5 ms·

To use Lee Smolin's (her ex-husband) terminology [1], she was clearly a Seer, not a Crafstperson. The Seers-Craftspeople problem is not unlike the innovator's

To use Lee Smolin's (her ex-husband) terminology [1], she was clearly a Seer, not a Crafstperson. The Seers-Craftspeople problem is not unlike the innovator's dilemma and the big-corp/startup. The Perimeter, of all places, was about fostering Seers. Einstein is the canonical Seer, and it is generally accepted that Einstein today would have been, at the beginning of his career, even less welcomed by the scientific community (before his 1905 papers, he was unable to secure several faculty positions, etc, went to work in the patent office). Maybe Milner/Zuck can come up with something to help fund the Seers, à la startup incubator, thinking long-term, in the sense that 1 successful unicorn in a portfolio of 100 would be worth it, and you could have 15+ years to think without any pressure to publish. Apparently the odds of finding some at the Perimeter have diminished in the last few years. Maybe YC/Thiel/Musk want to take up this challenge, à la OpenAI. Maybe hope lies in guaranteed basic income. (À la Buchheit: "we don't need more jobs, we need more Steve Jobs.") [1] Smolin, Lee - The Trouble with Physics, Chapter 18 "Seers and Craftspeople"

joaorico 10y ago
I'm using Smolin's terminology because he was defending Seers in his book, is Markopoulos' ex-husband and colleague, and a central piece at the Perimeter. From his book, cited above (the whole chapter is very much worth reading): "Master craftspeople and seers come to science for different reasons. Master craftspeople go into science because, for the most part, they have discovered in school that they’re good at it. They are usually the best students in their math and physics classes from junior high school all the way up to graduate school, where they finally meet their peers. They have always been able to solve math problems faster and more accurately than their classmates, so problem solving is what they tend to value in other scientists. Seers are very different. They are dreamers. They go into science because they have questions about the nature of existence that their schoolbooks don’t answer. If they weren’t scientists, they might be artists or writers or they might end up in divinity school. It is only to be expected that members of these two groups misunderstand and mistrust each other. [...] Of course, some people are mixtures of both. No one makes it through graduate school who is not highly competent on the technical side. But the majority of theoretical physicists I know fall into one or the other group."
- joaorico 10y ago
  Smolin actually singles out Markopoulou as one of the great modern Seers (in the same chapter): "It is easy to list those whose thinking has led to papers and even books addressing foundational issues: Roger Penrose is perhaps the best known to the public, but one can name many others including John Baez, Louis Crane, Bryce DeWitt, Fay Dowker, Christopher Isham, Fotini Markopoulou, Carlo Rovelli, Rafael Sorkin, and Gerard ’t Hooft."
  - theoh 10y ago
    I see Nathan Myhrvold (who published a lavish technical cookbook) isn't on that list. It shouldn't be a big deal when someone decides to step back from working on abstract algebraic models of highly constrained physical systems (Feynman's "creativity in a straightjacket") to working on the more human task of design. Design is fascinating, but it's all about putting yourself in someone else's shoes. What does the user want? Why should the user have to do X at this point? It's different and it exercises different parts of the mind from theoretical physics. It's a lot more natural for humans. Cryptographic protocol design is IMO the closest thing in CS to product/service design in the corporate/engineering world. There you have formal proofs and formal breaches in security, but everything hinges on implicatures and difficult-to-formalise expectations of what the protocol is intended to achieve. The architect Zaha Hadid apparently studied math at university before switching to architecture. She's a controversial figure (also a woman) and her architectural achievements were absolutely from an imaginative rather than a mechanical part of her personality. As for "Seers and Craftspeople", if you replace those words with "Visionaries" and "Mechanics", you're in danger of reproducing the already widespread prejudices in Western society about intelligence and human worth. It starts to sound like normative vs positive, prescriptive vs descriptive, which is, like all binaries, a bit divisive.
- Florin_Andrei 10y ago
  As someone who clearly belongs to the Seers category, went to Physics school, then ended up in a different field, that quote struck a chord. I'll have to read that book.
nextos 10y ago
> 1 successful unicorn in a portfolio of 100 would be worth it, and you could have 15+ years to think without any pressure to publish I am totally convinced this is the way to go. If you look into successful people and organisations like Alfred Sanger, Cold Spring Harbor or Bell Labs they operated like this. There's no other way to implement Hamming's You and Your Research advice. Small groups, no middle management, no short-term goals, no paper optimization! I do research at a world class university. Previously I was in pretty decent ones ranking in the bottom top #100. They all have the same issues. It is very frustrating. If YC/Thiel/Musk decided to fund OpenX (for X in Bio, Renewables and a few others) the world would be a much better place in 50 years time. I have lost my faith in universities as an applied research place.
- niels_olson 10y ago
  If you're in the US and can accept that the DoD really is in the stability business, which occasionally requires resorting to force, you can access some pretty cool and well-funded applied research communities.
  - nextos 10y ago
    I am not in the US, but I might need to move in soon. I was thinking about some Alphabet division, but DoD is a really good tip as well. Thanks.
  - ljw1001 10y ago
    The DoD has been "resorting to force" for 15 straight years. I think that definition leaves something to desired, reality-wise.
    - niels_olson 10y ago
      Nothing I can say is going to change your mind.
mathgenius 10y ago
Thankyou for writing this. As a humble seer trying to find his way in this world of bean-counters, I really appreciate it. Doron Zeilberger has written about this aswell: """ The usual names are "theory-builders" vs. "problem-solvers", but these two protoypes of mathematicians also appear under various other appellations. Some other names are strategists vs. tacticians, "monkeys that climb up the tree" vs. "monkeys that climb down", globalists vs. localists, and folowing א ח ד ה ע ם, I once called them prophets vs. priests. """ [1] > something to help fund the Seers, à la startup incubator The problem with this is that the Seers tend to sound like crazy people (and alot of them probably are just nuts). Especially to a craftperson, they really struggle to follow the seer. John Baez is a good example of someone who can balance the Seer with the craft, but i've noticed he will team up with someone who is more seer than he is to get those really good ideas. [1] http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion95.html http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion95.html
nikofeyn 10y ago
freeman dyson has an excellent article entitled "birds and frogs", where he gets at this same idea. as is anything he writes, it's an enjoyable read. http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200212p.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200212p.pdf

joaorico 10y ago

I'm using Smolin's terminology because he was defending Seers in his book, is Markopoulos' ex-husband and colleague, and a central piece at the Perimeter. From his book, cited above (the whole chapter is very much worth reading): "Master craftspeople and seers come to science for different reasons. Master craftspeople go into science because, for the most part, they have discovered in school that they’re good at it. They are usually the best students in their math and physics classes from junior high school all the way up to graduate school, where they finally meet their peers. They have always been able to solve math problems faster and more accurately than their classmates, so problem solving is what they tend to value in other scientists. Seers are very different. They are dreamers. They go into science because they have questions about the nature of existence that their schoolbooks don’t answer. If they weren’t scientists, they might be artists or writers or they might end up in divinity school. It is only to be expected that members of these two groups misunderstand and mistrust each other. [...] Of course, some people are mixtures of both. No one makes it through graduate school who is not highly competent on the technical side. But the majority of theoretical physicists I know fall into one or the other group."

joaorico 10y ago
Smolin actually singles out Markopoulou as one of the great modern Seers (in the same chapter): "It is easy to list those whose thinking has led to papers and even books addressing foundational issues: Roger Penrose is perhaps the best known to the public, but one can name many others including John Baez, Louis Crane, Bryce DeWitt, Fay Dowker, Christopher Isham, Fotini Markopoulou, Carlo Rovelli, Rafael Sorkin, and Gerard ’t Hooft."
- theoh 10y ago
  I see Nathan Myhrvold (who published a lavish technical cookbook) isn't on that list. It shouldn't be a big deal when someone decides to step back from working on abstract algebraic models of highly constrained physical systems (Feynman's "creativity in a straightjacket") to working on the more human task of design. Design is fascinating, but it's all about putting yourself in someone else's shoes. What does the user want? Why should the user have to do X at this point? It's different and it exercises different parts of the mind from theoretical physics. It's a lot more natural for humans. Cryptographic protocol design is IMO the closest thing in CS to product/service design in the corporate/engineering world. There you have formal proofs and formal breaches in security, but everything hinges on implicatures and difficult-to-formalise expectations of what the protocol is intended to achieve. The architect Zaha Hadid apparently studied math at university before switching to architecture. She's a controversial figure (also a woman) and her architectural achievements were absolutely from an imaginative rather than a mechanical part of her personality. As for "Seers and Craftspeople", if you replace those words with "Visionaries" and "Mechanics", you're in danger of reproducing the already widespread prejudices in Western society about intelligence and human worth. It starts to sound like normative vs positive, prescriptive vs descriptive, which is, like all binaries, a bit divisive.
Florin_Andrei 10y ago
As someone who clearly belongs to the Seers category, went to Physics school, then ended up in a different field, that quote struck a chord. I'll have to read that book.

nextos 10y ago

> 1 successful unicorn in a portfolio of 100 would be worth it, and you could have 15+ years to think without any pressure to publish I am totally convinced this is the way to go. If you look into successful people and organisations like Alfred Sanger, Cold Spring Harbor or Bell Labs they operated like this. There's no other way to implement Hamming's You and Your Research advice. Small groups, no middle management, no short-term goals, no paper optimization! I do research at a world class university. Previously I was in pretty decent ones ranking in the bottom top #100. They all have the same issues. It is very frustrating. If YC/Thiel/Musk decided to fund OpenX (for X in Bio, Renewables and a few others) the world would be a much better place in 50 years time. I have lost my faith in universities as an applied research place.

niels_olson 10y ago
If you're in the US and can accept that the DoD really is in the stability business, which occasionally requires resorting to force, you can access some pretty cool and well-funded applied research communities.
- nextos 10y ago
  I am not in the US, but I might need to move in soon. I was thinking about some Alphabet division, but DoD is a really good tip as well. Thanks.
- ljw1001 10y ago
  The DoD has been "resorting to force" for 15 straight years. I think that definition leaves something to desired, reality-wise.
  - niels_olson 10y ago
    Nothing I can say is going to change your mind.

mathgenius 10y ago

Thankyou for writing this. As a humble seer trying to find his way in this world of bean-counters, I really appreciate it. Doron Zeilberger has written about this aswell: """ The usual names are "theory-builders" vs. "problem-solvers", but these two protoypes of mathematicians also appear under various other appellations. Some other names are strategists vs. tacticians, "monkeys that climb up the tree" vs. "monkeys that climb down", globalists vs. localists, and folowing א ח ד ה ע ם, I once called them prophets vs. priests. """ [1] > something to help fund the Seers, à la startup incubator The problem with this is that the Seers tend to sound like crazy people (and alot of them probably are just nuts). Especially to a craftperson, they really struggle to follow the seer. John Baez is a good example of someone who can balance the Seer with the craft, but i've noticed he will team up with someone who is more seer than he is to get those really good ideas. [1] http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion95.html http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion95.html

nikofeyn 10y ago

freeman dyson has an excellent article entitled "birds and frogs", where he gets at this same idea. as is anything he writes, it's an enjoyable read. http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200212p.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200212p.pdf