"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.
I'm not sure "cognitive dissonance" is the right term for what I was referring to, although it's related. "Cognitive dissonance" means that things you think you know appear to be at odds with each other. But "not knowing" just means you don't know; you don't hold any belief with enough confidence to even make it a possible source of cognitive dissonance. The skills of being able to live with each of these things are probably related, but I don't think they're quite the same thing.
> good science and politics are inherently at odds
In the sense that politics is set up to insist on answers to questions whether they are justified by current knowledge or not, yes, I agree.
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.
Even if this is true (and I'm not sure it is--Feynman had good intuition about a lot of things, but "human calculator with tremendous aptitude for arithmetics" seems more like a description of John Von Neumann or Norbert Wiener), I think it's orthogonal, so to speak, to the ability to live with not knowing the answers to questions.
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)
In fact, some of the feedback I have gotten throughout the years is that I have lots of potential, I'm smart (smarter than I really am), well spoken (for an IT guy), etc. It doesn't mean anything because they always seem to think that I should be driving every meeting or conversation. If there's another person in the meeting with more knowledge in that specific area and I agree with their direction, why would I take over? So their perception is that I'm smart, but that I lack some other quality. My perception is that I'm dumber than the other guy but just smart enough to know to defer to their expertise. It leaves me stuck and unsuccessful.
I'm stupid enough to ask certain questions... which I suppose makes them stupid questions. If we are a company notorious for value shopping, and the company says we're seeing deadlines or capacity slip due to not filling open positions, and is costing the company money, risk of tech debt not being addressed... it's stupid for someone like me to question that, but I do. If it were really costing the company money, then wouldn't we increase pay or not force people back to the office to increase headcount? There seems to be a contradiction here, and the people in power don't have an answer that makes sense (possibly because there are things they can't tell a peon me).
I ask questions that the company would rather I don't ask. I was in a meeting once that I disagreed with something that was being said. I knew enough to keep my mouth shut. Then the manager called on me to share my thoughts. So I gave him my opinion, which included a question to validate my theory. I was yelled at, in front of everyone during that meeting. I don't think I ever did get an answer to that question, even in private.
I have 10 years of experience and a master degree. I've worked as a senior developer and a tech lead for a year each. Because I question things and am not a 'yes' man, I'm a midlevel dev with no future.
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?
But the others (Arrogance, Carefreeness, Beauty, Rebellion, Humor) all seem right to me.
-Larry Wall
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.
> 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]
That is, telling and acknowledging the truth about even the minutest facts relating to one's scientific activity, whether in public print or in strictest privacy.
“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
And the rest about how must behave, (how humble and grateful must be for being allowed to solve our problems)...
or in what language should be an universal problem solved, (don't we have any professional translators in this planet?)
or how must overcome all those --artificial-- obstacles put in their path (just because, so scientific career became an epic "hero journey in pursuit of truth", grab your pop-corns)
or what party should support, or what skin tone, or type of genitals should have, or what age should have when discovering X...
... all this old tribal narrative is just plain bullshit.
We are focusing in 'who' when we should focus in 'what' is discovered. Is like choosing our food by the pictures in the package and then being surprised for the not-so-awesome flavor
> “I was doing what I wanted to do, and there was absolutely no thought of a career. I was just having a marvelous time.”
This is the gentle message what people --expects-- from the mouth of a successful scientist. Any other simply would annoy the public in your TED talk that has come here to hear comforting words, so is out of the discussion. In the reality is a little different.
Self Awareness, Naïveté, Perseverance, Emotional Distance, Vision, Skepticism, Humor
-Anthony Fauci
