I came across this fascinating quote from the Russian playright Anton Chekhov (spotted on Maria Popova’s site):
“Anyone who says that the artist’s sphere leaves no room for questions, but deals exclusively with answers, has never done any writing or done anything with imagery. The artist observes, selects, guesses, and arranges; every one of these operations presupposes a question at its outset. If he has not asked himself a question at the start, he has nothing to guess and nothing to select.”
Cautioning against the common conflation of the two distinct concepts — “solving the problem” and “correctly formulating the problem” — he observes:
“Only the latter is required of the artist. Not a single problem is resolved in Anna Karenina or Eugene Onegin, and yet the novels satisfy you completely because all the problems they raise are formulated correctly. It is the duty of the law courts to correctly formulate problems, but it is up to the members of the jury to solve them, each to his own taste.”
Being by training a research physicist, I’m very familiar with the skill needed to formulate insightful questions in the sciences. However this is not straighforward as indicated by this interesting quote:
“A common mistake of beginners is the desire to understand everything completely right away. In real life understanding comes gradually, as one becomes accustomed to the new ideas. One of the difficulties of scientific research is that it is impossible to make progress without clear understanding, yet this understanding can come only from the work itself; every completed piece of research represents a victory over this contradiction.” – A B Migdal (Russian physicist, contemporary of Lev Landau)
“Maximize the serendipity around you….Many people do not realize that they are getting a lucky break in life when they get it. If a big publisher (or a big art dealer or a movie executive or a hotshot banker or a big thinker) suggests an appointment, cancel anything you have planned: you may never see such a window open up again. I am sometimes shocked at how little people realize that these opportunities do not grow on trees…This makes living in big cities invaluable because you increase the odds of serendipitous encounters — you gain exposure to the envelope of serendipity.” – Nassim Nicholas Taleb
It sounds obvious as written but as he says many people may not highlight (or even be fully aware of) truly exceptional opportunities from the mass of things that are going on in everyone’s lives. There is an element of awareness, ruthlessness and courage involved and misunderstandings and mistakes may be made. What is not said but implicit is that you have to offer something particularly interesting and novel to the contact in the short period of time you have available. In this context, see previous post on practising explaining things simply and clearly at all opportunities.
As a personal example, which is not a ‘lucky break’ as such rather a ‘special opportunity’, but still in the same general serendipitous category (the full post with context is here):
“I seem to remember that Prof Abdus Salam (Nobel Prize for Physics, 1979) used to visit Imperial, London University for a week or so every month (he held another position at an International Centre in Trieste, Italy) and there was generally quite a hubbub when he was around. On one occasion word went out that he wanted to interview each of the particle physics PhD students. There was a handful of us and no reason was given. This was quite unusual as we interacted with all the other staff on a regular and easy basis and communication was excellent.
In my interview somehow or other I started going on about the low public profile of particle physics even though some amazing advances were being made and they weren’t being well communicated to the public. He agreed with me, said it was an important topic and suggested I seize the opportunity and do it myself! This totally shocked me as this wasn’t the sort of career I had in mind, although with hindsight it might have been excellent and prescient advice.
I’ve often thought about this and how best to benefit when being in the (rare) situation of talking to someone who can give advice from a genuinely big picture. My guess is that they’ll always say something you don’t expect and you might even find a bit odd!
However I think the smart thing to do is to write it down, leave it a while, and then just openly think about it even if it contradicts practically everything else you’re doing. I’m not saying I would have been good at popular science or that I would (in reality) have enjoyed it but I did lose an opportunity by not giving it the attention it deserved.
As we’re often told, chance favours the prepared mind. In this case, being prepared for the unexpected!”
Nowadays writing books on popularising various areas of modern science and carrying out full-time research at the same time is quite common. There are now many excellent books produced this way but at the time I was talking about, there was very little. This was the opportunity but I needed a different way of thinking to realise it.
I came across the idea (see Instagram) that you could invite friends round to give a presentation on what it is they do in their jobs. This might sound crazy but it’s often true you only know the company they work for plus some bland job generalities. I expect most people imagine you do something quite different from what you actually do.
More widely, I’ve often heard parents talk about the jobs of their adult children and the key factors are often: with what company, how much they earn and what they do is eg ‘something in finance’. Some even say they have no idea what they do (common if children do something quite different from their parents). At least this has the benefit of honesty.
The main problem is communicating what you do to someone who likely has no domain knowledge of your area. This is in fact a really hard problem but excellent to practice at, it’ll be useful many times in the future.
Of course PowerPoint presentations have a terrible reputation; often too long, too complicated, poor assumptions about the audience’s understanding, not interactive etc. However I believe the idea is that it is informal and fun, everyone can have a drink, say whatever they like (eg this is not clear at all…) and hopefully it’ll become the start of an interesting and open conversation. It’s hard to imagine it wouldn’t be highly interactive 😂
Whilst browsing through a book on Samuel Johnson, The World in 38 Chapters or Dr Johnson’s Guide to Life, I came across a chapter on ‘discoveries’ which mentions the role of serendipity. In particular it refers to a paper, Serendipity Is No Accident, by the technology historian Robert Friedel who describes the interplay of chance and order:
“ Nonetheless, accidental discovery or invention is a common and widely acknowledged fact in modern science and technology. That this should be so is, at first glance, a bit surprising, given the scale and scope of systematic research. How indeed, one might ask, can such unpredictable and uncontrollable events be key elements in a system of science that commands budgets, laboratory, personnel, and national and international organisation of such extraordinary size that it is one of the most distinctive products of the twentieth century? And yet it is clear they are, as revealed by just a glance at some of the widely noted contributions recognised by recent Nobel Prizes in the sciences.”
He suggests there are three types of serendipity (and elaborates on this in his paper):
Columbian serendipity – looking for one thing but finding another (eg Columbus looking for route to Asia and ending up in America)
Archimedean serendipity – whilst tussling with a problem, realising a new way of solving it without using logical deduction (eg Archimedes in the bath realising the volume of a solid can be calculated by the water it displaces)
Galilean serendipity – using new instruments or capabilities to make discoveries (eg Galileo using his new telescope to see new aspects of the Moon and planets)
In summary he points out:
“The end of surprise would be the end of science. To this extent, the scientist must constantly seek and hope for surprises. But in an activity that is supposed to be fundamentally rational and orderly, this is neither easy or comfortable.”
There is a sort of internal contradiction or at least a tension between these two modes of progress.
I started my career as a theoretical physicist (working on the so-called Standard Model) and it was always hoped that experiments would show inconsistencies prompting a better model with a wider applicability or else new mathematical techniques could allow more accurate calculations (and hence tests) of existing theories. I guess these would be examples of Archimedean and Galilean serendipity respectively.
The examples above are of rare major breakthroughs but lots of small serendipitous acts commonly occur, sometimes through conversations or observations.
Last year a relative passed away and it affected me more than I anticipated. In hindsight I was ‘grieving’ although I didn’t fully realise this. So I started reading some books on the subject and realised that the scope can go from losing a job to the death of a family member. It’s just the severity and impact, and how the reaction is highly personal and unpredictable (from weeks to years for major events).
One short book I read, Grief, Loss and How to Cope, discussed how conversations can play an important role if people are prepared and open to listening about what you’re going through (which is often puzzling and not clearcut).
It mentions helpful empathic approaches such as:
Listening to the actual words someone uses to describe their grief.
Saying that you notice, such as “You look tired.”
Admitting, “I can barely imagine what that may be like.”
And avoiding judgemental phrases like:
You’ll get over it.
That happened to me once.
These things happen for a reason.
It’s quite illuminating how the words you use can have such varied impacts and how (unfortunately) many conversations are really on auto-pilot with standard phrases coming out time and again. In conclusion, such ‘healing’ conversations take a bit of work and thought.
The authors talk about creating a ‘climate of attention’ (being at ease and letting someone know you notice them). They mention Nancy Kline, once awarded the (amazingly titled) Listener of the Year by the International Listening Association, who says this helps people ‘think more clearly and freely’ which sounds plausible.
I’ve written about conversations, mainly in business settings, a few times on this blog and there is naturally a general overlap with the above. I’ve even published an article entitled ‘Why Is It So Hard To Listen?’.
“Since 1979, the ILA has been an international network supporting members from over 25 countries involved in shaping the art and science of listening in all contexts including education, business, healthcare, hospitality, spirituality, research, and the arts. The ILA is a dialogue space, resource network, news source, and worldwide community finding ways to enable listening cultures.”
It all goes to show that even if you think you know or at least are well informed on a subject you almost certainly aren’t 🙂
I’ve not been blogging for a while but as I now have a bit more time I’ve been tempted back. I was just looking for a suitable starter post in these uninspiring times.
Luckily I came across this tantalising juxtaposition:
From Nazir Afzal (former Chief Prosecutor, Chancellor Univ of Manchester):
“Baroness Owen & Lord Kempsell (both below) who have less than a decade work experience between them but who now have jobs for life making laws because Boris Johnson said so, have made the case for abolition of the House of Lords clearer than I could.”
“Peer raises prospect House of Lords could be replaced by bots ‘with deeper knowledge and lower running costs’
A crossbench peer raised concerns about AI’s ability to mimic the speeches of politicians during a debate about the risks and benefits of the technology.”
I recently caught the end of an fascinating interview with the award-winning author Margaret Atwood (The Handmaid’s Tale etc). She was talking about the differences between beliefs, facts and opinions.
For a belief no evidence is required For a fact evidence is required For an opinion, there are two sorts, those based on beliefs (no evidence required) and those based on facts (evidence required).
This resonated with me as I realised most of the media I was consuming were opinions based on beliefs (eg political, social, technical). In the few cases where facts were introduced they were often used as emotional triggers (eg doctors earn that much?) rather than enlightenment or balance.
I think part of the problem is that many people do not like numbers and the thinking that goes with them eg the dismissive ‘you can prove anything with statistics’.
You could argue that these opinions are simply transitory summaries of involved arguments but something important is being lost in this distillation. It’s now come to the point that for each headline I read my reaction has dropped to the level of ‘Is This Likely To Be True?’.
You might take the view that a fact based or scientific approach is the best but she told this story relevant to the highly complex issues we face:
“My dad, who is a scientist, had a joke that he used to tell about the scientific method. There was a scientist who decided he was going to do a study to see what made people drunk. So he mixed up some rye and ginger ale, and then he mixed up rum and ginger ale, and mixed up some scotch and ginger ale, and each one made people drunk. So [the scientist] said, “Must be the ginger ale!” Sometimes we’re just looking at the wrong set of factors and drawing the wrong set of conclusions.”
This means that there needs to be a discussion of the assumed key factors as well as any forecasts. I think this is even less likely.
Audience for Sebastian Payne at the Blue Bear Bookshop in Farnham
There’s recently been a Literary Festival (3rd-12th March) in nearby Farnham and one talk I went to featured Sebastian Payne, author of the recently published ‘The Fall of Boris Johnson’. The event was held in the delightful Blue Bear Bookshop (see picture above).
Sebastian Payne was until recently a political journalist at the FT, often seen as a commentator in the media, and is now the director of the centre-right think tank Onward. The event was advertised as ‘in conversation’ with Richard Hunt CBE, who is a former chairman of the London Ambulance Service.
I was attracted to the topic as it’s a curious but important political subject, particularly as it’s still casting a shadow over everything that’s going on.
The session was a taster for the book which I’ve not yet read but have just received from the local library. Here are my thoughts from the evening:
There was a good intimate atmosphere and the ‘interviewer’, Richard Hunt, asked some very insightful questions which sparked a flowing and fascinating conversation. There was also a question and answer session afterwards.
Richard Hunt started the talk with a question to the audience:
Q: Who wrote this?
“When a regime has been in power too long, when it has fatally exhausted the patience of the people, and when oblivion finally beckons – I am afraid that across the world you can rely on the leaders of that regime to act solely in the interests of self-preservation, and not in the interests of the electorate.”
A: Boris Johnson
The interviewer had read the book in detail (some talks I’ve been to they’d not apparently done this) and had come up with his own overview and stance. He also obviously liked the book (which I guess helps). This then prompted a series of themes and the discussion jumped around to different parts of the book. So it was more interesting than a simple chapter by chapter overview.
The conversation went through all the well publicised issues: Partygate, Pincher, Ukraine, Sue Gray etc. Some of the themes that stayed with me were (in no particular order):
Handling Major Mistakes: Could he have scraped through if he admitted mistakes early and unequivocally? I think the general impression was no but it was odd that this approach was not even tried. It’s also quite odd that similar mistakes were made again and again. The author made an interesting remark that Boris’ view on what is success or failure may be different to most people. Perhaps based on a Greek rather than standard modern interpretation (this unusual statement is presumably clarified in the book).
Approach: Although there was a clear goal to win the election there did not seem to be a clear idea of what to do next. I imagine the issue is that it’s a complex mess with no clear ‘solutions’ so tempting to just patch up, appeal to key voters and run diversions. It seems a missed opportunity for clear bold thinking. Perhaps, fundamentally, he wasn’t that interested? The prestige of the role was more important than the duties.
His Chosen Team: Consistently appointing ‘crap’ people to important jobs. This is puzzling as a standard model is for a smart leader to appoint the very best they can get. It may reduce friction in the short term but otherwise just stores up problems.
International (Ukraine): Here he went against the standard Govt advice of being far more cautious. So there was vision and bravery (and self-promotion) there. In addition the Johnson/Wallace combination seemed to work well.
Character Strengths and Weaknesses: These are well documented and various people’s viewpoints abound. I’ve always remembered something my manager said to me early in my career. Strengths can be simultaneously weaknesses (if the context changes). They don’t need to be independent of each other. In this case they’re difficult to modify.
The Civil Service: There was a discussion of the role of the Civil Service. The strong background figure of Sue Gray (who was practically unknown to the general public), with her unusual career with it’s sojourn in N Ireland, was highlighted.
The Crucial Role of MPs: One point I had not heard emphasised before was that it was the MPs that actually changed the situation. It wasn’t the Cabinet or the ‘feelings of the Party’ although they obviously had influence. In this sense, in spite of some early mishandling, a clear and definitive decision was made by MPs. The system eventually worked. Parliament can often come over (whether true or not) as archaic, privileged and inward looking so it was reassuring that reality was a little different.
There was a final point that definitely resonated with me:
The Entertainer: Is it all a carefully cultivated act by Boris? I’ve often wondered this myself. To support this, the author pointed out that he’s quite reluctant to talk about his private life as this might conflict with the ‘brand’. It could also enable a distance between the lies/misinformation of the act and the real feelings of the person (shame, humility, anger etc). Although I’m definitely not a supporter, he’s obviously a charismatic character who loves interacting with the public, is quick on the riposte and seems to effortlessly dismiss criticisms. In fact I’ve often thought of him as an ‘entertainer’ in much the same way that Trump is. An actor playing to the gallery. This makes him an excellent campaigner of course, without an equal at present.
It was a very enjoyable evening and I’m looking forward to reading the book, partly to flesh out the initial thoughts and impressions above.
As a total aside, over the last few years I’ve been to a number of book publicity talks and this was certainly one of the best. In fact some of the others, even given in well-known institutions, were fairly insipid in comparison. This got me thinking why some ‘in conversations’ are so much better than others. From the event, two features stood out:
Confident questioning, from someone used to the issues and the type of people concerned
Intimate atmosphere, here an unusual bookshop and the speakers sat in comfy chairs at the front. In other places, speakers can be on a raised platform and everyone is lined up in neat rows watching. I think the latter lends an unhelpful air of formality whilst the bookshop came over as looser and more relaxed/creative.
Steps & Leaps 