Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11
Like Tree8Likes
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 3 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Fossilborealis
  • 1 Post By Stargate
  • 1 Post By wegs
  • 1 Post By nyankitty0911

Thread: Insecurities in the Science Field

  1. #1 Insecurities in the Science Field 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8
    I have always wondered this. So no one should be born knowing the periodic table, or how many chromosomes a human has. Yet, some people are just better than others in the science fields. I presumed that it was because their brain functioned differently, and they could better absorb information in a quicker fashion compared to others, but I also thought that if someone was not a natural "science whiz" they could study much harder and get similar results. I mean, isn't it logical that action= result?
    Does studying actually help you in the science field? Or should you just give up and leave it to the natural science whiz people, whom can probably absorb way more information much faster. o.o
    May I just add that I am in the "must study harder" category. Wish I was in the other one, that'd be nice. ^o^

    I guess I'm feeling down about it after a recent science tournament that I studied hard for but failed to place. I wonder if I just can't do it, or I need to study EVEN more than I did before. I'd be nice to hear other people's opinions about it, no matter what they might be. I guess its kinda like getting closure on this subject? Its kinda been sensitive to me for a awhile. >.<


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Your natural IQ probably has a pretty sizable effect on your academic pursuits. I've found that the biggest hurdle when it comes to kids who do well in science and kids who don't is simple interest levels. In addition to that, your study habits dictate how effective is the time you actually spend studying. You absolutely have to figure out how you study best.


    nyankitty0911 likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Your natural IQ probably has a pretty sizable effect on your academic pursuits. I've found that the biggest hurdle when it comes to kids who do well in science and kids who don't is simple interest levels. In addition to that, your study habits dictate how effective is the time you actually spend studying. You absolutely have to figure out how you study best.
    Thank-you for the reply. And I've had teachers tell me to find effective methods of studying, but I never believed them. Although recently its making more sense. Its kinda like reading a passage and understanding the concepts in it, or reading a passage and not comprehending but saying you studied anyways, even though you didn't really absorb anything. I will definitely keep that in mind. Its quite amazing to see the kids who have such an interest in science. (it certainly doesn't hurt that many of them are naturally, very intelligent). ^o^
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I don't know if this will help or not: some semi-random thoughts around your question, but not directly answering it.

    Flick's point about interest is certainly an important one. But also, what is science? You appear to have the same idea about science I had when I was at school and that I carried with me to university. I thought science was about the things we know about the world, that have been discovered by scientists.

    I decided to go to university to study geology because I wanted to know about the geography of ancient times and the kinds of creatures that had lived then. At an early stage I found that, interesting though that stuff was, there were even more fascinating ideas. One could learn about the principles that governed how things occured. Some simple 'rules' could let you deduce an awful lot about a scenario with minimum facts. That led me to understand that science was not about what we know, but about how we know it. Science is the application of the scientific method.

    I really don't know when I first became conscious of that. Certainly long before graduation, but it created a different approach for me in how and what I learned. One thing that was apparent was that to properly apply the scientific method one needed a long, hard apprenticeship of learning the basic facts, the established underpinnings of the subject, before one could start thinking about finding something new. That certainly motivated me to to learn those basics, regardless of how dry some of them were.

    Much later, long after dreams of research had faded against the reality of working for a living, I discovered a deep interest in the history of science. Earlier, since I wanted to know what we know, I had no interest in what we had previously known - I wanted to be bang up to date. Now I find the evolution of that knowledge, as the scientific method is applied, fascinating. As a consequence, in certain areas of geology (but definitely not all) I have a far better understanding that I did when acquiring a degree.

    As I said, I have no idea if that might resonate with you. If not, good luck with finding an approach. If it did, then glad to be of service.
    Last edited by John Galt; November 10th, 2013 at 10:33 AM. Reason: A whole bunch of dreadful typographical errors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    211
    Humans are physical beings. Our brains aren't magic anymore than this computer is magic. We can only perform within the limits of our physical hardware. The differences are between human limits have been subject to a thousand debates.

    I did well in high school and always just assumed that I would go into the sciences. Which I did (geology). 40 years later I'm still a science nut. I'm not sure of everyone but I'd guess that 75% of my graduating class did geology work....50% were still in it 5 years later and perhaps 10% of us still keeners today. 1 in 10. Anyways.

    The point? Stick with it. Who cares if the guy next to you can ace a calculus exam or can recite the periodic table after studying it once while watching a movie. He may make a good scientist but the odds are he'll be like most and doesn't really have 'the spark'. My own observation is that 'the spark' is what eventually makes a good scientist. This is the student who was real keen but may have only limped through physics or passed a make up exam in calculus. It sounds rather basic but he Really Likes science...picks up a copy of Scientific American, watches Nova, goes birdwatching, examines a rock, etc. He's thirsty to find out about 'stuff'. (He's more likely to be on a forum like this).

    Anyone with modest intelligence or aptitude will do well in many scientific disciplines if they are enthused. Our capacity for math or whatever may not make us suited for theoretical physics but Tiger Woods isn't suited for the NFL.
    nyankitty0911 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    My take is mainly based on what you love to do. We are all the same and not the same, sometimes we do not have a clue why we like this and not like that, I think it is tied to the space we occupy, the environment, and the influence the planets and stars have on us at birth. I think it is important to study self-first, because it gives one the opportunity to get to know the way one functions.

    I have discovered that no matter what you know or do, there is always someone who does, or knows better. I think this is good, it allows one to partake and find a space in the scheme of things. Sometimes hard studying bears fruits, sometimes it does not, however if you measure yourself on someone’s achievements you could find your self-caught up in that persons main feature and damage yourself. On the other hand that person could lead you to where you could not have taken yourself. There are so many ways to look at it.

    I have known many people to start off following someone because they were good at a specific thing and ended up doing something completely different. Everyone has a specific thing that they master; it comes easy to them but very hard to others. So what I would say is, first love what you do be it science, or whatever, if you can do that then studying hard will always pay off.
    nyankitty0911 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,073
    Quote Originally Posted by nyankitty0911 View Post
    I have always wondered this. So no one should be born knowing the periodic table, or how many chromosomes a human has. Yet, some people are just better than others in the science fields. I presumed that it was because their brain functioned differently, and they could better absorb information in a quicker fashion compared to others, but I also thought that if someone was not a natural "science whiz" they could study much harder and get similar results. I mean, isn't it logical that action= result?
    Does studying actually help you in the science field? Or should you just give up and leave it to the natural science whiz people, whom can probably absorb way more information much faster. o.o
    May I just add that I am in the "must study harder" category. Wish I was in the other one, that'd be nice. ^o^

    I guess I'm feeling down about it after a recent science tournament that I studied hard for but failed to place. I wonder if I just can't do it, or I need to study EVEN more than I did before. I'd be nice to hear other people's opinions about it, no matter what they might be. I guess its kinda like getting closure on this subject? Its kinda been sensitive to me for a awhile. >.<
    I'm sorry you are feeling down; I felt the same way as you when I was in school, but with respect to mathematics. No matter how hard I studied, the best grade I could muster was a 'B.' Keep in mind though, there are some fields in science that you might excel in over other fields. Maybe it's a matter of finding a field of study that suits your natural learning ability, as well. By no means does this indicate that you are not successful in your academic endeavors...so please don't view it that way. There are areas of study that some excel in better than others, and science may not be your strong point, and that's ok, too. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, it's nothing to get down about. What you should be proud of, is your tenacity. To me, that shows you are eager to learn, and have a strong work ethic.
    nyankitty0911 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I don't know if this will help or not: some semi-random thoughts around your question, but not directly answering it.

    Flick's point about interest is certainly an important one. But also, what is science? You appear to have the same idea about science I had when I was at school and that I carried with me to university. I thought science was about the things we know about the world, that have been discovered by scientists.

    I decided to go to university to study geology because I wanted to know about the geography of ancient times and the kinds of creatures that had lived then. At an early stage I found that, interesting though that stuff was, there were even more fascinating ideas. One could learn about the principles that governed how things occured. Some simple 'rules' could let you deduce an awful lot about a scenario with minimum facts. That led me to understand that science was not about what we know, but about how we know it. Science is the application of the scientific method.

    I really don't know when I first became conscious of that. Certainly long before graduation, but it created a different approach for me in how and what I learned. One thing that was apparent was that to properly apply the scientific method one needed a long, hard apprenticeship of learning the basic facts, the established underpinnings of the subject, before one could start thinking about finding something new. That certainly motivated me to to learn those basics, regardless of how dry some of them were.

    Much later, long after dreams of research had faded against the reality of working for a living, I discovered a deep interest in the history of science. Earlier, since I wanted to know what we know, I had no interest in what we had previously known - I wanted to be bang up to date. Now I find the evolution of that knowledge, as the scientific method is applied, fascinating. As a consequence, in certain areas of geology (but definitely not all) I have a far better understanding that I did when acquiring a degree.

    As I said, I have no idea if that might resonate with you. If not, good luck with finding an approach. If it did, then glad to be of service.
    This reply was actually quite enlightening. I had never thought about it like that. I do appreciate the helpful reply. ^o^ I suppose my reservations lie in that I am so eager to do what I deem to be "interesting" without really realizing the basics. o.o
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Fossilborealis View Post
    Humans are physical beings. Our brains aren't magic anymore than this computer is magic. We can only perform within the limits of our physical hardware. The differences are between human limits have been subject to a thousand debates.

    I did well in high school and always just assumed that I would go into the sciences. Which I did (geology). 40 years later I'm still a science nut. I'm not sure of everyone but I'd guess that 75% of my graduating class did geology work....50% were still in it 5 years later and perhaps 10% of us still keeners today. 1 in 10. Anyways.

    The point? Stick with it. Who cares if the guy next to you can ace a calculus exam or can recite the periodic table after studying it once while watching a movie. He may make a good scientist but the odds are he'll be like most and doesn't really have 'the spark'. My own observation is that 'the spark' is what eventually makes a good scientist. This is the student who was real keen but may have only limped through physics or passed a make up exam in calculus. It sounds rather basic but he Really Likes science...picks up a copy of Scientific American, watches Nova, goes birdwatching, examines a rock, etc. He's thirsty to find out about 'stuff'. (He's more likely to be on a forum like this).

    Anyone with modest intelligence or aptitude will do well in many scientific disciplines if they are enthused. Our capacity for math or whatever may not make us suited for theoretical physics but Tiger Woods isn't suited for the NFL.
    Thank-you for the reply! Its nice to hear that you are so interested in the sciences. ^o^ Haha, I suppose I love science too much to ever give it up. )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8
    Thank-you for the positive reply! ^o^ I appreciate your kind words, haha I'm already feeling better. Hopefully, if I don't find one I excel in over the others, I can find one that I just absolutely love. ^o^
    wegs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,073
    Quote Originally Posted by nyankitty0911 View Post
    Thank-you for the positive reply! ^o^ I appreciate your kind words, haha I'm already feeling better. Hopefully, if I don't find one I excel in over the others, I can find one that I just absolutely love. ^o^
    That's the spirit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. How is the job demand for each science field?
    By tariqblaze in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 11th, 2013, 12:10 PM
  2. Which field of science has the most applications in real life?
    By tariqblaze in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: October 31st, 2013, 01:31 AM
  3. Is the field of science for the most part dead today?
    By tariqblaze in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 20th, 2013, 11:56 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 31st, 2011, 03:42 PM
  5. Basic field of science question
    By thechosendenton in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 18th, 2006, 02:09 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

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