<p>I would go with <strong>Physics</strong>.</p>

<p>Physicists study the world <strong>using mathematics</strong>, while mathematicians <strong>study mathematics itself</strong> which is a construct that does not necessarily exist in the real world (Albert Einstein once said: "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."). This means that physicists encounter the interface between theory and experimentations, just like cognitive researchers, while mathematicians do not.</p>

<p>I think this is the reason why there are many examples of models developed in the study of Physics being applied successfully in cognitive science (e.g The famous Hopfield model (1982); Spin-Glass, Amit et al (1985); Ornstein-Uhlenbeck, Heath (2000); Diffusion, Ratcliff et al (2004) ). Obviously, all of these examples use math heavily. But while a mathematics student would study them using a theoretical approach, a physics student would probably study them emphasizing their application. </p>

<p>(PS. My bachelor's degree is in Math, Physics, and Computer science, so I think I can say I'm unbiased here... At least I hope so)</p>

<p><strong>References</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>Geometry and Experience, a lecture by Einstein A. <a href="http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_geometry.html">English translation HTML</a></li>
<li>Hopfield, J. J. (1982). Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 79(8), 2554-2558.</li>
<li>Amit, D. J., Gutfreund, H., &amp; Sompolinsky, H. (1985). Spin-glass models of neural networks. Physical Review A, 32(2), 1007.</li>
<li>Heath, R. A. (2000). The Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model for decision time in cognitive tasks: An example of control of nonlinear network dynamics. Psychological Research, 63(2), 183-191.</li>
<li>Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P., &amp; McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological review, 111(1), 159.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-28T20:41:49.180Z
+1. My background is psychology but I'm doing cognitive neuroscience now, and I see more physicists than mathematicians in the field.
Ana
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-29T19:14:31.137Z
+1 there's also a good amount of physics involved in some methodologies, like the physics of how fMRI work (NMR)
Jeff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-12T17:29:26.507Z
@Ana the over-representation of physicists (versus mathematicians) is more of a sociological thing then a relevance of the field. Physicists are much more over produces than mathematicians and tend to have a hard time finding positions in their own field, this was [especially prominent in the 70s](https://plus.google.com/u/0/101780559173703781847/posts/BjwMj1KYgiL) when the largest waves of them moved into adjacent fields.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-12T18:08:17.560Z
@ArtemKaznatcheev - I agree, and I later thought of an additional reason for not knowing so many mathematicians in the field: there's just less of them overall. On the other hand, physicists are actively working on improving the neuroimaging techniques we use, whereas the mathematicians I meet (through my pure mathematician husband) have completely different interests. But this is very specific to neuroimaging, which was not exactly the question.
Ana
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-28T18:09:43.770Z
2013-04-28T18:09:43.770Z
Ofri Raviv
<p>Now that @ofri has presented a good argument for physics, I'll give a few arguments for the benefits of a course in <strong>maths</strong>, and particularly a math course that focuses heavily on <strong>statistics</strong>. </p>

<p>There are many areas of psychology where a good understanding of statistics is very helpful. Statistics is particularly useful in psychometrics, mathematical psychology, and more broadly, any research involving multivariate or other more complex statistical methods. Furthermore, the statistics that is often taught in undergraduate psychology programs is often more applied, focussing on how to interpret common statistical techniques. If you have a degree in mathematics and statistics, you should be able to understand the techniques used in psychological data analysis in a deeper way. </p>

<p>In particular, calculus, linear algebra, probability, mathematical statistics, statistical computing, and a wide range of statistics subjects (e.g., introductory statistics, multivariate statistics, bayesian statistics, etc.) are a huge help when it comes to contributing to the psychological literature using advanced quantitative methods.</p>

<p>Also, when it comes to seeking an academic position, the capacity to teach statistics and research methods to psychology students is often a bonus, as is the capacity to consult and collaborate with fellow researchers on statistical methods.</p>

<p><em>My background is as someone who has specialised in the interface of statistics and psychology. Thus, I am biased, but equally I consider that I am in a fairly good position to have seen the benefits to my own and many other people's psychological research careers in having good quantitative skills.</em></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-29T07:08:41.977Z
+1. In physics, most experiments are so reliably reproducible, that you rarely encounter the need for solid knowledge of statistics. At least for me, this was a weak point for some time after moving to cognitive science...
Ofri Raviv
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-12T17:35:34.343Z
I agree with @OfriRaviv in that a physics (or a math background even, since the schools I've been at usually separate math and stats) does not give you adequate background in statistics. However, I think statisticians are much better represented in psychology than physicists or mathematicians, so if you are coming from a multi-disciplinary background, I think it is easier to be noticed as a physicist/mathematician since there are fewer of them working on psychology.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-29T00:36:08.087Z
2013-04-29T08:35:51.243Z
2013-04-29T08:35:51.243Z
Jeromy Anglim
<p>What would be a more suitable background to enter cognitive sciences, mathematical psychology, and study of emotions? I have the option of taking a Integrated Masters Degree in Mathematical Sciences, or Physical Sciences. Going into which field will allow me to contribute greater to the study of the mind? Also, which field gives me more research options for the same? </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-01T23:34:55.203Z
Sorry Aakash, this question isn't really a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect questions to have a single correct answer, and this is more of an opinion question. Looks like you already got a lot of useful advice before I saw the question though, so hopefully that helps you!
Josh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-12T17:24:13.937Z
Take a look at [this question on dynamics systems](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/288/29) for some connections. Also, pick computer science ;). @JoshGitlin I don't understand why this question was closed :(. I have a background in physics, math, and theoretical computer science and would have wanted to contribute an answer. I find this perfectly on-topic for this forum and much better and more genuine than a lot of our other recent questions.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-12T17:37:22.353Z
Note, however, if you do opt for physics OR math, make sure to remain connected to people who actually work on psychology and cognitive science, especially experimenters. Otherwise, it is too easy to [sucumb to interdisciplinitis and promote completely silly ideas](http://egtheory.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/entropic-forces-and-behavior/).
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-12T19:16:55.300Z
@Artem please ask on Meta. Our community does not yet have an established policy for "list type" questions.
Josh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-12T22:39:46.580Z
Sorry @ArtemKaznatcheev I have been AFK all day. I can discuss this with you in chat tomorrow if you'd like!
Josh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-13T21:22:52.490Z
@ArtemKaznatcheev my objection to this question was **not** it's being on/off topic but rather it's *objectivity*. I am glad to reopen it if the community welcomes such questions; without an established policy on Meta the policy of Stack Exchange is that subjective questions ("which is better?") get closed as NC. Please do make a case on Meta so we can establish what our specific policy is. For example, Ask Different allows some questions like this. Thanks!
Josh
<cognitive-psychology><mathematical-psychology><psychophysics>
Math or Physics: Which is the more relevant background to enter Cognitive Sciences and Psychology?
Aakash Sarkar
# Math or Physics: Which is the more relevant background to enter Cognitive Sciences and Psychology?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-04-28)

What would be a more suitable background to enter cognitive sciences, mathematical psychology, and study of emotions? I have the option of taking a Integrated Masters Degree in Mathematical Sciences, or Physical Sciences. Going into which field will allow me to contribute greater to the study of the mind? Also, which field gives me more research options for the same?

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, mathematical-psychology, psychophysics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Sorry Aakash, this question isn't really a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect questions to have a single correct answer, and this is more of an opinion question. Looks like you already got a lot of useful advice before I saw the question though, so hopefully that helps you!  
> **username_2**: Take a look at [this question on dynamics systems](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/288/29) for some connections. Also, pick computer science ;). @username_1Gitlin I don't understand why this question was closed :(. I have a background in physics, math, and theoretical computer science and would have wanted to contribute an answer. I find this perfectly on-topic for this forum and much better and more genuine than a lot of our other recent questions.  
> **username_2**: Note, however, if you do opt for physics OR math, make sure to remain connected to people who actually work on psychology and cognitive science, especially experimenters. Otherwise, it is too easy to [sucumb to interdisciplinitis and promote completely silly ideas](http://egtheory.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/entropic-forces-and-behavior/).  
> **username_1**: @Artem please ask on Meta. Our community does not yet have an established policy for "list type" questions.  
> **username_1**: Sorry @ArtemKaznatcheev I have been AFK all day. I can discuss this with you in chat tomorrow if you'd like!  
> **username_1**: @ArtemKaznatcheev my objection to this question was **not** it's being on/off topic but rather it's *objectivity*. I am glad to reopen it if the community welcomes such questions; without an established policy on Meta the policy of Stack Exchange is that subjective questions ("which is better?") get closed as NC. Please do make a case on Meta so we can establish what our specific policy is. For example, Ask Different allows some questions like this. Thanks!  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2013-04-28. Score: 9

I would go with **Physics**.

Physicists study the world **using mathematics**, while mathematicians **study mathematics itself** which is a construct that does not necessarily exist in the real world (Albert Einstein once said: "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."). This means that physicists encounter the interface between theory and experimentations, just like cognitive researchers, while mathematicians do not.

I think this is the reason why there are many examples of models developed in the study of Physics being applied successfully in cognitive science (e.g The famous Hopfield model (1982); Spin-Glass, Amit et al (1985); Ornstein-Uhlenbeck, Heath (2000); Diffusion, Ratcliff et al (2004) ). Obviously, all of these examples use math heavily. But while a mathematics student would study them using a theoretical approach, a physics student would probably study them emphasizing their application.

(PS. My bachelor's degree is in Math, Physics, and Computer science, so I think I can say I'm unbiased here... At least I hope so)

**References**

* Geometry and Experience, a lecture by Einstein A. [English translation HTML](http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_geometry.html)
* Hopfield, J. J. (1982). Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 79(8), 2554-2558.
* Amit, D. J., Gutfreund, H., & Sompolinsky, H. (1985). Spin-glass models of neural networks. Physical Review A, 32(2), 1007.
* Heath, R. A. (2000). The Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model for decision time in cognitive tasks: An example of control of nonlinear network dynamics. Psychological Research, 63(2), 183-191.
* Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological review, 111(1), 159.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: +1. My background is psychology but I'm doing cognitive neuroscience now, and I see more physicists than mathematicians in the field.  
> **username_5**: +1 there's also a good amount of physics involved in some methodologies, like the physics of how fMRI work (NMR)  
> **username_2**: @username_4 the over-representation of physicists (versus mathematicians) is more of a sociological thing then a relevance of the field. Physicists are much more over produces than mathematicians and tend to have a hard time finding positions in their own field, this was [especially prominent in the 70s](https://plus.google.com/u/0/101780559173703781847/posts/BjwMj1KYgiL) when the largest waves of them moved into adjacent fields.  
> **username_4**: @ArtemKaznatcheev - I agree, and I later thought of an additional reason for not knowing so many mathematicians in the field: there's just less of them overall. On the other hand, physicists are actively working on improving the neuroimaging techniques we use, whereas the mathematicians I meet (through my pure mathematician husband) have completely different interests. But this is very specific to neuroimaging, which was not exactly the question.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2013-04-29. Score: 4

Now that @ofri has presented a good argument for physics, I'll give a few arguments for the benefits of a course in **maths**, and particularly a math course that focuses heavily on **statistics**.

There are many areas of psychology where a good understanding of statistics is very helpful. Statistics is particularly useful in psychometrics, mathematical psychology, and more broadly, any research involving multivariate or other more complex statistical methods. Furthermore, the statistics that is often taught in undergraduate psychology programs is often more applied, focussing on how to interpret common statistical techniques. If you have a degree in mathematics and statistics, you should be able to understand the techniques used in psychological data analysis in a deeper way.

In particular, calculus, linear algebra, probability, mathematical statistics, statistical computing, and a wide range of statistics subjects (e.g., introductory statistics, multivariate statistics, bayesian statistics, etc.) are a huge help when it comes to contributing to the psychological literature using advanced quantitative methods.

Also, when it comes to seeking an academic position, the capacity to teach statistics and research methods to psychology students is often a bonus, as is the capacity to consult and collaborate with fellow researchers on statistical methods.

*My background is as someone who has specialised in the interface of statistics and psychology. Thus, I am biased, but equally I consider that I am in a fairly good position to have seen the benefits to my own and many other people's psychological research careers in having good quantitative skills.*

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: +1. In physics, most experiments are so reliably reproducible, that you rarely encounter the need for solid knowledge of statistics. At least for me, this was a weak point for some time after moving to cognitive science...  
> **username_2**: I agree with @OfriRaviv in that a physics (or a math background even, since the schools I've been at usually separate math and stats) does not give you adequate background in statistics. However, I think statisticians are much better represented in psychology than physicists or mathematicians, so if you are coming from a multi-disciplinary background, I think it is easier to be noticed as a physicist/mathematician since there are fewer of them working on psychology.  

---

