Who's "smarter" - A mediocre physicist or a good writer?

TSMGUY

Following on from my Einstein v Shakespeare thread where Shakespeare got absolutely hammered, I wonder, if a great writer can't match up with a great scientist, does a good writer beat out an average physicist?

Good Writer = Writes generally well received but not groundbreaking stuff e.g. Stephen King
Average Physicist = Typical Physics PhD whose work is unknown.

McDermotX

Argh.....my head hurts.

TSMGUY

McDermotX wrote: »

Argh.....my head hurts.

updating with 3rd option - or is McDermotX the smartest by a country mile?

steddyeddy

Intelligence is plastic. I think passion, hard work and curiosty underpin excellence in any field. I suppose you coupd say writers create concepts while scientists investigate them.

TSMGUY

steddyeddy wrote: »

Intelligence is plastic. I think passion, hard work and curiosty underpin excellence in any field. I suppose you coupd say writers create concepts while scientists investigate them.

I think that's a tad over-simplified. Good scientists "create" models/theories/frameworks that are very abstract and sometimes untestable while many good writers find themselves not "creating concepts" so much as refining or repeating them. There's a massive amount of novelty involved (hint's in the name - novel), but there's a great deal of source material that writers draw on so the whole creative vs investigative dichotomy seems misleading to me.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

The one that doesn't make lots of sh1t threads

Knex*

TSMGUY wrote: »

Following on from my Einstein v Shakespeare thread..

We've all been waiting for this sequel with bated breath.

TSMGUY

LexieOnRale wrote: »

The one that doesn't make lots of sh1t threads

This is indeed a very **** thread. That being said, no need to be bitchy.

Knex. wrote: »

We've all been waiting for this sequel with bated breath.

Ted111

Let's say the scientist and the writer's girlfriends were gossiping while sorting out their respective laundry baskets, would we find out something about one that would bear on the ....

RainMakerToo

As a Physics graduate I would go with the physicist...

There's more to this than meets the eye though and I don't mean robots in disguise
Average writers have been promoted to celebrity status while brilliant physicists have been ridiculed, scorned, excommunicated even executed/assassinated, probably the same could be said about brilliant writers though. Obviously the practical aspect of Physics would have more applications in terms of actual survival and would therefore be more useful - would you rather be stranded on a desert island with a physicist or a writer I guess it what it boils down to. While it would be nice to hear somebody wax lyrical about the sun and the sea, it's not going to help you survive!

The fact is no matter what the discipline, the average person who appeals to the most people will be most successful - and that's the problem. Garth Brooks can sell out 5 nights in Croke Park while Jimi Hendrix/Chopin/Jim Morrison if they collectively rose from the dead would probably do 2 nights at best.

Arghus

What's a better shape: a circle or a square?

eeguy

RainMakerToo wrote: »

would you rather be stranded on a desert island with a physicist or a writer I guess it what it boils down to.

What the hell is the physicist gonna do? Whiteboard me off the island. Reduce our life and death situation into a theorem.
I'd take a writer over a physicist any day.

Preferably if that writer was ray mears or bear grylls, as both have released books.

Surreptitious

RainMakerToo wrote: »

As a Physics graduate I would go with the physicist...

There's more to this than meets the eye though and I don't mean robots in disguise
Average writers have been promoted to celebrity status while brilliant physicists have been ridiculed, scorned, excommunicated even executed/assassinated, probably the same could be said about brilliant writers though. Obviously the practical aspect of Physics would have more applications in terms of actual survival and would therefore be more useful - would you rather be stranded on a desert island with a physicist or a writer I guess it what it boils down to. While it would be nice to hear somebody wax lyrical about the sun and the sea, it's not going to help you survive!

The fact is no matter what the discipline, the average person who appeals to the most people will be most successful - and that's the problem. Garth Brooks can sell out 5 nights in Croke Park while Jimi Hendrix/Chopin/Jim Morrison if they collectively rose from the dead would probably do 2 nights at best.

You are NOT comparing Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix to Garth Brooks??? Jesus wept.

Junkyard Tom

What's better, a Leopard 2 battle tank or a picnic basket packed with fresh sandwiches and cakes?

RainMakerToo

Surreptitious wrote: »

You are NOT comparing Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix to Garth Brooks??? Jesus wept.

Of course I'm not comparing them
I'm just saying Garth would sell more tickets... more appealing to the bland/inoffensive masses

RainMakerToo

eeguy wrote: »

What the hell is the physicist gonna do? Whiteboard me off the island. Reduce our life and death situation into a theorem.
I'd take a writer over a physicist any day.

Preferably if that writer was ray mears or bear grylls, as both have released books.

More practical applications of Physics than literature...

AH summarized there ... deliberately misinterpreting a statement to start an argument... jaysus

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What's better, a Leopard 2 battle tank or a picnic basket packed with fresh sandwiches and cakes?

As if anything trumps cake.

Get a grip, Tom.

Surreptitious

RainMakerToo wrote: »

Of course I'm not comparing them
I'm just saying Garth would sell more tickets... more appealing to the bland/inoffensive masses

Ah I don't think so. You're talking about the biggest stars ever to walk this green earth. They were idolised in their day. RIP club 27

eeguy

RainMakerToo wrote: »

More practical applications of Physics than literature...

AH summarized there ... deliberately misinterpreting a statement to start an argument... jaysus

Nope. You never specified what branch of physics and what kind of writer. I picked two and disproved your entire point.

RainMakerToo

Surreptitious wrote: »

Ah I don't think so. You're talking about the biggest stars ever to walk this green earth. They were idolised in their day. RIP club 27

Guaranteed Garth would outsell them both... unfortunately!
What do the masses want to hear:
"I got friends in low places" ... yay I got friends in low places too...
Or:
"You're all slaves/a bunch of ****ing idiots..."

RainMakerToo

eeguy wrote: »

Nope. You never specified what branch of physics and what kind of writer. I picked two and disproved your entire point.

You could hardly call Bear Grylls a writer - he was an adventurer with a military background who turned to writing to fund further adventures...

Surreptitious

RainMakerToo wrote: »

Guaranteed Garth would outsell them both... unfortunately!
What do the masses want to hear:
"I got friends in low places" ... yay I got friends in low places too...
Or:
"You're all slaves/a bunch of ****ing idiots..."

Crazy sh1t dude. If they came back to life in the morning there would be tear gas riots to get tickets. Garth Brooks satisfies the desperate housewife generation whilst the others have influenced the entire history of music. It's not even worth discussing.

The question is a bit ridiculous.

Sometimes I like grapes. Sometimes I like pears.

Both are great, but different.

eeguy

RainMakerToo wrote: »

You could hardly call Bear Grylls a writer - he was an adventurer with a military background who turned to writing to fund further adventures...

He's has over 10 books. Very well received and nominated for several prizes.
Mears has 12 book out. Better than most professional writers.

Besides, what would a physicist actually do?
As Sheldon Cooper said "I know everything about about the internal combustion engine except how to fix it"

RainMakerToo

Surreptitious wrote: »

Crazy sh1t dude. If they came back to life in the morning there would be tear gas riots to get tickets. Garth Brooks satisfies the desperate housewife generation whilst the others have influenced the entire history of music. It's not even worth discussing.

Nah, they'd be too busy watching the X-Factor finale or some crap

Seriously Biggest selling artists over the last 20 years have been Celine Dion, Alanis Morissette, Adele, Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, Shania Twain, Spice Girls, etc... bland/inoffensive crap the lot of it

In terms of sales you can add Pink Floyd, Metallica, Fleetwood Mac, Bruce Springsteen, etc, but they've had a much longer window.

the fact is the most popular artists over the last 20 years are all rubbish, absolute drivel the lot of them

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Speedwell

I've worked in both publishing and engineering*, including academic publishing for science magazines, and I've been involved with writers' groups for many years and studied physics. A "good" writer is far harder a thing to be than an "average" person with a PhD in physics. All you need to be an "average" physicist or engineer is to follow the rules and know how to calculate, which is a skill. A "good" writer needs to not only have skill but also creative expression. The correct comparison in terms of "smartness" would be a "good" writer who competently writes things that people like to read, and a "good" engineer who applies physics and creativity to make things that solve problems.

*Engineering is applied physics.

Pedro K

eeguy wrote: »

Nope. You never specified what branch of physics and what kind of writer. I picked two and disproved your entire point.

A physics graduate (of any branch) would have a better grasp of kinematics, dynamics, forces etc. than a writer.

eeguy

Pedro K wrote: »

A physics graduate (of any branch) would have a better grasp of kinematics, dynamics, forces etc. than a writer.

Fair enough. How does that help them turn the formulae and theory into practical survival skills?
I've worked with physicists who couldn't tell one side of a screwdriver from the other.
Writers have imagination, which would be of infinite use when you're trying to improvise solutions to problems.
A physicist would be the worst scientist to be stick on an island with.
Give me a botanist, geologist, engineer, chemist, pharmacist, life scientist or nearly any other "ist" over a physicist.

Earthhorse

Arghus wrote: »

What's a better shape: a circle or a square?

The triangle. It is the strongest shape and can contain all other shapes.

Pedro K

eeguy wrote: »

Fair enough. How does that help them turn the formulae and theory into practical survival skills?
I've worked with physicists who couldn't tell one side of a screwdriver from the other.
Writers have imagination, which would be of infinite use when you're trying to improvise solutions to problems.
A physicist would be the worst scientist to be stick on an island with.
Give me a botanist, geologist, engineer, chemist, pharmacist, life scientist or nearly any other "ist" over a physicist.

A basic knowledge of kinematics, heat transfer and the likes would help when trying to design a raft off said island, or trying to start a fire, or constructing shelter.

You mention that you've worked with physicists who wouldn't know one side of a screwdriver from the other... I have a cousin who writes... He wouldn't know a 10mm socket from a vice grips.

Conversely, I'm a (mature) physics and maths student, I do all of my own maintenance and servicing on my motorbike, all of the DIY stuff at home, and one summer out of boredom I made a fire piston (perfect for island survival).

But ultimately, these are just anecdotes and the plural of anecdote is not data.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Pedro K

FizzleSticks wrote: »

As someone who has done a full 2 hour, sitting in some smhucks office that smells of leather books IQ test, has a BA and a BSc, I can grasp all the difficult subjects which I studied through my BSc but my IQ results were much higher in competencies which pertain to my area of study through my BA.

It doesn't make me smarted because I can grasp a difficult subject, that just means that I applied myself to that course of study. Its not a true reflection of significantly higher intelligence in that area.

Fair enough... I never mentioned intelligence though. I specifically replied to a poster who was discussing a desert island scenario and seemed to intimate that a knowledge of physics has little or no practical use.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Pedro K

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This whole thread is a bit too hypothetical, apples and oranges but my bad I'm too tired to have noticed the context of your original post

No worries.

hairyslug

It's all in the eye of the beholder, you will value a writer more if you cherish their works greater than a scientist.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Being a great writer I would imagine is extremely difficult.

Just think of the sheer imagination it takes to come up with a great book.

A lot of people could probably devise an intresting enough plot, but to fill it in with desciptions of characters, places,good dialogue etc and have it all weave into a comprehensible story that is well written so it flows properly must be extremely difficult and is more than likely something you are born with rather than something you can really learn.

Your Face

I like biscuits....sometimes.

Badly Drunk Boy

RainMakerToo wrote: »

Obviously the practical aspect of Physics would have more applications in terms of actual survival and would therefore be more useful - would you rather be stranded on a desert island with a physicist or a writer I guess it what it boils down to. While it would be nice to hear somebody wax lyrical about the sun and the sea, it's not going to help you survive!

Why would it boil down to who you'd rather be stranded on a desert island? Especially since that will only ever happen to a very minuscule part of the population.

RainMakerToo wrote: »

The fact is no matter what the discipline, the average person who appeals to the most people will be most successful - and that's the problem. Garth Brooks can sell out 5 nights in Croke Park while Jimi Hendrix/Chopin/Jim Morrison if they collectively rose from the dead would probably do 2 nights at best.

I reckon the Jimi Hendrix/Chopin/Jim Morrison triple bill could definitely do 4 nights in Croke Park, and with good advertising, the 5th.

sbsquarepants

Arghus wrote: »

What's a better shape: a circle or a square?

As a great writer, or was it a physicist once said "it's all relative, baby" (actually it could have been Eamon Dunphy either)
Anyway the point is, it depends on the peg - my peg is round, so I prefer circles.

seamus

TSMGUY wrote: »

Good Writer = Writes generally well received but not groundbreaking stuff e.g. Stephen King

Stephen King?

Stephen King?

Stephen King?

"generally well received but not groundbreaking"?

Are you off your funking biccie?

King has written in virtually every genre and had his works directly or indirectly produced into practically every type of visual entertainment there is - TV, film, series, animation, interpretive dance.

The man has practically defined the gold standard for modern screenwriting.

He has an entire wikipedia page just to contain the insane amount of awards and nominations he's got.

Of all people you choose for "good, but not great", you pick one of the greatest writers in modern history. You could have picked Dan Brown or Stephanie Meyer, but no, you pick King...

sbsquarepants

RainMakerToo wrote: »

Would you rather be stranded on a desert island with a physicist or a writer I guess it what it boils down to. While it would be nice to hear somebody wax lyrical about the sun and the sea, it's not going to help you survive!
.

I don't think Stephen Hawking would help much either:D

PowerToWait

seamus wrote: »

Stephen King?

Stephen King?

Stephen King?

"generally well received but not groundbreaking"?

Are you off your funking biccie?



Of all people you choose for "good, but not great", you pick one of the greatest writers in modern history. You could have picked Dan Brown or Stephanie Meyer, but no, you pick King...

Absolutely.

A lot of people who don't know a lot about writing and have not read King just assume he's ho-hum. Even those with degrees in English. English teachers...

It's some sort of weird snobbery.

A horse sized duck or 10 duck sized horses?

Aongus Von Bismarck

seamus wrote: »

Stephen King?

Stephen King?

Stephen King?

"generally well received but not groundbreaking"?

Are you off your funking biccie?

King has written in virtually every genre and had his works directly or indirectly produced into practically every type of visual entertainment there is - TV, film, series, animation, interpretive dance.

The man has practically defined the gold standard for modern screenwriting.

He has an entire wikipedia page just to contain the insane amount of awards and nominations he's got.

Of all people you choose for "good, but not great", you pick one of the greatest writers in modern history. You could have picked Dan Brown or Stephanie Meyer, but no, you pick King...

He's a mediocre writer of quickly written paperbacks designed to shift in large numbers. The type of thing teenagers read. A man who writes books about dead pets coming back to haunt their owners isn't likely to be considered one of the heavyweights of modern literature.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I'm reading a great book at the moment, and the author is very very talented. I don't think a physicist would create the same excitement. Here's some for free so you can all enjoy.

https://www.millsandboon.co.uk/FreeReads/NewAndPopular

Winterlong

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'm reading a great book at the moment, and the author is very very talented. I don't think a physicist would create the same excitement. Here's some for free so you can all enjoy.

https://www.millsandboon.co.uk/FreeReads/NewAndPopular

Oh I dont know. I saw the movie Doctor Zhivago last weekend and he is a physician that would excite anyone.

Agricola

PowerToWait wrote: »

Absolutely.

A lot of people who don't know a lot about writing and have not read King just assume he's ho-hum. Even those with degrees in English. English teachers...

It's some sort of weird snobbery.

Because often these days mass market appeal and insane popularity = middle or the road or even dross. I suppose when someone's name becomes a brand, people on the outside just assume he's another Dan Brown.

eeguy

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

He's a mediocre writer of quickly written paperbacks designed to shift in large numbers. The type of thing teenagers read. A man who writes books about dead pets coming back to haunt their owners isn't likely to be considered one of the heavyweights of modern literature.

Yet Joyce writes a story about a man wandering around Dublin and he's gets a day named after him.

4zn76tysfajdxp

eeguy wrote: »

Yet Joyce writes a story about a man wandering around Dublin and he's gets a day named after him.

Wednesday.

A good writer creates worlds that a reader can often remember for the rest of her/his life. I can remember where I was when I read certain pieces of literature as my imagination entered a whole world of creativity at that time.

A physicist who is a good writer could possibly do this within the constraints of his esoteric subject. But being immersed in a creative or philosophical piece of writing is ineffably enriching to a much wider audience.

The world is not just about rational science. For most individuals it's far more about emotions, loss, joy, survival, triumph, suffering and coming to terms with all the challenges life throws at us. Humans want these things to be expressed in literature, music, stage and so forth as it gives comfort. (Nietzsche, being Nietzsche, argued that tragedy on stage in ancient Greece served to comfort Greeks by making them more grateful for their own miserable lives!)

One of the best books I've ever read is Ernest Becker's Pulitzer Prize-winning The Denial of Death. It really was mind-blowing and original. Likewise the writings of Albert Camus and other existentialists. Beyond the incredibly important role of pointing out the magnitude of the ever expanding universe, its extraordinary age and the insignificance of the human race within it, I'd find it hard to imagine the research of a physicist coming anywhere close to satisfying me about the purpose of life and developing a personal philosophy.