<i>Therein lies the best career advice I could possibly dispense: just DO things. Chase after the things that interest you and make you happy. Stop acting like you have a set path, because you don't. No one does. You shouldn't be trying to check off the boxes of life; they aren't real and they were created by other people, not you. There is no explicit path I'm following, and I'm not walking in anyone else's footsteps. I'm making it up as I go.</i> - Charlie Hoehn
It's interesting that a few people are relating this to team work. I think that is a misinterpretation. By 'others' I would infer something more like 'competitors', though I mean that relatively loosely. Essentially, ignore what other labs are working on and focus on your own (group's) works.<p>My own PhD supervisor had a similar attitude, though it runs against how many others approach a problem I feel. For example, I'm unconvinced that starting a project with a thorough literature review is necessarily the best plan. It can shroud your thoughts, make you miss the same things everyone else has and make you feel that all the work has already been done.
This goes for everyone - not just geniuses. The burger flipper at your favorite fast food joint needs to concentrate on his own work, disregarding what the particular tasks of the counter-worker is. An office worker needs to concentrate on their own Excel workbook, disregarding the type or quality of other people's work.<p>One can't be at peak productivity or creativity while constantly comparing their work to others. A very basic trap that even Nobel Prize winners get stuck in apparently.
Does this work for Feynman, because he is a genius? in the same way that lots of successful people offer tidbits of advice that wouldn't apply to someone in different circumstances, or perhaps with a different level of intellect.
Watson's original account of the discovery of the double helix has been heavily criticized for downplaying the role of Rosalind Franklin's x-ray crystallography measurements of the structure of DNA in the discovery.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin</a><p>Disregard or failure to give credit to others where credit is due?
It was a pleasure to read, but of course it should be taken with a grain of salt and not applied to every field :-)<p>Imagine being in a software team and disregarding what others are doing? Screw the rest of the team, I'll work on my own better solution and ignore the parts that are already working well!<p>You might end up with a good solution to the problem, but you'll also manage to piss off a lot of people ^^<p>A more valuable 'quote' from Feynman would be to "Test everything yourself". Don't just take for granted the results of others but verify it yourself. That (in the field of software) can be quite valuable :-)<p>Still, loved reading that blogpost!
This applies to scientists, not to software engineers working in a team. (This can also apply to software company founders and side projects but that's a special case.)<p>Scientists and researchers are primarily working to build their own brand and to make a contribution which can be tied
To them.<p>A team of s/w emgineers is working to build a cohesive whole. Much different goals and incentives.
The literary version of "Disregard" is called "The anxiety of influence" <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxiety_of_Influence" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxiety_of_Influence</a>
The truly great ideas in physics are actually quite simply stated. They are subsequently mathematically elaborated, to the point where it can be hard to separate out the core idea. Even a Feynman can’t track all the work going on, and elaboration doesn’t win Nobel prizes. Most physicists don’t have the ability to rise above elaboration and application - it takes an Einstein or a Feynman to grasp and extend the core with big ideas, while not being distracted by the fog of elaborative papers.<p>My favorite is, Wheeler: “Feynman, I know why all electrons are exactly alike!” Feynman: “Why?” Wheeler: “There is only one electron!” [looping through space-time, we see the cross sections]. Ahh....
I believe Feynman is saying stay focused on your work, don't get too caught up changing things or keeping up because of other shiny things, you may miss important innovative ideas on your own work. It doesn't mean ignore others work but sometimes it is better to work it through yourself for understanding and then compare. Put all the energy into your work first and foremost.<p>Same could go with starting a company or product - competition needs to be paid attention to, but if you do it too much it will lead you astray. The product may end up chasing or copycatting while missing out on some innovation that is entirely new and possibly important.
This was fun and all but it doesn't apply to modern academics. Now, if you 'disregard' you won't get grants and you won't be in academics long enough to make a contribute. Fun but irrelevant today.
Feynman's breakthrough seems more to be a full package. I don't think any one thing he did would work for someone else, but collectively he was very effective.<p>My favorite practice of his was keeping toy problems in your head at all times. Whenever you see a new problem or technique, thing how it relates to a set you already know.<p>My favorite behavior of his was uniform respect for everyone. He never assumed that someone else couldn't understand. If anything, he felt he couldn't explain. Subtle but important difference.
Ha, that's amazing!<p>I have always encouraged colleagues to read less scientific articles, especially if it is incremental science. It encourages you to think inside the box and you will come up with the same solutions everyone else is.<p>Of course there is more to it, work methodically, formulate problems before solving them, etc. But I'm glad Feynmann agrees with me on this one.
In general it is high risk and high reward. You need to have sufficient confidence in yourself that what you're doing is valuable to a community that is hostile to you. If your work ends up not being recognised as important, then your losses are much larger than if you followed the crowd and did incremental research. There is probably analogous stories with start up scene, incremental start ups get funded, those considered too radical are not given money.<p>In science it is not obvious whether or not your work will be important or recognised as important until much later.<p>From the point of view from the entire community it makes sense for individuals to go big risk, but for individuals sometimes you also need to manage your risk differently
Very nice little story and good advice, but I think most of us feel that completely disregarding others is not always the best solution. It really is a exploration vs exploitation problem.
I find it is a hard balance to strike, because on the one hand I think you certainly need input, inspiration or feedback from other people and people smarter or more accomplished than you, but on the other hand you it's not good to get self-conscious about your ideas or achievements relative to theirs.<p>In principle those to things could be unrelated, but in practice it can be hard to separate those two aspects.
Just based on some of the comments here - I think this loosely translates not as to literally disregard what others are doing, but more to disregard how you _think_ others are interpreting the work that you yourself are doing.<p>In other words, believe in yourself and everything seems a little easier.
Shannon also had a care free attitude regarding his ways. Following his intuition is important. Not being blind too. Accept the others, just don't dismiss yours.
Yup. That works. Just don't forget the follow-up, where external feedback <i>is</i> crucial.<p>Shameless plug: I've written my own crypto library¹. Not just for the lulz, I fully intend to use it in production. To do that, I had to disregard the crypto community, that basically says anyone who does that deserves to burn in Crypto Hell the time it takes them to count to 2^256. (I might exaggerate a tad).<p>They say that for a reason however. I <i>had</i> to seek and listen to external advice eventually. Which, judging by the holes they poked through my library, was invaluable.<p>I think there are two phases. The "I'll show them" phase where you hide under your cave doing your thing, and the phase where you actually show some results and confirm whether this was a worthwhile endeavour.<p>[1]: <a href="http://loup-vaillant.fr/projects/monocypher" rel="nofollow">http://loup-vaillant.fr/projects/monocypher</a>