For me, an experimentalist, the number of theoretically inclined people I have observed here, who are floundering with concepts that should be philosophy and who navel gaze about collapse of wavefunction, amazes me.
I would order a course in particle physics, this will give an intuition of what it means to move in the quantum mechanical dimensions, a connection with reality and hard numbers. Without a clear map of the real numbers we have mastered that describe nature a theorist is just a mathematician, as far as intuition goes. That is why we get people who think they have found "compositness", or a new way of seeing nature: because they are ignorant of the bulk of hard data which has been built up over the years and has to be incorporated in any higher order theory.
In this sense, the strong support of string theories by a lot of physicists comes because it has the group and equation structure to embed all the hard won measurements of the past decades in a coherent framework. On the other hand maybe this is what has made theorist think that they can just cogitate and create physics theories, because string theory is a theory validated by theories that have been validated by data. Lets hope that more predictions than supersymmetry, though if it is found it will be great enough, and large extra dimension models will be offered for testing in the next generation of measurements at LHC and possibly the ILC.