
What Problems to Solve - kamaal
http://genius.cat-v.org/richard-feynman/writtings/letters/problems
======
iamwil
This seems to echo what Richard Hamming says in "You and your research". He
recounts how his fellow scientists were working on unimportant problems in
their field. The judgement of unimportant came not from Hamming, but from the
fellow scientists when he asked them "What's the most important problem in
your field right now?" His subsequent question was, "How come you're not
working on it?" He says that didn't earn him many friends.

By "important", I had also mistakenly thought that he meant "grandiose". But
in fact, he later defines "important problems" as "problems that you have a
reasonable angle of attack to solve".

Some problems just aren't yet ripe, until all the pieces to solve it come
together. Which makes the question, "Why now?" a very good question to answer
when contemplating what problem is important.

When someone writes about how Silicon Valley is working on worthless problems,
like photo sharing app, or the Yo app, or twitter--or when Groupon was on the
up, and it seems like there were lots of daily deal sites, it makes me think
of this. I wonder if they take into account that some problems that are
considered worthwhile in their eyes simply aren't ripe to be solved yet.

~~~
javajosh
I think it's useful to distinguish between "kinds of problems". The problem of
understanding friction between two polished surfaces is a different category
of problem from that solved by Yo or Groupon. The payoff of the former is the
satisfaction of curiosity, and, arguably, an irreversible advancement of human
knowledge. The payoff of the latter is, at best, a small improvement in
utility of a small percent of humans over a relatively short amount of time.

The dirty little secret of the valley is that (most) people don't care about
this distinction. There are plenty of people made rich by AOL buyouts and
MySpace acquisitions - and they are just as rich even though their creations
didn't last. There is a tacit acceptance of the truth that technology is
fashion, not science.

Why is this distinction important to your point? Because "ripe to be solved"
takes on a very different character in the fashion technology sense and the
science technology sense. Indeed, I'm not sure it can even be applied to
fashion technology like "Yo" since the elements of success are entirely self-
referential, as with all fashionable things. Or do you think "Yo" was really
just waiting for TCP/IP and Objective C and the iPhone etc. before it could be
"realized"?

~~~
iamwil
For any product in the marketplace, the "Why now?" question isn't just asking
what technological tools and breakthroughs have taken place that makes this
possible. You must also ask, what user behaviors and markets now exist that
makes this possible. In order for a product to be a adopted by many, you need
both, regardless of whether it's a "science technology" or a "fashion
technology".

Many people focus on the former effect as being innovation while completely
disregarding the latter. Some progression in products can only occur when
users have changed their behavior and expectations enough for you to leverage
it.

We had the technology to make something like AirBnb since the 90's. But I
don't think it would have worked in the 90's, because people were still wary
of meeting strangers from the internet.

We had the technology to make Groupon since the 90's. But I don't think it
would have worked in the 90's, because people were only starting to get use to
the idea of paying for stuff online, much less doing it together with
strangers.

This is why at some points in time, Silicon Valley focuses on problems that
can be solved because the user behavior had changed, rather than on problems
that can be solved because there's a tech breakthrough--sometimes there are no
new tech breakthroughs to be leveraged. That's when you get the Twitter,
Groupons, and Yos, and that's ok! It's like filling in the gaps, and fully
exploring the ramifications of a new tech.

------
zeeed
What this stresses is the importance of finding your own problem, that is,
choosing your own path instead of having an attitude of waiting to be assigned
with a problem and then subsequently becoming unhappy, which is what Feynman
calls out as a 'mistake' on his part: not letting or even, not DEMANDING from
his student to choose his own problem.

Ultimately, it's the advice to change your frame of reference from the 'sum of
human knowledge' to 'what problem can i solve today, immediately'. And to ask
yourself that question first and find an answer.

That's not only smart but about the wisest thing I ever heard someone say
regarding work.

~~~
emp
There is also the component of being sad and not knowing why, while you work
on what you think is interesting and important.

I remember reading how Feynman was unhappy with his work and then chose a
seemingly useless but fun and interesting problem to solve - the physics of
plate wobbling (If I remember correctly, the relation between the wobble rate
and spin rate of a plate that has been tossed into the air).

His colleagues were a bit confused as to why he would do this, but he had fun
and his love for physics was rekindled.

Some years later the mathematics he derived would be used when the first
satellites where launched and wobbled as they spun, the wobbling not being
desirable. Not bad for useless and fun work!

~~~
bernardom
Not just that- he attributed his Nobel to that research!

[http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/FeynmansWobblingPlate/](http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/FeynmansWobblingPlate/)

------
michael_nielsen
It's interesting to look at what may be a homepage for the recipient of the
letter:

[http://johnen.shinshu-u.ac.jp/~mano/profile_e.html](http://johnen.shinshu-u.ac.jp/~mano/profile_e.html)

The letter is from an excellent collection of Feynman letters, "Perfectly
Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track". There's a thoughtful review of
the entire collection (by Freeman Dyson) here:

[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2005/oct/20/wise-
ma...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2005/oct/20/wise-man/)

~~~
gtani
I asked somebody who can find out what Dr. Mano did with the advice: my Dad,
who still communicates with some of Tomonaga's students, but he said would
have to ask around.

------
ratpik
"It seems that the influence of your teacher has been to give you a false idea
of what are worthwhile problems. The worthwhile problems are the ones you can
really solve or help solve, the ones you can really contribute something to. A
problem is grand in science if it lies before us unsolved and we see some way
for us to make some headway into it."

That is very good advice. You could replace teacher with your corporate
manager and science with society and it becomes relevant to everyone working
on a normal corporate job or a start-up.

~~~
thret
Adding to or improving upon the sum of human knowledge, what is more
important?

"Dark pictures, thrones, the stones that pilgrims kiss,

poems that take a thousand years to die

but ape the immortality of this

red label on a little butterfly."

\-- Vladimir Nabokov

~~~
e12e
I wonder if the original uses a word closer to "mark" than "label"? As it
stands, it kind of reminds me more of the end of "Do Androids Dream of
Electric Sheep (Blade Runner)" by Dick -- where Deckard finds what he thinks
is a wild animal, only to turn it over and discover it's branded and is an
artefact after all...

~~~
JackFr
I think that is the original.

~~~
e12e
Isn't the original in Russian?

[edit: Apparently not, I wasn't aware Nabokov wrote English as well as
Russian. Some relevant links:

"On Discovering A Butterfly" by Vladimir Nabokov May 15, 1943:

[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1943/05/15/1943_05_15_026_T...](http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1943/05/15/1943_05_15_026_TNY_CARDS_000193605)

[ edit3: sadly behind a paywall ]

A (somewhat inaccurate, but interesting) commentary:

[http://wonderingminstrels.blogspot.no/2004/04/on-
discovering...](http://wonderingminstrels.blogspot.no/2004/04/on-discovering-
butterfly-vladimir.html)

edit2: Almost forgot: clearly the original uses "label" intentionally. Funny
how the verse in isolation seems to more directly reference nature (along the
lines of Blake's Tyger! Tyger! -- while clearly that's not the (main/only)
intended reading. ]

------
thisjepisje
_> or how to make electroplated metal stick to plastic objects (like radio
knobs)._

In _Surely You 're Joking, Mr. Feynman!_ there is a whole chapter dedicated to
his work at an electroplating company.

------
quisquous
Beyond the great advice, I'm struck by the supreme kindness and humanity on
display in this letter--it is itself great advice on how to treat others, all
the more poignant coming from a man with many other wonderful opportunities
competing for his time and attention.

------
danso
> _A problem is grand in science if it lies before us unsolved and we see some
> way for us to make some headway into it. I would advise you to take even
> simpler, or as you say, humbler, problems until you find some you can really
> solve easily, no matter how trivial._

Something that I think most novice programmers should take to heart, and
something I wish I had known earlier...when you start out, you want to build
something big and new, like a video game, or hell, a Rails site that you think
will be the next Facebook clone. Not only is it beyond your ability as a
novice, it may not even be a "problem" worth solving, because you don't yet
know what's worth solving until you become a bit better at programming. I
stopped programming after awhile when I couldn't come close to seeing what I
thought were my goals...it's been much easier to do it day-to-day by focusing
on the small steps...and after awhile, the big task doesn't seem hard after
all.

Meanwhile, programming has a pretty distinct advantage...even if you spend
your time mastering seemingly benign and trivial things, such as being better
at parsing, function design, or just automation of what you've done before,
you're not only learning, but making yourself more productive at the same
time...something that's not nothing as you actually begin your grand plan.

Speaking of Feynman and computing and seemingly banal tasks...I've seen only
scarce detail of his supervising the "computers" at Los Alamos:

[http://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection-
machine...](http://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection-machine/)

> _Richard 's interest in computing went back to his days at Los Alamos, where
> he supervised the "computers," that is, the people who operated the
> mechanical calculators. There he was instrumental in setting up some of the
> first plug-programmable tabulating machines for physical simulation. His
> interest in the field was heightened in the late 1970's when his son, Carl,
> began studying computers at MIT._

It's not something he's famous for, but I wouldn't be surprised if such a task
was critical to the success of the researchers...I've gone through both his
memoirs and hadn't seen much mention of it though. Anyone else have more
details?

~~~
yvsong
I wonder if the Feynman diagram is the supreme data visualization.

~~~
harry8
Edward Tufte seems to both specialize in data visualization and be obsessed by
Fenynman diagrams as art... [http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-
msg?msg_id=0...](http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-
msg?msg_id=0003oo)

------
Radecky
Well, I personally agree, but I don't think everything in this matter is as
objective as Feynman wants it to be seen, judging by the tone of his letter. I
could definitely imagine the opposite opinions: "you need to listen to more
experienced teachers as to know which problems to solve and which do not", or
"you need to think big" and so on...

------
walterbell
Here is a well-illustrated conversation on the respective roles of questions
and answers:

[http://kiriakakis.net/comics/mused/a-day-at-the-
park](http://kiriakakis.net/comics/mused/a-day-at-the-park)

------
nodata
What happened to koichi mano?

------
WalterBright
Al Hibbs was my Physics 1 prof!

------
vishveshs
"No problem is too small or too trivial if we can really do something about
it."

This part tells us to keep solving whatever comes in our way. In today's
world, most successful start-ups don't always succeed with their first idea,
but rather an iteration of it.

Good advice! Thanks!

~~~
_craft
I hear this a lot, but I'm not convinced that most successful companies pivot.
Is there any data to back this up?

~~~
Retric
Microsoft made a huge pivot fairly early. Apple, did a small pivot that was
arguably a course correction. Nintendo did a major piviot later on. Which I
think is more telling.

The odds that your first idea is perfect is small. Recognizing when you have a
better option is important.

~~~
tedsanders
Like _craft asked, is there data that most successful companies pivot?
Mentioning 2-3 successful pivots does give great insight into whether pivoting
successfully is common. :)

(But as long as we're listing successful pivots, Intel is one of the most
famous pivots out there.)

------
thomasahle
This is really good. I really needed to read this.

------
floor_
I only clicked this because I misread it as an RMS blog post.

