

You and Your Research - raganwald
http://weblog.raganwald.com/2005/04/you-and-your-research.html

======
dmolnar
I've heard many people quote Hamming about "work only on important problems,"
but fewer seem to notice the caveat he has in the talk:

"We didn't work on (1) time travel, (2) teleportation, and (3) antigravity.
They are not important problems because we do not have an attack. It's not the
consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable
attack."

This makes the notion of "important problem" specific to you. In other words,
dependent on your particular skills and interests, not on some external
measure of worth. So even if you are working on something more "modest," say,
what scat tells us about migration patterns of bobcats, that still counts as
an "important problem" since you have an attack and can solve it.

Under this reading, Hamming's advice is close to the other famous nugget, "do
only what only you can do" (Dijkstra). That is never the way I see it being
used in conversation, however. Usually I see it in the context of encouraging
people to work on some Big Problem that may not be a good fit for their skills
and interest -- which is one of the quickest ways to encourage failure.

------
neilk
I like Hamming's challenge, but I read this quote yesterday, and I think it
might be more insightful:

“Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it.
Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.” -- Howard Thurman

------
raffi
I get annoyed reading fluff like this. I used to work as a researcher and
noticed a lemming like tendency for scientists to flock to the same stuff. It
usually isn't until someone discovers something potentially disruptive (or the
people who have money latch onto new buzz words) that the flocking changes. I
can agree that each field has problems of interest. I'm a computer scientist
but I have no interest in trying to solve P=NP. Sure the prominent problems of
interest would have useful results to society if solved. However, who is to
say that new problems of interest or mental shifts aren't out there. Beckoning
to be found. Stretching the field (or individual researcher) is valuable.

~~~
raganwald
I don't get annoyed reading responses like yours, nor am I nettled my the
thought that my post was fluff. Of course it is fluff. Possibly even chaff or
lint.

That being said, I am not clear on what you are saying about trying to solve
P=NP. While this is important, there are a lot of important things to solve
and nowhere in my post or in Hamming's original discussion is there the
suggestion that importance is judged by popularity.

I think it is entirely possible for a lone researcher to work on something
that does not interest anyone else, and should you ask why she has chosen that
work, she answers that it is an important open problem in the field.

So I am suggesting that a dedication to working on important open problems is
not necessarily equivalent to following everyone else. People who lie to
follow, follow. People who like solitude and adventure strike out in new
directions.

Either way, the questions retain their importance, IMO.

~~~
raffi
I read the post as "what are the important problems? Go solve them!" for some
value of important problems. I further read this as the value of important
problems is defined by others. I filled in my own blanks there (most likely).
Although I think I saw something about "problems of my field" that helped me
reach this conclusion. I'm just making sure those who strike out in new
directions are represented.

~~~
raganwald
* I'm just making sure those who strike out in new directions are represented.*

Strongly agree. Miles Davis revolutionalized Jazz five times. Four of those
times, he walked away from what he himself had popularized to strike out in a
new direction.

------
grandalf
This is an insightful post. Sometimes people let themselves off the hook.

Defining which problem is the "most important" is a bit tough, but whatever
problem you are working on ought to be very important to you.

So in a sense, the point is to avoid just working for a paycheck and try to do
something that means something to you.

------
edw519
This reminds me of the first pg essay I ever read, "Good and Bad
Procrastination," which also references Richard Hamming. This essay directed
me to his site, and eventually here.

<http://paulgraham.com/procrastination.html>

I like pg's treatment a little more. He distills it down to one sentence,
"What's the best thing you could be working on, and why aren't you?"

This single sentence has pretty much directed much of my work since then. It's
so simple it's almost counter-intuitive. I have designed systems to sort
"problems" by descending value and taught my users to just work on #1 until
it's fixed. But it wasn't until reading pg's corollary to Hamming's work that
I did it myself.

Thanks for reminding me.

~~~
ivankirigin
It isn't counter intuitive. It's just poor education that tells people the
goal is to complete the standard education process, not to use your education
toward some end.

I get the impression lots of people don't do self examination much for the
most important questions about satisfying work and things that make you happy.

