Just wonderful presentation of what values to hold for a curious, serious person trying to understand the (physical) world. Of cause, there is little bit of hyperbola on labeling some of these virtues, however, it is so enjoyable to put it this way nonetheless, and I would say does drive home the main point: the courage to be say I do no know.
What was not said explicitly in the article is that all these virtues while needed in trying to understand (and find out, cut-through "bullshit") one has to hold of emotions and value judgements. And that is mighty difficult (things that we intuitively feel like should be or ought to be true). This is what B. Russell articulated so well in several of his maxims as well: "..the will to find out has to be much greater than the will to believe".
As a parting remark, one can observes the exact opposite is (implicitly) demanded from researchers, and vanishingly small number of people are able to stand their ground against the current of modern scientism (which infested normal discourse, education institutions, and even research). "Selling" yourself, selling results, being vocal, advertise, publishing for sake of publishing, those things are part of a metric these days. What to do when adhering to the real virtues touched upon in this writing will essentially kill ones career?
Agree with your summary, but I am not impressed by the use of "stupid". Maybe "being willing to appear stupid", or "having beginner's mind" or "not making assumptions". But "stupid" is just click-bait. For that matter "laziness" too. Author says "work hard, but not all the time".
But the others (Arrogance, Carefreeness, Beauty, Rebellion, Humor) all seem right to me.
Of all the qualities described in this article, I think the most important is being able to live with not knowing things, as described by Feynman:
"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit and if I can’t figure it out, then I go on to something else, but I don’t have to know an answer"
We humans are generally not wired to accept not knowing things; we are wired to believe some answer to any question we can think to ask, whether we actually have any real basis for an answer or not. But giving in to that temptation just means our beliefs are out of sync with reality.
Another framing of this: good scientists are comfortable with cognitive dissonance, which is a trait held by only a minority of most populations. Consequently, this means good science and politics are inherently at odds.
I have struggled with this for the longest time. My field is nowhere close to Feynman's, but still, quite frequently I have found myself wondering "why", "why does this thing work this way?", "why is this, but not that?", leading invariably down a deep rabbit hole.
Sometimes it's not a complete waste of time, as I learnt about the innards of the systems I interact with. Most of the time it kind of is.
This is particularly evident in creation myths. In answer to "where did we come from, how was the world made", instead of a shrug or some unsatisfying facts, we hear a story. And our need to understand is such that we cling to that story, no matter how bizarre. It was the Great Coyote. No, it was a war between the Sun and the Moon. No, it was the invisible Sky Fairy. Some times it takes an unusual person to hear such a story and think WTF? And decide that they just don't know.
Exactly what I thought of too. Very similar to the article's virtues.
I wonder where they're not appropriate? Anything centered around human interaction, probably, but otherwise similar attitudes seem useful in most forms of engineering and knowledge work.
This is a lengthy read, but I was startled enough by an observation halfway through that I thought to comment on it: after mostly quoting legendary physicists to drive home points about stupidity and arrogance, the author quotes a certain Judith Rich Harris. I only recognized the name because, in the course of reading various parenting tracts, I came across her book The Nurture Fallacy and it absolutely upended my beliefs on the subject. That she would be placed alongside Richard Feynmann as an exemplar of scientific virtue is a testament to the boldness (and truth) of her theory, but it is inconvenient enough to her field that it has been largely buried and most parents will never hear the truth.
Her work isn’t suppressed. It’s just not popular. People prefer to believe pretty lies. She received a major award from her professional society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Rich_Harris
> In 1994 she formulated a new theory of child development, focusing on the peer group rather than the family. This formed the basis for a 1995 article in the Psychological Review,[7] which received the American Psychological Association's George A. Miller Award for an Outstanding Recent Article in General Psychology.[8]
Is it dangerous to claim that parents have no power at all (other than genetic) to shape their child's personality, intelligence, or the way he or she behaves outside the family home? ... A confession: When I first made this proposal ten years ago, I didn't fully believe it myself. I took an extreme position, the null hypothesis of zero parental influence, for the sake of scientific clarity. ... The establishment's failure to shoot me down has been nothing short of astonishing.
Judith Rich Harris, 2006.[9]
Not just for scientists either. Almost every problem I experience at work has at it’s root someone who is too scared to say they don’t understand something.
The sections on laziness and being carefree imply the opposite. There is more than one quote talking about joy rather than drudgery or pain.
“I was doing what I wanted to do, and there was absolutely no thought of a career. I was just having a marvelous time.” and “It might seem unfair, however, to reward a person for having so much pleasure, over the years, asking the maize to solve specific problems and then watching its response.” — Abigail Lipson on Barbara McClintock
“There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower” and “Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible” and “Now that I am burned out and I’ll never accomplish anything, I’ve got this nice position at the university teaching classes which I rather enjoy, and just like I read the Arabian Nights for pleasure, I’m going to play with physics, whenever I want to, without worrying about any importance whatsoever.” - Richard Feynman
“I am among those who think that science has great beauty. A scientist in his laboratory is not only a technician: he is also a child placed before natural phenomena which impress him like a fairy tale.” — Marie Curie
“The fifth virtue that a scientist must cultivate is an appreciation for beauty. There are practical reasons to do science, but in the moment, great research is done just to do something because it’s beautiful and exemplifies enjoying that beauty. This eye for beauty is not optional! It is, like all the scientific virtues, essential for doing any kind of original research. The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because it pleases him, and it pleases him because it is beautiful. Were nature not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, life would not be worth living.” — Henri Poincaré
Nobody is born knowledgeable, and asking questions is almost always better in the long run than looking smart while staying ignorant.
There there are ways to make questions sound less dumb, mostly involving that you made an effort at finding a solution. "Why is the sky blue?" sounds like a dumb question, "I saw that liquid oxygen is blue, is that why the sky is blue?" sounds much better (even though the assumption is completely wrong)
[+] [-] goatsneez|4 years ago|reply
What was not said explicitly in the article is that all these virtues while needed in trying to understand (and find out, cut-through "bullshit") one has to hold of emotions and value judgements. And that is mighty difficult (things that we intuitively feel like should be or ought to be true). This is what B. Russell articulated so well in several of his maxims as well: "..the will to find out has to be much greater than the will to believe".
As a parting remark, one can observes the exact opposite is (implicitly) demanded from researchers, and vanishingly small number of people are able to stand their ground against the current of modern scientism (which infested normal discourse, education institutions, and even research). "Selling" yourself, selling results, being vocal, advertise, publishing for sake of publishing, those things are part of a metric these days. What to do when adhering to the real virtues touched upon in this writing will essentially kill ones career?
[+] [-] jrd259|4 years ago|reply
But the others (Arrogance, Carefreeness, Beauty, Rebellion, Humor) all seem right to me.
[+] [-] balsam|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdonis|4 years ago|reply
"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit and if I can’t figure it out, then I go on to something else, but I don’t have to know an answer"
We humans are generally not wired to accept not knowing things; we are wired to believe some answer to any question we can think to ask, whether we actually have any real basis for an answer or not. But giving in to that temptation just means our beliefs are out of sync with reality.
[+] [-] biomcgary|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manuelabeledo|4 years ago|reply
Sometimes it's not a complete waste of time, as I learnt about the innards of the systems I interact with. Most of the time it kind of is.
[+] [-] hirundo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melony|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zhoujianfu|4 years ago|reply
-Larry Wall
[+] [-] sidpatil|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] austinjp|4 years ago|reply
I wonder where they're not appropriate? Anything centered around human interaction, probably, but otherwise similar attitudes seem useful in most forms of engineering and knowledge work.
[+] [-] jkhdigital|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barry-cotter|4 years ago|reply
> In 1994 she formulated a new theory of child development, focusing on the peer group rather than the family. This formed the basis for a 1995 article in the Psychological Review,[7] which received the American Psychological Association's George A. Miller Award for an Outstanding Recent Article in General Psychology.[8]
Is it dangerous to claim that parents have no power at all (other than genetic) to shape their child's personality, intelligence, or the way he or she behaves outside the family home? ... A confession: When I first made this proposal ten years ago, I didn't fully believe it myself. I took an extreme position, the null hypothesis of zero parental influence, for the sake of scientific clarity. ... The establishment's failure to shoot me down has been nothing short of astonishing. Judith Rich Harris, 2006.[9]
[+] [-] fungiblecog|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pvaldes|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robocat|4 years ago|reply
“I was doing what I wanted to do, and there was absolutely no thought of a career. I was just having a marvelous time.” and “It might seem unfair, however, to reward a person for having so much pleasure, over the years, asking the maize to solve specific problems and then watching its response.” — Abigail Lipson on Barbara McClintock
“There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower” and “Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible” and “Now that I am burned out and I’ll never accomplish anything, I’ve got this nice position at the university teaching classes which I rather enjoy, and just like I read the Arabian Nights for pleasure, I’m going to play with physics, whenever I want to, without worrying about any importance whatsoever.” - Richard Feynman
“I am among those who think that science has great beauty. A scientist in his laboratory is not only a technician: he is also a child placed before natural phenomena which impress him like a fairy tale.” — Marie Curie
“The fifth virtue that a scientist must cultivate is an appreciation for beauty. There are practical reasons to do science, but in the moment, great research is done just to do something because it’s beautiful and exemplifies enjoying that beauty. This eye for beauty is not optional! It is, like all the scientific virtues, essential for doing any kind of original research. The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because it pleases him, and it pleases him because it is beautiful. Were nature not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, life would not be worth living.” — Henri Poincaré
[+] [-] gwern|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] purplepatrick|4 years ago|reply
Self Awareness, Naïveté, Perseverance, Emotional Distance, Vision, Skepticism, Humor
[+] [-] readingnews|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] upsidesinclude|4 years ago|reply
-Anthony Fauci
[+] [-] entropicgravity|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giantg2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wongarsu|4 years ago|reply
There there are ways to make questions sound less dumb, mostly involving that you made an effort at finding a solution. "Why is the sky blue?" sounds like a dumb question, "I saw that liquid oxygen is blue, is that why the sky is blue?" sounds much better (even though the assumption is completely wrong)
[+] [-] PaulDavisThe1st|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nanomonkey|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fallous|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lincpa|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]