The Scientific Virtues: Stupidity, Arrogance, Laziness | Hacker News Reader

The Scientific Virtues: Stupidity, Arrogance, Laziness

slimemoldtimemold.com

119 pointsbobcostas5554 comments

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.

In English when seeking to imply a guiltless stupidity naive is often used.

perhaps part of the point is to inoculate the reader against guilt. I enjoy my stupidity whether or not someone else has a judgement.

How about a synthesis of the two: “will to find something worth believing in”.

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.

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.

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.

He is also a human calculator with tremendous aptitude for arithmetics. What works for him won't necessarily generalize to others.

> He is also a human calculator with tremendous aptitude for arithmetics.

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.

https://www.quora.com/How-good-at-math-was-Richard-Feynman/a...

And yet he understood that he wouldn't be able to answer all the questions that popped into his head with his human calculator ability. It's a matter of introspection.

But it's a universal rule. No one knows everything. Everyone has to live with not knowing things. Admitting `I don't know` is the ultimate virtue.

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.

This doesn't follow at all, unless you are also making the claim that if you are comfortable with cognitive dissonance, you will be unable to participate in communications with others in ways that do not make them uncomfortable.

As noted in a HN post from a few days ago, nuance doesn't really scale in communication. There exist a good number of questions where the best scientific answers are "unknown" or "possibly with X degree of confidence". A politician, a special interest, or even the average individual wants to set policy now, not wait for an answer.

> good scientists are comfortable with cognitive dissonance

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.

You are right, of course, that cognitive dissonance is a slightly different thing. When a scientist has an inherently probabilistic epistemology, apparent conflict between known "facts" does not lead to cognitive dissonance, but the same facts (to the extent that they are attended to) often cause dissonance for the general population.

Maybe explicit dissonance, but I assume most people are in cognitive dissonance with their view of reality, they just brush it off fast enough.

The programmers virtues: Impatience, Hubris, Laziness

-Larry Wall

https://thethreevirtues.com/

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]

I'm glad somebody has referred to truth at last because the habit of truth, according to Jacob Bronowski, is perhaps the primary scientific virtue.

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.

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.

Where is Masochism in this list?

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

A scientist must solve problems for everybody, period.

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.

I wonder if those Feynman examples are 'rubberducking' but done on other people?

So, more like:

Self Awareness, Naïveté, Perseverance, Emotional Distance, Vision, Skepticism, Humor

I wonder if these quotes are all accurate? Some of them are very good indeed.

"I am the science."

-Anthony Fauci

Wow, I missed my calling.

I'm dumb and ask stupid questions. My curiosity has only hurt me.

"What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger" -Nietzsche

Or leaves you chronically damaged/paralyzed/etc.

Seriously? People are still quoting this as if it's true?

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)

Yeah, but most of success in today's world is built off of the perception that others have of you.

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).

For your first part, you don't need to take over. But you should find a way to contribute. At the very least if there's an expectation that you drive meetings, but you want to defer because someone else has more knowledge in a specific area, you need to make it clear why you're deferring.

For your second part, it seems like the questions are you asking are not stupid in themselves. Rather they are uncomfortable and/or threatening to the audience. Like your question is driving at a real point which is that likely no one actually sat down and tried to rationalize (quantitatively or however) the cost and benefits of their course of action. The "stupid" part is poking at this sensitive topic in ways that don't give people a graceful way to interact with it. Most people do not want to admit that they're just autopiloting a decision that might have made sense as a quick heuristic based on assumptions (which are okay!) that have since provided to be wrong and have just been running with it ever since. Or that no, they've never actually sat down and quantified (ballpark) how much company the strategy is costing them, and that they're just making stuff up.

To back up to your original point, uncontrolled curiosity can definitely be harmful. You absolutely need to temper and control it, especially when interacting with human systems. That doesn't mean that curiosity is bad though. I do sympathize that the usual formulation of "there are no stupid questions here" is almost always misleading, and encodes a pile of unsaid assumptions.

There really shouldn't be a need to explain the deferral for each occurrence. I have explained it in general to my manager and participated, in my opinion, appropriately. They have not given concrete steps that they would like to see me take. For context, I'm only a midlevel dev.

"The "stupid" part is poking at this sensitive topic"

Exactly, but without bringing it up, that curiosity wouldn't be satisfied. They talk about being candid as a positive trait. It appears that isn't true - just typically corporate doublespeak.

Everything is contextual, and I think you may be missing a bit EQ bit?

You can drive a meeting while still deferring to experts by driving the meeting, and then bringing them in for their expertise when you know it is in their area - which you know when that is and who they are, because you would be an expert in knowing that.

You seem to be sitting back in the meeting and waiting for something to add, which… yeah doesn’t add much? That’s inherently passive.

And if they ask you to be candid, and then recoil when you are, that is potentially because you’re not wrapping up what you’re saying in a way they can process/handle - it could be overly abrasive, or verbose, or whatever.

The reason you may not be getting any actionable advice is they are giving you why they see as actionable advice. But you’re missing a connection here because you’re missing the EQ piece?

So everything is on me? I need to be the one wrapping my opinions in a way they can understand (which I do), and any (theortical) misunderstanding of their advice is also on me. Sounds like a bum deal. I don't think this is happening. Why else would they be saying that I'm well spoken and even diplomatic if these were the issues. They mostly don't like me to be candid when my opinion runs counter to theirs and I have points they don't want to counter.

Yes, I can and do facilitate meetings. That's not a problem. They just want me to be loud and talkative in meetings that could have been emails, or at least with a much smaller group.

Then maybe find somewhere that does work for you?

If you always feel you’re crazy, then it doesn’t fit.

I don't feel I'm crazy. It's the job of management to manipulate people and look out for themselves. It will be the same or even worse at other places.

FYI - that mindset right there is a huge problem and red flag, especially if you’re staying.

I have never seen it be managements job to manipulate anyone anywhere. It is managements job to make the business work (manage it). In some places, the agreed upon way that management does this is by manipulating, lying, cheating, etc.

Those places are toxic.

It is also possible for people and workers to become toxic as a culture, and cause otherwise fine and well meaning behavior to be perceived as toxic and make a toxic workplace for everyone due to no/ineffective action from management.

I’ve never seen it be just one side for very long, unless both sides are feeding it it.

It builds a sick system, and like all systems, it has to be self reinforcing to continue to exist.

I’m not saying everyone is perfect - far from it. I’m saying that lack of trust and perceived negative intent from others (especially in positions of authority), lack of a feeling of agency in getting a different outcome or impacting current conditions are all, etc. are a dark place to be, and one that does not help oneself get better. If you’re not even considering finding somewhere else, that produces very very bad outcomes for everyone in the long run.

If you are not considering getting help in understanding or tackling the situation from your side, that also produces bad outcomes for you long term.

You can drive a meeting among others who are more knowledgeable in certain fields. Leading meetings is a different, and in my experience, more unique, skill from expertise in a specific IT field; leadership is harder to replace than domain specific knowledge.

I guess what I mean, is they want you to talk... a lot. Apparently it's one of the ways they measure "engagement" - how loud is someone.

I very much doubt that is (actually) the case - but that you perceive it that way may be at the root of the problem.

It really isn't just me. Other people have also brought this up.

You have to ask the stupid questions of the right people, unfortunately.

Hurt you in what way? Have you become less knowledgeable due to your curiosity?

Any knowledge I do have is basically useless (Filenet, Neoxam, etc). In fact, some of the knowledge is harmful - I've learned more about the policies that are broken during performance evaluations, and of the lies the company tells.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com