were similar to what you described. Some of my fellow art students were talented, but not interested in the theories behind the art. It was a paint what you feel environment.

  10. #10
    Impermanence para's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Speculative sensation
    Posts
    705
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Physics is a generally NT subject - it uses Ti, Te, Ne, and probably also Ni (though its role is a bit harder to articulate...)
    Just a thought: I would think that Ni would orient itself in natural sciences through a recognition of core processes repeated throughout the ''system'', to give an overarching perception of the way that the system morphs or progresses within itself. (This would be with Tx support, of course)

    I think i read somewhere that ''LII understands and perfects systems'' and ''ILI understands systems evolution over time''.
    ''Time is a child playing draughts, the kingly power is a child's.''

  11. #11
    عالم نفسي thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,981
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by para View Post
    Just a thought: I would think that Ni would orient itself in natural sciences through a recognition of core processes repeated throughout the ''system'', to give an overarching perception of the way that the system morphs or progresses within itself. (This would be with Tx support, of course)

    I think i read somewhere that ''LII understands and perfects systems'' and ''ILI understands systems evolution over time''.
    Something like that, yeah.

  12. #12
    FarDraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    TIM
    ILI 5w6-38 sp/sx
    Posts
    389
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In my experience, MBTI places too much emphasis on the leading extraverted function whereas socionics puts too much emphasis on the dominant function. Even though more emphasis should be placed on the dominant function when considering career prospects, we can't ignore the effects of other functions.

    It tends to be the case that ILIs are more engineering-oriented because of Te ego, which manifests as a desire to construct methods to solve real world problems. Moreover, Gulenko says that because of role Si, practical skills are easily taught to ILIs. LIIs are actually more theoretical because of alpha Ti's desire to create a universal abstract structure like mathematics or theoretical physics. Moreover, Ne ego means that LIIs want to consider many unrealistic possibilities whereas Te ego for ILIs leads them to be more grounded. Yes, Ni is abstract, but it's more about how systems play out (like other users have said) rather than developing abstract systems. Whereas an LII is likely to create a new definition for an idea they think is important, an ILI will use existing definitions to solve a problem. LIIs are theory-builders whereas ILIs are problem solvers.
    ----- FarDraft, 2019

  13. #13
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    943
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Velvet View Post
    so much of science today is taught as rote memorization. What is lacking in classes is its underlying philosophy.
    That is what I was trying to say with the Faraday video. In personality typing circles, there is almost this background assumption that practical fields - business, engineering, medicine, etc. - are learned by rote, and theoretical fields - philosophy, physics, math, etc. - are learned from first principles. In the MBTI, practical fields are 'sensing' and if you look carefully, this is equated with rote learner. In socionics, now 'business logic.' But look at the Faraday video. How could that be learned any other way than by rote? And then look at physics in general, which is equated with Feynman, Hawking, Einstein, Bohr. However, the real names in most courses are Coulomb, Faraday, Kirchoff, Joules, etc. - almost all SLI to me! There is certainly something odd about this to me, and yes, this is something I equate with rote learning as well...

    EDIT: Another one that is sometimes associated with rote learning is economics - i.e., it's 'business logic' and therefore by rote. But I remember during my CS years, a girl with a photographic memory, whose recall was almost perfect, but who couldn't pass even basic economics, because none of it was by rote! And even quantum mechanics, it's 'Ti' and 'not by rote,' but most textbooks are completely by rote!
    Last edited by jason_m; 02-06-2019 at 06:34 AM.

  14. #14
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    943
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    And then something like this: https://oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-291/lecture-8# which I don't want to get into it, but to some in my personal life, because I'm not good physics and engineering, this is supposed to mean something to me and I should be pursuing my graduate degree in the arts - but the Ginsberg poem is just absolute crapola to me... It simply doesn't get any bummier or anymore homely intellectually than that poem. Yet to those I just spoke of if this is an area I should be pursuing, this is the 'big one' for me, the one I should be pursuing vocationally for the rest of my life. Another one: I 'belong in psychology,' but how is that not completely by rote - which I have been implying over and over again isn't right?

    EDIT: I also believe that if these people from my pesonal life could get their hands on socionics, they would probably force me with craftsman or director - once again the relations are just crapola. I don't know how, they just have some almost sixth sense for forcing me with someone or something that isn't right...
    Last edited by jason_m; 02-06-2019 at 09:04 AM.

  15. #15
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    943
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Physics is a generally NT subject - it uses Ti, Te, Ne, and probably also Ni (though its role is a bit harder to articulate...). It's sort of in the middle when it comes to Te/Ti, with the theory of math and application to reality of engineering.

    I disagree about Dirac, his approach was pure Ti (LII). He believed physics should be expressed by "beautiful equations".

    You have other famous physicists of different types, usually NT: Einstein ILE of course. People have mentioned Bohr and Pauli as ILI but I haven't researched them as much. Faraday is an SLI example.

    Philosophy has less Te, mostly Ti and Ni. Ti and Ni are the most "abstract" elements.

    CS is also kind of a mixed bag but even the theory is more about practical things.
    I was thinking about this the other day. I think socionics covers a big part of the elements of the different sciences, such as physics, but I think that there is a big difference between physics and math that eludes the theory. The way I see it, mathematics books often take a "bottom-up" approach. The approach is sort of like piecing together a jigsaw puzzle, in which you are presented with every step, and thereby put the "pieces" together to recreate the result, as you follow along with the textbook. Physics often takes a "top-down" approach - textbooks just provide big "chunks" or pieces of information, usually significant results. The individual details are often not presented, and the student is expected to simply assume the results are true, and then maybe *afterwards,* with a pencil and paper, the student fills in the details. I am more familiar with the bottom-up approach, and this confused me about the IM of physics - but it simply eludes socionics theory.

  16. #16
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,262
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I wonder who says that because it's a pretty easily discounted view. I would say the types of motivation for the research would change. Also my undergrad physics was filled with math, so not sure where you're getting that.

  17. #17
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    943
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    I wonder who says that because it's a pretty easily discounted view.
    What view is discounted?

    I would say the types of motivation for the research would change.
    ????

    Also my undergrad physics was filled with math, so not sure where you're getting that.
    Numbers and equations =/= a degree in mathematics. By math, I mean the way it is taught in a typical bachelor of mathematics degree - not something like calculus or high school math - and not to imply that physics is simply "just calculus" or "high school math" either.

  18. #18
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    1,262
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    What view is discounted?



    ????



    Numbers and equations =/= a degree in mathematics. By math, I mean the way it is taught in a typical bachelor of mathematics degree - not something like calculus or high school math - and not to imply that physics is simply "just calculus" or "high school math" either.
    The intj/entj can't do cutting research one. Feel free to point out your main point though if that wasn't it. I guessed because I couldn't tell.

    Types of motivation would change for entp vs intj, for example. The former may be more spontaneous and the latter more confirming of ideas coming along through a natural thought process but the work they do for either could be cutting edge.

    To your last point, too many unknowns for me to say anything. I do wonder what kind of subjects or teaching methodologies you mean though.

  19. #19
    a two horned unicorn renegade Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    Ne-ILE-C 7 ELFV?
    Posts
    4,148
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have thought a lot about cognitive traits of biochemists (it is not simply just chemistry in biological systems but whole lot of memorization. Yes, it still carries some logic.).
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I donít care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.

  20. #20
    user title The Perpetual Now's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    415
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Once any science or field becomes a structured and established field, then I think it stands to reason that it will be less and less populated by abstract thinkers over the passage of time. The most abstract of thinkers interested in those fields might forge ahead to create new theories and fields, as rote memorization and adherence to what has become established knowledge or science will be less likely to hold their interest/attention.

  21. #21
    a two horned unicorn renegade Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    Ne-ILE-C 7 ELFV?
    Posts
    4,148
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Usually as things get more complex it becomes important to understand underlying mechanisms of more finished things. Reinventing wheel is not very efficient.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I donít care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.

  22. #22
    Allegra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    TIM
    ESI 693 Sp/Sx
    Posts
    78
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just to throw another thought into your thoughts: these days in order to do well in cutting edge age science or engineering or even natural science one almost always is required to have good engineering skills because everything is done by hands on programming. Now more established science professors may be able to delegate but undergrads and graduate students have to do the work on their own. Which puts low Te users and Te devalues at a disadvantage.

    My best friend is an IEI and most brilliant person I know, but the only reason she was able to complete her PhD from arguably the best engineering university in the world was because her ILI husband did all the Te work for her. She can teach a dazzling class in programming language theories, but she can’t even do MatLab right herself.

    In my experience, only a small minority has what it takes to have the staying power to make a career out of pure science and assuming I typed them all correctly almost all are T ego intuitives, with an odd LSI and several IEIs in the mix. MBTI stereotypes match reality in this case.

    My SLI husband and my best friend and I all used to be in the same class and as the years went by most of our class either switched direction to pursue a different field or dropped out completely. Introverted STs like my husband tend to switch from academia to industry, especially fields that require applied math or engineering. Extroverts and ethicals more often switched to business or management.

  23. #23
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    943
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Something else that just hit me: the way I approach physics is just backwards. My approach is always to learn every step of the theory, and then, once the theory is mastered, try and apply it to the problems. I think physics has to be learned the exact opposite way: go straight to the problems. Then work backwards to the theory, mastering every problem in the text, and then try to apply it to even harder problems! The theory is always skimpy, but the problems are always the main focus of almost any course. That is probably why I was having no success: I was approaching it the wrong way...

    (And something like economics is the exact opposite: the theory is really important, so you learn every bit of the theory, and then *maybe* work on a few of the problems. Some background in this subject might be why I was approaching it the wrong way...)
    Last edited by jason_m; 02-13-2019 at 07:56 AM.

  24. #24
    a two horned unicorn renegade Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    Ne-ILE-C 7 ELFV?
    Posts
    4,148
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    That was my problem with physics. Everything was pre-defined.

    High school physics: you can not do calculus (unless you have learnt it yourself). It left my quite flabbergasted until I could manage differential and integral calculus.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I donít care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.

  25. #25
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,837
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My high school physics teacher once made an offhand comment that physics would be so much easier to teach if everyone took Calculus first. And I've seen many others suggest that the order everything is taught is backwards. . . saying that it really should go Calculus-->Physics-->Chemistry-->Biology. But usually Biology is the first of those topics encountered in school instead, and Calculus usually the last. Probably because you can simplify the concepts in Biology and Chemistry to a point they can be taught without having to always teach the underlying processes, but you can't do that so easily with Calc. So, you get a form of knowledge, without the complete picture. . . which is the argument for teaching the fundamentals first, the physics before the chemistry and both before the biology iow, and saves people from having to unlearn old things that weren't entirely true.

    Idk though, there are ideas that are simple enough to get a grasp of without having to know all the details behind them, so not sure I agree necessarily. Also, the ability to SEE what's happening with your eyes can be hugely beneficial in understanding concepts, and you can do this with bio and chem, in real life time in front of you, physics too, but when does anyone give physical examples you can work with for calc? So, there's that.

  26. #26
    FoxOnStilts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    TN
    TIM
    Fi-SLE 3w9 so/sp
    Posts
    790
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Also, the ability to SEE what's happening with your eyes can be hugely beneficial in understanding concepts, and you can do this with bio and chem, in real life time in front of you, physics too, but when does anyone give physical examples you can work with for calc? So, there's that.
    Depending on what kind of equipment you have access to, bio can be extremely hard to be able to "see". Certain macro-level things you can, but most of high school-level bio is harder. Even for things you CAN see, looking at onion slides through a microscope to visualize the cell cycle isn't very great. A lot of the visualizing in bio classes come from models or simulations (lets play a game that mimics natural selection!)
    Physics teachers I know are always doing demos and really cool labs to help visualize the concepts (one guy in my hall has a bowling ball hanging from his ceiling, last week they were coloring ice cubes for convection).

    I'm a bio teacher, so I might be a liiiitttle biased here. I'm also teaching at the basic high school level (standardized testing) at a school that does not have the best funding in general with little access to lab equipment (sequencing DNA would be awesome, but we don't have PCR machines)

  27. #27
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,837
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FoxOnStilts View Post
    Depending on what kind of equipment you have access to, bio can be extremely hard to be able to "see". Certain macro-level things you can, but most of high school-level bio is harder. Even for things you CAN see, looking at onion slides through a microscope to visualize the cell cycle isn't very great. A lot of the visualizing in bio classes come from models or simulations (lets play a game that mimics natural selection!)
    Physics teachers I know are always doing demos and really cool labs to help visualize the concepts (one guy in my hall has a bowling ball hanging from his ceiling, last week they were coloring ice cubes for convection).

    I'm a bio teacher, so I might be a liiiitttle biased here. I'm also teaching at the basic high school level (standardized testing) at a school that does not have the best funding in general with little access to lab equipment (sequencing DNA would be awesome, but we don't have PCR machines)
    We bred fruit flies, did field work (sampling aquatic bugs from streams, or mapping out quadrants for vegetative sampling) dissections, some basic experiments like burning items to determine caloric content, testing various items around the school for their bacterial content, I don't remember what else. The middle schools also had a summer science school for a couple weeks in the mountains where kids learned about various animal behavior and identifying tracks and scat etc. It was stuff like that I was referring to, yes the macro level stuff. But, I was in high school back before the whole standardized testing thing, since I graduated in 1995. Schools and curriculum will of course vary as well.

  28. #28
    a two horned unicorn renegade Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    Ne-ILE-C 7 ELFV?
    Posts
    4,148
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quantum parts of chemistry are very hard to understand before you have done some studies in actual quantum mechanics [which is university level of quite advanced physics]. Now, we have lost > 99 % of people.

    Molecular biology and biochemistry has to be absolute gibberish without basic understanding of chemistry. But yuo do not need to know about molecular or atomic orbitals.

    Ecology and evolution are more related to probabilistic understanding of world and resources.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I donít care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.

  29. #29
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,837
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007 View Post
    Quantum parts of chemistry are very hard to understand before you have done some studies in actual quantum mechanics [which is university level of quite advanced physics]. Now, we have lost > 99 % of people.

    Molecular biology and biochemistry has to be absolute gibberish without basic understanding of chemistry. But yuo do not need to know about molecular or atomic orbitals.

    Ecology and evolution are more related to probabilistic understanding of world and resources.
    Yar, molecular biology has both chemistry and physics in it, and chemistry has physics and physics has calculus.

    While ecology is system-based, similar in many respects to economy with the ins and outs of resource use and populations, interrelationships of populations with one another and quantities of resources available, or another analogy could be a body -- put stress on one area and the entire system reacts, but yeah, certainly a different track than molecular biology or biochemistry with a different kind of basis. You still have chemistry and physics in it, just in different forms. Inputs of quantities of nitrogen or phosphorus for example, leading to an algae overgrowth, causing massive fish death due to lack of oxygen in the water, leading to a temporary explosion in some predator populations, which puts stress on other prey species, etc and so on. Or the physics and flow dynamics of stream run-off and the subsequent impacts . . . and so on. Or the DNA changes and mutations caused by chemical pollution and how that effects populations. So it's more large system-based impacts.

    And idk what my point is. . . maybe I don't have one. Oh yeah, I think you can probably learn the aspects of chemistry and physics (and geology too) within ecology after learning some of the basics of biology without it being a problem, whereas agreed that biochemistry kind of requires one to understand chemistry first if you want to make any sense of it at all.

  30. #30
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,646
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Inputs of quantities of nitrogen or phosphorus for example, leading to an algae overgrowth, causing massive fish death due to lack of oxygen in the water, leading to a temporary explosion in some predator populations, which puts stress on other prey species, etc and so on. Or the physics and flow dynamics of stream run-off and the subsequent impacts . . . and so on.
    This is one of the best examples of CD cognition I've seen. @Troll Nr 007 .

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,856
    Mentioned
    895 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    the most common "stereotype" of noobs is that they may trust to own typings more than to the theory
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  32. #32
    a two horned unicorn renegade Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    Ne-ILE-C 7 ELFV?
    Posts
    4,148
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    This is one of the best examples of CD cognition I've seen. @Troll Nr 007 .
    You see quite massive P4 branched version... http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...of-Personality

    Although I do not really agree with "Strategic Gamer" term as I do not really see it as a game or exactly quantitative due to branching with adjustable sliders.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I donít care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.

  33. #33
    Alomoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    TIM
    LIE ENTj
    Posts
    464
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    While I love physics, I suck at it. It's my inability to do addition right. I feel like Beethoven, who did all multiplication by adding. I do all addition by multiplication. At least mine makes sense. Now when I code, however, yes, I do take the long route.

    Oh and I bungle the math too often. Way, WAY too often.
    Figured it out. LIE. I'm extraverted, which is incredibly counter intuitive for a person who doesn't tend to go out much. Don't know how often I'll be on, but don't expect me to respond often. Only option I'm willing to debate is Si vs Ni right now. Mission accomplished.

  34. #34
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    943
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alomoes View Post
    While I love physics, I suck at it. It's my inability to do addition right. I feel like Beethoven, who did all multiplication by adding. I do all addition by multiplication. At least mine makes sense. Now when I code, however, yes, I do take the long route.

    Oh and I bungle the math too often. Way, WAY too often.
    It's not that the math is 'too hard.' What I've concluded is that the math is almost all by rote (a description of something 'MBTI sensing' and then the math just 'tacked on'), so I'm either going to have to deal with that or get out of it...

    I also think INTp and INTj are the exact opposite at physics: for INTps, they are studying math simply as a tool to learn the physics. I see physics almost as applied mathematics, and so I'm studying physics simply as an interesting way to learn math - I cannot possibly look at math as a tool...

  35. #35
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    943
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Update:

    I can now ace any basic physics class (college physics, etc.), and I'm on my way to Modern Physics. With introductory physics, I learned that it is important to have no preconceptions when you are reading a physics text - i.e. read it like you are reading a biology or history textbook and try to simply be informed about how different physical concepts work without having making any assumptions. *However* I am now finding Modern Physics difficult. I find it polar opposite to the way university mathematics courses are taught. That is: in college calculus, group theory, linear algebra, etc., 1) the information is always well-organized, 2) no variables are left dangling, and 3) the demonstrations are always 'air-tight.' Modern physics is almost the opposite: 1) the equations are loosely organized, 2) many variables are undefined, and 3) the demonstrations just sort of illustrate the concept. This leaves me in a 'wild-goose chase' when I get to the questions at the back of the chapter in trying to equate almost any variable or manipulate the equations... Compare this to a book I just picked up on Vector Calculus, in which I can just open it up at any chapter, and just blitz through the material... (And I have never learned Vector Calculus before...) Anyway, my theory is that in physics, by forcing myself to work backwards, I am learning more than by just playing to my strengths and mastering something I find easy. In any event, we'll see how it turns out...

  36. #36
    jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    943
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I even look at intermediate physics and higher like it is a high-range iq test:

    Look at modern physics like it is simply mathematical manipulation. Then:

    1) Because there aren't a lot of relevant examples, the equations are hard to apply.
    2) Because the information in the chapters is not deeply analyzed, it is hard to remember.
    3) Because the information is not well-organized in the chapters, it is hard to find the right equation.
    4) Because the equations don't have values that are clearly defined, they are hard to understand.

    Then: when you try to apply the equation, you don't necessarily know how to apply the equations because of 1), then you search for the equation and can't remember it because of 2), then the equation is hard to search for because of 3), and then when you think you've found it, you have to back-track and do a really thorough search for finding variables because of 4).

    To me, this makes it like a high-range IQ test in which you almost have to figure out how to study it inventively to get anywhere with it! And then solving an item is similar to how you would solve a high range IQ test question...
    Last edited by jason_m; 03-14-2019 at 04:49 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •