"I vaguely noticed that I was not getting as good service as other people. So I set out to measure. You came in and you waited for your turn; I felt I was not getting a fair deal. I said to myself, ``Why? No Vice President at IBM said, `Give Hamming a bad time'. It is the secretaries at the bottom who are doing this. When a slot appears, they'll rush to find someone to slip in, but they go out and find somebody else. Now, why? I haven't mistreated them.'' Answer, I wasn't dressing the way they felt somebody in that situation should. It came down to just that - I wasn't dressing properly. I had to make the decision - was I going to assert my ego and dress the way I wanted to and have it steadily drain my effort from my professional life, or was I going to appear to conform better? I decided I would make an effort to appear to conform properly. The moment I did, I got much better service."
Now imagine they're judging you for something you can't change, instead of for your clothing.
With remote work being so common, I regularly think about this section:
Another trait, it took me a while to notice.
I noticed the following facts about people
who work with the door open or the door closed.
I notice that if you have the door to your
office closed, you get more work done today
and tomorrow, and you are more productive than
most. But 10 years later somehow you don't
know quite know what problems are worth working
on; all the hard work you do is sort of
tangential in importance. He who works with
the door open gets all kinds of interruptions,
but he also occasionally gets clues as to what
the world is and what might be important. Now
I cannot prove the cause and effect sequence
because you might say, ``The closed door is
symbolic of a closed mind.'' I don't know. But
I can say there is a pretty good correlation
between those who work with the doors open and
those who ultimately do important things,
although people who work with doors closed
often work harder. Somehow they seem to work
on slightly the wrong thing - not much, but
enough that they miss fame.
Possibly the best essay in the Stripe book of Richard Hamming's essays/articles.
Maybe it was a different time and/or environment, but that couldn't be furthered from the truth according to my experience — even if I read that as a metaphorical door.
Many of the people I have worked for/with who are amazing in objectively measurable ways, including fame, appear to balance their open- and closed- door times well.
If you're just chasing after fame and want to work on what "everyone" thinks is important, then I don't disagree that keeping your door opened and getting "all kinds of interruptions" is likely the way to go.
Also anecdotally, the "forever-open-door" people I have worked with who are always talking about "important problems" to solve; have huge networks; and are hopping from collaboration to collaboration working on a completely different domain of expertise every other year: they seem important to the community but, often on closer inspection, they don't actually produce much that is of substance.
It's probably a matter of moderation. Having the door closed all the time has a set of potential problems but so has having the open all the time as we have found working in open offices. I like interacting with people but I also need to be able to have peace from time to time. A door allows me to choose when I want to interact and when I need peace.
This makes sense when there was no internet. We are in the age of sensory overload. Back then you had to network to get the juice. Now the juice finds you
I wonder why this is downvoted. They mostly cover the same thing iirc. I think he mentioned he has been giving the same lecture multiple times at different venues.
I have all of my students read this and we have had many spirited discussions on the contents. A great motivator for someone at the beginning, middle and end of their careers! Here's my take: https://shrirang.karandikar.org/2019/10/27/you-and-your-rese...
Not at Bell Labs but I was already making progress individually using the approach he is talking about. As much as I could come up with on my own, I didn't know who Hamming was either.
But every single word of it rings true when you look at it.
This kind of thing is from a lost culture but regardless it can be found broadly useful in the 21st century.
Why do so few scientists make significant contributions and so many are forgotten in the long run? - "You and Your Research" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=52337 - Sept 2007 (11 comments)
An open-ended question for you @dang — why don't you think You and Your Research gets more attention from the HN community? It's a good talk by a highly reputable source, about having an impact with the work you do. I personally hold the talk in high regard, and I'd expect it to do well on HN, but it seems like that isn't the case.
"And I can cite another person in the same way. I trust he isn't in the audience, i.e. a fellow named Clogston. I met him when I was working on a problem with John Pierce's group and I didn't think he had much. I asked my friends who had been with him at school, ``Was he like that in graduate school?'' ``Yes,'' they replied. Well I would have fired the fellow..."
but then makes the sudden shift to conclude that
"One success brought him confidence and courage... One of the characteristics of successful scientists is having courage."
So on the one hand, he says he would have fired the fellow, but then also says that the fellow's success is due to him having courage. You could just as easily conclude his success was due to Hamming not being in charge. There are many environments where Hammings are put in charge.
Very few things in life are pure luck or pure personal characteristics; they're a complex, chaotic mix of things in different proportions for different people and circumstances. We as a society need to get past this, and to recognize our own hypocrisies in how we approach others.
You really sliced up that quote to make Hamming look like a hypocrite. The missing middle:
"Well I would have fired the fellow, but J. R. Pierce was smart and kept him on. Clogston finally did the Clogston cable. After that there was a steady stream of good ideas. One success brought him confidence and courage."
Emphasis mine.
I think this is self criticism on Hamming's part, not a dig at Clogston.
[+] [-] Lammy|4 years ago|reply
Now imagine they're judging you for something you can't change, instead of for your clothing.
[+] [-] zamfi|4 years ago|reply
Most people don’t need to imagine.
[+] [-] rememberlenny|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] honie|4 years ago|reply
Many of the people I have worked for/with who are amazing in objectively measurable ways, including fame, appear to balance their open- and closed- door times well.
If you're just chasing after fame and want to work on what "everyone" thinks is important, then I don't disagree that keeping your door opened and getting "all kinds of interruptions" is likely the way to go.
Also anecdotally, the "forever-open-door" people I have worked with who are always talking about "important problems" to solve; have huge networks; and are hopping from collaboration to collaboration working on a completely different domain of expertise every other year: they seem important to the community but, often on closer inspection, they don't actually produce much that is of substance.
Edit: added "I don't disagree" for clarity.
[+] [-] spaetzleesser|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimsimmons|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itronitron|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yesenadam|4 years ago|reply
It was the final lecture in his 31 lecture graduate engineering course "The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning to Learn":
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2FF649D0C4407B30
[+] [-] teddyh|4 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3msMuwqp-o&list=PLctkxgWNSR...
[+] [-] vymague|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] __skk__|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glitchc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fuzzfactor|4 years ago|reply
You're right, I was there before, during & after.
Not at Bell Labs but I was already making progress individually using the approach he is talking about. As much as I could come up with on my own, I didn't know who Hamming was either.
But every single word of it rings true when you look at it.
This kind of thing is from a lost culture but regardless it can be found broadly useful in the 21st century.
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
You and Your Research – Richard Hamming - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27451360 - June 2021 (1 comment)
You and Your Research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25242617 - Nov 2020 (1 comment)
Richard Hamming: You and Your Research (1986) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24171820 - Aug 2020 (1 comment)
You and Your Research – A talk by Richard W. Hamming [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23558974 - June 2020 (1 comment)
You and Your Research by Richard Hamming (1995) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18505884 - Nov 2018 (10 comments)
You and Your Research (1986) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18014209 - Sept 2018 (10 comments)
You and your research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14179317 - April 2017 (1 comment)
You and Your Research, by Richard Hamming - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10280198 - Sept 2015 (1 comment)
You and Your Research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9279585 - March 2015 (1 comment)
Hamming, "You and Your Research" (1995) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7683711 - May 2014 (25 comments)
Video of Hamming's "You and Your Research" (1995) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5567448 - April 2013 (1 comment)
Richard Hamming: You and Your Research (1986) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4626349 - Oct 2012 (27 comments)
Richard Hamming: You and Your Research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3142978 - Oct 2011 (7 comments)
You and Your Research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=915515 - Nov 2009 (5 comments)
Richard Hamming - You and your research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=852405 - Sept 2009 (1 comment)
You and Your Research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=625857 - May 2009 (13 comments)
You and Your Research (1986) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=542023 - April 2009 (4 comments)
You and Your Research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=524856 - March 2009 (1 comment)
Richard Hamming: You and Your Research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=229067 - June 2008 (7 comments)
Why do so few scientists make significant contributions and so many are forgotten in the long run? - "You and Your Research" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=52337 - Sept 2007 (11 comments)
You and Your (Great) Research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13218 - April 2007 (6 comments)
[+] [-] Fission|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vymague|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j7ake|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derbOac|4 years ago|reply
Very few things in life are pure luck or pure personal characteristics; they're a complex, chaotic mix of things in different proportions for different people and circumstances. We as a society need to get past this, and to recognize our own hypocrisies in how we approach others.
[+] [-] travisjungroth|4 years ago|reply
"Well I would have fired the fellow, but J. R. Pierce was smart and kept him on. Clogston finally did the Clogston cable. After that there was a steady stream of good ideas. One success brought him confidence and courage."
Emphasis mine.
I think this is self criticism on Hamming's part, not a dig at Clogston.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]