This is an extract from the OPIP book. Previously, (B)obby and (A)lice discussed methods for creativity in physics and beyond, as well as the importance of play and the willingness to strive for change to get new insights.
A: Apart from embracing play and striving for change, how else could the creative, scientific mindset be characterized?
B: The purpose of science is to find out the rules by which nature plays. For that, there needs to be a sincere quest for truth.
A: Isn’t that everyone’s mindset?
B: I’m not sure which planet you live on, but on Earth it’s not. People are seeking happiness, not truth. In some cases, the truth may even be directly in the way of their happiness.
A: When is that the case?
B: It always depends on the incentives. To illustrate the differences, let’s compare it to another field such as politics. At the end of the day, the question is “Who’s your daddy?” For politicians, it’s voters. For physicists, it’s nature.
A: How does that shape different mindsets?
B: If you’re trying to please voters, you don’t focus on what is objectively true, but on what others consider to be true. You’re judged by other people, not an absolute reality, and you adjust accordingly. As opinions change, you may also be required to change your behavior.
A: That sounds a bit spineless. You don’t seem to think highly of politicians. Let me defend them a bit. Many politicians entered the field with a sincere drive to do good. Some fight for the rights of minorities, which, according to your statement, wouldn’t make much sense. Also, some push through unpopular decisions.
B: You’re absolutely right. The only point I wanted to make is that there are incentives at play that may go against pursuing the truth. Charlie Munger, the American investor, said about corporate behavior, “Show me the incentive system, and I will tell you how people behave.” If you’re honest and come out as an atheist in the United States, you don’t even have to think about running for president. Politicians cannot be blamed for that; the issue is in the system. That said, there is some flexibility to show character which many politicians shy away from more than needed.
A: I’m not sure how we ended up in a discussion about politics.
B: Right, let’s get back to the scientific mindset. The reason I brought up politics is to illustrate the differences in thinking. In politics, you often have to go with what you might call “80% solutions.” Not only because you need to compromise, but also because there are simply too many issues to find a perfect solution for all of them. You must be pragmatic and apply realpolitik. It’s the same for managers in corporations. Patches and band-aid solutions often become the name of the game. You need to deal with issues quickly and effectively as they pop up. It reminds me of the “Whac-A-Mole” game at amusement parks, where you have to hit as many moles with a mallet as they pop up from holes in the machine.
A: And to be good at this, it requires a different mindset?
B: Yes, entirely. It’s more of a top-down way of thinking. You’re mostly using information from the surface to deal with issues at the surface. It gets the job done, quickly. Of course, sometimes the issues resurface. Thus, the objective is to have solutions that make problems disappear for a sufficient amount of time. If they don’t pop up again before your death, your solutions were good enough. Or problems are fixed for long enough so that they disappear naturally. Remember, everything flows, so problems may also go away on their own.
A: That’s a useful tip, thank you. However, that’s not the scientific mindset.
B: Right, but don’t forget that we’re not scientists all of the time. We’re also managers as we have to deal with a lot of non-scientific issues in our lives. But let’s get back to the scientific mindset.
A: How does it differ?
B: Scientists think more bottom-up. Things have to be sound and make sense on a fundamental level. When there are inconsistencies, scientists aren’t happy. They feel uncomfortable with it, and cannot just jump to the next problem like politicians. It haunts them. They want to find a solution. They want to find the truth.
A: Okay, I prefer the scientific mindset.
B: Fair enough, but one mindset isn’t always better than the other. Imagine you’re debating a politician in a large auditorium of 2,000 people. The politician states an argument where your (correct) intuition tells you that something isn’t right. You put your head down and try to untangle the convoluted thinking. Finally, you found the flaw. You shout “I got it.” You look up, see that everyone is gone, and the janitor asks you why you’re shouting.
A: I see.
B: My point is that this isn’t about politician bashing, at least not primarily. In some cases, due to practical circumstances, other mindsets are required. And we need people who are skilled at this because we require great politicians and managers.
A: Yes, and sometimes physicists also need to apply the manager mindset, for example when they need to ensure funding. There they also need to convince other people and collect “votes.”
B: That’s true, my point is only that this requires a different mindset than what they need at their core work. Can you imagine what would happen if you put an Einstein, a Dirac or a Newton into Shark Tank?[1] They’d all get eaten alive.
A: A Feynman may do okay.
B: Maybe, but those are the exceptions. My fundraising advice to hardcore physicists: delegate it to someone else who specializes in it and who’s wired for this job.
A: Any other takeaways?
B: Make sure you know in which type of thinking you excel the most. Otherwise, you risk choosing the wrong career path. Again, it’s not black and white, since even as a scientist you need to manage things. You can—and probably should—enhance your management skills too. You may become decent, good, or possibly even very good at it. But if you’re a scientific mind by nature, you won’t achieve mastery in the manager mindset, and vice versa.
A: Okay, any other practical conclusions? Let’s say I hear people talking very persuasively and charismatically when delivering presentations. Does that mean they’re not likely to be the ones who come up with the new big theories in physics, as they’re already excelling in another discipline (sales)?
B: If the disciplines are almost entirely unrelated—unlike intelligence and creativity, which are still somewhat similar as they are purely mind skills—then that looks indeed unlikely. But that’s just because it’s unlikely for any random person to come up with the big new ideas. Make sure you’re not blinded by good presentation skills, thinking those make it more likely. Hardly anyone has it all.
A: Aren’t you the living proof of the opposite?
B: Alright, at this point even I realize that I might be overdoing it with putting words into people’s mouths.
A: Indeed. By the way, apart from just being unlikely to excel in two separate disciplines, maybe the different mindsets are in direct conflict with each other?
B: Yes, in a way that’s always the case, as they compete for your brain’s limited resources. Taking an approach and optimizing it takes time and energy, you cannot focus on both. However, there may even be more direct conflicts. It’s no coincidence that some physicists are highly introverted, bordering on the insane, as they fully focus on the scientific mindset and neglect the more pragmatic, real-life, social environment, manager type of mindset. But this is speculation only.
A: Aren’t there examples of people who were both successful physicists as well as politicians?
B: There are a few, like Benjamin Franklin (although he was more an inventor than a physicist) or Boris Nemtsov, but those are few and far between.[2] And for those cases, I don’t think their skills in one domain directly contributed to their achievements in the other. Rather, a common factor, perhaps like intelligence, might have played a role in both.
The book continues to explore other ways to increase the likelihood of generating great ideas. Get it now.
—
[1] Shark Tank is an American business reality television series in which entrepreneurs present their business ideas to a panel of five venture capitalists, known as “sharks,” who then decide whether to invest. While this format is popular in the US, other countries have their own variations. However, regardless of where physicists might pitch—whether it’s in the US (Shark Tank), the UK (Dragon’s Den), Japan (マネーの虎, Money Tigers), or Germany (Die Höhle der Löwen, Lions’ Cave)—many would find themselves devoured by one animal or another.
[2] Einstein had the opportunity to take on a political role when he was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952. He declined, stating that he lacked the natural aptitude and experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions. However, this decision might also have been an expression of his humility, as well as a reflection of his preference to focus on other matters. Opip.lol/einstein-for-president
