Could you be the "the best" in your field given an

File: cantfindanygood.png (143KB, 321x338px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 321x338px

im the bes ´t in the field of shitposting by usinh an arbitrarily small amoutnt of time

File: 1444626629315.jpg (236KB, 1066x1600px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1066x1600px

Given 1000 years, I would know more than any other person on the planet, but my IQ would stay the same, and thus I'd have hard time coming up with my own contributions to the field. So no.

10,000 hours.

>These books place a new emphasis on behavior and designing in deliberate practice to get to extraordinary performance. Ericsson (1990)1 says that it takes 10,000 hours (20 hours for 50 weeks a year for ten years = 10,000) of deliberate practice to become an expert in almost anything.

Keep in mind those hours only count when you're in fact being productive or operating with maximum efficiency. Sitting in you chair rocking back and forth while you struggle with a concept or procrastinate doesn't count.

File: jon_blow.jpg (49KB, 615x347px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 615x347px

>>8322114

But is it possible to surpass an overwhelmingly higher IQ by just having more time?

>>8322127
IQ is a /sci/ meme. Nobody gives a shit about it.

>>8322068
If I also got rid of the trigeminal neuralgia, probably, at least for a small window of time. I don't even feel arrogant saying that. Being able and willing to function this way is dualistic at best.

>>8322068
No.
The only people who think that are shut in non academic fags who never studied or worked with someone clearly more brilliant than them.
>but maybe they won't put in hard work and I will!
Every field has brilliant people who also work hard. You won't beat them without having both.

>but le very long time
You don't get more intellectually agile as you get older.

>>8322114
>le expertise
We're not talking about your monkey see monkey do favourite hobby or job here. We're talking academic advancement, which requires thinking things nobody ever did before. If you don't have it in you no amount of practice will gift it.

File: Vladimir-Kramnik.jpg (29KB, 520x347px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 520x347px

Guys,
[math](10000/(365\times 2))=13,69...[/math]
I averaged somewhere near [math]6[/math] and [math]10[/math] hours this past month.
Do I have any chance if I get around [math]14[/math]?
The problems is that it gets difficult over [math]6[/math] hours straight.
I'm over set set theory now.

i wish i could live 1000 years
i could learn ALL the math
and i could watch the math unfold
>IUTT becomes today's calculus
>HQFT is taught in high school
>higher category theory aka mathematical physics has so many new definitions there's an entire library on the moon dedicated to it
>nima arkani lives in a wheelchair and has to use a text-to-speech

>>8322068
I mean the point of getting a Ph.D is to become the world expert in whatever insanely specific thing you work. So if you mean field as in a specific molecule or system then like 5 years if you mean like chemistry or math then it's impossible because the subjects span too many different things to become the best in every facet unless you lived to be a thousand. Even then new things are being discovered every day that would need to be mastered as well.

>>8323067
>Even then new things are being discovered every day that would need to be mastered as well.
Well, that's a pretty easy fix. Just kill all the other people in your field so new shit isn't being discovered.