What does it take to win a nobel prize?

I had the distinct pleasure of hearing David Gross, a 2004 Nobel prize winner, speak today about the current state and future outlook of elementary particle physics. While the talk wasn’t entirely riveting (most of the particle physics talks at the university for the past 6 months have all had the same thing to say), David was an interesting person to listen to for a few reasons. One, he proved that if you win a Nobel prize you can talk for as long as you like and people won’t cut you off at the standard hour. And two, men and women who have won a certain amount of praise in their field have a particular way of conducting themselves.

Of the few people in the recent past I have met, three have really struck me as deserving of their accolades. Two of these people are Eric Dufresne and David Gross. One of their defining characteristics is their ability to switch between different levels of discussion on various subject matters. For example, if you ask these men a question their initial response is to give you the most kindergarten explanation they can muster. This is good thing and does not come of as condescending necessarily. In fact, the more you speak with them the more you’ll notice that the reason they can give you the kindergarten explanation is because they really know what they are talking about. You see this alot in physics. The more you understand something the less complex it becomes and you will often find yourself eschewing technical buzzwords in your description of seemingly complex ideas and instead choosing to use more tractable and rateable dialogue that often includes words like “gooey”, “fast”, “fall”, “push”, and “smash.” People who have done great things and always explain them to you in simple terms and choose to do so initially (this part is important, choosing to start simple shows a sense of humility and respects the questioner in that it allows them to ask extension questions).

However, if you push the questioning further and develop an idea with these people they quickly follow suit and open the floodgates of ability that show you why they are respected in their field. This ability to switch gears also manifests itself in another interesting way. If they don’t really understand a concept or idea they will often jump straight to their highest level of dialogue on the topic. This does two things, 1) it is a dead give away that they are not masters of the subject and 2) it is a temporary state of understanding for them that allows them to go past the fact that they don’t understand the topic by presenting it as an inherently complex and difficult thing. If you give them time to work on the topic you will find them breaking down into concepts that can be expressed in the previously mentioned “simple” terms. It’s a learning style that apparently most of the good productive people in science use.

The take home messages one should learn from these successful and humble people is that progress in science is not necessarily locking yourself in a library and deriving this and that all alone. Rather it is a process you go through that involves trial and error and obstacles that are overcome by first identifying them and then proceed to work on them until you have deconstructed them into tractable and surmountable problems. This process need not be done as a solitary academic warrior and indeed most modern science is the result of a team effort. The evidence of this breakdown process is not restricted to science and extends to all areas of progress. In fact this is one of the reasons I first noticed the greatness of the people I mentioned above. They applies their inquiry and problem solving skills (which are far more important than the answers the skills produce) to all areas of their life. This makes them well rounded individuals in a way that has shades of what used to be referred to as renaissance men/women. They succeed not because they happen to be really good at one thing, but rather because they have a problem solving process and desire that they can abstractly apply to any challenge ahead of them. The key to success for them (and I assume for most of us) is to learn to identify your own problem solving system and desire and analyze it abstractly so you can apply it to any challenge that you face. This post needs a real cheesy ending. I think I’ve got it. Winning isn’t a result…it’s a state of mind.

P.S.

NAILED IT!