You and Your Research, by Richard Hamming - Sam Altman

Excerpt

Richard Hamming gave this talk in March of 1986. [1]  It's one of the best talks I've ever read and has long impacted how I think about spending my time.

I mentioned it to a number of people this...

Richard Hamming gave this talk in March of 1986. [1]  It's one of the best talks I've ever read and has long impacted how I think about spending my time.

理查德·汉明 (Richard Hamming) 于 1986 年 3 月发表了这篇演讲。[1] 这是我读过的最好的演讲之一，并且长期以来一直影响着我如何思考如何度过我的时间。

I mentioned it to a number of people this weekend who, to my surprise, had never heard of it.  So I though I'd share it here:

这个周末我向许多人提到了它，令我惊讶的是，他们从未听说过它。 所以我想在这里分享它：

It's a pleasure to be here. I doubt if I can live up to the Introduction. The title of my talk is, ``You and Your Research.'' It is not about managing research, it is about how you individually do your research. I could give a talk on the other subject - but it's not, it's about you. I'm not talking about ordinary run-of-the-mill research; I'm talking about great research. And for the sake of describing great research I'll occasionally say Nobel-Prize type of work. It doesn't have to gain the Nobel Prize, but I mean those kinds of things which we perceive are significant things. Relativity, if you want, Shannon's information theory, any number of outstanding theories - that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

很高兴来到这里。 我怀疑我是否能辜负介绍。 我演讲的标题是“你和你的研究”。这不是关于管理研究，而是关于你个人如何进行研究。 我可以就另一个主题发表演讲——但不是，这是关于你的。 我不是在谈论普通的普通研究； 我说的是伟大的研究。 为了描述伟大的研究，我偶尔会说到诺贝尔奖类型的工作。 它不一定要获得诺贝尔奖，但我指的是那些我们认为很重要的事情。 相对论，如果你愿意的话，香农的信息论，任何数量的杰出理论——这就是我所说的那种东西。

Now, how did I come to do this study? At Los Alamos I was brought in to run the computing machines which other people had got going, so those scientists and physicists could get back to business. I saw I was a stooge. I saw that although physically I was the same, they were different. And to put the thing bluntly, I was envious. I wanted to know why they were so different from me. I saw Feynman up close. I saw Fermi and Teller. I saw Oppenheimer. I saw Hans Bethe: he was my boss. I saw quite a few very capable people. I became very interested in the difference between those who do and those who might have done.

现在，我是怎么来做这项研究的？ 在洛斯阿拉莫斯，我被调来运行其他人已经启动的计算机器，这样那些科学家和物理学家就可以重新开始工作。 我看到我是个走狗。 我看到虽然我在身体上是一样的，但他们是不同的。 坦率地说，我很羡慕。 我想知道为什么他们与我如此不同。 我近距离看到了费曼。 我看到了费米和泰勒。 我看到了奥本海默。 我看到了 Hans Bethe：他是我的老板。 我看到了很多非常有能力的人。 我对那些做了和那些可能做了的人之间的区别非常感兴趣。

When I came to Bell Labs, I came into a very productive department. Bode was the department head at the time; Shannon was there, and there were other people. I continued examining the questions, ``Why?'' and ``What is the difference?'' I continued subsequently by reading biographies, autobiographies, asking people questions such as: ``How did you come to do this?'' I tried to find out what are the differences. And that's what this talk is about.

当我来到贝尔实验室时，我进入了一个非常有生产力的部门。 博德当时是部门主管； 香农在那里，还有其他人。 我继续研究这些问题，“为什么？”和“有什么不同？”随后我继续阅读传记、自传，问人们这样的问题：“你是如何做到这一点的？”我试图找出有什么区别。 这就是这次谈话的内容。

Now, why is this talk important? I think it is important because, as far as I know, each of you has one life to live. Even if you believe in reincarnation it doesn't do you any good from one life to the next! Why shouldn't you do significant things in this one life, however you define significant? I'm not going to define it - you know what I mean. I will talk mainly about science because that is what I have studied. But so far as I know, and I've been told by others, much of what I say applies to many fields. Outstanding work is characterized very much the same way in most fields, but I will confine myself to science.

现在，为什么这次谈话很重要？ 我认为这很重要，因为据我所知，你们每个人都有自己的一生。 即使您相信轮回转世，从今生到下一世也对您没有任何好处！ 为什么你不应该在这一生中做有意义的事情，无论你如何定义重要？ 我不打算给它下定义——你知道我的意思。 我将主要谈论科学，因为那是我研究过的。 但据我所知，以及其他人告诉我的，我所说的大部分内容适用于许多领域。 在大多数领域，杰出工作的特征都非常相似，但我将仅限于科学。

In order to get at you individually, I must talk in the first person. I have to get you to drop modesty and say to yourself, ``Yes, I would like to do first-class work.'' Our society frowns on people who set out to do really good work. You're not supposed to; luck is supposed to descend on you and you do great things by chance. Well, that's a kind of dumb thing to say. I say, why shouldn't you set out to do something significant. You don't have to tell other people, but shouldn't you say to yourself, ``Yes, I would like to do something significant.''

为了单独找到你，我必须以第一人称说话。 我必须让你放下谦虚，对自己说，“是的，我想做一流的工作。”我们的社会不欢迎那些立志做好工作的人。 你不应该这样做； 运气应该降临在你身上，你偶然会做出伟大的事情。 嗯，这是一种愚蠢的说法。 我说，你为什么不着手做一些有意义的事情。 你不必告诉别人，但你不应该对自己说，“是的，我想做一些有意义的事情。”

In order to get to the second stage, I have to drop modesty and talk in the first person about what I've seen, what I've done, and what I've heard. I'm going to talk about people, some of whom you know, and I trust that when we leave, you won't quote me as saying some of the things I said.

为了进入第二阶段，我必须放下谦虚，以第一人称讲述我所看到的、我所做的、我所听到的。 我要谈谈人，其中一些人你认识，我相信当我们离开时，你不会引用我的话。

Let me start not logically, but psychologically. I find that the major objection is that people think great science is done by luck. It's all a matter of luck. Well, consider Einstein. Note how many different things he did that were good. Was it all luck? Wasn't it a little too repetitive? Consider Shannon. He didn't do just information theory. Several years before, he did some other good things and some which are still locked up in the security of cryptography. He did many good things.

让我不是从逻辑上，而是从心理上开始。 我发现主要的反对意见是人们认为伟大的科学是靠运气完成的。 这全是运气问题。 好吧，想想爱因斯坦。 注意他做了多少不同的好事。 都是运气吗？ 是不是有点太重复了？ 想想香农。 他不只是做信息论。 几年前，他还做了一些其他的好事，其中一些至今仍被密码学安全地锁起来。 他做了很多好事。

You see again and again, that it is more than one thing from a good person. Once in a while a person does only one thing in his whole life, and we'll talk about that later, but a lot of times there is repetition. I claim that luck will not cover everything. And I will cite Pasteur who said, ``Luck favors the prepared mind.'' And I think that says it the way I believe it. There is indeed an element of luck, and no, there isn't. The prepared mind sooner or later finds something important and does it. So yes, it is luck. The particular thing you do is luck, but that you do something is not.

你一次又一次地看到，这不仅仅是一个好人的事情。 偶尔一个人一生只做一件事，这个我们以后再说，但是很多时候是重复的。 我声称运气不会涵盖一切。 我会引用巴斯德的话，“运气偏爱有准备的头脑。”我认为这就是我所相信的。 确实有运气成分，不，没有。 有准备的头脑迟早会发现重要的事情并去做。 所以是的，这是运气。 你做的某件事是运气，但你做了某事却不是。

For example, when I came to Bell Labs, I shared an office for a while with Shannon. At the same time he was doing information theory, I was doing coding theory. It is suspicious that the two of us did it at the same place and at the same time - it was in the atmosphere. And you can say, ``Yes, it was luck.'' On the other hand you can say, ``But why of all the people in Bell Labs then were those the two who did it?'' Yes, it is partly luck, and partly it is the prepared mind; but `partly' is the other thing I'm going to talk about. So, although I'll come back several more times to luck, I want to dispose of this matter of luck as being the sole criterion whether you do great work or not. I claim you have some, but not total, control over it. And I will quote, finally, Newton on the matter. Newton said, ``If others would think as hard as I did, then they would get similar results.''

例如，当我来到贝尔实验室时，我曾与 Shannon 共用一个办公室。 他在做信息论的同时，我在做编码理论。 令人怀疑的是，我们两个人是在同一地点、同一时间做的——那是在大气层中。 你可以说，“是的，这是运气。”另一方面你可以说，“但是为什么当时贝尔实验室的所有人都是那两个人做的呢？”是的，部分原因是运气，部分是有准备的头脑； 但“部分”是我要谈的另一件事。 所以，虽然我会再讲几次运气，但我想把运气这个问题作为你做得好不好的唯一标准来处理。 我声称你对它有一些但不是全部的控制权。 最后，我将在此事上引用牛顿的话。 牛顿说：“如果其他人像我一样努力思考，那么他们也会得到类似的结果。”

One of the characteristics you see, and many people have it including great scientists, is that usually when they were young they had independent thoughts and had the courage to pursue them. For example, Einstein, somewhere around 12 or 14, asked himself the question, ``What would a light wave look like if I went with the velocity of light to look at it?'' Now he knew that electromagnetic theory says you cannot have a stationary local maximum. But if he moved along with the velocity of light, he would see a local maximum. He could see a contradiction at the age of 12, 14, or somewhere around there, that everything was not right and that the velocity of light had something peculiar. Is it luck that he finally created special relativity? Early on, he had laid down some of the pieces by thinking of the fragments. Now that's the necessary but not sufficient condition. All of these items I will talk about are both luck and not luck.

你看到的一个特征，很多人都有，包括伟大的科学家，就是通常在他们年轻的时候就有独立的思想，并且勇于追求。 例如，大约 12 或 14 岁的爱因斯坦问自己这个问题，“如果我以光速观察光波，它会是什么样子？”现在他知道电磁理论说你不能有一个固定的局部最大值。 但如果他以光速移动，他就会看到局部最大值。 他可以在 12 岁、14 岁或附近的某个时候看到矛盾，一切都不对，光速有些奇怪。 他最终创造了狭义相对论是幸运的吗？ 早前，他就凭着碎片的念头，放下了一些棋子。 现在这是必要但不充分的条件。 我将要谈论的所有这些项目都是幸运的，而不是幸运的。

How about having lots of `brains?' It sounds good. Most of you in this room probably have more than enough brains to do first-class work. But great work is something else than mere brains. Brains are measured in various ways. In mathematics, theoretical physics, astrophysics, typically brains correlates to a great extent with the ability to manipulate symbols. And so the typical IQ test is apt to score them fairly high. On the other hand, in other fields it is something different. For example, Bill Pfann, the fellow who did zone melting, came into my office one day. He had this idea dimly in his mind about what he wanted and he had some equations. It was pretty clear to me that this man didn't know much mathematics and he wasn't really articulate. His problem seemed interesting so I took it home and did a little work. I finally showed him how to run computers so he could compute his own answers. I gave him the power to compute. He went ahead, with negligible recognition from his own department, but ultimately he has collected all the prizes in the field. Once he got well started, his shyness, his awkwardness, his inarticulateness, fell away and he became much more productive in many other ways. Certainly he became much more articulate.

有很多“大脑”怎么样？ 这听起来不错。 在座的大多数人可能拥有足够的头脑来完成一流的工作。 但伟大的工作不仅仅是头脑。 大脑的测量方式多种多样。 在数学、理论物理学、天体物理学中，大脑通常在很大程度上与操纵符号的能力相关。 因此，典型的智商测试往往会给他们相当高的分数。 另一方面，在其他领域，情况有所不同。 例如，Bill Pfann，一位负责区域熔化的人，有一天来到我的办公室。 关于他想要什么，他脑子里模模糊糊地有了这个想法，他有一些方程式。 我很清楚，这个人不太懂数学，也不太善于表达。 他的问题似乎很有趣，所以我把它带回家并做了一些工作。 我终于向他展示了如何运行计算机，这样他就可以计算出自己的答案。 我给了他计算的能力。 他继续前进，他所在部门的认可微乎其微，但最终他获得了该领域的所有奖项。 一旦他开始得当，他的害羞、笨拙和口齿不清就会消失，他在许多其他方面也变得更有成效。 当然，他变得更加善于表达。

And I can cite another person in the same way. I trust he isn't in the audience, i.e. a fellow named Clogston. I met him when I was working on a problem with John Pierce's group and I didn't think he had much. I asked my friends who had been with him at school, ``Was he like that in graduate school?'' ``Yes,'' they replied. Well I would have fired the fellow, but J. R. Pierce was smart and kept him on. Clogston finally did the Clogston cable. After that there was a steady stream of good ideas. One success brought him confidence and courage.

我可以用同样的方式引用另一个人。 我相信他不在听众中，即一个名叫 Clogston 的人。 我是在与 John Pierce 的小组一起解决问题时遇到他的，我认为他的能力不强。 我问我在学校和他在一起的朋友，“他在研究生院时是这样的吗？”“是的，”他们回答说。 好吧，我会解雇这个家伙，但 JR Pierce 很聪明，让他留了下来。 Clogston 终于做了 Clogston 电缆。 之后就有了源源不断的好主意。 一次成功给他带来了信心和勇气。

One of the characteristics of successful scientists is having courage. Once you get your courage up and believe that you can do important problems, then you can. If you think you can't, almost surely you are not going to. Courage is one of the things that Shannon had supremely. You have only to think of his major theorem. He wants to create a method of coding, but he doesn't know what to do so he makes a random code. Then he is stuck. And then he asks the impossible question, ``What would the average random code do?'' He then proves that the average code is arbitrarily good, and that therefore there must be at least one good code. Who but a man of infinite courage could have dared to think those thoughts? That is the characteristic of great scientists; they have courage. They will go forward under incredible circumstances; they think and continue to think.

成功科学家的特征之一就是有勇气。 一旦你鼓起勇气，相信你可以解决重要的问题，那么你就可以。 如果你认为你做不到，几乎可以肯定你不会去做。 勇气是香农至高无上的东西之一。 你只需想想他的主要定理。 他想创建一种编码方法，但他不知道该怎么做，所以他随机生成了一个代码。 然后他被卡住了。 然后他问了一个不可能的问题，“平均随机代码会做什么？”然后他证明了平均代码是任意好的，因此必须至少有一个好的代码。 除了一个拥有无限勇气的人，谁敢有这样的想法？ 那是伟大科学家的特征； 他们有勇气。 他们将在难以置信的情况下前进； 他们思考并继续思考。

Age is another factor which the physicists particularly worry about. They always are saying that you have got to do it when you are young or you will never do it. Einstein did things very early, and all the quantum mechanic fellows were disgustingly young when they did their best work. Most mathematicians, theoretical physicists, and astrophysicists do what we consider their best work when they are young. It is not that they don't do good work in their old age but what we value most is often what they did early. On the other hand, in music, politics and literature, often what we consider their best work was done late. I don't know how whatever field you are in fits this scale, but age has some effect.

年龄是物理学家特别担心的另一个因素。 他们总是说，你必须在年轻的时候去做，否则你永远做不到。 爱因斯坦做事很早，所有的量子力学研究员在他们做最好的工作时都年轻得令人作呕。 大多数数学家、理论物理学家和天体物理学家在他们年轻的时候就做了我们认为他们最好的工作。 不是他们晚年做的不好，而是我们最看重的往往是他们早年做的事。 另一方面，在音乐、政治和文学领域，我们认为他们最好的作品往往是迟到的。 我不知道你在哪个领域适合这个尺度，但年龄有一些影响。

But let me say why age seems to have the effect it does. In the first place if you do some good work you will find yourself on all kinds of committees and unable to do any more work. You may find yourself as I saw Brattain when he got a Nobel Prize. The day the prize was announced we all assembled in Arnold Auditorium; all three winners got up and made speeches. The third one, Brattain, practically with tears in his eyes, said, ``I know about this Nobel-Prize effect and I am not going to let it affect me; I am going to remain good old Walter Brattain.'' Well I said to myself, ``That is nice.'' But in a few weeks I saw it was affecting him. Now he could only work on great problems.

但是，让我说说为什么年龄似乎会产生这样的影响。 首先，如果你做了一些好工作，你会发现自己在各种委员会中，无法做更多的工作。 当布拉顿获得诺贝尔奖时，你可能会发现自己就像我看到的那样。 宣布奖项的那天，我们都聚集在阿诺德礼堂； 三位获奖者均起立发言。 第三个，布拉顿，眼里几乎含着泪水说：“我知道诺贝尔奖效应，我不会让它影响到我； 我将继续做老沃尔特·布拉顿。”好吧，我对自己说，“那很好。”但几周后，我发现这对他产生了影响。 现在他只能研究大问题。

When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems. This is what did Shannon in. After information theory, what do you do for an encore? The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn't the way things go. So that is another reason why you find that when you get early recognition it seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren't good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards.

当你出名时，很难解决小问题。 这就是 Shannon 所做的。在信息论之后，你会为 encore 做些什么？ 伟大的科学家经常犯这个错误。 他们未能继续种植小橡子，而大橡树正是从这些小橡子中长出来的。 他们试图立即完成大事。 事情并非如此。 所以这就是为什么你会发现当你得到早期识别时它似乎会让你绝育的另一个原因。 事实上，我会给你我多年来最喜欢的报价。 在我看来，普林斯顿高等研究院毁掉的优秀科学家比任何机构创造的都多，这是根据他们来之前所做的和来之后所做的来判断的。 并不是说他们后来不好，而是他们在到达那里之前就很棒，而且只是在之后才好。

This brings up the subject, out of order perhaps, of working conditions. What most people think are the best working conditions, are not. Very clearly they are not because people are often most productive when working conditions are bad. One of the better times of the Cambridge Physical Laboratories was when they had practically shacks - they did some of the best physics ever.

这或许不合时宜地提出了工作条件的话题。 大多数人认为最好的工作条件并非如此。 很明显，它们并非如此，因为人们通常在工作条件恶劣时效率最高。 剑桥物理实验室的美好时光之一是当他们实际上有棚屋时——他们做了一些有史以来最好的物理学。

I give you a story from my own private life. Early on it became evident to me that Bell Laboratories was not going to give me the conventional acre of programming people to program computing machines in absolute binary. It was clear they weren't going to. But that was the way everybody did it. I could go to the West Coast and get a job with the airplane companies without any trouble, but the exciting people were at Bell Labs and the fellows out there in the airplane companies were not. I thought for a long while about, ``Did I want to go or not?'' and I wondered how I could get the best of two possible worlds. I finally said to myself, ``Hamming, you think the machines can do practically everything. Why can't you make them write programs?'' What appeared at first to me as a defect forced me into automatic programming very early. What appears to be a fault, often, by a change of viewpoint, turns out to be one of the greatest assets you can have. But you are not likely to think that when you first look the thing and say, ``Gee, I'm never going to get enough programmers, so how can I ever do any great programming?''

我给你讲一个我自己私生活中的故事。 早些时候，我很明显贝尔实验室不会给我传统的编程人员来用绝对二进制对计算机进行编程。 很明显他们不会这样做。 但每个人都是这样做的。 我可以毫不费力地去西海岸，在飞机公司找到一份工作，但令人兴奋的人在贝尔实验室，而飞机公司的同事却没有。 我想了很久，“我想还是不想去？”我想知道我怎样才能在两个可能的世界中获得最好的结果。 我终于对自己说，``海明，你认为机器几乎可以做任何事情。 你为什么不能让他们写程序？'' 起初在我看来是一个缺陷，迫使我很早就开始自动编程。 通常，通过改变观点，看起来是错误的事情会成为您可以拥有的最大资产之一。 但是当你第一次看到这个东西时，你不太可能会认为，“哎呀，我永远不会得到足够的程序员，所以我怎么能做任何伟大的编程呢？”

And there are many other stories of the same kind; Grace Hopper has similar ones. I think that if you look carefully you will see that often the great scientists, by turning the problem around a bit, changed a defect to an asset. For example, many scientists when they found they couldn't do a problem finally began to study why not. They then turned it around the other way and said, ``But of course, this is what it is'' and got an important result. So ideal working conditions are very strange. The ones you want aren't always the best ones for you.

还有许多其他同类故事； Grace Hopper 也有类似的。 我认为，如果你仔细观察，你会发现，伟大的科学家经常通过稍微扭转问题，将缺陷变成资产。 例如，许多科学家在发现他们无法解决问题时，终于开始研究为什么不解决问题。 然后他们把它反过来说，“当然，这就是它的样子”，并得到了一个重要的结果。 所以理想的工作条件是很奇怪的。 你想要的并不总是最适合你的。

Now for the matter of drive. You observe that most great scientists have tremendous drive. I worked for ten years with John Tukey at Bell Labs. He had tremendous drive. One day about three or four years after I joined, I discovered that John Tukey was slightly younger than I was. John was a genius and I clearly was not. Well I went storming into Bode's office and said, ``How can anybody my age know as much as John Tukey does?'' He leaned back in his chair, put his hands behind his head, grinned slightly, and said, ``You would be surprised Hamming, how much you would know if you worked as hard as he did that many years.'' I simply slunk out of the office!

现在关于驱动器的问题。 你观察到大多数伟大的科学家都有巨大的动力。 我在贝尔实验室与 John Tukey 一起工作了十年。 他有巨大的动力。 加入公司三四年后的一天，我发现约翰·图基比我年轻一点。 约翰是个天才，而我显然不是。 好吧，我冲进博德的办公室说，“我这个年纪的人怎么能像约翰·图基那样了解这么多呢？”他向后靠在椅子上，双手放在脑后，微微一笑，然后说，“你海明会感到惊讶，如果你像他那样努力工作那么多年，你会知道多少。''我只是偷偷溜出了办公室！

What Bode was saying was this: ``Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest.'' Given two people of approximately the same ability and one person who works ten percent more than the other, the latter will more than twice outproduce the former. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity - it is very much like compound interest. I don't want to give you a rate, but it is a very high rate. Given two people with exactly the same ability, the one person who manages day in and day out to get in one more hour of thinking will be tremendously more productive over a lifetime. I took Bode's remark to heart; I spent a good deal more of my time for some years trying to work a bit harder and I found, in fact, I could get more work done. I don't like to say it in front of my wife, but I did sort of neglect her sometimes; I needed to study. You have to neglect things if you intend to get what you want done. There's no question about this.

博德的意思是：“知识和生产力就像复利。”如果两个人的能力大致相同，并且一个人比另一个人多工作 10%，则后者的产出将超过前者的两倍。 知道的越多，学的越多； 你学得越多，你能做的就越多； 你能做的越多，机会就越多——这很像复利。 我不想给你一个比率，但它是一个非常高的比率。 给定两个能力完全相同的人，日复一日设法多花一个小时思考的人一生的工作效率会大大提高。 我把博德的话牢记在心； 多年来，我花了很多时间尝试更加努力地工作，而且我发现，事实上，我可以完成更多的工作。 我不喜欢在我妻子面前说，但有时我确实有点忽视她； 我需要学习。 如果你想完成你想做的事情，你就必须忽略一些事情。 这是毫无疑问的。

On this matter of drive Edison says, ``Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.'' He may have been exaggerating, but the idea is that solid work, steadily applied, gets you surprisingly far. The steady application of effort with a little bit more work, intelligently applied is what does it. That's the trouble; drive, misapplied, doesn't get you anywhere. I've often wondered why so many of my good friends at Bell Labs who worked as hard or harder than I did, didn't have so much to show for it. The misapplication of effort is a very serious matter. Just hard work is not enough - it must be applied sensibly.

关于动力问题，爱迪生说：“天才是 99% 的汗水和 1% 的灵感。”他可能有点夸张，但他的想法是扎实的工作，稳步应用，会让你走得更远。 努力的稳定应用和更多的工作， 智能应用 就是这样做的。 这就是问题所在； 开车，误用，不会让你到任何地方。 我经常想知道为什么我在贝尔实验室工作的那么多和我一样努力或比我更努力的好朋友，却没有那么多可以表现出来的东西。 努力的误用是一件非常严重的事情。 仅仅努力工作是不够的——必须明智地应用它。

There's another trait on the side which I want to talk about; that trait is ambiguity. It took me a while to discover its importance. Most people like to believe something is or is not true. Great scientists tolerate ambiguity very well. They believe the theory enough to go ahead; they doubt it enough to notice the errors and faults so they can step forward and create the new replacement theory. If you believe too much you'll never notice the flaws; if you doubt too much you won't get started. It requires a lovely balance. But most great scientists are well aware of why their theories are true and they are also well aware of some slight misfits which don't quite fit and they don't forget it. Darwin writes in his autobiography that he found it necessary to write down every piece of evidence which appeared to contradict his beliefs because otherwise they would disappear from his mind. When you find apparent flaws you've got to be sensitive and keep track of those things, and keep an eye out for how they can be explained or how the theory can be changed to fit them. Those are often the great contributions. Great contributions are rarely done by adding another decimal place. It comes down to an emotional commitment. Most great scientists are completely committed to their problem. Those who don't become committed seldom produce outstanding, first-class work.

我想谈的还有一个特点； 这个特征是模棱两可的。 我花了一段时间才发现它的重要性。 大多数人喜欢相信某件事是真的或不是真的。 伟大的科学家能很好地容忍歧义。 他们相信这个理论足以继续前进； 他们怀疑它足以注意到错误和故障，因此他们可以向前迈进并创建新的替代理论。 如果你相信太多，你永远不会注意到缺陷； 如果你怀疑太多，你就不会开始。 它需要一个可爱的平衡。 但是大多数伟大的科学家都很清楚为什么他们的理论是正确的，他们也很清楚一些不太合适的轻微不匹配，他们不会忘记它。 达尔文在他的自传中写道，他发现有必要写下所有似乎与他的信仰相矛盾的证据，否则它们就会从他的脑海中消失。 当你发现明显的缺陷时，你必须保持敏感并跟踪这些东西，并留意如何解释它们或如何改变理论以适应它们。 这些往往是伟大的贡献。 伟大的贡献很少是通过多加一个小数位来完成的。 这归结为一种情感承诺。 大多数伟大的科学家都完全致力于他们的问题。 那些不投入的人很少能做出杰出的、一流的作品。

Now again, emotional commitment is not enough. It is a necessary condition apparently. And I think I can tell you the reason why. Everybody who has studied creativity is driven finally to saying, ``creativity comes out of your subconscious.'' Somehow, suddenly, there it is. It just appears. Well, we know very little about the subconscious; but one thing you are pretty well aware of is that your dreams also come out of your subconscious. And you're aware your dreams are, to a fair extent, a reworking of the experiences of the day. If you are deeply immersed and committed to a topic, day after day after day, your subconscious has nothing to do but work on your problem. And so you wake up one morning, or on some afternoon, and there's the answer. For those who don't get committed to their current problem, the subconscious goofs off on other things and doesn't produce the big result. So the way to manage yourself is that when you have a real important problem you don't let anything else get the center of your attention - you keep your thoughts on the problem. Keep your subconscious starved so it has to work on your problem, so you can sleep peacefully and get the answer in the morning, free.

再一次，情感上的承诺是不够的。 这显然是一个必要条件。 我想我可以告诉你原因。 每个研究过创造力的人最终都会说，“创造力来自你的潜意识。”不知何故，突然间，它就出现了。 它只是出现。 好吧，我们对潜意识知之甚少。 但是你非常清楚的一件事是你的梦想也来自你的潜意识。 而且你知道你的梦想在相当程度上是对当天经历的改造。 如果你日复一日地沉浸在一个话题中，你的潜意识除了解决你的问题之外别无他法。 所以你一天早上或某个下午醒来，答案就在眼前。 对于那些不致力于解决当前问题的人来说，潜意识会在其他事情上胡闹，不会产生大的结果。 所以管理自己的方法是，当你遇到一个真正重要的问题时，不要让任何其他事情成为你注意力的中心——你要保持对问题的思考。 让你的潜意识挨饿，所以它必须继续工作 您的 问题，这样您就可以安然入睡，并在早上免费获得答案。

Now Alan Chynoweth mentioned that I used to eat at the physics table. I had been eating with the mathematicians and I found out that I already knew a fair amount of mathematics; in fact, I wasn't learning much. The physics table was, as he said, an exciting place, but I think he exaggerated on how much I contributed. It was very interesting to listen to Shockley, Brattain, Bardeen, J. B. Johnson, Ken McKay and other people, and I was learning a lot. But unfortunately a Nobel Prize came, and a promotion came, and what was left was the dregs. Nobody wanted what was left. Well, there was no use eating with them!

现在 Alan Chynoweth 提到我曾经在物理桌上吃饭。 我一直在和数学家一起吃饭，我发现我已经掌握了相当多的数学知识； 事实上，我并没有学到太多东西。 正如他所说，物理表是一个令人兴奋的地方，但我认为他夸大了我的贡献。 听 Shockley、Brattain、Bardeen、JB Johnson、Ken McKay 和其他人的演讲非常有趣，我学到了很多东西。 但不幸的是诺贝尔奖来了，升职来了，剩下的都是渣滓。 没有人想要剩下的东西。 算了，跟他们吃饭也没用！

Over on the other side of the dining hall was a chemistry table. I had worked with one of the fellows, Dave McCall; furthermore he was courting our secretary at the time. I went over and said, ``Do you mind if I join you?'' They can't say no, so I started eating with them for a while. And I started asking, ``What are the important problems of your field?'' And after a week or so, ``What important problems are you working on?'' And after some more time I came in one day and said, ``If what you are doing is not important, and if you don't think it is going to lead to something important, why are you at Bell Labs working on it?'' I wasn't welcomed after that; I had to find somebody else to eat with! That was in the spring.

餐厅的另一边是一张化学桌。 我曾与其中一位研究员 Dave McCall 共事过； 此外，他当时正在追求我们的秘书。 我走过去说：“介意我和你们一起吗？”他们不能拒绝，所以我开始和他们一起吃了一会儿。 然后我开始问，“你所在领域的重要问题是什么？”大约一周后，“你正在研究什么重要问题？”又过了一段时间，有一天我进来说， “如果你正在做的事情不重要，如果你不认为它会导致一些重要的事情，你为什么要在贝尔实验室工作呢？”在那之后我没有受到欢迎； 我得找别人一起吃！ 那是在春天。

In the fall, Dave McCall stopped me in the hall and said, ``Hamming, that remark of yours got underneath my skin. I thought about it all summer, i.e. what were the important problems in my field. I haven't changed my research,'' he says, ``but I think it was well worthwhile.'' And I said, ``Thank you Dave,'' and went on. I noticed a couple of months later he was made the head of the department. I noticed the other day he was a Member of the National Academy of Engineering. I noticed he has succeeded. I have never heard the names of any of the other fellows at that table mentioned in science and scientific circles. They were unable to ask themselves, ``What are the important problems in my field?''

秋天，戴夫·麦考尔在大厅里拦住我说，‘海明，你的那句话让我很反感。 我整个夏天都在思考这个问题，即我所在领域的重要问题是什么。 我没有改变我的研究，”他说，“但我认为这是非常值得的。”我说，“谢谢戴夫，”然后继续说下去。 我注意到几个月后他被任命为部门主管。 前几天我注意到他是美国国家工程院院士。 我注意到他已经成功了。 我从未听说过科学界和科学界提到过那张桌子上的任何其他人的名字。 他们无法问自己，“我所在领域的重要问题是什么？”

If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work. It's perfectly obvious. Great scientists have thought through, in a careful way, a number of important problems in their field, and they keep an eye on wondering how to attack them. Let me warn you, `important problem' must be phrased carefully. The three outstanding problems in physics, in a certain sense, were never worked on while I was at Bell Labs. By important I mean guaranteed a Nobel Prize and any sum of money you want to mention. 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. That is what makes a problem important. When I say that most scientists don't work on important problems, I mean it in that sense. The average scientist, so far as I can make out, spends almost all his time working on problems which he believes will not be important and he also doesn't believe that they will lead to important problems.

如果你不研究一个重要的问题，你就不太可能做重要的工作。 这是非常明显的。 伟大的科学家以一种谨慎的方式思考了他们领域中的许多重要问题，并且他们一直在关注如何解决这些问题。 让我警告你，“重要问题”的措辞必须谨慎。 从某种意义上说，物理学中的三个悬而未决的问题，我在贝尔实验室时从未被研究过。 重要的是我的意思是保证获得诺贝尔奖和任何你想提到的钱。 我们没有研究 (1) 时间旅行，(2) 隐形传态，和 (3) 反重力。 它们不是重要的问题，因为我们没有受到攻击。 使问题变得重要的不是后果，而是你有一个合理的攻击。 这就是使问题变得重要的原因。 当我说大多数科学家不研究重要问题时，我是指这个意思。 据我所知，普通科学家几乎把所有时间都花在研究他认为不重要的问题上，而且他也不认为这些问题会导致重要问题。

I spoke earlier about planting acorns so that oaks will grow. You can't always know exactly where to be, but you can keep active in places where something might happen. And even if you believe that great science is a matter of luck, you can stand on a mountain top where lightning strikes; you don't have to hide in the valley where you're safe. But the average scientist does routine safe work almost all the time and so he (or she) doesn't produce much. It's that simple. If you want to do great work, you clearly must work on important problems, and you should have an idea.

我之前谈到种植橡子，以便橡树生长。 您无法始终确切地知道该去哪里，但您可以在可能发生某些事情的地方保持活跃。 即使你相信伟大的科学是运气的问题，你也可以站在雷电交加的山顶上； 您不必躲在安全的山谷中。 但是普通科学家几乎所有时间都在做例行的安全工作，所以他（或她）的产出并不多。 就这么简单。 如果你想做伟大的工作，你显然必须在重要的问题上工作，你应该有一个想法。

Along those lines at some urging from John Tukey and others, I finally adopted what I called ``Great Thoughts Time.'' When I went to lunch Friday noon, I would only discuss great thoughts after that. By great thoughts I mean ones like: ``What will be the role of computers in all of AT&T?'', ``How will computers change science?'' For example, I came up with the observation at that time that nine out of ten experiments were done in the lab and one in ten on the computer. I made a remark to the vice presidents one time, that it would be reversed, i.e. nine out of ten experiments would be done on the computer and one in ten in the lab. They knew I was a crazy mathematician and had no sense of reality. I knew they were wrong and they've been proved wrong while I have been proved right. They built laboratories when they didn't need them. I saw that computers were transforming science because I spent a lot of time asking ``What will be the impact of computers on science and how can I change it?'' I asked myself, ``How is it going to change Bell Labs?'' I remarked one time, in the same address, that more than one-half of the people at Bell Labs will be interacting closely with computing machines before I leave. Well, you all have terminals now. I thought hard about where was my field going, where were the opportunities, and what were the important things to do. Let me go there so there is a chance I can do important things.

在 John Tukey 和其他人的一些敦促下，沿着这些思路，我最终采用了我所谓的“伟大思想时间”。周五中午我去吃午饭时，我只会在那之后讨论伟大的思想。 我所说的伟大想法是指像这样的想法：“计算机在整个 AT&T 中将扮演什么角色？”、“计算机将如何改变科学？”例如，我当时的观察结果是 9十个实验是在实验室里完成的，十分之一是在电脑上完成的。 有一次我跟副校长说过，会反过来，就是十个实验中有九个在电脑上做，十分之一在实验室里做。 他们知道我是个疯狂的数学家，没有现实感。 我知道他们错了，事实证明他们错了，而我被证明是对的。 他们在不需要的时候建了实验室。 我看到计算机正在改变科学，因为我花了很多时间问“计算机会对科学产生什么影响，我该如何改变它？”我问自己，“它将如何改变贝尔实验室？” '' 我曾在同一个地址说过，在我离开之前，贝尔实验室超过一半的人将与计算机密切互动。 好吧，你们现在都有终端了。 我认真思考我的领域将走向何方，机会在哪里，以及需要做什么重要的事情。 让我去那里，这样我就有机会做重要的事情。

Most great scientists know many important problems. They have something between 10 and 20 important problems for which they are looking for an attack. And when they see a new idea come up, one hears them say ``Well that bears on this problem.'' They drop all the other things and get after it. Now I can tell you a horror story that was told to me but I can't vouch for the truth of it. I was sitting in an airport talking to a friend of mine from Los Alamos about how it was lucky that the fission experiment occurred over in Europe when it did because that got us working on the atomic bomb here in the US. He said ``No; at Berkeley we had gathered a bunch of data; we didn't get around to reducing it because we were building some more equipment, but if we had reduced that data we would have found fission.'' They had it in their hands and they didn't pursue it. They came in second!

大多数伟大的科学家都知道许多重要的问题。 他们有 10 到 20 个重要问题需要攻击。 当他们看到一个新的想法出现时，人们会听到他们说“好吧，这与这个问题有关。”他们放下所有其他的事情去追求它。 现在我可以告诉你一个别人告诉我的恐怖故事，但我不能保证它的真实性。 我当时正坐在机场和洛斯阿拉莫斯的一位朋友谈论裂变实验发生在欧洲是多么幸运，因为这让我们在美国这里研究原子弹。 他说``不； 在伯克利，我们收集了大量数据； 我们没有考虑减少它，因为我们正在建造更多的设备，但如果我们减少了这些数据，我们就会发现裂变。”他们掌握了它，但他们没有追求它。 他们排在第二位！

The great scientists, when an opportunity opens up, get after it and they pursue it. They drop all other things. They get rid of other things and they get after an idea because they had already thought the thing through. Their minds are prepared; they see the opportunity and they go after it. Now of course lots of times it doesn't work out, but you don't have to hit many of them to do some great science. It's kind of easy. One of the chief tricks is to live a long time!

伟大的科学家，当机会出现时，就会抓住它并追求它。 他们丢弃所有其他东西。 他们摆脱其他东西，他们追求一个想法，因为他们已经把事情想清楚了。 他们的思想准备好了； 他们看到了机会，他们去追求它。 现在当然很多时候它没有成功，但你不必击中他们中的许多人来做一些伟大的科学。 这很容易。 主要的技巧之一就是活得长久！

Another trait, it took me a while to notice. I noticed the following facts about people who work with the door open or the door closed. I notice that if you have the door to your office closed, you get more work done today and tomorrow, and you are more productive than most. But 10 years later somehow you don't know quite know what problems are worth working on; all the hard work you do is sort of tangential in importance. He who works with the door open gets all kinds of interruptions, but he also occasionally gets clues as to what the world is and what might be important. Now I cannot prove the cause and effect sequence because you might say, ``The closed door is symbolic of a closed mind.'' I don't know. But I can say there is a pretty good correlation between those who work with the doors open and those who ultimately do important things, although people who work with doors closed often work harder. Somehow they seem to work on slightly the wrong thing - not much, but enough that they miss fame.

另一个特点，我花了一段时间才注意到。 我注意到以下关于开着门或关着门工作的人的事实。 我注意到，如果你把办公室的门关上，你今天和明天会完成更多的工作，而且你比大多数人更有效率。 但 10 年后，不知何故，你不太清楚哪些问题值得研究； 您所做的所有辛勤工作在重要性上都无关紧要。 开着门工作的人会受到各种打扰，但他偶尔也会得到关于世界是什么以及什么可能是重要的线索。 现在我无法证明因果顺序，因为你可能会说，“关闭的门象征着封闭的思想。”我不知道。 但我可以说，那些开着门工作的人和那些最终做重要事情的人之间有很好的相关性，尽管关着门工作的人通常工作得更努力。 不知何故，他们似乎在做一些错误的事情——不多，但足以让他们错过名声。

I want to talk on another topic. It is based on the song which I think many of you know, ``It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it.'' I'll start with an example of my own. I was conned into doing on a digital computer, in the absolute binary days, a problem which the best analog computers couldn't do. And I was getting an answer. When I thought carefully and said to myself, ``You know, Hamming, you're going to have to file a report on this military job; after you spend a lot of money you're going to have to account for it and every analog installation is going to want the report to see if they can't find flaws in it.'' I was doing the required integration by a rather crummy method, to say the least, but I was getting the answer. And I realized that in truth the problem was not just to get the answer; it was to demonstrate for the first time, and beyond question, that I could beat the analog computer on its own ground with a digital machine. I reworked the method of solution, created a theory which was nice and elegant, and changed the way we computed the answer; the results were no different. The published report had an elegant method which was later known for years as ``Hamming's Method of Integrating Differential Equations.'' It is somewhat obsolete now, but for a while it was a very good method. By changing the problem slightly, I did important work rather than trivial work.

我想谈谈另一个话题。 它基于我想你们很多人都知道的歌曲，“这不是你做什么，而是你做事的方式。”我将从我自己的一个例子开始。 在绝对二进制的时代，我被迫在数字计算机上做一个最好的模拟计算机无法解决的问题。 我得到了答案。 当我仔细思考并对自己说，‘你知道，海明，你将不得不提交一份关于这项军事工作的报告； 在你花了很多钱之后，你将不得不对其进行解释，并且每个模拟安装都希望得到报告，看看他们是否能在其中找到缺陷。”至少可以说，这是一种糟糕的方法，但我得到了答案。 我意识到，事实上，问题不仅仅是得到答案； 这是第一次，毫无疑问，我可以用数字机器在自己的基础上击败模拟计算机。 我重新设计了解决方法，创建了一个漂亮而优雅的理论，并改变了我们计算答案的方式； 结果没有什么不同。 发表的报告有一个优雅的方法，后来被称为“微分方程的海明积分法”多年。它现在有点过时了，但有一段时间它是一个非常好的方法。 通过稍微改变问题，我做了重要的工作而不是琐碎的工作。

In the same way, when using the machine up in the attic in the early days, I was solving one problem after another after another; a fair number were successful and there were a few failures. I went home one Friday after finishing a problem, and curiously enough I wasn't happy; I was depressed. I could see life being a long sequence of one problem after another after another. After quite a while of thinking I decided, ``No, I should be in the mass production of a variable product. I should be concerned with all of next year's problems, not just the one in front of my face.'' By changing the question I still got the same kind of results or better, but I changed things and did important work. I attacked the major problem - How do I conquer machines and do all of next year's problems when I don't know what they are going to be? How do I prepare for it? How do I do this one so I'll be on top of it? How do I obey Newton's rule? He said, ``If I have seen further than others, it is because I've stood on the shoulders of giants.'' These days we stand on each other's feet!

同理，早期在阁楼上使用机器时，我是在解决一个又一个问题； 相当多的人是成功的，也有一些人失败了。 一个星期五，我做完一道题就回家了，奇怪的是我并不开心； 我很沮丧。 我可以看到生活是一个接一个接一个问题的长序列。 经过一段时间的思考，我决定，``不，我应该参与可变产品的批量生产。 我应该关心 明年的所有 问题，而不仅仅是我面前的问题。”通过改变问题，我仍然得到了相同类型或更好的结果，但我改变了事情并做了重要的工作。 我解决了主要问题——当我不知道它们会是什么时，我如何征服机器并解决明年的所有问题？ 我该如何准备？ 我该怎么做才能掌握它？ 我如何遵守牛顿法则？ 他说，“如果我比别人看得更远，那是因为我站在巨人的肩膀上。”这些天我们站在彼此的脚上！

You should do your job in such a fashion that others can build on top of it, so they will indeed say, ``Yes, I've stood on so and so's shoulders and I saw further.'' The essence of science is cumulative. By changing a problem slightly you can often do great work rather than merely good work. Instead of attacking isolated problems, I made the resolution that I would never again solve an isolated problem except as characteristic of a class.

你应该以其他人可以在此基础上进行构建的方式来完成你的工作，这样他们确实会说，“是的，我站在某某的肩膀上，我看得更远。”科学的本质是累积的. 通过稍微改变一个问题，你通常可以做得很好，而不仅仅是做好工作。 我没有攻击孤立的问题，而是下定决心，除非作为一个班级的特征，否则我再也不会解决一个孤立的问题。

Now if you are much of a mathematician you know that the effort to generalize often means that the solution is simple. Often by stopping and saying, ``This is the problem he wants but this is characteristic of so and so. Yes, I can attack the whole class with a far superior method than the particular one because I was earlier embedded in needless detail.'' The business of abstraction frequently makes things simple. Furthermore, I filed away the methods and prepared for the future problems.

现在，如果您是一名数学家，您就会知道归纳的努力通常意味着解决方案很简单。 通常停下来说，“这是他想要的问题，但这是某某的特征。 是的，我可以用比特定方法更优越的方法来攻击整个班级，因为我早先就被嵌入了不必要的细节中。抽象的业务常常使事情变得简单。 此外，我将方法归档并为将来的问题做准备。

To end this part, I'll remind you, ``It is a poor workman who blames his tools - the good man gets on with the job, given what he's got, and gets the best answer he can.'' And I suggest that by altering the problem, by looking at the thing differently, you can make a great deal of difference in your final productivity because you can either do it in such a fashion that people can indeed build on what you've done, or you can do it in such a fashion that the next person has to essentially duplicate again what you've done. It isn't just a matter of the job, it's the way you write the report, the way you write the paper, the whole attitude. It's just as easy to do a broad, general job as one very special case. And it's much more satisfying and rewarding!

在结束这一部分时，我会提醒你，“一个可怜的工人会责怪他的工具 - 好人会继续工作，考虑到他所拥有的，并得到他能得到的最好的答案。”我建议通过改变问题，通过以不同的方式看待事物，你可以在你的最终生产力上产生很大的不同，因为你可以以这样一种方式来做，人们确实可以在你所做的事情的基础上再接再厉，或者你可以以这样的方式进行，以至于下一个人必须从根本上再次复制您所做的事情。 这不仅仅是工作的问题，而是你写报告的方式，你写论文的方式，整个态度。 做一个广泛的、一般的工作和一个非常特殊的案例一样容易。 而且它更令人满意和有益！

I have now come down to a topic which is very distasteful; it is not sufficient to do a job, you have to sell it. `Selling' to a scientist is an awkward thing to do. It's very ugly; you shouldn't have to do it. The world is supposed to be waiting, and when you do something great, they should rush out and welcome it. But the fact is everyone is busy with their own work. You must present it so well that they will set aside what they are doing, look at what you've done, read it, and come back and say, ``Yes, that was good.'' I suggest that when you open a journal, as you turn the pages, you ask why you read some articles and not others. You had better write your report so when it is published in the Physical Review, or wherever else you want it, as the readers are turning the pages they won't just turn your pages but they will stop and read yours. If they don't stop and read it, you won't get credit.

我现在归结为一个非常令人反感的话题； 做一份工作是不够的，你必须卖掉它。 “卖”给科学家是一件尴尬的事情。 非常难看； 你不应该这样做。 世界应该在等待，当你做了一些伟大的事情时，他们应该冲出去欢迎它。 但事实是每个人都忙于自己的工作。 你必须把它展示得很好，这样他们才会把他们正在做的事情放在一边，看看你做了什么，阅读它，然后回来说，“是的，那很好。”我建议当你打开一个期刊，当你翻页时，你会问为什么你读了一些文章而不是其他文章。 你最好写好你的报告，这样当它发表在 Physical Review 上时，或者你想要的任何其他地方，当读者翻页时，他们不仅会翻你的页，还会停下来阅读你的。 如果他们不停下来阅读它，您将不会获得荣誉。

There are three things you have to do in selling. You have to learn to write clearly and well so that people will read it, you must learn to give reasonably formal talks, and you also must learn to give informal talks. We had a lot of so-called `back room scientists.' In a conference, they would keep quiet. Three weeks later after a decision was made they filed a report saying why you should do so and so. Well, it was too late. They would not stand up right in the middle of a hot conference, in the middle of activity, and say, ``We should do this for these reasons.'' You need to master that form of communication as well as prepared speeches.

销售中必须做三件事。 你必须学会写得清楚、好，这样人们才会读，你必须学会进行合理的正式谈话，你还必须学会进行非正式的谈话。 我们有很多所谓的“幕后科学家”。 在会议上，他们会保持安静。 做出决定三周后，他们提交了一份报告，说明你为什么应该这样做。 好吧，为时已晚。 他们不会在热烈的会议中，在活动中站起来说，“出于这些原因，我们应该这样做。”你需要掌握这种沟通方式以及准备好的演讲。

When I first started, I got practically physically ill while giving a speech, and I was very, very nervous. I realized I either had to learn to give speeches smoothly or I would essentially partially cripple my whole career. The first time IBM asked me to give a speech in New York one evening, I decided I was going to give a really good speech, a speech that was wanted, not a technical one but a broad one, and at the end if they liked it, I'd quietly say, ``Any time you want one I'll come in and give you one.'' As a result, I got a great deal of practice giving speeches to a limited audience and I got over being afraid. Furthermore, I could also then study what methods were effective and what were ineffective.

刚开始的时候，我在演讲时几乎身体不适，我非常非常紧张。 我意识到我要么必须学会顺利地发表演讲，要么我基本上会部分削弱我的整个职业生涯。 那天晚上 IBM 第一次邀请我在纽约发表演讲时，我决定要发表一场非常好的演讲，一场大家想要的演讲，不是技术性的，而是广泛的，最后如果他们喜欢的话它，我会安静地说，“任何时候你想要一个，我都会进来给你一个。”结果，我得到了大量的练习，在有限的听众面前发表演讲，我克服了害怕. 此外，我还可以研究哪些方法有效，哪些方法无效。

While going to meetings I had already been studying why some papers are remembered and most are not. The technical person wants to give a highly limited technical talk. Most of the time the audience wants a broad general talk and wants much more survey and background than the speaker is willing to give. As a result, many talks are ineffective. The speaker names a topic and suddenly plunges into the details he's solved. Few people in the audience may follow. You should paint a general picture to say why it's important, and then slowly give a sketch of what was done. Then a larger number of people will say, ``Yes, Joe has done that,'' or ``Mary has done that; I really see where it is; yes, Mary really gave a good talk; I understand what Mary has done.'' The tendency is to give a highly restricted, safe talk; this is usually ineffective. Furthermore, many talks are filled with far too much information. So I say this idea of selling is obvious.

在参加会议时，我已经在研究为什么有些论文会被记住而大多数不会。 技术人员想要进行非常有限的技术演讲。 大多数时候，听众想要一个广泛的一般性演讲，并且想要比演讲者愿意提供的更多的调查和背景。 结果，很多谈话都没有效果。 演讲者说出一个话题，然后突然投入到他已经解决的细节中。 听众中很少有人会跟上。 你应该画一个大概的图来说明为什么它很重要，然后慢慢地画出所做的事情的草图。 然后更多的人会说，“是的，乔已经做到了，”或者“玛丽已经做到了；” 我真的看到它在哪里； 是的，玛丽真的讲得很好； 我明白玛丽做了什么。 这通常是无效的。 此外，许多谈话包含了太多的信息。 所以我说这种销售的想法是显而易见的。

Let me summarize. You've got to work on important problems. I deny that it is all luck, but I admit there is a fair element of luck. I subscribe to Pasteur's ``Luck favors the prepared mind.'' I favor heavily what I did. Friday afternoons for years - great thoughts only - means that I committed 10% of my time trying to understand the bigger problems in the field, i.e. what was and what was not important. I found in the early days I had believed `this' and yet had spent all week marching in `that' direction. It was kind of foolish. If I really believe the action is over there, why do I march in this direction? I either had to change my goal or change what I did. So I changed something I did and I marched in the direction I thought was important. It's that easy.

让我总结一下。 你必须解决重要的问题。 我否认这全是运气，但我承认有一定的运气成分。 我赞同巴斯德的“好运眷顾有准备的头脑”。我非常喜欢我所做的。 多年来的周五下午——只有伟大的想法——意味着我投入了 10% 的时间来试图理解该领域的更大问题，即什么是重要的，什么是不重要的。 我发现在早期我相信“这个”，但整个星期都在朝着“那个”方向前进。 这有点愚蠢。 如果我真的相信行动在那里，我为什么要朝这个方向前进？ 我要么必须改变我的目标，要么改变我所做的。 所以我改变了我所做的事情，并朝着我认为重要的方向前进。 就这么简单。

Now you might tell me you haven't got control over what you have to work on. Well, when you first begin, you may not. But once you're moderately successful, there are more people asking for results than you can deliver and you have some power of choice, but not completely. I'll tell you a story about that, and it bears on the subject of educating your boss. I had a boss named Schelkunoff; he was, and still is, a very good friend of mine. Some military person came to me and demanded some answers by Friday. Well, I had already dedicated my computing resources to reducing data on the fly for a group of scientists; I was knee deep in short, small, important problems. This military person wanted me to solve his problem by the end of the day on Friday. I said, ``No, I'll give it to you Monday. I can work on it over the weekend. I'm not going to do it now.'' He goes down to my boss, Schelkunoff, and Schelkunoff says, ``You must run this for him; he's got to have it by Friday.'' I tell him, ``Why do I?''; he says, ``You have to.'' I said, ``Fine, Sergei, but you're sitting in your office Friday afternoon catching the late bus home to watch as this fellow walks out that door.'' I gave the military person the answers late Friday afternoon. I then went to Schelkunoff's office and sat down; as the man goes out I say, ``You see Schelkunoff, this fellow has nothing under his arm; but I gave him the answers.'' On Monday morning Schelkunoff called him up and said, ``Did you come in to work over the weekend?'' I could hear, as it were, a pause as the fellow ran through his mind of what was going to happen; but he knew he would have had to sign in, and he'd better not say he had when he hadn't, so he said he hadn't. Ever after that Schelkunoff said, ``You set your deadlines; you can change them.''

现在你可能会告诉我你无法控制你必须做的事情。 好吧，当你第一次开始时，你可能不会。 但是一旦你取得了一定的成功，就会有更多的人要求你的结果，而不是你能提供的，你有一些选择的权力，但不是完全的。 我会告诉你一个关于那个的故事，它与教育你的老板的主题有关。 我有一个老板，名叫 Schelkunoff； 他过去是，现在仍然是我的好朋友。 一些军人来找我，要求在星期五之前给出一些答复。 好吧，我已经将我的计算资源用于为一组科学家减少动态数据； 我对简短、小而重要的问题深有体会。 这位军人希望我在周五结束前解决他的问题。 我说，``不，我会在星期一给你。 我可以在周末工作。 我现在不打算这样做。”他去找我的老板 Schelkunoff，Schelkunoff 说，“你必须为他做这件事； 他必须在星期五之前得到它。”我告诉他，“我为什么要这样做？ 他说，“你必须这样做。”我说，“好吧，谢尔盖，但你周五下午坐在你的办公室里，赶晚点的公共汽车回家，看着这个人走出那扇门。”我给了周五下午晚些时候，军人给出了答案。 然后我去了 Schelkunoff 的办公室坐下； 当那个人走出去时，我说，‘你看 Schelkunoff，这家伙腋下什么都没有； 但我给了他答案。”星期一早上，Schelkunoff 打电话给他说，“你周末来上班了吗？”我可以听到，当这个人在脑海中闪过时，他停顿了一下。将要发生的事情； 但他知道他必须签到，他最好别说他签过，因为他没有签过，所以他说他没有签到。 从那以后，Schelkunoff 说：“你设定了最后期限； 你可以改变它们。”

One lesson was sufficient to educate my boss as to why I didn't want to do big jobs that displaced exploratory research and why I was justified in not doing crash jobs which absorb all the research computing facilities. I wanted instead to use the facilities to compute a large number of small problems. Again, in the early days, I was limited in computing capacity and it was clear, in my area, that a ``mathematician had no use for machines.'' But I needed more machine capacity. Every time I had to tell some scientist in some other area, ``No I can't; I haven't the machine capacity,'' he complained. I said ``Go tell your Vice President that Hamming needs more computing capacity.'' After a while I could see what was happening up there at the top; many people said to my Vice President, ``Your man needs more computing capacity.'' I got it!

一堂课就足以教育我的老板为什么我不想做取代探索性研究的大工作，以及为什么我有理由不做吸收所有研究计算设备的速成工作。 相反，我想使用这些工具来计算大量小问题。 同样，在早期，我的计算能力有限，很明显，在我所在的领域，“数学家对机器毫无用处”。但我需要更多的机器能力。 每次我不得不告诉其他领域的一些科学家时，“不，我不能； 我没有机器的能力，”他抱怨道。 我说：“去告诉 你们的 副总裁，汉明需要更多的计算能力。”过了一会儿，我可以看到高层正在发生什么； 许多人对我的副总裁说，“你的人需要更多的计算能力。”我明白了！

I also did a second thing. When I loaned what little programming power we had to help in the early days of computing, I said, ``We are not getting the recognition for our programmers that they deserve. When you publish a paper you will thank that programmer or you aren't getting any more help from me. That programmer is going to be thanked by name; she's worked hard.'' I waited a couple of years. I then went through a year of BSTJ articles and counted what fraction thanked some programmer. I took it into the boss and said, ``That's the central role computing is playing in Bell Labs; if the BSTJ is important, that's how important computing is.'' He had to give in. You can educate your bosses. It's a hard job. In this talk I'm only viewing from the bottom up; I'm not viewing from the top down. But I am telling you how you can get what you want in spite of top management. You have to sell your ideas there also.

我还做了第二件事。 当我借用我们在计算的早期所能提供的微不足道的编程能力时，我说，``我们的程序员没有得到他们应得的认可。 当你发表一篇论文时，你会感谢那个程序员，否则你就不会再从我这里得到任何帮助。 那个程序员将被点名感谢； 她工作很努力。''我等了几年。 然后我浏览了一年的 BSTJ 文章并计算了感谢某些程序员的分数。 我把这件事告诉了老板并说，``这就是计算在贝尔实验室中扮演的核心角色； 如果 BSTJ 很重要，那就是计算的重要性。”他不得不让步。你可以教育你的老板。 这是一项艰巨的工作。 在这次演讲中，我只是从下往上看； 我不是从上往下看的。 但我要告诉你的是，尽管有高层管理人员，你如何才能得到你想要的。 你也必须在那里推销你的想法。

Well I now come down to the topic, ``Is the effort to be a great scientist worth it?'' To answer this, you must ask people. When you get beyond their modesty, most people will say, ``Yes, doing really first-class work, and knowing it, is as good as wine, women and song put together,'' or if it's a woman she says, ``It is as good as wine, men and song put together.'' And if you look at the bosses, they tend to come back or ask for reports, trying to participate in those moments of discovery. They're always in the way. So evidently those who have done it, want to do it again. But it is a limited survey. I have never dared to go out and ask those who didn't do great work how they felt about the matter. It's a biased sample, but I still think it is worth the struggle. I think it is very definitely worth the struggle to try and do first-class work because the truth is, the value is in the struggle more than it is in the result. The struggle to make something of yourself seems to be worthwhile in itself. The success and fame are sort of dividends, in my opinion.

好吧，我现在回到主题，“为成为一名伟大的科学家而付出的努力值得吗？”要回答这个问题，你必须问问人们。 当你超越他们的谦虚时，大多数人会说，“是的，做真正一流的工作，并且知道它，就像酒、女人和歌曲放在一起一样好，”或者如果是女人，她会说，“ “这就像酒、人和歌放在一起一样好。”如果你看看老板们，他们往往会回来或要求报告，试图参与那些发现的时刻。 他们总是挡路。 很明显，那些做过的人还想再做一次。 但这是一个有限的调查。 我从来不敢出去问问那些工作做得不好的人对这件事的感受。 这是一个有偏见的样本，但我仍然认为值得努力。 我认为努力去做一流的工作绝对是值得的，因为事实是，努力的价值大于结果的价值。 使自己有所作为的努力本身似乎是值得的。 在我看来，成功和名望是一种红利。

I've told you how to do it. It is so easy, so why do so many people, with all their talents, fail? For example, my opinion, to this day, is that there are in the mathematics department at Bell Labs quite a few people far more able and far better endowed than I, but they didn't produce as much. Some of them did produce more than I did; Shannon produced more than I did, and some others produced a lot, but I was highly productive against a lot of other fellows who were better equipped. Why is it so? What happened to them? Why do so many of the people who have great promise, fail?

我已经告诉你怎么做了。 这很容易，那么为什么那么多才华横溢的人都失败了呢？ 例如，直到今天，我的看法是，在贝尔实验室的数学系中，有不少人比我更有能力，也更有天赋，但他们的成果却没有我那么多。 他们中的一些人确实比我生产的更多； Shannon 的产出比我多，其他一些人的产出也很多，但我的产出比其他许多装备更好的人高。 为什么会这样？ 他们发生了什么？ 为什么这么多有前途的人都失败了？

Well, one of the reasons is drive and commitment. The people who do great work with less ability but who are committed to it, get more done that those who have great skill and dabble in it, who work during the day and go home and do other things and come back and work the next day. They don't have the deep commitment that is apparently necessary for really first-class work. They turn out lots of good work, but we were talking, remember, about first-class work. There is a difference. Good people, very talented people, almost always turn out good work. We're talking about the outstanding work, the type of work that gets the Nobel Prize and gets recognition.

好吧，原因之一是动力和承诺。 那些能力较弱但全身心投入工作却做得很好的人，比那些技术高超并涉足其中的人做得更多，他们白天工作，回家做其他事情，第二天回来工作. 他们没有真正一流工作显然必需的坚定承诺。 他们做出了很多出色的工作，但请记住，我们谈论的是一流的工作。 它们是有区别的。 好人，非常有才华的人，几乎总能做出好作品。 我们谈论的是杰出的工作，获得诺贝尔奖和认可的工作类型。

The second thing is, I think, the problem of personality defects. Now I'll cite a fellow whom I met out in Irvine. He had been the head of a computing center and he was temporarily on assignment as a special assistant to the president of the university. It was obvious he had a job with a great future. He took me into his office one time and showed me his method of getting letters done and how he took care of his correspondence. He pointed out how inefficient the secretary was. He kept all his letters stacked around there; he knew where everything was. And he would, on his word processor, get the letter out. He was bragging how marvelous it was and how he could get so much more work done without the secretary's interference. Well, behind his back, I talked to the secretary. The secretary said, ``Of course I can't help him; I don't get his mail. He won't give me the stuff to log in; I don't know where he puts it on the floor. Of course I can't help him.'' So I went to him and said, ``Look, if you adopt the present method and do what you can do single-handedly, you can go just that far and no farther than you can do single-handedly. If you will learn to work with the system, you can go as far as the system will support you.'' And, he never went any further. He had his personality defect of wanting total control and was not willing to recognize that you need the support of the system.

第二个我觉得是人格缺陷的问题。 现在我要引用我在尔湾遇到的一个人。 他曾经是一个计算中心的负责人，现在被临时分配为大学校长的特别助理。 很明显，他有一份前途光明的工作。 有一次他带我去他的办公室，向我展示了他处理信件的方法以及他如何处理信件。 他指出秘书效率低下。 他把所有的信件都堆放在那里； 他知道一切都在哪里。 他会在他的文字处理器上把这封信拿出来。 他在吹嘘这是多么了不起，以及他如何在没有秘书干预的情况下完成更多的工作。 好吧，我在他的背后，和秘书谈过。 秘书说：“我当然帮不了他； 我没有收到他的邮件。 他不会给我登录的东西； 我不知道他把它放在地板上的什么地方。 我当然帮不了他。”所以我去找他说，“看，如果你采用现在的方法，单枪匹马地做你能做的事，你就可以走那么远，不会比你走得更远可以单枪匹马完成。 如果你将学会使用系统，你可以走多远，系统会支持你。”而且，他再也没有走得更远。 他有想要完全控制的性格缺陷，不愿意承认你需要系统的支持。

You find this happening again and again; good scientists will fight the system rather than learn to work with the system and take advantage of all the system has to offer. It has a lot, if you learn how to use it. It takes patience, but you can learn how to use the system pretty well, and you can learn how to get around it. After all, if you want a decision `No', you just go to your boss and get a `No' easy. If you want to do something, don't ask, do it. Present him with an accomplished fact. Don't give him a chance to tell you `No'. But if you want a `No', it's easy to get a `No'.

你会发现这种情况一次又一次地发生； 优秀的科学家将与系统作斗争，而不是学习与系统合作并利用系统提供的所有功能。 它有很多，如果你学会如何使用它。 这需要耐心，但您可以学习如何很好地使用该系统，并且可以学习如何绕过它。 毕竟，如果你想要一个“不”的决定，你只要去找你的老板，轻松地得到一个“不”。 如果你想做某事，不要问，去做吧。 向他展示一个已经完成的事实。 不要给他机会告诉你“不”。 但如果你想要一个“否”，很容易得到一个“否”。

Another personality defect is ego assertion and I'll speak in this case of my own experience. I came from Los Alamos and in the early days I was using a machine in New York at 590 Madison Avenue where we merely rented time. I was still dressing in western clothes, big slash pockets, a bolo and all those things. I vaguely noticed that I was not getting as good service as other people. So I set out to measure. You came in and you waited for your turn; I felt I was not getting a fair deal. I said to myself, ``Why? No Vice President at IBM said, `Give Hamming a bad time'. It is the secretaries at the bottom who are doing this. When a slot appears, they'll rush to find someone to slip in, but they go out and find somebody else. Now, why? I haven't mistreated them.'' Answer, I wasn't dressing the way they felt somebody in that situation should. It came down to just that - I wasn't dressing properly. I had to make the decision - was I going to assert my ego and dress the way I wanted to and have it steadily drain my effort from my professional life, or was I going to appear to conform better? I decided I would make an effort to appear to conform properly. The moment I did, I got much better service. And now, as an old colorful character, I get better service than other people.

另一个人格缺陷是自我主张，我将在这种情况下谈谈我自己的经历。 我来自洛斯阿拉莫斯，早期我在纽约麦迪逊大道 590 号使用一台机器，我们只是在那里租用时间。 我仍然穿着西装，大口袋，波洛和所有这些东西。 我隐约注意到我没有得到像其他人那样好的服务。 所以我开始测量。 你进来了，等着轮到你； 我觉得我没有得到公平的交易。 我对自己说，``为什么？ IBM 没有副总裁说过“让汉明难堪”。 是底下的书记在干这事。 当空位出现时，他们会急着找人溜进去，但他们会出去寻找其他人。 现在，为什么？ 我没有虐待他们。''回答，我没有按照他们认为处于那种情况的人应该穿的方式穿着。 归根结底就是——我穿得不合适。 我必须做出决定——我是要坚持我的自我，按照我想要的方式穿衣，让它逐渐耗尽我在职业生涯中的努力，还是我要表现得更好？ 我决定努力表现得合规。 我这样做的那一刻，我得到了更好的服务。 而现在，作为一个色彩斑斓的老角色，我得到了比其他人更好的服务。

You should dress according to the expectations of the audience spoken to. If I am going to give an address at the MIT computer center, I dress with a bolo and an old corduroy jacket or something else. I know enough not to let my clothes, my appearance, my manners get in the way of what I care about. An enormous number of scientists feel they must assert their ego and do their thing their way. They have got to be able to do this, that, or the other thing, and they pay a steady price.

你应该根据听众的期望着装。 如果我要给麻省理工学院计算机中心一个地址，我会穿一件波洛衫和一件旧灯芯绒夹克或其他东西。 我知道不要让我的衣服、我的外表、我的举止妨碍我关心的事情。 大量科学家认为他们必须坚持自我，按照自己的方式做事。 他们必须能够做这个、那个或其他事情，并且他们付出稳定的代价。

John Tukey almost always dressed very casually. He would go into an important office and it would take a long time before the other fellow realized that this is a first-class man and he had better listen. For a long time John has had to overcome this kind of hostility. It's wasted effort! I didn't say you should conform; I said ``The appearance of conforming gets you a long way.'' If you chose to assert your ego in any number of ways, ``I am going to do it my way,'' you pay a small steady price throughout the whole of your professional career. And this, over a whole lifetime, adds up to an enormous amount of needless trouble.

John Tukey 几乎总是穿着很随意。 他会走进一个重要的办公室，过了很长时间，对方才意识到这是一流的人，他最好听听。 很长一段时间以来，约翰不得不克服这种敌意。 白费力气了！ 我没说你应该顺从； 我说“ 顺从的外表 会让你走得更远。”如果你选择以任何方式表达你的自我，“我会按照我的方式去做，”你在整个过程中付出了一个小而稳定的代价你的整个职业生涯。 而这，在整个一生中，加起来就是大量不必要的麻烦。

By taking the trouble to tell jokes to the secretaries and being a little friendly, I got superb secretarial help. For instance, one time for some idiot reason all the reproducing services at Murray Hill were tied up. Don't ask me how, but they were. I wanted something done. My secretary called up somebody at Holmdel, hopped the company car, made the hour-long trip down and got it reproduced, and then came back. It was a payoff for the times I had made an effort to cheer her up, tell her jokes and be friendly; it was that little extra work that later paid off for me. By realizing you have to use the system and studying how to get the system to do your work, you learn how to adapt the system to your desires. Or you can fight it steadily, as a small undeclared war, for the whole of your life.

通过不厌其烦地给秘书们讲笑话并表现出一点友善，我得到了出色的秘书帮助。 例如，有一次出于某种愚蠢的原因，Murray Hill 的所有复制服务都被捆绑了。 不要问我是怎么做到的，但他们确实是。 我想做点什么。 我的秘书给 Holmdel 的人打了电话，跳上公司的车，进行了长达一个小时的旅行并复制了它，然后又回来了。 这是我努力让她振作起来、给她讲笑话和表现友好的时候的回报； 正是这些额外的工作后来为我带来了回报。 通过意识到你必须使用这个系统并研究如何让这个系统为你工作，你就学会了如何让这个系统适应你的需要。 或者你可以在你的整个生命中，作为一场不宣而战的小规模战争，稳扎稳打。

And I think John Tukey paid a terrible price needlessly. He was a genius anyhow, but I think it would have been far better, and far simpler, had he been willing to conform a little bit instead of ego asserting. He is going to dress the way he wants all of the time. It applies not only to dress but to a thousand other things; people will continue to fight the system. Not that you shouldn't occasionally!

而且我认为约翰图基不必要地付出了可怕的代价。 无论如何，他是个天才，但我认为，如果他愿意顺应一点而不是自我主张，那会好得多，也简单得多。 他会一直按照他想要的方式穿着。 它不仅适用于服装，也适用于其他一千种东西； 人们将继续与体制作斗争。 不是说你不应该偶尔！

When they moved the library from the middle of Murray Hill to the far end, a friend of mine put in a request for a bicycle. Well, the organization was not dumb. They waited awhile and sent back a map of the grounds saying, ``Will you please indicate on this map what paths you are going to take so we can get an insurance policy covering you.'' A few more weeks went by. They then asked, ``Where are you going to store the bicycle and how will it be locked so we can do so and so.'' He finally realized that of course he was going to be red-taped to death so he gave in. He rose to be the President of Bell Laboratories.

当他们把图书馆从 Murray Hill 的中间搬到远端时，我的一个朋友提出要一辆自行车的请求。 好吧，这个组织并不愚蠢。 他们等了一会儿，寄回了一张场地地图，说：“请你在这张地图上标明你要走的路，这样我们就可以为你投保。”又过了几个星期。 然后他们问：“你打算把自行车存放在哪里？如何锁好，这样我们才能这样做。”他终于意识到，他当然会被繁文缛节处死，所以他屈服了. 他升任贝尔实验室总裁。

Barney Oliver was a good man. He wrote a letter one time to the IEEE. At that time the official shelf space at Bell Labs was so much and the height of the IEEE Proceedings at that time was larger; and since you couldn't change the size of the official shelf space he wrote this letter to the IEEE Publication person saying, ``Since so many IEEE members were at Bell Labs and since the official space was so high the journal size should be changed.'' He sent it for his boss's signature. Back came a carbon with his signature, but he still doesn't know whether the original was sent or not. I am not saying you shouldn't make gestures of reform. I am saying that my study of able people is that they don't get themselves committed to that kind of warfare. They play it a little bit and drop it and get on with their work.

巴尼奥利弗是个好人。 有一次他给 IEEE 写了一封信。 当时贝尔实验室的官方书架空间很大，当时的 IEEE Proceedings 的高度更大； 并且由于您无法更改官方书架空间的大小，他写了这封给 IEEE 出版人员的信说，``由于贝尔实验室有这么多 IEEE 成员，而且由于官方空间太大，期刊大小应该改变.''他把它寄给了他的老板签名。 回来的是一张有他签名的复写本，但他仍然不知道原件是否寄出。 我并不是说你不应该做出改革的姿态。 我是说我对有能力的人的研究表明他们不会让自己 投入 到那种战争中。 他们玩了一会儿就放下了，继续他们的工作。

Many a second-rate fellow gets caught up in some little twitting of the system, and carries it through to warfare. He expends his energy in a foolish project. Now you are going to tell me that somebody has to change the system. I agree; somebody's has to. Which do you want to be? The person who changes the system or the person who does first-class science? Which person is it that you want to be? Be clear, when you fight the system and struggle with it, what you are doing, how far to go out of amusement, and how much to waste your effort fighting the system. My advice is to let somebody else do it and you get on with becoming a first-class scientist. Very few of you have the ability to both reform the system and become a first-class scientist.

许多二流人物陷入了系统的一些小问题，并将其带到了战争中。 他将精力耗费在一个愚蠢的项目上。 现在你要告诉我必须有人改变系统。 我同意; 有人必须。 你想成为哪个？ 改变制度的人还是做一流科学的人？ 你想成为什么样的人？ 要清楚，当你与系统作斗争并与之抗争时，你在做什么，离娱乐有多远，以及你在与系统作斗争时浪费了多少精力。 我的建议是让别人去做，然后你继续成为一流的科学家。 你们中很少有人既有能力改革体制 ，又能 成为一流的科学家。

On the other hand, we can't always give in. There are times when a certain amount of rebellion is sensible. I have observed almost all scientists enjoy a certain amount of twitting the system for the sheer love of it. What it comes down to basically is that you cannot be original in one area without having originality in others. Originality is being different. You can't be an original scientist without having some other original characteristics. But many a scientist has let his quirks in other places make him pay a far higher price than is necessary for the ego satisfaction he or she gets. I'm not against all ego assertion; I'm against some.

另一方面，我们不能总是屈服。有时候，一定程度的叛逆是明智的。 我观察到几乎所有的科学家都喜欢对这个系统进行一定程度的推特，纯粹是出于对它的热爱。 归根结底，如果你在其他领域没有独创性，就不可能在一个领域独树一帜。 原创就是与众不同。 如果没有其他一些原始特征，你就不能成为原始科学家。 但是许多科学家让他在其他地方的怪癖使他付出的代价远远超过他或她获得自我满足所必需的代价。 我并不反对所有的自我主张； 我反对一些。

Another fault is anger. Often a scientist becomes angry, and this is no way to handle things. Amusement, yes, anger, no. Anger is misdirected. You should follow and cooperate rather than struggle against the system all the time.

另一个错误是愤怒。 科学家经常生气，这不是办法。 娱乐，是的，愤怒，不是。 愤怒被误导了。 你应该跟随和配合，而不是一直与系统作斗争。

Another thing you should look for is the positive side of things instead of the negative. I have already given you several examples, and there are many, many more; how, given the situation, by changing the way I looked at it, I converted what was apparently a defect to an asset. I'll give you another example. I am an egotistical person; there is no doubt about it. I knew that most people who took a sabbatical to write a book, didn't finish it on time. So before I left, I told all my friends that when I come back, that book was going to be done! Yes, I would have it done - I'd have been ashamed to come back without it! I used my ego to make myself behave the way I wanted to. I bragged about something so I'd have to perform. I found out many times, like a cornered rat in a real trap, I was surprisingly capable. I have found that it paid to say, ``Oh yes, I'll get the answer for you Tuesday,'' not having any idea how to do it. By Sunday night I was really hard thinking on how I was going to deliver by Tuesday. I often put my pride on the line and sometimes I failed, but as I said, like a cornered rat I'm surprised how often I did a good job. I think you need to learn to use yourself. I think you need to know how to convert a situation from one view to another which would increase the chance of success.

您应该寻找的另一件事是事物积极的一面，而不是消极的一面。 我已经给你举了几个例子，还有很多很多； 在这种情况下，我如何通过改变我看待它的方式，将明显的缺陷转化为资产。 我再给你举个例子。 我是一个自负的人； 这个毋庸置疑。 我知道大多数利用休假写书的人都没有按时完成。 所以在我离开之前，我告诉我所有的朋友，当我回来的时候，那本书就要完成了！ 是的，我会完成的——没有它我会很惭愧地回来！ 我用我的自我让自己按照我想要的方式行事。 我吹嘘某件事，所以我必须表演。 很多时候，我发现自己就像一只真正落入陷阱的走投无路的老鼠，我的能力出奇的好。 我发现说，“哦，是的，我会在星期二给你答案，”但不知道该怎么做是值得的。 到星期天晚上，我真的很努力地思考我将如何在星期二之前交付。 我经常把我的自尊置于危险之中，有时我会失败，但正如我所说，就像一只走投无路的老鼠，我很惊讶我经常做得很好。 我认为你需要学会使用自己。 我认为您需要知道如何将情况从一种观点转换为另一种观点，这将增加成功的机会。

Now self-delusion in humans is very, very common. There are enumerable ways of you changing a thing and kidding yourself and making it look some other way. When you ask, ``Why didn't you do such and such,'' the person has a thousand alibis. If you look at the history of science, usually these days there are 10 people right there ready, and we pay off for the person who is there first. The other nine fellows say, ``Well, I had the idea but I didn't do it and so on and so on.'' There are so many alibis. Why weren't you first? Why didn't you do it right? Don't try an alibi. Don't try and kid yourself. You can tell other people all the alibis you want. I don't mind. But to yourself try to be honest.

现在人类的自欺欺人非常非常普遍。 有无数种方法可以改变事物并自欺欺人并使其看起来像其他方式。 当你问“你为什么不做某事”时，这个人有一千个不在场证明。 如果你看看科学史，现在通常有 10 个人在那里准备好了，我们为第一个到场的人付出代价。 其他九个人说，“好吧，我有这个想法，但我没有去做等等等等。”有太多的不在场证明。 为什么你不是第一个？ 你为什么不做对？ 不要尝试不在场证明。 不要试图自欺欺人。 你可以告诉其他人你想要的所有不在场证明。 我不介意。 但对自己要诚实。

If you really want to be a first-class scientist you need to know yourself, your weaknesses, your strengths, and your bad faults, like my egotism. How can you convert a fault to an asset? How can you convert a situation where you haven't got enough manpower to move into a direction when that's exactly what you need to do? I say again that I have seen, as I studied the history, the successful scientist changed the viewpoint and what was a defect became an asset.

如果你真的想成为一流的科学家，你需要了解你自己，你的弱点，你的长处，你的缺点，就像我的自负。 如何将故障转化为资产？ 您如何才能将没有足够人力的情况转变为您需要做的方向呢？ 我再说一遍，当我研究历史时，我看到成功的科学家改变了观点，缺陷变成了资产。

In summary, I claim that some of the reasons why so many people who have greatness within their grasp don't succeed are: they don't work on important problems, they don't become emotionally involved, they don't try and change what is difficult to some other situation which is easily done but is still important, and they keep giving themselves alibis why they don't. They keep saying that it is a matter of luck. I've told you how easy it is; furthermore I've told you how to reform. Therefore, go forth and become great scientists!

总而言之，我声称，为什么那么多拥有伟大成就的人没有成功的部分原因是：他们没有致力于解决重要问题，他们没有投入情感，他们没有尝试改变相对于其他一些容易完成但仍然很重要的情况来说困难的事情，他们不断给自己找借口，为什么他们不这样做。 他们一直说这是运气问题。 我已经告诉过你这是多么容易； 而且我已经告诉你怎么改革了。 因此，去成为伟大的科学家吧！

DISCUSSION - QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

讨论——问题和答案

A. G. Chynoweth: Well that was 50 minutes of concentrated wisdom and observations accumulated over a fantastic career; I lost track of all the observations that were striking home. Some of them are very very timely. One was the plea for more computer capacity; I was hearing nothing but that this morning from several people, over and over again. So that was right on the mark today even though here we are 20 - 30 years after when you were making similar remarks, Dick. I can think of all sorts of lessons that all of us can draw from your talk. And for one, as I walk around the halls in the future I hope I won't see as many closed doors in Bellcore. That was one observation I thought was very intriguing.

AG Chynoweth： 嗯，那是 50 分钟的集中智慧和观察，是在出色的职业生涯中积累的； 我忘记了所有触及要点的观察结果。 其中一些非常非常及时。 一是要求增加计算机容量； 今天早上我从几个人那里听到过，一遍又一遍。 因此，即使在您发表类似言论 20 到 30 年后，这在今天也是正确的，迪克。 我能想到我们所有人都可以从您的谈话中吸取的各种教训。 其一，当我将来在大厅里走来走去时，我希望我不会在 Bellcore 看到那么多紧闭的门。 这是一个我认为非常有趣的观察结果。

Thank you very, very much indeed Dick; that was a wonderful recollection. I'll now open it up for questions. I'm sure there are many people who would like to take up on some of the points that Dick was making.

非常非常感谢迪克； 那是一段美好的回忆。 我现在打开它来提问。 我敢肯定，有很多人愿意接受 Dick 提出的一些观点。

Hamming: First let me respond to Alan Chynoweth about computing. I had computing in research and for 10 years I kept telling my management, ``Get that !&@#% machine out of research. We are being forced to run problems all the time. We can't do research because were too busy operating and running the computing machines.'' Finally the message got through. They were going to move computing out of research to someplace else. I was persona non grata to say the least and I was surprised that people didn't kick my shins because everybody was having their toy taken away from them. I went in to Ed David's office and said, ``Look Ed, you've got to give your researchers a machine. If you give them a great big machine, we'll be back in the same trouble we were before, so busy keeping it going we can't think. Give them the smallest machine you can because they are very able people. They will learn how to do things on a small machine instead of mass computing.'' As far as I'm concerned, that's how UNIX arose. We gave them a moderately small machine and they decided to make it do great things. They had to come up with a system to do it on. It is called UNIX!

Hamming： 首先让我回应 Alan Chynoweth 关于计算的问题。 我在研究中从事计算工作，10 年来我一直告诉我的管理层，``把那台 !&@#% 的机器从研究中拿走。 我们一直被迫运行问题。 我们无法进行研究，因为我们太忙于操作和运行计算机了。”最终消息传了过来。 他们打算将计算从研究中转移到其他地方。 至少可以说我是一个不受欢迎的人，我很惊讶人们没有踢我的小腿，因为每个人的玩具都被拿走了。 我走进 Ed David 的办公室说，‘看 Ed，你必须给你的研究人员一台机器。 如果你给他们一台很棒的大机器，我们会重蹈以前的覆辙，忙得不可开交。 给他们尽可能小的机器，因为他们是非常能干的人。 他们将学习如何在小型机器上而不是大规模计算上做事。'' 就我而言，这就是 UNIX 的起源。 我们给了他们一台中等规模的机器，他们决定让它做大事。 他们必须想出一个系统来做这件事。 它叫做 UNIX！

A. G. Chynoweth: I just have to pick up on that one. In our present environment, Dick, while we wrestle with some of the red tape attributed to, or required by, the regulators, there is one quote that one exasperated AVP came up with and I've used it over and over again. He growled that, ``UNIX was never a deliverable!''

AG Chynoweth： 我只需要接听那个。 在我们目前的环境中，迪克，当我们努力应对监管机构或监管机构要求的一些繁文缛节时，有一个引述是一位愤怒的 AVP 想出的，我一遍又一遍地使用它。 他咆哮着说，“UNIX 从来都不是可交付的产品！”

Question: What about personal stress? Does that seem to make a difference?

问： 个人压力如何？ 这似乎有所作为吗？

Hamming: Yes, it does. If you don't get emotionally involved, it doesn't. I had incipient ulcers most of the years that I was at Bell Labs. I have since gone off to the Naval Postgraduate School and laid back somewhat, and now my health is much better. But if you want to be a great scientist you're going to have to put up with stress. You can lead a nice life; you can be a nice guy or you can be a great scientist. But nice guys end last, is what Leo Durocher said. If you want to lead a nice happy life with a lot of recreation and everything else, you'll lead a nice life.

汉明： 是的，确实如此。 如果你不投入情感，它就不会。 在贝尔实验室工作的大部分时间里，我都患有早期溃疡。 后来我去了海军研究生院，稍微放松了一些，现在我的身体好多了。 但如果你想成为一名伟大的科学家，你将不得不忍受压力。 你可以过上美好的生活； 你可以是一个好人，也可以是一个伟大的科学家。 但好人最后结束，是 Leo Durocher 所说的。 如果你想过上美好幸福的生活，有很多娱乐活动和其他一切，你就会过上美好的生活。

Question: The remarks about having courage, no one could argue with; but those of us who have gray hairs or who are well established don't have to worry too much. But what I sense among the young people these days is a real concern over the risk taking in a highly competitive environment. Do you have any words of wisdom on this?

问： 关于有勇气的说法，没有人可以反驳； 但我们这些头发花白或地位稳固的人不必太担心。 但我最近在年轻人中感觉到的是，他们真正担心在竞争激烈的环境中承担风险。 你对此有什么妙语吗？

Hamming: I'll quote Ed David more. Ed David was concerned about the general loss of nerve in our society. It does seem to me that we've gone through various periods. Coming out of the war, coming out of Los Alamos where we built the bomb, coming out of building the radars and so on, there came into the mathematics department, and the research area, a group of people with a lot of guts. They've just seen things done; they've just won a war which was fantastic. We had reasons for having courage and therefore we did a great deal. I can't arrange that situation to do it again. I cannot blame the present generation for not having it, but I agree with what you say; I just cannot attach blame to it. It doesn't seem to me they have the desire for greatness; they lack the courage to do it. But we had, because we were in a favorable circumstance to have it; we just came through a tremendously successful war. In the war we were looking very, very bad for a long while; it was a very desperate struggle as you well know. And our success, I think, gave us courage and self confidence; that's why you see, beginning in the late forties through the fifties, a tremendous productivity at the labs which was stimulated from the earlier times. Because many of us were earlier forced to learn other things - we were forced to learn the things we didn't want to learn, we were forced to have an open door - and then we could exploit those things we learned. It is true, and I can't do anything about it; I cannot blame the present generation either. It's just a fact.

Hamming： 我会更多地引用 Ed David。 Ed David 担心我们社会普遍丧失勇气。 在我看来，我们确实经历了不同的时期。 从战争中走出来，从制造炸弹的洛斯阿拉莫斯走出来，从制造雷达走出来等等，来到了数学系和研究领域，一群胆子很大的人。 他们刚刚看到完成的事情； 他们刚刚赢得了一场精彩的战争。 我们有勇气的理由，因此我们做了很多。 我不能安排那种情况再做一次。 我不能责怪当代人没有它，但我同意你的说法； 我不能责怪它。 在我看来，他们似乎没有对伟大的渴望； 他们缺乏这样做的勇气。 但是我们拥有了，因为我们处于有利的环境中拥有它； 我们刚刚经历了一场非常成功的战争。 在战争中，我们有很长一段时间看起来非常非常糟糕。 众所周知，这是一场非常绝望的斗争。 我认为，我们的成功给了我们勇气和自信； 这就是为什么你会看到，从四十年代后期到五十年代，在早期的刺激下，实验室出现了巨大的生产力。 因为我们中的许多人早些时候被迫学习其他东西——我们被迫学习我们不想学习的东西，我们被迫敞开大门——然后我们可以利用我们学到的东西。 这是真的，我对此无能为力； 我也不能责怪当代人。 这只是一个事实。

Question: Is there something management could or should do?

问题： 管理层可以或应该做什么？

Hamming: Management can do very little. If you want to talk about managing research, that's a totally different talk. I'd take another hour doing that. This talk is about how the individual gets very successful research done in spite of anything the management does or in spite of any other opposition. And how do you do it? Just as I observe people doing it. It's just that simple and that hard!

Hamming： 管理层无能为力。 如果您想谈论管理研究，那是完全不同的话题。 我会再花一个小时。 这个演讲是关于个人如何在管理层所做的任何事情或任何其他反对意见的情况下完成非常成功的研究。 你是怎么做到的？ 就像我观察人们这样做一样。 就是这么简单又这么难！

Question: Is brainstorming a daily process?

问题： 头脑风暴是日常过程吗？

Hamming: Once that was a very popular thing, but it seems not to have paid off. For myself I find it desirable to talk to other people; but a session of brainstorming is seldom worthwhile. I do go in to strictly talk to somebody and say, ``Look, I think there has to be something here. Here's what I think I see ...'' and then begin talking back and forth. But you want to pick capable people. To use another analogy, you know the idea called the `critical mass.' If you have enough stuff you have critical mass. There is also the idea I used to call `sound absorbers'. When you get too many sound absorbers, you give out an idea and they merely say, ``Yes, yes, yes.'' What you want to do is get that critical mass in action; ``Yes, that reminds me of so and so,'' or, ``Have you thought about that or this?'' When you talk to other people, you want to get rid of those sound absorbers who are nice people but merely say, ``Oh yes,'' and to find those who will stimulate you right back.

Hamming： 曾经那是一件非常流行的事情，但它似乎并没有得到回报。 就我自己而言，我发现与其他人交谈是可取的； 但是头脑风暴会议很少值得。 我确实进去严格地与某人交谈并说，``看，我认为这里必须有一些东西。 这就是我认为我看到的……”然后开始来回交谈。 但是你想挑选有能力的人。 打个比方，你知道所谓的“临界质量”。 如果你有足够的东西，你就有了临界质量。 还有一个我曾经称之为“吸音器”的想法。 当你有太多的吸音器时，你给出了一个想法，他们只是说，“是的，是的，是的。”你想要做的就是让那个临界质量起作用； “是的，这让我想起了某某，”或者，“你有没有想过那个或这个？”当你和其他人交谈时，你想要摆脱那些吸音者，他们是好人，但只是说，“哦，是的，”然后找到那些会立即刺激你的人。

For example, you couldn't talk to John Pierce without being stimulated very quickly. There were a group of other people I used to talk with. For example there was Ed Gilbert; I used to go down to his office regularly and ask him questions and listen and come back stimulated. I picked my people carefully with whom I did or whom I didn't brainstorm because the sound absorbers are a curse. They are just nice guys; they fill the whole space and they contribute nothing except they absorb ideas and the new ideas just die away instead of echoing on. Yes, I find it necessary to talk to people. I think people with closed doors fail to do this so they fail to get their ideas sharpened, such as ``Did you ever notice something over here?'' I never knew anything about it - I can go over and look. Somebody points the way. On my visit here, I have already found several books that I must read when I get home. I talk to people and ask questions when I think they can answer me and give me clues that I do not know about. I go out and look!

例如，如果不很快受到刺激，你就无法与约翰皮尔斯交谈。 我曾经和一群其他人交谈过。 例如有埃德·吉尔伯特； 我以前经常去他的办公室问他问题，听他说完，然后兴奋地回来。 我仔细挑选了我的人，我和谁一起集思广益，或者我没有和谁一起集思广益，因为吸音器是一个诅咒。 他们只是好人； 他们填满了整个空间，除了吸收想法之外什么也没有贡献，而新想法只是消失而不是回响。 是的，我发现有必要与人交谈。 我认为闭门造车的人无法做到这一点，因此他们无法使自己的想法更加敏锐，例如“你有没有注意到这里有什么东西？”我对此一无所知——我可以过去看看。 有人指路。 在我访问这里时，我已经找到了几本书，我回家后一定要读一读。 当我认为他们可以回答我并提供我不知道的线索时，我会与人交谈并提出问题。 我出去看看！

Question: What kind of tradeoffs did you make in allocating your time for reading and writing and actually doing research?

问题： 您在分配阅读和写作时间以及实际进行研究方面做出了什么样的权衡？

Hamming: I believed, in my early days, that you should spend at least as much time in the polish and presentation as you did in the original research. Now at least 50% of the time must go for the presentation. It's a big, big number.

Hamming： 我认为，在我早期的日子里，你至少应该在润色和展示上花费与你在原始研究中花费的时间一样多的时间。 现在至少有 50% 的时间必须用于演示。 这是一个很大很大的数字。

Question: How much effort should go into library work?

Question: How much effort should go into library work?

Hamming: It depends upon the field. I will say this about it. There was a fellow at Bell Labs, a very, very, smart guy. He was always in the library; he read everything. If you wanted references, you went to him and he gave you all kinds of references. But in the middle of forming these theories, I formed a proposition: there would be no effect named after him in the long run. He is now retired from Bell Labs and is an Adjunct Professor. He was very valuable; I'm not questioning that. He wrote some very good Physical Review articles; but there's no effect named after him because he read too much. If you read all the time what other people have done you will think the way they thought. If you want to think new thoughts that are different, then do what a lot of creative people do - get the problem reasonably clear and then refuse to look at any answers until you've thought the problem through carefully how you would do it, how you could slightly change the problem to be the correct one. So yes, you need to keep up. You need to keep up more to find out what the problems are than to read to find the solutions. The reading is necessary to know what is going on and what is possible. But reading to get the solutions does not seem to be the way to do great research. So I'll give you two answers. You read; but it is not the amount, it is the way you read that counts.

Hamming： 这取决于领域。 我会说这个。 贝尔实验室有一个人，一个非常非常聪明的人。 他总是在图书馆； 他读了一切。 如果你想要推荐信，你去找他，他给了你各种推荐信。 但是在形成这些理论的过程中，我形成了一个命题：从长远来看，不会有以他命名的效果。 他现在从贝尔实验室退休，是一名兼职教授。 他很有价值； 我不是在质疑这一点。 他写了一些非常好的物理评论文章； 但是没有以他的名字命名的效果，因为他读书太多了。 如果你一直阅读其他人所做的事情，你就会以他们的方式思考。 如果你想有不同的新想法，那么就做很多有创造力的人所做的事情——把问题弄清楚，然后拒绝看任何答案，直到你仔细考虑了这个问题，你会怎么做，怎么做您可以稍微更改问题以使其成为正确的问题。 所以是的，你需要跟上。 与阅读以找到解决方案相比，您需要更多地了解问题所在。 阅读对于了解正在发生的事情以及可能发生的事情是必要的。 但是阅读以获得解决方案似乎并不是进行伟大研究的方式。 所以我会给你两个答案。 你读; 但重要的不是数量，而是你阅读的方式。

Question: How do you get your name attached to things?

问： 你是如何把你的名字附在事物上的？

Hamming: By doing great work. I'll tell you the hamming window one. I had given Tukey a hard time, quite a few times, and I got a phone call from him from Princeton to me at Murray Hill. I knew that he was writing up power spectra and he asked me if I would mind if he called a certain window a ``Hamming window.'' And I said to him, ``Come on, John; you know perfectly well I did only a small part of the work but you also did a lot.'' He said, ``Yes, Hamming, but you contributed a lot of small things; you're entitled to some credit.'' So he called it the hamming window. Now, let me go on. I had twitted John frequently about true greatness. I said true greatness is when your name is like ampere, watt, and fourier - when it's spelled with a lower case letter. That's how the hamming window came about.

Hamming： 通过出色的工作。 我会告诉你汉明窗。 我让 Tukey 很为难，好几次，我接到了他从普林斯顿打给我在 Murray Hill 的电话。 我知道他在写功率谱，他问我是否介意他把某个窗称为“汉明窗”。 你很清楚我只做了一小部分工作，但你也做了很多。”他说，“是的，海明，但你贡献了很多小东西； 你有权获得一些信用。”所以他称其为汉明窗。 现在，让我继续。 我经常和约翰谈论真正的伟大。 我说真正的伟大是当你的名字像安培、瓦特和傅里叶一样——当它用小写字母拼写的时候。 这就是汉明窗的由来。

Question: Dick, would you care to comment on the relative effectiveness between giving talks, writing papers, and writing books?

问题： 迪克，你愿意评论一下发表演讲、写论文和写书之间的相对有效性吗？

Hamming: In the short-haul, papers are very important if you want to stimulate someone tomorrow. If you want to get recognition long-haul, it seems to me writing books is more contribution because most of us need orientation. In this day of practically infinite knowledge, we need orientation to find our way. Let me tell you what infinite knowledge is. Since from the time of Newton to now, we have come close to doubling knowledge every 17 years, more or less. And we cope with that, essentially, by specialization. In the next 340 years at that rate, there will be 20 doublings, i.e. a million, and there will be a million fields of specialty for every one field now. It isn't going to happen. The present growth of knowledge will choke itself off until we get different tools. I believe that books which try to digest, coordinate, get rid of the duplication, get rid of the less fruitful methods and present the underlying ideas clearly of what we know now, will be the things the future generations will value. Public talks are necessary; private talks are necessary; written papers are necessary. But I am inclined to believe that, in the long-haul, books which leave out what's not essential are more important than books which tell you everything because you don't want to know everything. I don't want to know that much about penguins is the usual reply. You just want to know the essence.

Hamming： 在短期内，如果你想在明天激励某人，论文是非常重要的。 如果你想长期获得认可，在我看来，写书的贡献更大，因为我们大多数人都需要定位。 在这个知识几乎无限的时代，我们需要方向来找到自己的路。 让我告诉你什么是无限的知识。 从牛顿时代到现在，我们的知识几乎每 17 年翻一番，或多或少。 我们基本上是通过专业化来解决这个问题的。 按照这个速度，未来340年，会翻20倍，也就是100万，现在每个领域都会有100万个专业领域。 这不会发生。 在我们获得不同的工具之前，目前知识的增长将自我抑制。 我相信那些试图消化、协调、去除重复、去除效果不佳的方法并将我们现在所知道的基本思想清楚地呈现出来的书籍，将是后代所看重的。 公开演讲是必要的； 私下谈话是必要的； 书面文件是必要的。 但我倾向于相信，从长远来看，省去不必要内容的书比告诉你一切的书更重要，因为你不想知道一切。 我不想知道太多关于企鹅的事，这是通常的回答。 你只想知道本质。

Question: You mentioned the problem of the Nobel Prize and the subsequent notoriety of what was done to some of the careers. Isn't that kind of a much more broad problem of fame? What can one do?

问题： 你提到了诺贝尔奖的问题以及随后对某些职业所做的恶名。 这不是一个更广泛的名望问题吗？ 一个人能做什么？

Hamming: Some things you could do are the following. Somewhere around every seven years make a significant, if not complete, shift in your field. Thus, I shifted from numerical analysis, to hardware, to software, and so on, periodically, because you tend to use up your ideas. When you go to a new field, you have to start over as a baby. You are no longer the big mukity muk and you can start back there and you can start planting those acorns which will become the giant oaks. Shannon, I believe, ruined himself. In fact when he left Bell Labs, I said, ``That's the end of Shannon's scientific career.'' I received a lot of flak from my friends who said that Shannon was just as smart as ever. I said, ``Yes, he'll be just as smart, but that's the end of his scientific career,'' and I truly believe it was.

汉明： 您可以做的一些事情如下。 大约每七年的某个时候，你的领域就会发生重大的转变，即使不是完全的转变。 因此，我周期性地从数值分析转向硬件、软件等等，因为你往往会用尽你的想法。 到了一个新的领域，就得从头开始。 你不再是大橡树，你可以从那里开始，你可以开始种植那些会长成大橡树的橡子。 我相信，香农毁了自己。 事实上，当他离开贝尔实验室时，我说，“香农的科学生涯就此结束。”我的朋友们对我大加抨击，他们说香农一如既往的聪明。 我说，“是的，他会一样聪明，但那是他科学生涯的终点，”我真的相信它是。

You have to change. You get tired after a while; you use up your originality in one field. You need to get something nearby. I'm not saying that you shift from music to theoretical physics to English literature; I mean within your field you should shift areas so that you don't go stale. You couldn't get away with forcing a change every seven years, but if you could, I would require a condition for doing research, being that you will change your field of research every seven years with a reasonable definition of what it means, or at the end of 10 years, management has the right to compel you to change. I would insist on a change because I'm serious. What happens to the old fellows is that they get a technique going; they keep on using it. They were marching in that direction which was right then, but the world changes. There's the new direction; but the old fellows are still marching in their former direction.

你必须改变。 一段时间后你会感到疲倦； 你在一个领域用尽了你的独创性。 你需要在附近买点东西。 我并不是说你要从音乐转向理论物理学再转向英国文学； 我的意思是在你的领域内，你应该转移领域，这样你就不会变得陈旧。 你不可能每七年强制改变一次，但如果可以的话，我会要求进行研究的条件，即你将每七年改变一次 你 的研究领域，并对它的含义做出合理的定义，或者10年后，管理层有权强制你改变。 我会坚持改变，因为我是认真的。 发生在老家伙身上的是他们开始使用一种技术； 他们继续使用它。 他们正朝着当时正确的方向前进，但世界发生了变化。 有新的方向； 但老家伙们仍在朝着他们以前的方向前进。

You need to get into a new field to get new viewpoints, and before you use up all the old ones. You can do something about this, but it takes effort and energy. It takes courage to say, ``Yes, I will give up my great reputation.'' For example, when error correcting codes were well launched, having these theories, I said, ``Hamming, you are going to quit reading papers in the field; you are going to ignore it completely; you are going to try and do something else other than coast on that.'' I deliberately refused to go on in that field. I wouldn't even read papers to try to force myself to have a chance to do something else. I managed myself, which is what I'm preaching in this whole talk. Knowing many of my own faults, I manage myself. I have a lot of faults, so I've got a lot of problems, i.e. a lot of possibilities of management.

你需要进入一个新的领域以获得新的观点，并且 之前 在你用完所有旧观点 。 你可以为此做点什么，但这需要付出努力和精力。 说“是的，我会放弃我的伟大声誉”需要勇气。例如，当纠错码很好地推出时，有了这些理论，我说，“海明，你要停止阅读论文了场; 你将完全忽略它； 你要尝试做一些其他的事情，而不是靠岸。''我故意拒绝在那个领域继续下去。 我什至不会为了强迫自己有机会做其他事情而阅读论文。 我管理好自己，这就是我在整个演讲中所宣扬的。 知道自己的许多缺点，我管理自己。 我有很多缺点，所以我有很多问题，即很多管理的可能性。

Question: Would you compare research and management?

问题： 你会比较研究和管理吗？

Hamming: If you want to be a great researcher, you won't make it being president of the company. If you want to be president of the company, that's another thing. I'm not against being president of the company. I just don't want to be. I think Ian Ross does a good job as President of Bell Labs. I'm not against it; but you have to be clear on what you want. Furthermore, when you're young, you may have picked wanting to be a great scientist, but as you live longer, you may change your mind. For instance, I went to my boss, Bode, one day and said, ``Why did you ever become department head? Why didn't you just be a good scientist?'' He said, ``Hamming, I had a vision of what mathematics should be in Bell Laboratories. And I saw if that vision was going to be realized, I had to make it happen; I had to be department head.'' When your vision of what you want to do is what you can do single-handedly, then you should pursue it. The day your vision, what you think needs to be done, is bigger than what you can do single-handedly, then you have to move toward management. And the bigger the vision is, the farther in management you have to go. If you have a vision of what the whole laboratory should be, or the whole Bell System, you have to get there to make it happen. You can't make it happen from the bottom very easily. It depends upon what goals and what desires you have. And as they change in life, you have to be prepared to change. I chose to avoid management because I preferred to do what I could do single-handedly. But that's the choice that I made, and it is biased. Each person is entitled to their choice. Keep an open mind. But when you do choose a path, for heaven's sake be aware of what you have done and the choice you have made. Don't try to do both sides.

Hamming: If you want to be a great researcher, you won't make it being president of the company. If you want to be president of the company, that's another thing. I'm not against being president of the company. I just don't want to be. I think Ian Ross does a good job as President of Bell Labs. I'm not against it; but you have to be clear on what you want. Furthermore, when you're young, you may have picked wanting to be a great scientist, but as you live longer, you may change your mind. For instance, I went to my boss, Bode, one day and said, ``Why did you ever become department head? Why didn't you just be a good scientist?'' He said, ``Hamming, I had a vision of what mathematics should be in Bell Laboratories. And I saw if that vision was going to be realized, I had to make it happen; I had to be department head.'' When your vision of what you want to do is what you can do single-handedly, then you should pursue it. The day your vision, what you think needs to be done, is bigger than what you can do single-handedly, then you have to move toward management. And the bigger the vision is, the farther in management you have to go. If you have a vision of what the whole laboratory should be, or the whole Bell System, you have to get there to make it happen. You can't make it happen from the bottom very easily. It depends upon what goals and what desires you have. And as they change in life, you have to be prepared to change. I chose to avoid management because I preferred to do what I could do single-handedly. But that's the choice that I made, and it is biased. Each person is entitled to their choice. Keep an open mind. But when you do choose a path, for heaven's sake be aware of what you have done and the choice you have made. Don't try to do both sides.

Question: How important is one's own expectation or how important is it to be in a group or surrounded by people who expect great work from you?

问题： 一个人自己的期望有多重要，或者在一个团队中或被期望你出色工作的人包围有多重要？

Hamming: At Bell Labs everyone expected good work from me - it was a big help. Everybody expects you to do a good job, so you do, if you've got pride. I think it's very valuable to have first-class people around. I sought out the best people. The moment that physics table lost the best people, I left. The moment I saw that the same was true of the chemistry table, I left. I tried to go with people who had great ability so I could learn from them and who would expect great results out of me. By deliberately managing myself, I think I did much better than laissez faire.

Hamming： 在贝尔实验室，每个人都期望我能做出出色的工作——这是一个很大的帮助。 每个人都希望你做好工作，如果你有自尊心，你就会做到。 我觉得有一流的人在身边是很有价值的。 我寻找最好的人。 物理表失去最优秀人才的那一刻，我就离开了。 当我看到化学表也是如此时，我就离开了。 我试着和有能力的人一起工作，这样我就可以向他们学习，他们会期望我能取得好成绩。 通过有意识地管理自己，我认为我做得比放任自流要好得多。

Question: You, at the outset of your talk, minimized or played down luck; but you seemed also to gloss over the circumstances that got you to Los Alamos, that got you to Chicago, that got you to Bell Laboratories.

问题： 在您的谈话开始时，您将运气降到最低或轻描淡写； 但你似乎也掩盖了将你带到洛斯阿拉莫斯、将你带到芝加哥、将你带到贝尔实验室的情况。

Hamming: There was some luck. On the other hand I don't know the alternate branches. Until you can say that the other branches would not have been equally or more successful, I can't say. Is it luck the particular thing you do? For example, when I met Feynman at Los Alamos, I knew he was going to get a Nobel Prize. I didn't know what for. But I knew darn well he was going to do great work. No matter what directions came up in the future, this man would do great work. And sure enough, he did do great work. It isn't that you only do a little great work at this circumstance and that was luck, there are many opportunities sooner or later. There are a whole pail full of opportunities, of which, if you're in this situation, you seize one and you're great over there instead of over here. There is an element of luck, yes and no. Luck favors a prepared mind; luck favors a prepared person. It is not guaranteed; I don't guarantee success as being absolutely certain. I'd say luck changes the odds, but there is some definite control on the part of the individual.

海明： 有一些运气。 另一方面，我不知道备用分支。 直到你可以说其他分支不会同样或更成功，我不能说。 你做的某件事是运气吗？ 例如，当我在洛斯阿拉莫斯遇到费曼时，我知道他将获得诺贝尔奖。 我不知道为什么。 但我非常清楚他会做得很好。 不管将来出现什么方向，这个人都会做得很好。 果然，他确实做得很好。 并不是说你在这种情况下只做了一点大事，那是运气，迟早会有很多机会。 有一大堆机会，如果你处于这种情况，你抓住一个机会，你在那里而不是在这里很棒。 有运气成分，是和不是。 幸运偏爱有准备的头脑； 幸运眷顾有准备的人。 不能保证； 我不保证成功是绝对肯定的。 我会说运气改变了几率，但个人有一定的控制权。

Go forth, then, and do great work!

那么，出去吧，做伟大的工作！

[1] http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html

[1] http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html

I think I am at least somewhat more productive than average, and people sometimes ask me for productivity tips.  So I decided to just write them all down in one place.

我觉得我是 至少比平均水平高一些，人们有时会问我 生产力提示。 所以我决定把它们全部写在一个地方。

Compound growth gets discussed as a financial concept, but it works in careers as well, and it is magic.  A small productivity gain, compounded over 50 years, is worth a lot.  So it’s worth figuring out how to optimize productivity. If you get 10% more done and 1% better every day compared to someone else, the compounded difference is massive. 

化合物 增长作为一个财务概念被讨论，但它也适用于职业， 这很神奇。 小生产力 50 年的复合收益，价值不菲。  因此，有必要弄清楚如何优化生产力。 如果你得到 10% 与其他人相比，每天做得更多，进步 1%，复合 差异是巨大的。

What you work on

你在做什么

It doesn’t matter how fast you move if it’s in a worthless direction.  Picking the right thing to work on is the most important element of productivity and usually almost ignored.  So think about it more!  Independent thought is hard but it’s something you can get better at with practice.

它没有 如果它朝着毫无价值的方向移动，那么无论你移动多快。 选择正确的工作是 生产力最重要的要素，通常几乎被忽略。 所以多想想吧！ 独立思考很难，但它是 一些你可以通过练习变得更好的东西。

The most impressive people I know have strong beliefs about the world, which is rare in the general population.  If you find yourself always agreeing with whomever you last spoke with, that’s bad.  You will of course be wrong sometimes, but develop the confidence to stick with your convictions.  It will let you be courageous when you’re right about something important that most people don’t see.

最多 我认识的令人印象深刻的人对世界有强烈的信念，这在 一般人口。 如果你发现自己总是同意任何人的意见 你上次谈过，那很糟糕。 你 当然有时会出错，但要培养坚持下去的信心 你的信念。 它会让你成为 当您在大多数人都没有的重要事情上是正确的时，您会很勇敢 看。

I make sure to leave enough time in my schedule to think about what to work on.  The best ways for me to do this are reading books, hanging out with interesting people, and spending time in nature.

我确保 在我的日程安排中留出足够的时间来考虑要做什么。 最好的 我做到这一点的方法是读书，和有趣的人一起出去玩， 和花时间在大自然中。

I’ve learned that I can’t be very productive working on things I don’t care about or don’t like.  So I just try not to put myself in a position where I have to do them (by delegating, avoiding, or something else).  Stuff that you don’t like is a painful drag on morale and momentum.

我学过 在我不关心或不关心的事情上我不能很有成效地工作 喜欢。 所以我只是尽量不让自己处于必须做的位置 他们（通过委派、回避或其他方式）。 你不会的东西 喜欢是对士气和动力的痛苦拖累。

By the way, here is an important lesson about delegation: remember that everyone else is also most productive when they’re doing what they like, and do what you’d want other people to do for you—try to figure out who likes (and is good at) doing what, and delegate that way.  

顺便一提， 这是关于委派的一个重要教训：记住其他人也是 当他们做他们喜欢做的事并且做你希望其他人做的事时，他们的工作效率最高 为你做的人——试着弄清楚谁喜欢（并且擅长）做什么， 并以这种方式委托。

If you find yourself not liking what you’re doing for a long period of time, seriously consider a major job change.  Short-term burnout happens, but if it isn’t resolved with some time off, maybe it’s time to do something you’re more interested in. 

如果你发现 你自己很长一段时间都不喜欢你正在做的事情，说真的 考虑重大的工作变动。 短期倦怠会发生，但如果不是 休息一段时间解决，也许是时候做一些你更喜欢的事情了 有兴趣。

I’ve been very fortunate to find work I like so much I’d do it for free, which makes it easy to be really productive.

我一直很 幸运地找到了我非常喜欢的工作，我愿意免费做，这很容易 真正富有成效。

It’s important to learn that you can learn anything you want, and that you can get better quickly.  This feels like an unlikely miracle the first few times it happens, but eventually you learn to trust that you can do it.

这一点很重要 了解你可以学到任何你想学的东西，并且你可以变得更好 迅速地。 前几次这感觉像是一个不太可能的奇迹 发生了，但最终你学会相信你能做到。

Doing great work usually requires colleagues of some sort.  Try to be around smart, productive, happy, and positive people that don’t belittle your ambitions.  I love being around people who push me and inspire me to be better.  To the degree you able to, avoid the opposite kind of people—the cost of letting them take up your mental cycles is horrific. 

做的很好 工作通常需要某种同事。 试着聪明地待在身边， 富有成效、快乐和积极的人不会贬低你的抱负。 我喜欢和那些推动我的人在一起 激励我变得更好。 程度 你可以，避开相反类型的人——让他们占据的代价 你的心理周期太可怕了。

You have to both pick the right problem and do the work.  There aren’t many shortcuts.  If you’re going to do something really important, you are very likely going to work both smart and hard.  The biggest prizes are heavily competed for.  This isn’t true in every field (there are great mathematicians who never spend that many hours a week working) but it is in most.

你必须 两者都选择正确的问题并完成工作。 没有很多 捷径。 如果你要做 一些非常重要的事情，你很可能会既聪明又聪明地工作 难的。 最大的奖项竞争激烈。 并非在每个领域都是如此（有 伟大的数学家从来没有每周花那么多小时工作）但它是 多数情况。

Prioritization

优先顺序

My system has three key pillars: “Make sure to get the important shit done”, “Don’t waste time on stupid shit”, and “make a lot of lists”.

我的系统有 三个关键支柱：“确保完成重要的事情”，“不要浪费 愚蠢的狗屎时间”，以及“列出很多清单”。

I highly recommend using lists.  I make lists of what I want to accomplish each year, each month, and each day.  Lists are very focusing, and they help me with multitasking because I don’t have to keep as much in my head.  If I’m not in the mood for some particular task, I can always find something else I’m excited to do.

我高度 建议使用列表。 我列出了我想要完成的每一个 年、月、日。 清单非常有针对性，对我有帮助 多任务处理，因为我不必在脑子里想那么多。 如果我没有心情做某事 任务，我总能找到其他让我兴奋的事情。

I prefer lists written down on paper.  It’s easy to add and remove tasks.  I can access them during meetings without feeling rude.  I re-transcribe lists frequently, which forces me to think about everything on the list and gives me an opportunity to add and remove items.

我更喜欢列表 写在纸上。 很容易添加 并删除任务。 我可以访问它们 在会议期间不会感到粗鲁。 我 经常重新抄录列表，这迫使我考虑列表中的所有内容 列出并让我有机会添加和删除项目。

I don’t bother with categorization or trying to size tasks or anything like that (the most I do is put a star next to really important items).  

我不打扰 通过分类或尝试确定任务的大小或类似的东西（我最多 做的是在真正重要的项目旁边放一个星号）。

I try to prioritize in a way that generates momentum.  The more I get done, the better I feel, and then the more I get done.  I like to start and end each day with something I can really make progress on.

我试着 以产生动力的方式确定优先顺序。 我做得越多， 我感觉越好，然后我就做得越多。  我喜欢以我真正能做的事情开始和结束每一天 进展。

I am relentless about getting my most important projects done—I’ve found that if I really want something to happen and I push hard enough, it usually happens. 

我是 坚持不懈地完成我最重要的项目——我发现如果我 真的很想发生什么事，而且我足够努力，它通常会发生。

I try to be ruthless about saying no to stuff, and doing non-critical things in the quickest way possible.  I probably take this too far—for example, I am almost sure I am terse to the point of rudeness when replying to emails.

我努力成为 无情地对事情说不，并且在工作中做非关键的事情 最快的方法。 我可能太过分了——例如，我 几乎可以肯定，我在回复电子邮件时会简洁到粗鲁的地步。

I generally try to avoid meetings and conferences as I find the time cost to be huge—I get the most value out of time in my office.  However, it is critical that you keep enough space in your schedule to allow for chance encounters and exposure to new people and ideas.  Having an open network is valuable; though probably 90% of the random meetings I take are a waste of time, the other 10% really make up for it.

我一般 尽量避免开会和会议，因为我发现时间成本很高——我得到 在我办公室最有价值的时间。 然而，重要的是你 在您的日程安排中留出足够的空间，以便有机会偶遇和接触 新的人和想法。 拥有一个开放的网络是有价值的； 尽管 大概 90% 的随机会议都是浪费时间，其他 10% 真的弥补了。

I find most meetings are best scheduled for 15-20 minutes, or 2 hours.  The default of 1 hour is usually wrong, and leads to a lot of wasted time.

我发现大多数会议最好安排在 15-20 分钟或 2 小时内。 默认的 1 小时通常是错误的，会导致大量时间浪费。

I have different times of day I try to use for different kinds of work.  The first few hours of the morning are definitely my most productive time of the day, so I don’t let anyone schedule anything then.  I try to do meetings in the afternoon.  I take a break, or switch tasks, whenever I feel my attention starting to fade. 

我有 我尝试在一天中的不同时间用于不同类型的工作。 这 早上的前几个小时绝对是我最有效率的时间 那天，所以我不会让任何人安排任何事情。 我试着开会 下午。 我休息一下，或者 切换任务，每当我觉得我的注意力开始消退时。

I don’t think most people value their time enough—I am surprised by the number of people I know who make $100 an hour and yet will spend a couple of hours doing something they don’t want to do to save $20.

我不认为 大多数人都非常珍惜他们的时间——我很惊讶我能 知道谁每小时赚 100 美元，但会花几个小时做某事 他们不想为了节省 20 美元而做。

Also, don’t fall into the trap of productivity porn—chasing productivity for its own sake isn’t helpful.  Many people spend too much time thinking about how to perfectly optimize their system, and not nearly enough asking if they’re working on the right problems.  It doesn’t matter what system you use or if you squeeze out every second if you’re working on the wrong thing.

还有，不要 陷入生产力色情的陷阱——为了自身的利益而追求生产力 没有帮助。 很多人花太多时间思考如何完美 优化他们的系统，并不足以询问他们是否正在研究 正确的问题。 无论您使用什么系统或是否挤压都没有关系 如果你在做错误的事情，每秒都会出错。

The right goal is to allocate your year optimally, not your day.

正确的目标 是最佳地分配你的一年，而不是你的一天。

Physical factors

物理因素

Very likely what is optimal for me won’t be optimal for you.  You’ll have to experiment to find out what works best for your body.  It’s definitely worth doing—it helps in all aspects of life, and you’ll feel a lot better and happier overall.

很可能 对我来说最佳的东西对你来说不一定是最佳的。 你必须 尝试找出最适合您身体的方法。 这绝对值得一做——它对所有方面都有帮助 生活的各个方面，你会感觉更好，更快乐。

It probably took a little bit of my time every week for a few years to arrive at what works best for me, but my sense is if I do a good job at all the below I’m at least 1.5x more productive than if not.

大概是 几年来我每周花一点时间来找到有效的方法 最适合我，但我的感觉是，如果我在以下所有方面都做得很好，我至少 1.5 倍的生产力比没有。

Sleep seems to be the most important physical factor in productivity for me.  Some sort of sleep tracker to figure out how to sleep best is helpful.  I’ve found the only thing I’m consistent with are in the set-it-and-forget-it category, and I really like the Emfit QS+Active.

睡眠似乎 对我来说是生产力中最重要的物理因素。 某种 了解如何睡得最好的睡眠追踪器很有帮助。 我找到了唯一 我坚持的东西属于一劳永逸的类别，而且我 非常喜欢 Emfit QS+Active 。

I like a cold, dark, quiet room, and a great mattress (I resisted spending a bunch of money on a great mattress for years, which was stupid—it makes a huge difference to my sleep quality.  I love this one).  Not eating a lot in the few hours before sleep helps.  Not drinking alcohol helps a lot, though I’m not willing to do that all the time.

我喜欢感冒， 黑暗、安静的房间和一张很棒的床垫（我拒绝花一大笔钱买 多年来一直是一个很棒的床垫，这很愚蠢——它对我的生活产生了巨大的影响 睡眠质量。 我喜欢 这个 ）。 睡前几个小时不要吃太多东西 帮助。 不过，不喝酒有很大帮助 我不愿意一直这样做。

I use a Chili Pad to be cold while I sleep if I can’t get the room cold enough, which is great but loud (I set it up to have the cooler unit outside my room).

我用 辣椒 是 如果我不能让房间足够冷，我睡觉时垫上冷垫，这 很棒但声音很大（我将其设置为在我的房间外放置冷却器）。

When traveling, I use an eye mask and ear plugs.

旅行时， 我使用 眼罩 和 耳塞 。

This is likely to be controversial, but I take a low dose of sleeping pills (like a third of a normal dose) or a very low dose of cannabis whenever I can’t sleep.  I am a bad sleeper in general, and a particularly bad sleeper when I travel.  It likely has tradeoffs, but so does not sleeping well.  If you can already sleep well, I wouldn’t recommend this.

这很有可能 有争议，但我服用低剂量的安眠药（如三分之一 正常剂量）或每当我无法入睡时服用非常低剂量的大麻。 我是 总的来说睡不好，旅行时睡得特别不好。 它可能有权衡， 但睡不好。 如果你 已经可以睡得很好了，我不会推荐这个。

I use a full spectrum LED light most mornings for about 10-15 minutes while I catch up on email.  It’s great—if you try nothing else in here, this is the thing I’d try.  It’s a ridiculous gain for me.  I like this one, and it’s easy to travel with.

我用一个完整的 光谱 LED 灯在大多数早晨大约 10-15 分钟，而我赶上了 电子邮件。 太棒了——如果你在这里什么都不尝试，这就是我想要的 尝试。 这对我来说是一个荒谬的收获。 我喜欢 这个 ，而且很容易带着它去旅行。

Exercise is probably the second most important physical factor.  I tried a number of different exercise programs for a few months each and the one that seemed best was lifting heavy weights 3x a week for an hour, and high intensity interval training occasionally.  In addition to productivity gains, this is also the exercise program that makes me feel the best overall.  

运动是 可能是第二重要的物理因素。 我尝试了一些 几个月的不同锻炼计划和看起来最好的那个 每周举重 3 次，持续一小时，高强度间歇训练 偶尔训练。 除了生产力的提高，这也是 让我感觉最好的锻炼计划。

The third area is nutrition.  I very rarely eat breakfast, so I get about 15 hours of fasting most days (except an espresso when I wake up).  I know this is contrary to most advice, and I suspect it’s not optimal for most people, but it definitely works well for me.

第三区 是营养。 我很少吃早餐，所以我有大约 15 个小时的 大多数日子禁食（除了我醒来时喝的浓缩咖啡）。 我知道这是相反的 大多数建议，我怀疑这对大多数人来说不是最佳选择，但它 绝对适合我。

Eating lots of sugar is the thing that makes me feel the worst and that I try hardest to avoid.  I also try to avoid foods that aggravate my digestion or spike up inflammation (for example, very spicy foods).  I don’t have much willpower when it comes to sweet things, so I mostly just try to keep junk food out of the house.

吃很多 糖是让我感觉最糟糕的东西，也是我最努力的东西 避免。 我也尽量避免吃会加重消化或增加消化的食物 炎症（例如，非常辛辣的食物）。 我没有太多的意志力 甜食，所以我基本上只是尽量让垃圾食品远离屋子。

I have one big shot of espresso immediately when I wake up and one after lunch.  I assume this is about 200mg total of caffeine per day.  I tried a few other configurations; this was the one that worked by far the best.  I otherwise aggressively avoid stimulants, but I will have more coffee if I’m super tired and really need to get something done.

我醒来后立即喝一大杯浓缩咖啡，午饭后喝一杯。 我假设这是 每天大约摄入 200 毫克咖啡因。 我 尝试了一些其他配置； 这是迄今为止效果最好的一个。 否则我会积极避免兴奋剂，但如果 我超级累，真的需要完成一些事情。

I’m vegetarian and have been since I was a kid, and I supplement methyl B-12, Omega-3, Iron, and Vitamin D-3.  I got to this list with a year or so of quarterly blood tests; it’s worked for me ever since (I re-test maybe every year and a half or so).  There are many doctors who will happily work with you on a super comprehensive blood test (and services like WellnessFX).  I also go out of my way to drink a lot of protein shakes, which I hate and I wouldn’t do if I weren’t vegetarian.

我是 我从小就是素食主义者，我补充甲基 B-12、Omega-3、铁和维生素 D-3。 我 通过一年左右的季度血液测试进入这份名单； 它对我有用 从那以后（我可能每年半左右重新测试一次）。 有许多 愿意与您一起进行超全面血液检查的医生（以及 等服务 WellnessFX ）。 我也出去 我喝很多蛋白质奶昔的方式，这是我讨厌的，如果我的话我也不会这样做 不是素食主义者。

Other stuff

Other stuff

Here’s what I like in a workspace: natural light, quiet, knowing that I won’t be interrupted if I don’t want to be, long blocks of time, and being comfortable and relaxed (I’ve got a beautiful desk with a couple of 4k monitors on it in my office, but I spend almost all my time on my couch with my laptop).

这就是我 就像在工作区：自然光，安静，知道我不会被打扰 如果我不想，很长一段时间，舒适和放松 （我的办公室里有一张漂亮的桌子，上面有几台 4k 显示器，但是 我几乎所有的时间都花在沙发上和我的笔记本电脑上）。

I wrote custom software for the annoying things I have to do frequently, which is great.  I also made an effort to learn to type really fast and the keyboard shortcuts that help with my workflow.

我写自定义 用于我不得不经常做的烦人事情的软件，这很棒。 我也努力学习快速打字和键盘 有助于我的工作流程的快捷方式。

Like most people, I sometimes go through periods of a week or two where I just have no motivation to do anything (I suspect it may have something to do with nutrition).  This sucks and always seems to happen at inconvenient times.  I have not figured out what to do about it besides wait for the fog to lift, and to trust that eventually it always does.  And I generally try to avoid people and situations that put me in bad moods, which is good advice whether you care about productivity or not.

最喜欢 人们，我有时会经历一两周的时间，我只是没有 做任何事的动机（我怀疑这可能与 营养）。 这很糟糕，而且似乎总是在不方便的时候发生 次。 我还没想好怎么办 关于它，除了等待迷雾散去，并相信最终它 总是这样。 我通常会尝试 避免让我心情不好的人和情况，这是个好建议 无论您是否关心生产力。

In general, I think it’s good to overcommit a little bit.  I find that I generally get done what I take on, and if I have a little bit too much to do it makes me more efficient at everything, which is a way to train to avoid distractions (a great habit to build!).  However, overcommitting a lot is disastrous.

一般来说，我 认为过度投入一点是好的。 我发现我通常会得到 完成了我承担的事情，如果我有太多事情要做，这会让我更有成就感 事事高效，这是一种避免分心的训练方式（一个很好的 养成习惯！）。 然而，过度投入是灾难性的。

Don’t neglect your family and friends for the sake of productivity—that’s a very stupid tradeoff (and very likely a net productivity loss, because you’ll be less happy).  Don’t neglect doing things you love or that clear your head either.

不要忽视 你的家人和朋友为了生产力——这是非常愚蠢的 权衡（很可能是净生产力损失，因为你会更少 快乐的）。 不要忽视做你喜欢做的事情或让你头脑清醒的事情 任何一个。

Finally, to repeat one more time: productivity in the wrong direction isn’t worth anything at all.  Think more about what to work on.

最后，到 再重复一次：错误方向的生产力毫无价值 根本。 多想想该做什么。