Artwork for podcast The Science of Self
Think Like a Martian: Master Feynman's Problem-Solving Secrets
18th October 2024 • The Science of Self • Peter Hollins
00:00:00 00:48:34

Share Episode

Shownotes

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

Transcripts

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)

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.

Chapters

Video

More from YouTube