Lots of insightful catch phrases. On collaboration "Those who work with the door shut...don't know what to work on...they're not connected with reality" and "The guys with their doors closed were often very well able, very gifted but they seemed to work always on slightly the wrong problem"
Love this talk somuch. Listion over over and over again. It gives me that much motivation. Yes, I live only one life and it should be the life of doing significant things.
the best set of visionary advices ever to scientists and engineers... it is necessary to do something outstanding and significant by your definition of significant!
Characteristics and habits that differentiate great researchers from others: Courage: Hamming emphasizes that great researchers have the courage to tackle significant problems and persist in the face of difficulty. They are not deterred by the enormity of a problem and are willing to take risks in their pursuit of knowledge. Drive and Hard Work: Great researchers have a tremendous drive. They are willing to put in the time and effort required to make significant contributions to their field. Hamming uses the analogy of compound interest to describe the cumulative effect of consistent hard work over time. Tolerance of Ambiguity: Great researchers are comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. They are able to hold conflicting ideas in their minds and use this tension as a source of creative insight. They are aware of the limitations and flaws in their theories, and they use this awareness as a catalyst for further discovery and innovation. Emotional Commitment: According to Hamming, emotional commitment to a problem is a common trait among great researchers. They are deeply immersed in their work and are fully committed to solving the problems they are working on. This commitment allows their subconscious minds to work on the problem, often leading to breakthroughs. Turning Defects into Assets: Great researchers are able to turn perceived defects into assets. They are able to reframe problems and obstacles in ways that open up new avenues of inquiry and discovery. Age and Timing: While many great researchers do their best work when they are young, Hamming notes that this is not always the case. The key is to remain productive and continue to pursue significant problems throughout one's career. Handling of Luck: Hamming argues that while luck plays a role in scientific discovery, it is not the only factor. Great researchers are prepared and positioned to take advantage of luck when it comes their way. They are ready to seize opportunities and make the most of them. Working Conditions: Ideal working conditions are not always the best for productivity. Sometimes, challenging conditions can spur creativity and productivity. Avoiding Sterilization by Early Recognition: Early recognition can sometimes lead to a decrease in productivity. After achieving significant recognition, some researchers may feel pressure to only work on big problems, neglecting the small problems that often lead to major breakthroughs. Knowledge and Productivity: Hamming emphasizes that knowledge and productivity are like compound interest. The more you learn, the more you can do, and the more opportunities you have. This cumulative effect can lead to significant contributions over time. In summary, Hamming suggests that great researchers are characterized by their courage, drive, tolerance of ambiguity, emotional commitment, ability to turn defects into assets, and their strategic handling of luck, age, timing, working conditions, and recognition. They are also characterized by their commitment to continuous learning and productivity.
8:45 "Mohammed had to leave town, flee for his life. A prophet is without honor in his own country, remember? It will be often true that your local people cannot see that you are doing great work."
It is funny he mentions Feynman as an example when their philosophies conflict a great deal. Feynman never worried about what was important, but what was fun to think about. His curiosity paved the road, not what was deemed the important problems of the time.
Well Feynman was crazy intelligent. I'm not sure if the general people in science can follow the same path as he did. Hamming talks people with non A class talent who are very passionate about contributing to science.
@Adam Bruce Schwinger has had a more lasting effect on the field? Nope. Schwinger was a great physicist, but Feynman was at least as impactful with broader interests.
Fun is a great way to identify important problems. Maybe not for everybody, but that's how it works for me. If it puts a smile on my face, if I feel a deep joy working on that problem, it means it is important (to me). Thus I think that their philosophies are similar. Just expressed differently.
Currently reading his book "Coding and information theory". I've had some rough patches in my academic journey but I still have hope that I can achieve something great one day.
22:02 What appeared to be a defect, by turning the problem around, became an asset. Grace Hopper has told several other stories a similar way. What appears to be a defect is an asset.
Hamming repeats "The unexamined life is not worth living." three times. in the context of an anecdote where he hears a professor saying the same thing three times as the professor walks across campus with a listener. An important question not addressed in this video is How does a person examine his or her own life? Why does Socrates equate the loss as "not worth living?" One comment I would make to myself is, go find Socrates words as recorded in the classical Greek and study the multiple meanings of the original. (I had some classical Greek, and I am kind of puzzled about how meaning crosses over from one language to another). I have been thinking of mental activity like a dog lunging at a car or running in a Soccer game or "thinking hard" as the intentional part of the brain sets off an avalanche of memory recall. If that is how the brain works, then what area of the brain is being stimulated when one engages in Socratic self examination?
"Somebody worth being." You've got to be careful who's definition you accept. Ambitions is hugly expensive. Society wants you to ambitiously meet its goals, and will tell you to act accordingly. You must be certain that your goals are truely your own. Its very hard to tell.
I prefer being happier to being great. Not that these always contradict. But I stop learning/exploring/solving problems the moment it starts to become painful. Maybe if I push myself I will achieve better? Even if so (which I doubt) I would still not do it. I am probably one of those people whom when asked "Are you doing something important or likely to be important" I would have answered "I don't know" or "It is important to me" with Hamming probably thinking less of me, but I wouldn't have it any other way. Incidentally, what is important for me at this time may be important to others as well, but this is just due to a nice social instinct :)
My impression from this talk is that Dick Hamming actually would understand where you're coming from. The talk is really targeted towards academic researchers, pretty much all of whom are wired like him, but he focuses quite a bit on self-examination and intentionality. If you have examined yourself and consciously decided on a different approach to life, I suspect he'd respect that.
Yes. I've found that having basic principals to prevent you from erring gives you some solid ground that forms the foundation of your long term life arc. I think having a clear understanding of physics helps narrow the field of philosophies to those which reflect reality.
13:58 "... and is not likely to lead to important things, ..." I agree most people should be working on things which are likely to be important. But shouldn't we have others who take on riskier routes? Or maybe the number of things which are important is much greater than the available people, so we don't have the human resources to afford going on riskier paths?
He did specify that by "important" he meant "important to you", not only the things that are universally important. Given the varied nature of what individuals think is important, this should cover the riskier routes as well.
No lol females don't even become cs majors. Just English and psychology. Stop with the feminist victim crap. No one is to blame for no girls going into cs, but the girls themselves.
It's a statistical 'sleight of hand' to see the numbers change and say that they were pushed out. Did the percentage change ? Yes. Did the percentage change because women were 'pushed out' or because vastly more men entered the field over the years even though the number of women remained more or less constant ? Also to delve deeper into the issue, what was 'programming' back in the day ? Seems to me like it was typing tons and tons of instructions into the machine. Women already did a lot of typewriting work back in the day. So what if programming of the past was just glorified typewriting.
@@deepanshhh Quite troubling that resentment based narratives sells quite well regardless of the person being cognitively gifted or not. I guess a quick glance at history does reveal that revolutionary intellectuals of the past were indeed quite gifted.
Lots of insightful catch phrases. On collaboration "Those who work with the door shut...don't know what to work on...they're not connected with reality" and "The guys with their doors closed were often very well able, very gifted but they seemed to work always on slightly the wrong problem"
Claude Shannon was one of those guys
Im in the middle of PhD. This is spot on. Put many things in perspective.
same here! brilliant talk!
I can listen to this revival preach again and again ...
Love this talk somuch. Listion over over and over again. It gives me that much motivation. Yes, I live only one life and it should be the life of doing significant things.
This is clearly one of the best talks I have heard in a while. Thanks for the upload.
the best set of visionary advices ever to scientists and engineers... it is necessary to do something outstanding and significant by your definition of significant!
Thank you so much for this video, i hope the best for you and your career ❤ blessings
Characteristics and habits that differentiate great researchers from others:
Courage: Hamming emphasizes that great researchers have the courage to tackle significant problems and persist in the face of difficulty. They are not deterred by the enormity of a problem and are willing to take risks in their pursuit of knowledge.
Drive and Hard Work: Great researchers have a tremendous drive. They are willing to put in the time and effort required to make significant contributions to their field. Hamming uses the analogy of compound interest to describe the cumulative effect of consistent hard work over time.
Tolerance of Ambiguity: Great researchers are comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. They are able to hold conflicting ideas in their minds and use this tension as a source of creative insight. They are aware of the limitations and flaws in their theories, and they use this awareness as a catalyst for further discovery and innovation.
Emotional Commitment: According to Hamming, emotional commitment to a problem is a common trait among great researchers. They are deeply immersed in their work and are fully committed to solving the problems they are working on. This commitment allows their subconscious minds to work on the problem, often leading to breakthroughs.
Turning Defects into Assets: Great researchers are able to turn perceived defects into assets. They are able to reframe problems and obstacles in ways that open up new avenues of inquiry and discovery.
Age and Timing: While many great researchers do their best work when they are young, Hamming notes that this is not always the case. The key is to remain productive and continue to pursue significant problems throughout one's career.
Handling of Luck: Hamming argues that while luck plays a role in scientific discovery, it is not the only factor. Great researchers are prepared and positioned to take advantage of luck when it comes their way. They are ready to seize opportunities and make the most of them.
Working Conditions: Ideal working conditions are not always the best for productivity. Sometimes, challenging conditions can spur creativity and productivity.
Avoiding Sterilization by Early Recognition: Early recognition can sometimes lead to a decrease in productivity. After achieving significant recognition, some researchers may feel pressure to only work on big problems, neglecting the small problems that often lead to major breakthroughs.
Knowledge and Productivity: Hamming emphasizes that knowledge and productivity are like compound interest. The more you learn, the more you can do, and the more opportunities you have. This cumulative effect can lead to significant contributions over time.
In summary, Hamming suggests that great researchers are characterized by their courage, drive, tolerance of ambiguity, emotional commitment, ability to turn defects into assets, and their strategic handling of luck, age, timing, working conditions, and recognition. They are also characterized by their commitment to continuous learning and productivity.
There's a full transcript online - if you search for 'Richard Hamming "You and Your Research''' - it's the top hit.
Just great. It should be shown to all those about to graduate...anything. :)
Literally the best video I’ve ever watched. I think this is my 5th watching over the years
My summary:
Progress => Change
Greatness => Opportunites
Don't waste time
8:45 "Mohammed had to leave town, flee for his life. A prophet is without honor in his own country, remember? It will be often true that your local people cannot see that you are doing great work."
Wtf is he muslim
Great talk for everybody, to learn and for others to not forget.
It is funny he mentions Feynman as an example when their philosophies conflict a great deal. Feynman never worried about what was important, but what was fun to think about. His curiosity paved the road, not what was deemed the important problems of the time.
Well Feynman was crazy intelligent. I'm not sure if the general people in science can follow the same path as he did. Hamming talks people with non A class talent who are very passionate about contributing to science.
@Adam Bruce Schwinger has had a more lasting effect on the field? Nope. Schwinger was a great physicist, but Feynman was at least as impactful with broader interests.
Fun is a great way to identify important problems. Maybe not for everybody, but that's how it works for me.
If it puts a smile on my face, if I feel a deep joy working on that problem, it means it is important (to me).
Thus I think that their philosophies are similar. Just expressed differently.
Magnificent! Worth the watch...
Great lecture by a great mind!
Currently reading his book "Coding and information theory". I've had some rough patches in my academic journey but I still have hope that I can achieve something great one day.
22:02 What appeared to be a defect, by turning the problem around, became an asset. Grace Hopper has told several other stories a similar way. What appears to be a defect is an asset.
Simply superb.
Hamming repeats "The unexamined life is not worth living." three times. in the context of an anecdote where he hears a professor saying the same thing three times as the professor walks across campus with a listener.
An important question not addressed in this video is How does a person examine his or her own life? Why does Socrates equate the loss as "not worth living?" One comment I would make to myself is, go find Socrates words as recorded in the classical Greek and study the multiple meanings of the original. (I had some classical Greek, and I am kind of puzzled about how meaning crosses over from one language to another).
I have been thinking of mental activity like a dog lunging at a car or running in a Soccer game or "thinking hard" as the intentional part of the brain sets off an avalanche of memory recall. If that is how the brain works, then what area of the brain is being stimulated when one engages in Socratic self examination?
I wish I had heard or read this in my twenties and had the wherewithal to fully understand the implications then
I'm in my twenties and it seems I'm here at right time(?). Please give more notes.
best speech for researchers who want to succeed
That was so inspiring 😢crying
That was definitely worth the watch! very inspiring
He takes the way of thinking which leads him for the conclusions, as granted.
Anyone end up here from the recomendation from Naval Ravikant Book?
Suggested my professor to Watch ❤
Thank you so much for posting this!
This is gold
"Somebody worth being." You've got to be careful who's definition you accept. Ambitions is hugly expensive. Society wants you to ambitiously meet its goals, and will tell you to act accordingly. You must be certain that your goals are truely your own. Its very hard to tell.
James Clear brought me here
"If what you are doing is not important, and if you don't think it is going to lead to something important, why are you at Bell Labs working on it?''
Inspiring talk!
amazing .....
41:51 Let me come down now to a saying of Socrates who lived 470 to 399 BC in Greece. He said the unexamined life is not worth living.
thanks. text is online also.
Here from Brian Kernighan's Book
Lovely!!
Funny to see something I produced getting 26K+ hits on TH-cam.
you met hamming ?
Measure your hubris. Rethink your definition of success.
I prefer being happier to being great. Not that these always contradict. But I stop learning/exploring/solving problems the moment it starts to become painful. Maybe if I push myself I will achieve better? Even if so (which I doubt) I would still not do it. I am probably one of those people whom when asked "Are you doing something important or likely to be important" I would have answered "I don't know" or "It is important to me" with Hamming probably thinking less of me, but I wouldn't have it any other way. Incidentally, what is important for me at this time may be important to others as well, but this is just due to a nice social instinct :)
My impression from this talk is that Dick Hamming actually would understand where you're coming from. The talk is really targeted towards academic researchers, pretty much all of whom are wired like him, but he focuses quite a bit on self-examination and intentionality. If you have examined yourself and consciously decided on a different approach to life, I suspect he'd respect that.
Is this the dude who made a window???
very objective answers to very annoying chronic questions
How to teach tolerance of ambiguity: Teach Philosophy?
Yes. I've found that having basic principals to prevent you from erring gives you some solid ground that forms the foundation of your long term life arc. I think having a clear understanding of physics helps narrow the field of philosophies to those which reflect reality.
thanks for your video =)
I could be what I focus
Brilliant
I was born on this day
wonderful!
19:39
John Carmack bought me here
Thanks.
i only read the cartoons too. Got to go back......
41:03 - 42:56 - 43:38
43:38 Mic Drop
13:58 "... and is not likely to lead to important things, ..." I agree most people should be working on things which are likely to be important. But shouldn't we have others who take on riskier routes? Or maybe the number of things which are important is much greater than the available people, so we don't have the human resources to afford going on riskier paths?
He did specify that by "important" he meant "important to you", not only the things that are universally important. Given the varied nature of what individuals think is important, this should cover the riskier routes as well.
❤
oh wow!
completed
top g!
Programming "girls".. was rarely men. Sadly all the women got pushed out.
No lol females don't even become cs majors. Just English and psychology. Stop with the feminist victim crap. No one is to blame for no girls going into cs, but the girls themselves.
It's a statistical 'sleight of hand' to see the numbers change and say that they were pushed out. Did the percentage change ? Yes.
Did the percentage change because women were 'pushed out' or because vastly more men entered the field over the years even though the number of women remained more or less constant ?
Also to delve deeper into the issue, what was 'programming' back in the day ? Seems to me like it was typing tons and tons of instructions into the machine. Women already did a lot of typewriting work back in the day. So what if programming of the past was just glorified typewriting.
@@isaacfranklin2712 I don't think anyone realizes that this person you're replying to is the director of ML at NVIDIA
@@deepanshhh Quite troubling that resentment based narratives sells quite well regardless of the person being cognitively gifted or not.
I guess a quick glance at history does reveal that revolutionary intellectuals of the past were indeed quite gifted.
Q es?
10:36 If you don't think you do great work, it's not likely that you are ever going to do it. It's that simple.
mark
15:40
打卡
這幾天這裡應該會湧出一波Moneyxyz的觀眾，他推薦了ChatGPT創始人Sam Altman推薦的這個演講
@@shadowmistress999報到
Work on important problems.
27:57 Race is not to the swiftest
тупо кращій!!!
Einstein the patent office plagiator... 🙄 Dudn't even understand the work he plagiated
Ah... so this is where Trump gets bing bing bing LOL
Trump 2020