full
Think Like a Martian: Master Feynman's Problem-Solving Secrets
Want to think like a genius? Dive deep into the mind of Richard
Feynman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist renowned for his unique
ability to break down complex problems. In this video, we'll explore his
groundbreaking mental models and learn how to apply them to your own
life. Discover the power of play, the importance of the scientific
method, and the Feynman Technique for mastering any subject. Unleash
your inner polymath and become a lifelong learner today!
00:00:00 Richard Feynman’s Mental Models
00:04:48 Think Like a Martian
00:14:09 Feynman’s Advice - Play More!
00:29:03 The Scientific Method
Hear it Here - https://adbl.co/3OsoIY1
Transcript
Richard Feynman’s Mental Models:
Speaker:How to Think,
Speaker:Learn,
Speaker:and Problem-Solve Like a Nobel Prize-Winning Polymath (Learning how to Learn Book 23)
Speaker:Written by
Speaker:Peter Hollins, narrated by russell newton.
Speaker:“Keep your eyes wide open,
Speaker:approach everything with
Speaker:circumspection,
Speaker:don’t accept any truth without deep
Speaker:thought,
Speaker:expose and eradicate half truths and
Speaker:demagoguery,
Speaker:learn to wonder at the beauty of the
Speaker:world around you and,
Speaker:above all,
Speaker:think!—about everything."
Speaker:—Richard Feynman What do you know?
Speaker:How do you know the things you know?
Speaker:Could there be a better way to know,
Speaker:and how could you find it out?
Speaker:What don’t you know,
Speaker:and how might you learn?
Speaker:Could you be wrong,
Speaker:and what would that look like?
Speaker:What is,
Speaker:and what faculties do you have to
Speaker:perceive and understand it?
Speaker:These are the sorts of questions that
Speaker:most of us seldom get around to asking.
Speaker:Epistemology is the field of inquiry
Speaker:that asks about inquiry itself,
Speaker:and questions the limits,
Speaker:characteristics,
Speaker:and sources of our knowledge.
Speaker:Being able to think about how we are
Speaker:thinking,
Speaker:and know more about the process of
Speaker:accumulating knowledge about the world,
Speaker:requires a mindset shift all its own.
Speaker:Nobel Prize–winning theoretical
Speaker:physicist Richard Feynman is one of the
Speaker:best-known and most-loved scientists of
Speaker:our time.
Speaker:He was involved in the development of
Speaker:the atomic bomb and did pioneering work
Speaker:in nanotechnology,
Speaker:superfluidity,
Speaker:and quantum computing.
Speaker:What made Feynman so relatable,
Speaker:however,
Speaker:was his ability to popularize his work,
Speaker:and his many books and autobiographies
Speaker:captured the public imagination and
Speaker:earned him a legacy in the public eye
Speaker:as the face of intellectual rigor,
Speaker:scientific progress,
Speaker:and the powers of the rational mind.
Speaker:But there is not some special access to
Speaker:reality that is afforded to theoretical
Speaker:physicists alone—what made
Speaker:Feynman’s mindset and worldview so
Speaker:compelling was how he thought,
Speaker:not what he thought.
Speaker:In other words,
Speaker:he was consistently led to ask himself
Speaker:about what he knew,
Speaker:how he knew it,
Speaker:and how he could do better and learn
Speaker:more.
Speaker:This is precisely what this book is
Speaker:about.
Speaker:Using the inimitable Feynman as our
Speaker:guide and inspiration,
Speaker:we will peer beyond the realm of
Speaker:physics and engage with the underlying
Speaker:nature of inquiry itself,
Speaker:and how we might become students of
Speaker:life,
Speaker:in the very broadest sense.
Speaker:Whatever your vocation,
Speaker:skill set,
Speaker:expertise,
Speaker:special interest,
Speaker:or personal challenges,
Speaker:your life can be improved by learning
Speaker:to learn.
Speaker:No matter if you are primarily
Speaker:concerned with personal relationships,
Speaker:your occupation,
Speaker:your life path in general,
Speaker:or the grand,
Speaker:overarching philosophical questions
Speaker:that have teased and taunted even the
Speaker:greatest minds,
Speaker:you cannot help but improve your
Speaker:situation by fine-tuning those
Speaker:intellectual faculties that have the
Speaker:sole job of orienting you in the
Speaker:universe and helping you make sense of
Speaker:it.
Speaker:Consider this fine-tuning process a
Speaker:kind of meta-skill that is transferable
Speaker:to any area of life.
Speaker:Learn how to observe,
Speaker:to synthesize information,
Speaker:to analyze,
Speaker:to create,
Speaker:to solve problems,
Speaker:to extract meaning,
Speaker:to ask questions and seek their
Speaker:answers—in other words,
Speaker:learning to think—and you will master
Speaker:yourself and your world to whatever
Speaker:extent is possible for a human being.
Speaker:The ability to really think (and we
Speaker:will soon see how most of us have a
Speaker:complete misunderstanding of what
Speaker:thinking is)
Speaker:will never go out of fashion or lose
Speaker:its value.
Speaker:Your brain is a tool that will inspire
Speaker:the elevated use of every other tool
Speaker:you encounter.
Speaker:It’s the kind of tool that possesses
Speaker:a fascinating potential—the ability
Speaker:to change and adapt itself as needed.
Speaker:Like the physicists who have learned to
Speaker:operate at the very vanguard of human
Speaker:comprehension,
Speaker:you,
Speaker:too,
Speaker:will be able to ask “What do I have
Speaker:to be,
Speaker:and how ought I to think,
Speaker:to understand this?"
Speaker:Think Like a Martian In an interview,
Speaker:Feynman once shared a game that his
Speaker:father had taught him as a child.
Speaker:They’d sit at the dinner table
Speaker:engrossed in discussion of a topic,
Speaker:and his father would playfully ask
Speaker:something like,
Speaker:“Suppose we were Martians who had
Speaker:come to the Earth for the first time
Speaker:and were looking at things from the
Speaker:outside,
Speaker:having never seen them before.
Speaker:What would that be like?
Speaker:What would we see?"
Speaker:On the one hand,
Speaker:this is a simple child’s fancy,
Speaker:but on the other,
Speaker:it captures the spirit of scientific
Speaker:inquiry.
Speaker:It’s a “game” that asks us what
Speaker:radically curious perception would look
Speaker:like,
Speaker:with zero preconceptions.
Speaker:What would the world look like to you
Speaker:if you had no pre-existing beliefs
Speaker:about it,
Speaker:no biases,
Speaker:no prior understanding to cloud your
Speaker:observations?
Speaker:It’s a question that gets deeper and
Speaker:deeper the more you think about it.
Speaker:With fresh eyes,
Speaker:everything would start to look wildly
Speaker:interesting.
Speaker:You would take nothing for granted.
Speaker:For example,
Speaker:being a Martian,
Speaker:let’s suppose you never slept and had
Speaker:no need for it.
Speaker:You didn’t know what sleep was and
Speaker:had never even imagined it before.
Speaker:It was not only not a part of your
Speaker:world,
Speaker:it wasn’t even something you
Speaker:acknowledged as being strange or
Speaker:impossible.
Speaker:Now imagine you came to Earth and
Speaker:observed that within every
Speaker:twenty-four-hour cycle,
Speaker:human beings of every kind would fall
Speaker:into a period of unconsciousness,
Speaker:and they would close their eyes and
Speaker:grow still and lie horizontal,
Speaker:their breathing slowing.
Speaker:You’d notice they’d get into big
Speaker:pouches made out of foam and layers of
Speaker:fabric,
Speaker:roughly the same size as their bodies,
Speaker:and stay there for a handful of hours.
Speaker:Now,
Speaker:if you were a scientist Martian,
Speaker:you would have a load of questions!
Speaker:Where would you even start?
Speaker:You’d wonder what was happening and
Speaker:why.
Speaker:You’d be curious about what it felt
Speaker:like to suddenly lose consciousness
Speaker:this way,
Speaker:and what purpose it was serving,
Speaker:and what it meant that humans seemed to
Speaker:vary in their practice of this habit.
Speaker:You’d wonder what their experience
Speaker:was like—what does it actually mean
Speaker:to not be awake?
Speaker:Does your brain still “work”?
Speaker:Does your consciousness go off all at
Speaker:once or does it happen gradually?
Speaker:Why?
Speaker:For a Martian who only knows one state
Speaker:of being—wakefulness—thinking about
Speaker:the idea of sleep must be like human
Speaker:beings imagining some other,
Speaker:third state of consciousness in
Speaker:addition to sleep and wakefulness.
Speaker:You have started with something
Speaker:completely arbitrary,
Speaker:obvious,
Speaker:and kind of boring (sleep),
Speaker:and in no time you are grappling with
Speaker:very deep questions of what it means to
Speaker:be conscious,
Speaker:how we can actually know what another
Speaker:person’s consciousness feels like,
Speaker:and what we are really talking about
Speaker:when we use an everyday word like
Speaker:“awake” or “aware."
Speaker:Now,
Speaker:such questions can be fun if they
Speaker:inspire a renewed appreciation for the
Speaker:strangeness of life ...and can
Speaker:certainly be good starting points for
Speaker:writing science fiction!
Speaker:But let’s go deeper.
Speaker:Feynman gave an analogy where he
Speaker:described the process of seeing a bird
Speaker:in a tree.
Speaker:Someone might ask you what bird it is,
Speaker:and you could give its name.
Speaker:Now,
Speaker:does that mean you know what the bird
Speaker:is?
Speaker:Do you really grasp the meaning of what
Speaker:is in front of you,
Speaker:and can you say you have knowledge of
Speaker:it?
Speaker:Consider that the name you give will be
Speaker:in your language.
Speaker:You say the bird is a “lark,” but
Speaker:an Italian speaker says it’s an
Speaker:“allodola” and a Greek speaker says
Speaker:it’s a “korydallos” and Hindi
Speaker:speaker says it’s a “लवा”!
Speaker:Maybe a Martian comes down and,
Speaker:when asked what he sees,
Speaker:blows air bubbles out a little funnel
Speaker:on his head ... You get the picture.
Speaker:Knowing the arbitrary symbols assigned
Speaker:to a thing is not knowing it.
Speaker:Recognizing certain patterns and
Speaker:features and mapping them onto
Speaker:pre-existing mental models is,
Speaker:in a way,
Speaker:the opposite of really knowing it.
Speaker:Have you ever really seen a bird?
Speaker:Look again.
Speaker:What do you really see?
Speaker:Imagine you have never been told
Speaker:anything about birds and have stumbled,
Speaker:brand new,
Speaker:with a fresh and unused brain,
Speaker:into the world.
Speaker:There is a phenomenon unfolding in
Speaker:front of you—a kind of movement of
Speaker:light,
Speaker:a noise,
Speaker:a being.
Speaker:What is it?
Speaker:So,
Speaker:if you were the Martian observing Earth
Speaker:people sleeping,
Speaker:go a step deeper and imagine that you
Speaker:have no idea what “consciousness”
Speaker:is,
Speaker:and no pre-existing beliefs about this
Speaker:thing called “the mind."
Speaker:After all,
Speaker:if someone were to ask you right now,
Speaker:what is the mind,
Speaker:do you think you could easily explain
Speaker:it to them if they didn’t already
Speaker:know?
Speaker:The Martian question is a powerful tool
Speaker:for getting beyond the limits of our
Speaker:language.
Speaker:Sometimes,
Speaker:we think of learning as an accumulative
Speaker:process—that we are ignorant,
Speaker:and then we pile knowledge on top of
Speaker:that ignorance,
Speaker:adding to our understanding.
Speaker:But in many ways,
Speaker:really grasping the nature of reality
Speaker:is just as much about taking away—by
Speaker:peeling back the layers of assumption,
Speaker:we clear our perception and look at
Speaker:things afresh.
Speaker:The biggest impediment to understanding
Speaker:the world as it is,
Speaker:then,
Speaker:is the insistence that we already know
Speaker:what it is.
Speaker:We see someone lose consciousness in a
Speaker:pouch made of foam and fabric,
Speaker:and we confidently say,
Speaker:“She’s gone to bed."
Speaker:The language gives the impression we
Speaker:have a more comprehensive understanding
Speaker:of what has occurred ...but do we?
Speaker:When you ask the Martian question and
Speaker:try on a fresh perspective on things
Speaker:you think you already understand,
Speaker:you change the kinds of questions you
Speaker:ask.
Speaker:And that means you change the kind of
Speaker:answers you expose yourself to,
Speaker:and therefore the kinds of solutions
Speaker:you can dream up.
Speaker:You “think outside the box” because
Speaker:you are able to see that there is a box
Speaker:in the first place,
Speaker:and you become curious about who put it
Speaker:there and why,
Speaker:and what it would mean if it didn’t
Speaker:exist anymore.
Speaker:The Martian Question in Real Life This
Speaker:might seem great if you’re a
Speaker:children’s author or a prize-winning
Speaker:physicist,
Speaker:but can it really be applied to real
Speaker:life?
Speaker:Do you have to reinvent the wheel every
Speaker:time you want to make toast for
Speaker:breakfast?
Speaker:Consider the example of inventor Martin
Speaker:Cooper,
Speaker:the man who is credited with being the
Speaker:“grandfather of the mobile phone."
Speaker:He didn’t just create a fun new
Speaker:gadget.
Speaker:He looked at the world of telephone
Speaker:communication as it was in the early
Speaker:1970s,
Speaker:and asked a question - “Why do you
Speaker:have to always call a place—why
Speaker:can’t you call a person?"
Speaker:You see,
Speaker:his shift in perspective was the very
Speaker:idea that you could detach the ability
Speaker:to make telephone calls from any
Speaker:particular place—it seems obvious to
Speaker:us today,
Speaker:but it wasn’t back then.
Speaker:He pioneered the idea of a phone as a
Speaker:personal thing,
Speaker:saying he wanted to create a
Speaker:“personal telephone—something that
Speaker:would represent an individual so you
Speaker:could assign a number;
Speaker:not to a place,
Speaker:not to a desk,
Speaker:not to a home,
Speaker:but to a person."
Speaker:Martin Cooper asked interesting
Speaker:questions not because he was an
Speaker:intelligent inventor and engineer,
Speaker:or an expert in the field of
Speaker:communications (he was both these
Speaker:things),
Speaker:but because he was able to look at the
Speaker:situation with fresh eyes.
Speaker:The question that defined his
Speaker:career—and arguably the era of mobile
Speaker:devices—was the kind of question a
Speaker:five-year-old might ask.
Speaker:Today,
Speaker:we don’t think of this leap in
Speaker:imagination as anything all that
Speaker:special,
Speaker:since it has become part of our world.
Speaker:In the same way,
Speaker:we don’t look around and see the vast
Speaker:potential for ideas that we simply have
Speaker:not had the insight to ask about until
Speaker:now.
Speaker:They are there,
Speaker:though,
Speaker:hiding in plain sight,
Speaker:just beyond the same kind of simple,
Speaker:even obvious question that Martin
Speaker:Cooper asked himself.
Speaker:Get in the habit of asking these kinds
Speaker:of questions yourself.
Speaker:What would this situation look like to
Speaker:me if I knew nothing at all about it?
Speaker:What assumptions,
Speaker:expectations,
Speaker:and foregone conclusions am I taking
Speaker:for granted?
Speaker:What if I remove those?
Speaker:How might my life look to a complete
Speaker:outsider?
Speaker:To someone from a different planet,
Speaker:a different country,
Speaker:a different historical period?
Speaker:What about a younger or older version
Speaker:of myself?
Speaker:When I answer a question with a term or
Speaker:label,
Speaker:do I actually know what this word means?
Speaker:What is interesting here?
Speaker:Could it be some other way?
Speaker:Feynman’s Advice .- Play More!
Speaker:One of the themes we will return to
Speaker:again and again in this book is that of
Speaker:intellectual newness,
Speaker:freshness,
Speaker:and lack of preconception.
Speaker:This “childlike” state of mind is
Speaker:not just a metaphor—children are in
Speaker:many ways the natural experts of
Speaker:learning,
Speaker:since that is precisely what their
Speaker:brains are designed to do.
Speaker:Sadly,
Speaker:we lose this knack for plain
Speaker:perception,
Speaker:curiosity,
Speaker:and joy as we grow older and are taught
Speaker:that learning is not about new things,
Speaker:but about old,
Speaker:dusty,
Speaker:tried things!
Speaker:When left to their own devices,
Speaker:children don’t learn by forcing
Speaker:themselves to sit in structured lessons
Speaker:and making a big deal out of
Speaker:unpleasant,
Speaker:boring,
Speaker:and deadly serious “school”—which
Speaker:is somehow separate from the rest of
Speaker:life.
Speaker:Rather,
Speaker:they play.
Speaker:Constantly.
Speaker:And in their play they learn vast
Speaker:amounts about the world they inhabit.
Speaker:Feynman is said to have come up with
Speaker:his Nobel Prize–winning idea by
Speaker:watching students spin plates in a
Speaker:cafeteria in Cornell University,
Speaker:where he worked at the time.
Speaker:Finding a solution to a physics
Speaker:question is something as mundane as
Speaker:tossing plates around in a cafeteria,
Speaker:which tells you just how powerful
Speaker:playful curiosity can be.
Speaker:According to Feynman,
Speaker:“Physics disgusts me a little bit
Speaker:now,
Speaker:but I used to enjoy doing physics.
Speaker:Why did I enjoy it?
Speaker:I used to play with it.
Speaker:I used to do whatever I felt like
Speaker:doing—it didn’t have to do with
Speaker:whether it was important for the
Speaker:development of nuclear physics,
Speaker:but whether it was interesting and
Speaker:amusing for me to play with.
Speaker:When I was in high school,
Speaker:I’d see water running out of a faucet
Speaker:growing narrower,
Speaker:and wonder if I could figure out what
Speaker:determines that curve.
Speaker:I found it was rather easy to do.
Speaker:I didn’t have to do it;
Speaker:it wasn’t important for the future of
Speaker:science;
Speaker:somebody else had already done it.
Speaker:That didn’t make any difference.
Speaker:I’d invent things and play with
Speaker:things for my own entertainment.
Speaker:So I got this new attitude.
Speaker:Now that I am burned out and I’ll
Speaker:never accomplish anything,
Speaker:I’ve got this nice position at the
Speaker:university teaching classes which I
Speaker:rather enjoy,
Speaker:and just like I read The Arabian
Speaker:Nights for pleasure,
Speaker:I’m going to play with physics,
Speaker:whenever I want to,
Speaker:without worrying about any importance
Speaker:whatsoever.
Speaker:Within a week I was in the cafeteria
Speaker:and some guy,
Speaker:fooling around,
Speaker:throws a plate in the air.
Speaker:As the plate went up in the air I saw
Speaker:it wobble,
Speaker:and I noticed the red medallion of
Speaker:Cornell on the plate going around.
Speaker:It was pretty obvious to me that the
Speaker:medallion went around faster than the
Speaker:wobbling.
Speaker:I had nothing to do,
Speaker:so I start to figure out the motion of
Speaker:the rotating plate.
Speaker:I discovered that when the angle is
Speaker:very slight,
Speaker:the medallion rotates twice as fast as
Speaker:the wobble rate.
Speaker:Then I thought,
Speaker:‘Is there some way I can see in a
Speaker:more fundamental way,
Speaker:by looking at the forces or the
Speaker:dynamics?’ I don’t remember how I
Speaker:did it,
Speaker:but I ultimately worked out what the
Speaker:motion of the mass particles is,
Speaker:and how all the accelerations
Speaker:balance... I still remember going to
Speaker:Hans Bethe and saying,
Speaker:‘Hey,
Speaker:Hans!
Speaker:I noticed something interesting.
Speaker:Here the plate goes around so,
Speaker:and the reason it’s two to one is
Speaker:...’ and I showed him the
Speaker:accelerations.
Speaker:He said,
Speaker:‘Feynman,
Speaker:that’s pretty interesting,
Speaker:but what’s the importance of it?
Speaker:Why are you doing it?’ ‘Hah!’ I
Speaker:said.
Speaker:‘There’s no importance whatsoever.
Speaker:I’m just doing it for the fun of
Speaker:it.’ The diagrams and the whole
Speaker:business that I got the Nobel Prize for
Speaker:came from that piddling around with the
Speaker:wobbling plate."
Speaker:Relaxation,
Speaker:daydreaming,
Speaker:creativity,
Speaker:and yes,
Speaker:fun are not impediments to serious
Speaker:intellectual activity—they are an
Speaker:important part of it.
Speaker:Your mind is naturally curious about
Speaker:the world.
Speaker:Curiosity and playfulness are a big
Speaker:part of how it survives and evolves.
Speaker:But who taught us that this survival
Speaker:necessarily has to be a boring,
Speaker:difficult thing?
Speaker:Where did we learn that the real living
Speaker:of life happens only when we are
Speaker:working and working hard,
Speaker:and that play and joy and curiosity are
Speaker:only “recreation” and don’t count
Speaker:for much?
Speaker:Now,
Speaker:before we go further,
Speaker:it’s worth saying that Feynman’s
Speaker:sentiments about “serious play” are
Speaker:not about being lazy,
Speaker:uncoordinated,
Speaker:or simply sitting and waiting for a
Speaker:fully formed prize to fall into your
Speaker:lap.
Speaker:There is certainly a time and place for
Speaker:deep work,
Speaker:effort,
Speaker:and pushing through challenges to grow
Speaker:our abilities.
Speaker:Feynman believed,
Speaker:then,
Speaker:that it was a balance.
Speaker:Work hard,
Speaker:then let go.
Speaker:Then work hard again.
Speaker:Think of it a little like a muscle
Speaker:growing stronger.
Speaker:It’s essential to challenge the
Speaker:muscle to work hard,
Speaker:but it’s also essential to rest,
Speaker:or just to spontaneously let the body
Speaker:sometimes do what it feels is best
Speaker:(maybe dancing?).
Speaker:Many of us who are ambitious and/or
Speaker:have been indoctrinated into the
Speaker:ideology of “all work and no play”
Speaker:will find it difficult to let go.
Speaker:Learning to trust ourselves to be
Speaker:spontaneous,
Speaker:relaxed,
Speaker:and joyful can take some practice.
Speaker:If you’re someone who is suspicious
Speaker:of Feynman’s “play more” advice
Speaker:and want to know exactly what makes it
Speaker:different from being a lazy bum,
Speaker:then consider the following - Serious
Speaker:play still requires domain knowledge.
Speaker:Watching the spin and angle of rotating
Speaker:plates is great and all,
Speaker:but you’ll notice that Feynman had a
Speaker:hefty dose of pre-existing domain
Speaker:knowledge,
Speaker:and so his question about why the
Speaker:plates moved as they did could be
Speaker:answered with the skill set he already
Speaker:possessed.
Speaker:Perhaps if he had been a musician,
Speaker:he might have used that knowledge to
Speaker:explore the concept of spin a little
Speaker:differently!
Speaker:Just because play is important,
Speaker:it doesn’t mean it’s not worth
Speaker:working really hard to fill up your
Speaker:intellectual inventory with tools,
Speaker:concepts,
Speaker:ideas,
Speaker:theories,
Speaker:and skills.
Speaker:When you have a burning question and
Speaker:are genuinely curious about something,
Speaker:then you can whip out these tools and
Speaker:use them—all the better if you’re
Speaker:very comfortable with using them
Speaker:already!
Speaker:Pablo Picasso was often accused of not
Speaker:being a real painter since it appeared
Speaker:that his more famous works could be
Speaker:created by anyone without any artistic
Speaker:talent or technique.
Speaker:But look at some of his earlier
Speaker:paintings,
Speaker:and you will see that the modern artist
Speaker:knew all the conventional rules of
Speaker:painting (and was indeed a very
Speaker:competent and accomplished painter)
Speaker:before he broke them.
Speaker:Feynman,
Speaker:too,
Speaker:had to be fully versed in the
Speaker:conventions of his field before he
Speaker:started to question them,
Speaker:or make his own contributions.
Speaker:Serious play is still focused.
Speaker:There is value in rest and recuperation.
Speaker:The composer Bach often had inspiration
Speaker:strike him while he was not at work,
Speaker:but outside walking in nature,
Speaker:letting his intellect relax and loosen.
Speaker:Serious play,
Speaker:however,
Speaker:is not the same as relaxation.
Speaker:It is not distracted and
Speaker:scattered—rather,
Speaker:it is deeply,
Speaker:deeply focused on one task.
Speaker:Watch a child as they play and you will
Speaker:see this focus.
Speaker:They have seemingly infinite energy,
Speaker:patience,
Speaker:and attention for a task they are
Speaker:engrossed in.
Speaker:Replicate this by spending as much time
Speaker:as you can on the things you’re
Speaker:interested in.
Speaker:Don’t expect world-changing insights
Speaker:and paradigm shifts for something you
Speaker:do half-heartedly or for a few minutes
Speaker:once a week.
Speaker:For Feynman,
Speaker:everything in his life was physics
Speaker:(even within the field,
Speaker:he focused on those areas he was most
Speaker:interested in).
Speaker:He might not have been as effective if
Speaker:he had tried to apply himself over many
Speaker:disparate fields at the same time.
Speaker:Serious play has a purpose.
Speaker:When we are “killing time” or just
Speaker:seeking mindless entertainment,
Speaker:it is not the same as serious play.
Speaker:This kind of activity is open-ended,
Speaker:curious,
Speaker:and joyful,
Speaker:but it also has a definite point.
Speaker:It’s not a free-for-all.
Speaker:Feynman was just itching to understand
Speaker:why the plates behaved as they did.
Speaker:He was attacking the problem as though
Speaker:it were a game,
Speaker:but definitely one in which he was
Speaker:trying to win,
Speaker:trying to solve the puzzle.
Speaker:Try to be purposeful in the same way.
Speaker:A little healthy obsession is a
Speaker:powerful thing!
Speaker:An Unexpected Cure for Burnout
Speaker:Granted,
Speaker:most of us don’t want to completely
Speaker:upend the paradigm we’re working in,
Speaker:invent the next big thing,
Speaker:or be breakout disruptors who leave a
Speaker:big mark on the world (if you do,
Speaker:though—great!).
Speaker:Learning to play more and mastering the
Speaker:kind of serious play that Feynman spoke
Speaker:about is not just a way to create or
Speaker:solve problems.
Speaker:In Feynman’s own example,
Speaker:he describes how returning to a
Speaker:childlike sense of wonder and interest
Speaker:was how he broke through a growing
Speaker:sense of boredom and dullness in his
Speaker:work.
Speaker:In other words,
Speaker:it was only when he could reconnect to
Speaker:curious and engaged play that he broke
Speaker:out of a rut and made real progress
Speaker:(not,
Speaker:incidentally,
Speaker:in his office but while on a break in a
Speaker:cafeteria).
Speaker:It would be no exaggeration to say that
Speaker:post-pandemic,
Speaker:the world is burnt out.
Speaker:Whether you are an entrepreneur or work
Speaker:for someone else,
Speaker:there’s a strong chance you’ve
Speaker:experienced exhaustion and lack of
Speaker:motivation.
Speaker:It is no coincidence that messing
Speaker:around with plate rotation in the
Speaker:cafeteria “just for fun” is what
Speaker:actually led to one of Feynman’s
Speaker:greatest contributions.
Speaker:He was able to work beyond his previous
Speaker:limits because he’d allowed himself
Speaker:to play.
Speaker:If you are tired,
Speaker:unmotivated,
Speaker:or even bored,
Speaker:it may be time for serious play to
Speaker:breathe some life into your world.
Speaker:You need a fresh perspective and the
Speaker:energy that comes with genuinely being
Speaker:excited and curious about something.
Speaker:If you are legitimately fascinated and
Speaker:having fun answering a question,
Speaker:then you are instantly tapped into a
Speaker:source of energy and power that can
Speaker:never be rivaled by any other incentive.
Speaker:Feynman didn’t care when fellow
Speaker:scientists asked him what on earth he
Speaker:was doing and what the point of it was!
Speaker:That’s because he was driven from
Speaker:within.
Speaker:Because it was fun.
Speaker:Try to play with your work again.
Speaker:Whenever you want to,
Speaker:in whatever direction you want to.
Speaker:Give yourself permission to follow
Speaker:trivial observations and ask
Speaker:questions—even if they are
Speaker:“useless” ones to ask.
Speaker:Creative play can soothe stress,
Speaker:make you more resilient,
Speaker:and help you focus longer.
Speaker:Too many of us appreciate the value of
Speaker:hard work but completely undervalue our
Speaker:own energy,
Speaker:excitement,
Speaker:and pleasure.
Speaker:Here are a few examples to show what
Speaker:that might look like even if you’re
Speaker:not a physics genius -
Speaker:•You’re learning the piano,
Speaker:but getting demotivated and bored.
Speaker:So you make sure that a few times every
Speaker:week (unscheduled)
Speaker:you just sit down at the piano and do
Speaker:what you want.
Speaker:It’s not about working through the
Speaker:pieces your teacher has assigned you,
Speaker:or ticking off a list of scale
Speaker:exercises.
Speaker:It’s just about you playing around
Speaker:with the instrument.
Speaker:You don’t know what you’ll do until
Speaker:you try it.
Speaker:When something piques your interest,
Speaker:you follow that feeling of pleasure and
Speaker:excitement.
Speaker:You notice that even though it feels a
Speaker:bit awkward at first,
Speaker:you enjoy these sessions the most and
Speaker:always end up playing for longer than
Speaker:you thought you would!
Speaker:•You’re trying to write a novel,
Speaker:but continually hitting creative blocks
Speaker:and finding yourself procrastinating.
Speaker:You decide to start every planned
Speaker:writing session with a crazy,
Speaker:out-of-the-box game.
Speaker:Whatever you feel like.
Speaker:You write crazy dialogues between the
Speaker:characters and envision them as Punch
Speaker:and Judy puppets.
Speaker:You put five minutes on a stopwatch and
Speaker:see what happens when you write
Speaker:continuously without thinking about it.
Speaker:Or it seems like it would be fun to
Speaker:deliberately try to write a really
Speaker:awful book,
Speaker:just because it would be funny and you
Speaker:want to try it.
Speaker:•Your job as a nurse is exhausting
Speaker:and unrewarding.
Speaker:You’re close to giving up and feel
Speaker:desperately sad to have lost what you
Speaker:thought was your life’s calling.
Speaker:So you take all the pressure off
Speaker:yourself,
Speaker:quit your job,
Speaker:and start volunteering at an old
Speaker:folk’s home instead.
Speaker:Money’s tight and you still have to
Speaker:figure out what job you’ll do next,
Speaker:but slowly,
Speaker:by working more on your own terms,
Speaker:you reconnect with what made you fall
Speaker:in love with nursing in the first place.
Speaker:Your energy stores fill up again.
Speaker:You remember your vocation and passion.
Speaker:When it comes time to apply for new
Speaker:jobs,
Speaker:your mindset has completely changed,
Speaker:and you find yourself accepting a
Speaker:completely different role from the one
Speaker:you always thought you wanted.
Speaker:Burnout is complex,
Speaker:and the world of work is
Speaker:complicated—not all of us have as
Speaker:much opportunity to rest,
Speaker:recuperate,
Speaker:and play as we’d like.
Speaker:Nevertheless,
Speaker:if you are feeling flat about your
Speaker:work,
Speaker:uninspired,
Speaker:or plain old bored,
Speaker:then rest assured that there is always
Speaker:a source of energy and motivation you
Speaker:can tap into .- It’s called the joy
Speaker:of curiosity,
Speaker:and play will teach you how to find it
Speaker:and how to re-energize yourself.
Speaker:The Scientific Method According to
Speaker:Feynman Learning to “see” the
Speaker:world as a scientist sees it requires -
Speaker:1. the presence of mind to suspend
Speaker:everything you already think you know,
Speaker:and 2. being able to look at what
Speaker:you really observe with a sense of
Speaker:childlike playfulness,
Speaker:joy,
Speaker:and deep curiosity.
Speaker:These are not methods so much as
Speaker:mindsets.
Speaker:However,
Speaker:when a certain mindset becomes natural
Speaker:for you,
Speaker:you can’t help but develop a method
Speaker:for how you tend to approach the
Speaker:project of learning,
Speaker:understanding,
Speaker:and making meaning.
Speaker:This curiosity and open-mindedness is,
Speaker:in fact,
Speaker:the birthplace of what is arguably one
Speaker:of mankind’s best inventions - the
Speaker:scientific method.
Speaker:The first thing to know about the
Speaker:scientific method is that it’s not
Speaker:really about science.
Speaker:Rather,
Speaker:it’s a way to structure our thinking,
Speaker:and our approach to observation,
Speaker:gathering data,
Speaker:making predictions and theories,
Speaker:and inching our way closer to truth and
Speaker:understanding using reason and
Speaker:empiricism.
Speaker:Physicist Brian Cox once spoke to
Speaker:students at Manchester University about
Speaker:black holes,
Speaker:and showed them a video clip from a
Speaker:1960s lecture by Richard Feynman.
Speaker:Cox introduced the clip by saying it
Speaker:was simply the best explanation he had
Speaker:yet encountered about the spirit of
Speaker:science and what the scientific method
Speaker:was all about.
Speaker:The clip easily laid it all out in
Speaker:under a minute.
Speaker:According to Feynman,
Speaker:“Now I’m going to discuss how we
Speaker:would look for a new law.
Speaker:In general,
Speaker:we look for a new law by the following
Speaker:process.
Speaker:First,
Speaker:we guess it.
Speaker:Then we compute the consequences of the
Speaker:guess,
Speaker:to see ...if this law we guess is
Speaker:right,
Speaker:what it would imply,
Speaker:and then we compare the computation
Speaker:results to nature,
Speaker:or we compare to experiment or
Speaker:experience,
Speaker:or compare it directly with
Speaker:observations to see if it works.
Speaker:If it disagrees with experiment,
Speaker:it’s wrong.
Speaker:In that simple statement is the key to
Speaker:science.
Speaker:It doesn’t make any difference how
Speaker:beautiful your guess is,
Speaker:it doesn’t matter how smart you are
Speaker:who made the guess,
Speaker:or what his name is ...If it disagrees
Speaker:with experiment,
Speaker:it’s wrong.
Speaker:That’s all there is to it."
Speaker:You can probably see why Feynman was
Speaker:regarded as such a charismatic teacher
Speaker:and communicator!
Speaker:Let’s take a look at what he is
Speaker:really saying about the scientific
Speaker:method.
Speaker:Step 1 .- To look for a new law,
Speaker:first guess it.
Speaker:Step 2 .- Compute the consequences of
Speaker:the guess.
Speaker:Step 3 .- Compare the computation
Speaker:results to nature.
Speaker:Step 4 .- If the results disagree with
Speaker:nature,
Speaker:then our guess is wrong.
Speaker:Step 5 .- Repeat!
Speaker:(Optional.)
Speaker:So,
Speaker:the scientific method is nothing more
Speaker:complicated than making a guess about
Speaker:reality and observing reality in many
Speaker:different ways,
Speaker:and if our observations don’t support
Speaker:what we observe,
Speaker:we can say something about our
Speaker:guess—that is,
Speaker:it wasn’t right.
Speaker:If what we guess about reality turns
Speaker:out to match what we observe (say,
Speaker:in experimentation),
Speaker:then we have reason to believe that our
Speaker:guess holds some water.
Speaker:We continue asking questions,
Speaker:making observations,
Speaker:and designing ways to test whatever we
Speaker:guess next.
Speaker:In more formal scientific terms,
Speaker:the “guess” Feynman is talking
Speaker:about is a hypothesis.
Speaker:It can be based on what we already know
Speaker:or what we have observed,
Speaker:it can emerge because there are obvious
Speaker:gaps in what we know,
Speaker:or it can be driven by nothing more
Speaker:than curiosity.
Speaker:For published academics,
Speaker:the name of the game is to look for
Speaker:hypotheses that are relevant and
Speaker:original.
Speaker:But luckily for you,
Speaker:as a layperson,
Speaker:you are not beholden to such limits!
Speaker:You can ask whatever question you
Speaker:like—bearing in mind that making a
Speaker:hypothesis is just a way to ask reality
Speaker:a question.
Speaker:Imagine that reality is a little like
Speaker:one of those Magic 8 Balls that can be
Speaker:shaken to reveal an answer to a
Speaker:question.
Speaker:Let’s say that this Magic 8 Ball only
Speaker:has three possible responses to any
Speaker:questions you ask - it can say yes,
Speaker:no,
Speaker:or try again.
Speaker:The try again response could mean a few
Speaker:things—your question is phrased
Speaker:incorrectly,
Speaker:there’s been an error along the way,
Speaker:or you need to,
Speaker:well,
Speaker:try again.
Speaker:Your guess might be true,
Speaker:it might be false,
Speaker:it might be both,
Speaker:it might be neither.
Speaker:When you ask a question of this great
Speaker:universal Magic 8 Ball,
Speaker:then,
Speaker:you cannot ask it “Why do some people
Speaker:not die of this virus that is killing
Speaker:everyone?” or “What medicine will
Speaker:help people infected with this virus?"
Speaker:The ball will only tell you that any
Speaker:one guess is correct,
Speaker:incorrect,
Speaker:or undecided.
Speaker:You could ask “Do the people who
Speaker:survive this virus have higher serum
Speaker:bilirubin levels than those who
Speaker:don’t?"
Speaker:Now this “asking” can take the form
Speaker:of an experiment.
Speaker:You set up a research design where you
Speaker:get three groups—people who have died
Speaker:from the virus,
Speaker:people who have the virus but have not
Speaker:died from it,
Speaker:and people who have not had the virus.
Speaker:You then look at the blood work of all
Speaker:three groups and ask what their serum
Speaker:bilirubin levels are.
Speaker:Since you have thousands of people to
Speaker:measure and observe,
Speaker:you use statistics to help you crunch
Speaker:the numbers.
Speaker:You put everything together and notice
Speaker:a pattern—the people who have the
Speaker:virus but are not dead do indeed have
Speaker:higher bilirubin levels than both of
Speaker:the other groups.
Speaker:This result is essentially the Magic 8
Speaker:Ball saying,
Speaker:“Yes,
Speaker:this is a pretty good guess."
Speaker:But that doesn’t mean that that’s
Speaker:the end of the story and we have
Speaker:conclusively proven something forever.
Speaker:It just means we have discovered some
Speaker:evidence and support for our guess.
Speaker:When it comes to hypotheses,
Speaker:scientists always frame their questions
Speaker:so that they can be disproven.
Speaker:For example,
Speaker:they make a claim (“bilirubin
Speaker:protects people from the virus”)
Speaker:and then set up an experiment so they
Speaker:can observe if this guess matches up
Speaker:with what really happens in the world.
Speaker:Either they conclusively prove the
Speaker:statement false,
Speaker:or they find tentative evidence that it
Speaker:might be true.
Speaker:So,
Speaker:we seek to find out whether a
Speaker:hypothesis (guess)
Speaker:can be rejected or not.
Speaker:We advance in our knowledge about the
Speaker:world,
Speaker:in other words,
Speaker:by ruling out what definitely isn’t
Speaker:true,
Speaker:with the goal of gradually and by
Speaker:degree approaching what is true.
Speaker:We begin with speculation,
Speaker:and putting that speculation out into
Speaker:the real world,
Speaker:we see how it performs.
Speaker:Then,
Speaker:based on our results,
Speaker:we can make another experiment,
Speaker:and our next guesses and speculations
Speaker:can be a little smarter than the
Speaker:previous one.
Speaker:Naturally,
Speaker:real experimental science has strict
Speaker:protocols to follow and its own logical
Speaker:rules that help formalize this process.
Speaker:Scientists have a whole range of
Speaker:activities that count as
Speaker:“observation,” and there is a
Speaker:difference between theoretical and
Speaker:applied sciences,
Speaker:between different kinds of observations
Speaker:(for example,
Speaker:in the social sciences versus in
Speaker:medicine),
Speaker:and between different approaches that
Speaker:use tools like mathematics,
Speaker:statistics,
Speaker:software,
Speaker:or technology to extend and expand the
Speaker:normal powers of human perception.
Speaker:But in the end,
Speaker:it all comes down to Feynman’s basic
Speaker:recipe - make a guess,
Speaker:observe what reality is actually doing,
Speaker:compare the two,
Speaker:rinse and repeat.
Speaker:Another important thing to remember,
Speaker:and Feynman does approach this in his
Speaker:simplified explanation,
Speaker:is that there is no ego in the
Speaker:scientific method.
Speaker:If we make a guess that turns out to
Speaker:not explain reality in the way we
Speaker:thought it might,
Speaker:this isn’t a problem.
Speaker:We haven’t made a mistake,
Speaker:and that doesn’t mean we’re bad or
Speaker:wrong or stupid.
Speaker:Making “wrong” guesses is Doing
Speaker:Science in the exact same way that
Speaker:making “right” guesses is.
Speaker:They both take us closer to the truth,
Speaker:and therefore they both have value.
Speaker:In the same way,
Speaker:a guess is right because that’s what
Speaker:it is—not because it’s been made by
Speaker:someone who is good or intelligent or
Speaker:has been right before.
Speaker:A guess can be right and still be
Speaker:something we don’t like,
Speaker:and vice versa.
Speaker:Finally,
Speaker:a true scientist asks a question for
Speaker:one reason and one reason only .- They
Speaker:want to know the answer!
Speaker:They don’t ask it because they want
Speaker:to confirm that what they already
Speaker:believe is true.
Speaker:They are not looking for “proof”
Speaker:that will permit them to continue
Speaker:holding on to what they suspected was
Speaker:the case all along.
Speaker:Their first duty is to find something
Speaker:that is true and correct.
Speaker:If the process that leads them there
Speaker:entails dozens of wrong guesses,
Speaker:then so be it.
Speaker:If human beings were doing science in
Speaker:this way,
Speaker:you would expect them to regularly
Speaker:publish findings in which their
Speaker:hypotheses were shown to be rejected by
Speaker:their observations and experiments.
Speaker:In reality,
Speaker:though,
Speaker:academic publishing contains an
Speaker:improbably high level of papers showing
Speaker:that the researchers’ guess just so
Speaker:happened to be correct.
Speaker:In 2005,
Speaker:John Ioannidis,
Speaker:a professor at Stanford School of
Speaker:Medicine,
Speaker:argued that the majority of papers
Speaker:published in medical journals were
Speaker:likely false positives (that is,
Speaker:found evidence where there was none)
Speaker:and could not be replicated.
Speaker:The way the researchers were using
Speaker:hypothesis testing,
Speaker:and processing their results
Speaker:statistically,
Speaker:meant they tended to get exactly the
Speaker:kind of response that was most
Speaker:desired—i.e.,
Speaker:support for their hypotheses.
Speaker:In academia,
Speaker:there is considerable pressure to
Speaker:produce a certain kind of knowledge in
Speaker:certain high profile and lucrative
Speaker:research domains,
Speaker:and the Great Replication Crisis showed
Speaker:just what happens when we seek only to
Speaker:find evidence for what we want to
Speaker:believe is true,
Speaker:rather than asking outright what is
Speaker:true.
Speaker:Questionable research practices,
Speaker:“publish or perish” culture in
Speaker:universities,
Speaker:political pressure,
Speaker:and the rampant misuse of statistics
Speaker:are all impediments to what Feynman
Speaker:would have considered truly
Speaker:scientific—but that doesn’t mean
Speaker:the principle itself is not sound.
Speaker:On a smaller scale,
Speaker:we are all at risk as flawed human
Speaker:beings of succumbing to our blind
Speaker:spots,
Speaker:biases,
Speaker:prejudices,
Speaker:and pet theories.
Speaker:We can convince ourselves we’re
Speaker:encountering truth when we’re really
Speaker:just creating something we like and
Speaker:naming it truth because it’s
Speaker:convenient.
Speaker:Let’s zoom out and consider an
Speaker:example from the non-scientific,
Speaker:non-academic everyday realm.
Speaker:Let’s say your car is acting up.
Speaker:You don’t know much about cars,
Speaker:but it’s been making a weird noise,
Speaker:and one day you see a light on the
Speaker:dashboard—one you don’t recognize,
Speaker:with some weird circles and a cross
Speaker:through them.
Speaker:You look in the car’s manual to see
Speaker:what the symbol means .- It says
Speaker:“brake lights."
Speaker:But what does that mean?
Speaker:Your hypothesis - the brake light is
Speaker:broken.
Speaker:How do you test this hypothesis?
Speaker:You could step outside of the car and
Speaker:look with your own two eyes.
Speaker:But then you see something
Speaker:curious—both brake lights appear to
Speaker:be working.
Speaker:Okay,
Speaker:time for a new hypothesis .- The brake
Speaker:light is itself broken!
Speaker:Now,
Speaker:how are you going to test that?
Speaker:And how can you determine whether this
Speaker:phenomenon is connected with the noise
Speaker:you’re hearing?
Speaker:The next day,
Speaker:you notice two things .- The brake
Speaker:light is off,
Speaker:and the noise has stopped.
Speaker:Now,
Speaker:this does offer some support for the
Speaker:idea that the light and noise are
Speaker:somehow connected.
Speaker:But you haven’t proven it yet!
Speaker:If you’re not a mechanic and can’t
Speaker:get to one,
Speaker:you might simply conduct an
Speaker:“experiment” that consists in you
Speaker:noticing whether the two phenomena ever
Speaker:occur together.
Speaker:Every time they do,
Speaker:you gather more evidence for the idea
Speaker:that something is going on,
Speaker:and these two events have something to
Speaker:do with it.
Speaker:When one day the noise occurs without
Speaker:the light being on,
Speaker:you reason that they could in fact be
Speaker:two independent phenomena ...
Speaker:Sometimes,
Speaker:the spirit of the scientific method
Speaker:simply reveals itself in our ability to
Speaker:stop ourselves from saying,
Speaker:“It can’t be done,” so we can
Speaker:instead actively ask,
Speaker:“Can it be done?
Speaker:How can it be done?” or even better,
Speaker:“What is being done right now?
Speaker:What do I observe and why is it
Speaker:happening?"
Speaker:The scientifically minded person has an
Speaker:attitude of experiment—they don’t
Speaker:make pronouncements and leave it at
Speaker:that.
Speaker:They frequently think,
Speaker:“I wonder what will happen if....”
Speaker:and follow through.
Speaker:If something is unanswered,
Speaker:mysterious,
Speaker:or unknown,
Speaker:they don’t shrug their shoulders or
Speaker:choose the “answer” they like best
Speaker:and cling to it.
Speaker:They say to themselves,
Speaker:“Let’s find out!"
Speaker:While such examples of trial and error
Speaker:and logical common sense seem almost
Speaker:too obvious,
Speaker:the fact is that we cannot really
Speaker:arrive at knowledge and understanding
Speaker:by any other way.
Speaker:The same applies to things outside the
Speaker:five senses.
Speaker:In C. B. T. (cognitive behavioral
Speaker:therapy),
Speaker:counselors often advise people to test
Speaker:their theories of reality,
Speaker:rather than just assume that their
Speaker:knee-jerk interpretation of events is
Speaker:always correct.
Speaker:If someone frowns at you on public
Speaker:transport,
Speaker:you could quickly conclude that
Speaker:you’re weird and unlovable and
Speaker:everyone knows it.
Speaker:Or you could seek the most likely
Speaker:explanation that requires the least
Speaker:number of assumptions .- The person was
Speaker:unhappy for some other reason that has
Speaker:nothing to do with you.
Speaker:But you don’t necessarily have to go
Speaker:on faith.
Speaker:You can test your “unlovable”
Speaker:hypothesis the next time you go on
Speaker:public transport.
Speaker:Is what you observe in line with your
Speaker:theory?
Speaker:In other words,
Speaker:is everyone you encounter frowning at
Speaker:you or behaving as though they dislike
Speaker:you?
Speaker:If people are just minding their own
Speaker:business and being perfectly neutral
Speaker:about your presence,
Speaker:you can safely conclude that your
Speaker:original hypothesis was just plain
Speaker:wrong.
Speaker:Remember what Feynman said - “It
Speaker:doesn’t make any difference how
Speaker:beautiful your guess is,
Speaker:it doesn’t matter how smart you are
Speaker:who made the guess,
Speaker:or what his name is ...If it disagrees
Speaker:with experiment,
Speaker:it’s wrong.
Speaker:That’s all there is to it."
Speaker:In our example,
Speaker:it doesn’t matter how right your
Speaker:hypothesis feels,
Speaker:or how much your guess seems like it
Speaker:fits your pre-existing worldview (that
Speaker:is,
Speaker:the one in which you are pretty sure
Speaker:you’re unlovable).
Speaker:It doesn’t matter how right you want
Speaker:to be—if observation doesn’t align
Speaker:with reality,
Speaker:then your guess about reality is wrong,
Speaker:and that’s all there is to it.
Speaker:Summary
Speaker:•Feynman was a brilliant scientist
Speaker:because of how he thought,
Speaker:not what he thought.
Speaker:Whatever your vocation,
Speaker:skill set,
Speaker:expertise,
Speaker:special interest,
Speaker:or personal challenges,
Speaker:your life can be improved by learning
Speaker:to learn.
Speaker:•To see the world anew and without
Speaker:stale old misconceptions,
Speaker:try to look at it as though you were a
Speaker:Martian arriving on Earth for the very
Speaker:first time.
Speaker:What do you see?
Speaker:What would the world look like to you
Speaker:if you had no pre-existing beliefs
Speaker:about it,
Speaker:no biases,
Speaker:no prior understanding to cloud your
Speaker:observations?
Speaker:•Knowing the arbitrary symbols
Speaker:assigned to a thing is not knowing it.
Speaker:Look beyond language.
Speaker:•Relaxation,
Speaker:daydreaming,
Speaker:creativity,
Speaker:and fun are not impediments to serious
Speaker:intellectual activity,
Speaker:but an important part of it.
Speaker:Your mind is naturally curious about
Speaker:the world.
Speaker:Curiosity and playfulness is a big part
Speaker:of how it survives and evolves.
Speaker:Work hard,
Speaker:let go,
Speaker:then work hard again.
Speaker:“Serious play” still requires
Speaker:domain knowledge and is focused and
Speaker:purposeful.
Speaker:Burnout can be helped by this kind of
Speaker:play.
Speaker:•The scientific method is a way to
Speaker:structure our thinking and our approach
Speaker:to observation,
Speaker:gathering data,
Speaker:making predictions and theories,
Speaker:and inching our way closer to truth and
Speaker:understanding using reason and
Speaker:empiricism.
Speaker:•First make a guess about a new law.
Speaker:Then compute the consequences of the
Speaker:guess,
Speaker:then compare the computation results to
Speaker:nature.
Speaker:If the results disagree with nature,
Speaker:then your guess is wrong,
Speaker:if they agree,
Speaker:you have support for your hypothesis.
Speaker:What you want to be true is irrelevant;
Speaker:a scientist asks a question because
Speaker:they want to know the answer,
Speaker:not because they want to confirm what
Speaker:they already believe is true.
Speaker:This has been
Speaker:Richard Feynman’s Mental Models:
Speaker:How to Think,
Speaker:Learn,
Speaker:and Problem-Solve Like a Nobel Prize-Winning Polymath (Learning how to Learn Book 23) Written by
Speaker:Peter Hollins, narrated by russell newton.
