
If Susan Can Learn Physics, So Can You (2013) - sebg
https://fledglingphysicist.com/2013/12/12/if-susan-can-learn-physics-so-can-you/
======
ancarda
This is half a rant and half a cry for help. I see topics like this on HN
often; "Anyone can learn math!" but I really don't think I can. Not because
I'm a defeatist and have given up but because I've tried basically all my life
to understand math and I've never managed to grasp anything but the most basic
concepts.

I've tried different teachers, my friends have tried tutoring me, I've tried
Khan Academy. No matter what I do, the information just won't stick. The
connections in my brain aren't made. What I don't understand is I learn other
subjects relatively well. It's just math I can't grasp which really sucks
because I love science and cryptography; two fields I imagine I could
appreciate more with a solid mathematical background.

It's worth noting I have some of the symptoms of dyscalculia, so perhaps my
brain isn't really built to do math and is why I struggle so much?

It's frustrating when I see "anyone can learn math!" because I've gotten shit
from people in the past like "you can't be a good programmer if you're bad at
math". I feel like we need to be more accepting that people have strengths and
weaknesses in different areas.

I'm tired of feeling ashamed to be bad at math, especially as I'm not sure
it's even my fault anymore.

~~~
dominotw
why were you trying to learn math? perhaps the problem can be attacked by
trying to understand the problem math is helping with.

~~~
ancarda
I want a better, deeper understanding for things that are built on math, like
cryptography and physics. Math should help me understand topics I enjoy more.

Lately I feel like I'm hitting a brick wall with cryptography. For example, I
know what algorithms are secure but I can't tell you why as I don't understand
the math behind it. I took the Cryptography 101 course on Stanford which used
discrete probability. I didn't get very far into the course.

It's possible some of this just comes from me trying to fix the feeling
ashamed problem but it's just making me miserable. What I ought to do is stop
beating myself up.

~~~
acqq
"Learning math" to understand "cryptography" seems to me as a narrow goal. I
have an impression that observing it that way you can get disinterested as
soon as "the math" is doing its "mathy" things of developing itself just for
the sake of it. Because that's math in essence. You want to be on the level of
"applied" math but you have to be ready to "dirty" your hands with math "just
so" too. Once you are proficient enough to feel comfortable of approaching
math as something that doesn't have one purpose and not even some universal
consistency (e.g. not in all cases is the notation the same) it will be easier
for you: then you use math as a tool, but you aren't afraid of that tool. But
a lot of math exists for itself.

My suggestion, it worked for me: buy _a lot_ of paper, like, thousands of
sheets. Take some books with the problems (and also with the solutions) then
work through, maybe more than once. Don't say you haven't tried until you
actually used all these sheets to write your own derivations of the solutions.
If you once see the solution, you have to try the second time without looking.
I could not learn by not really doing it, a lot, and I don't think anybody
can. You can't just "read" it as you read history books, you have to "work"
it.

A lot of people simply can't imagine themselves sitting and filling the papers
with formulas (also in the comments here), but don't have problems spending
months doing video games, for example. It's this "belief" that's limiting.

On another side, you need to have some kind of context too, but you have to
find the interactions of the context and the actual work you do yourself. I
like the "historical" context, because the big steps in math were
traditionally not accidental. Archimedes invented the kind of "infinite"
methods to calculate volume of some solids, and the methods remained
forgotten, people remembering just results, Newton also invented a new math
just to solve the problems he considered etc. For you, you have to adjust your
steps to the knowledge you already have: if you know little, you can't avoid
spending time learning the basic stuff. You have to work through, step by
step.

Maybe also watch the documentary about Fermat's Last Theorem as an example of
how it looks like doing math.

------
MatekCopatek
In my experience, this is even more true for art.

Where I live, physics and math are a part of obligatory general education, so
you'll definitely have to study them until you're 15. After that, if you stay
in the general education system (which is true for 95% of people who plan to
go to college), you'll have to learn them for 4 more years. Sure, some people
will develop a likeness/talent for it and others will hate it, but everyone
needs to pass. Only when you go to college at 19 will people start telling you
that perhaps you need to be a physics person to study physics and that it's
not for everyone.

Art, on the other hand, is considered something magical and depending entirely
on your talents right from the start. Art subjects barely touch on any
practice, you have to learn a bit about the history and you pass. But I feel
it's absolutely the same. Everyone can (and IMHO should be forced to) learn to
read sheet music, play a simple tune on the recorder, draw still life with
correct shading and proportions, write a short poem etc.

Personal involvment would give people a much deeper understanding of the
topic. I mean, imagine if physics only consisted of everyone learning about
Newton, Galileo and Einstein with just the smart kids doing calculations.

~~~
option_greek
Can we take a step back and make the physics/math optional instead of forcing
art too on people :) I never understood why things are mandatory in education.
Given a choice I would skip history (apart from reading on my own time what
ever interests me),civics and anything that end up quizzing my memory instead
of skill (aka memorized processes).

~~~
HarryHirsch
_I never understood why things are mandatory in education._

Perhaps it's to combat entrenched prejudice. Back then we would make jokes
about "Physics for Women", i.e. the non-calculus kind for non-majors. Everyone
who would joke like that would _know_ that physics is for anyone, just look
around the lecture hall where 25 % of the audience are female, but talking
like this he would pretend to be a Neanderthaler from an era thankfully past.

Forward to the present, where in Britain they make physics more "accessible"
by watering the subject down. That doesn't help groups that are traditionally
excluded, they need to be included, forceful if necessary.

Same thing holds true for the Arts.

~~~
digler999
> by watering the subject down

<RANT>

I think it's a false premise that the subject is hard in the first place. Why
is it hard ? Because you have to get the "right answer" on your test/homework.
Ok, but why do you have to get the "right answer" ? Why do I get zero points
for a problem when I put 0.33 and the answer was 0.145 ? That is utterly
ridiculous. Why are we using logical AND on all a problems steps ? Oh, you
made one mistake, no points for you!

And before someone brings up "partial credit", That's myth that meant "pity
points", not "9/10 points, minus one because you f-ed up your algebra or minus
sign". You should be tested on the _process_ of solving a problem, not whether
you got 0.33 as your final answer. In the real world, _even if you do exactly
what the book says(!)_ you won't get 0.33. Your measuring apparatus wont be
calibrated, there will be noise, other sampling errors, defects in materials,
etc. If you start the test out with this bullshit premise that IF( ANSWER ==
0.33 ) THEN grade='a'; then you're not testing them on physics, you're testing
them on how detail oriented they are and how well they can concentrate without
making a mistake (like the Japanese show "Unbeatable Banzuki"). If that's your
class, then call the class "Following Detailed Processes I" or "Doing N steps
without ever making a mistake II", dont call it "physics". You should be able
to get an A without ever getting the "right answer", so long as you
demonstrate that you know the concepts and what the equations represent and
_how to apply them_. Not contorting yourself to do the work of a machine, like
a sadistic hazing ritual.

Edit:

And I almost forgot about the fun little thing they do in college where the
course covers topics {A,B,C}, yet they test you {A _, B^-1, and C-d}, you
know, just a_ little bit different* material or problem formats than what they
lectured about. Just different enough that they dont resemble any of the quiz
or homework problems. If you want to test me on Ax^2+bx+c, then _test me_ on
Ax^2+bx+c, not on problems I've never seen before.

</RANT>

~~~
gtr
When I went to uni (physics) an exam had four/five questions that would take
about 40 minutes each, and the "final answer" was worth about 5/10% of the
question. So it really was about the process.

------
dkarapetyan
[http://duncan.mkz.com/what-one-fool-can-do-another-
can/](http://duncan.mkz.com/what-one-fool-can-do-another-can/)

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

------
danso
FWIW, the author of this post is also the author of the "A Strange Year at
Uber" post making the rounds.

She also authored this previously discussed post about physics:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691963](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691963)

------
sna1l
A big problem with schools in the US is that grades carry so much weight.
Taking a class which you don't have an immediate aptitude for is frowned upon.

Kids should be allowed to take more risks to learn different things.

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

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

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

~~~
dkarapetyan
Many studies show monetary rewards make it less likely people will learn
things. So you've basically set things up for failure. As Susan points out in
the article learning physics for her is about mental and spiritual enrichment.
By introducing money into the mix you are changing the framing and putting
things into an economic frame. The rules are different in economic frames.

------
cauterized
This article makes a major point that a lot of comments seem to be missing.

She's criticizing how people get pigeonholed -- not just early in their
careers but early in childhood -- as being "math people" or "physics people"
or "humanities people". And that those categories and labels limit people who
in fact are capable of learning and enjoying STEM subjects.

It's like how there's an unspoken rule in some corners of the tech industry
that someone who first picked up programming later than high school can never
be a "real programmer". Which is bullshit and does both individuals and the
industry a major disservice.

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

I worry that after I adopt, my daughter is going to fall into the same trap.

~~~
watwut
"is it possible to persuade them that they are mentally capable of learning
it?"

Depends on why they think they are incapable of doing it. Whatever the reason,
it is possible that they do not see value in learning it and putting in
effort. It might be that they failed in the past - or never tried because they
always assumed they can not do it.

However, if your worry is the kid, then talk about that worry with them
directly. Don't go around trying to manipulate them into learning something
they do not care about. Just say that you worry about the baby picking up the
attitude and thus having less options in life (and growing up less capable as
a result). Healthy kids are super good in picking up attitudes like that, so
the worry is well grounded.

Your wife might be more open to not make herself less capable then she is in
front of kid for the sake of kid then to spend a lot of effort on something
she does not care about.

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

~~~
fizixer
> ... extremely high-IQ people ...

Don't underestimate the drive for people to lie or greatly exaggerate their
achievements over the internet.

I personally find the post not entirely believable. E.g.,

\- First she says "I had learned nothing beyond sixth grade math: no algebra,
...". Then she says "I had been lucky enough to be introduced to ... some
algebra ..."

\- "You see, I had no formal education". Oh wait, that still leaves out the
possibility of thousands of hours of khan-academy, and youtube and what not,
for math, physics, programming, during high-school, summers, evenings,
freshman college, sophomore college, etc, etc. (Yeah no.).

\- She was ignorant in math and physics in June 2012, took a QFT class around
Dec 2012, and had an eye opening experience. It's good poetry but not clear
what she meant by that. (could be as simple as sitting in a QFT class without
credits, and being able to follow some of the discussion)

\- She was taking QFT in Dec 2012, and yet she graduates with BA in physics as
last as May of 2014 (from her profile page). So very likely QFT was a giant
namedrop, and if you ignore that, spending 2 years on undergrad math and
physics coursework, when you've already taken logic and set theory, leading up
to a bachelor's degree is pretty routine for most students.

\- She worked on the ATLAS project. But. Doing data analysis and "helping
design electronics". That sounds like a computer nerd who liked to dabble into
physics just for the sake of picking a major for the degree (not that hard).

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

~~~
aisofteng
Why is that impressive? QFT was developed by humans. Humans are therefore
capable of studying it, even if doing so requires substantial effort.

~~~
neutronicus
Because, in several years at a highly-regarded physics program, I've met very
few people who understood QFT after their first (or second...) brushes with
it.

She may not have been "a physics person" for a long time, but she certainly
became one!

~~~
aisofteng
It takes time to understand a new topic, and sometimes more than one try.
However, that is the expected difficulty level for someone with an
undergraduate degree in a related field. Going from middle school algebra to
QFT in 1.5 years is technically possible, I suppose, but it sounds like a big
load of bullshit to me.

~~~
paulpauper
it's odd how her blog posts from 2013 have amazon aff links in them ..but I
think her story is real, its just that her iq is astronomically high. John
Moffat, the inventor of the theory of Modified Gravity, went from learning
calculus to general relativity in a year, and this was in the 50's, so there
was no internet to help him.

~~~
cbennett
I didn't notice about the affiliate links, but her story is undeniably real:
reading some of the posts on her fledling physicist blog (previous one) , one
is struck with the sense of an immediate and lucid understanding of deep
physics problems that probably take other early stage academics many years to
grok. And , as GP stated, QFT is notoriously thorny, and an immediate
comprehension of that is the hallmark of something very special.

I don't know what her IQ really is, I don't think _astronomical_ , but it is
certainly very anomalous. I only have a truly deep perspective on my own
abilities, and just based on this I think I can say somewhat confidently she
is at least a generation above mine in general ability-, for myself, having
jumped from standard engineering undergrad, to software engineering and
algorithm design, to applied physics, and now finally to nanoelectronics ,
each of which I can say I somewhat mastered within the space of a year-1.5yrs,
and statisically I konw I am 3.5-4 standard deviations above mean (at age 10
and 14 I tested 164 and 158 respectively), but all of that did not give me the
power to so quickly grasp QFT- remained incomprehensible to me in my first
year grad school classes, and probably always will, unless I invested massive
time into mastering it.

But I want to comment on another thing I find highly strange, which is that
someone of such rare intelligence would leave academia (ostensibly she was at
one time considering staying in Physics as a grad student) back to software
architecture, rather than gravitating to the edge of mathematical physics- or
continuing to follow that road to reality, to riff on Penrose. Indeed, I found
myself following the inverse path. And ultimately, Moffat & his correspondents
in our generation,- possibly another lady, like Pasterski looks like one
possible member of this cohort- will be the ones to pave the next part of it.

------
melling
Previous discussion with some good comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691963](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691963)

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

------
geff82
I feel the same with Computer Science. It is so freaking complicated! I work
in IT, I can program, I am totally immersed in UNIX culture. Yet I don't
manage to sit down and study CS as I would like to, as I fear I won't get over
the rather theoretical subjects. But you know what? Somehow this short article
really resonated. I will sit down and hunt my degree, starting today.

(Disclosure: I am already enrolled in a online-university program here in
Germany, which is almost free, but so far I only took two exams on rather
practical subjects I had no problems with).

~~~
ejanus
Is your school English based ?

~~~
geff82
No, pure German. www.fernuni-hagen.de. It is an official state run university.

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

~~~
Baeocystin
Not speaking to her case, but it happens. My family moved frequently, which
meant hopping schools in different states. As a result, I missed many
'required' math classes, simply due to coincidences of scheduling.

(This was in the 80's, well before the current attempts at cross-state
standardization.)

In my case, it did not cause me any particular trouble, as I was able to teach
myself what I missed. My parents had predicted that this could be an issue, so
they made sure I had the resources I needed. But if they had not been
proactive, I could have easily graduated HS without ever having taken certain
core classes.

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

------
mikebenfield
I wholeheartedly endorse the idea that people should learn more physics and
math, but I'm not sure the author's personal story supports her apparent
message.

She apparently went from 6th grade math to graduate quantum mechanics in a
year and a half. This is _highly_ atypical and is surely not an example of a
"not smart" person overcoming and managing to learn some physics.

~~~
aisofteng
I find that progression of mathematical maturity highly unlikely. It is
possible and I won't discount it, but compressing 4+ years of study into 1.5
is not something that more than a few people can do.

~~~
112012123
I tend to agree. Having gone through a full undergraduate and graduate physics
program, and having met more than a few Nobel Laureate level physicists, I
don't think I've met a single one that could go this fast. This is 5 to 6
years of just concentrated college-level physics, to say nothing of all the
mathematical prerequisites.

~~~
keldaris
As a recently minted theoretical physics PhD, I feel rather the opposite way
on this. The vast majority of Nobel laureates still went through the usual
university progression, which isn't at all designed to cater to the smartest
students, but rather to ensure that a substantial part (~15-20% or so in my
program, but this varies greatly) of the student population can actually
graduate and do at least some research work afterwards. Notwithstanding the
actual thesis research, I feel like my program could have easily been
compressed by a factor of at least 2x (dispensing with much of the repetition
that goes into making sure most people can do the exercises and internalize
the concepts) without compromising the final state of my education.

Furthermore, if your goal isn't to do research work but rather to be able to
follow along an average research article using the basic framework of QFT, you
can also cut out much of the lab work. Susan is clearly considerably above
average in intelligence and a quick study, and I'm impressed by her
perseverence, but I don't think this is at all beyond what any good
theoretical physicist could have done. It's just that they went a different
path, going through the university system, a path with its own advantages, but
brevity is not among them.

------
rokosbasilisk
I dont think this is fair. Susan is a genius, she has multiple degrees from
top universities.

The average person hears things like this and only gets demoralized. Its just
like the lean in campaign. What worked for the 1% isnt going to work for the
average person.

------
jwdunne
Hrm. Learning anything requires sustained and consistent focus on the subject.
I don't think I can.

I have tried learning physics, linear algebra, calculus, abstract algebra,
discrete maths, proofs, drawing, game development, compiler construction,
operating systems, to write, sound synthesis, music in general and many more.
In the past year. I'm not thick so I have varying degrees of success but I
never make much progress. The interest lasts from a few days to a few weeks.

Computer science and programming are ones I just so happen to keep coming back
to at closer intervals. I just wish I wrote more code, built more projects.
There's a lot to learn and that is what lies in larger, more important
projects. I know if I could get past this, I could make a positive, if only
somewhat, contribution to our field.

I have ADHD, I take my medication everyday. It helps but it isn't a silver
bullet. I have learned more in the past year with medication that I have the
years before. It is a problem that does not seem to be going away.

Sorry Susan, I really admire your path. You've done well and it's
inspirational. I just don't think I can learn psychics like you.

~~~
cousin_it
I think consistent focus might be a bit overrated, and bouncing between topics
can be a nice way to learn for some people. For example, yesterday I looked at
the type signature of runST in Haskell and it was completely obvious how it
works and how to implement my own. I had stumbled on that weird type signature
a few times before, filed it away as incomprehensible and moved on to other
things. But I guess my mind was processing it in the background somehow.

That happens to me a lot with other topics as well. I get intrigued by
something, play with it enough to memorize a few details without really
understanding them, then forget about the whole thing for awhile, and then
come back to find a deeper understanding without apparent effort. Does anyone
else feel that way?

~~~
jwdunne
Actually yes. This is exactly what happens to me. Even after months, I come
back and have an easier time. I think this touched on in Barbara Oakley's
stuff though she seemed to criticise the extreme lengths between my learning.

My other problem is I spent tonnes of time learning and then never do anything
with it. A lot of the stuff I learn often becomes useful mental models -
calculus and the idea of continuity and change did this. It felt like a new
way to look at the world.

The problem is you can have infinitely many ways of looking at the world but
it means nothing if you don't do anything with it!

~~~
cousin_it
When you learn something, you can try using your newfound skills to answer
questions on subreddits, mathoverflow, etc. It feels great to satisfy other
people's interest and get feedback on it.

~~~
jwdunne
I have done that before. I just have a long list of things I want to do, not
necessarily learn, but don't end up doing them.

------
gexla
> I spent every minute of my days trying to learn everything I had never been
> able to learn from 6th-12th grade physics and math. I had the most difficult
> time possible taking intro physics and the beginning calculus courses. I
> kept going. I knew that if I was ever going to learn this stuff, I had to
> learn it now.

If you have the drive to put in this "most difficult" effort, utilizing "every
minute" of your days closing the gap then you can learn like Susan.

I think the people who aren't "math people" or aren't "physics people" just
aren't willing to put in much effort to learn it. They probably aren't all-
consumed by it like Susan is.

It's not that these subjects are inaccessible to some people, it's that some
people don't want to learn these subjects.

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

------
grzm
(2013)

