Before Einstein Was Awesome He Was Boring

The story has become lore.

Albert Einstein was a rebellious student who chafed against traditional schooling and earned bad grades. After his university education, his brilliance was overlooked by a conformist academy who refused to give him a professorship. Broke and unemployed, Einstein settled for a lowly job as a patent clerk.

But this turned out to be a blessing in disguise. Free from the bonds of conventional wisdom, he could think bold, original thoughts that changed the world of physics.

The reality, of course, is more complicated.

Einstein was a rebellious student, but he always received exceptional marks in math and physics in school and on entrance exams.

Einstein did struggle after college, but he wasn’t turned down for professorships. What he failed to obtain after graduation was a university assistantship — which is, roughly speaking, a way to fund a graduate student while he or she works on a doctoral dissertation (like what we now call a research assistantship in American graduate education).

This was not a case of his brilliance being ignored, because Einstein was too early in his education to have done anything brilliant yet (the paper on capillary action he published the year after his graduation was mediocre). The main reason for his assistantship rejection was a bad recommendation letter from a professor who didn’t like him.

The key detail often missed in this story is that while Einstein was a patent clerk, he was continuing to work toward his doctoral degree. He had an adviser, he was reading and writing, he met regularly with a study group (pictured above).



The same year Einstein published his ground breaking work on special relativity (1905) he also submitted his dissertation and earned his PhD. Soon after he received professorship offers, and his academic career took off.

In other words, Einstein had to work a job to support his family while earning his PhD (an exhausting turn of bad luck), but his career from university to graduate degree to professorship still followed a pretty standard trajectory and timeline.

A student may feel stifled by the rigid structure of a PhD program, as it limits the topics he may pursue and the scope of his research. But I argue this constraining structure is a good thing: it allows the student to focus and learn deeply the material and skills in his field, without the nagging concern that he must be ‘bold and creative’. It prevents students from trying to innovate without the prerequisite knowledge (and wasting time pursuing dead ends other people have explored already). 5+ years of doing grunt-level research builds enough knowledge to push the boundaries of science and ruminate on novel ideas.

Think of a high school kid trying to come up with breakthrough research in physics. Nearly impossible. The most he can do is reinvent the wheel. The same dynamic is at play for an undergrad before going through graduate school and being immersed in research for 5+ years.

This is the story everyone tells, but I don’t buy it. Are institutions really trying to stamp out inspiration in brilliant, but misunderstood individuals? I haven’t seen much evidence of that.



The tricky part to me is that it can be frustrating to maintain the drive to do something new and different through a long period where you’re not able to act on it yet. This seems to take a lot of self-confidence.

What would you say about Zukerberg? what would you say about plenty of fifteen year odd young kids who have their own startups and doing good from their first go ? Why do i start getting this feeling that you are only selecting examples that fit your theory , one contradictory example can ruin it.

The real world is full of stories all inclusive of people who put 10,000 hours before they become successful, people who are successful doing right thing at right time and being with right people (which some people call luck ), people who did follow their passion and become successful etc. Multiple theories could be true (Integrative Pluralism) . There could be many different phenomenons working for people become successful and make a difference .. Just my 0.02 cents.

Write Your Own E-mail Protocols

If you study the transcripts of most e-mail threads, the back and forth messaging will reveal a highly inefficient process for accomplishing the thread’s goal.

There’s a simple explanation for this reality. When most people (myself included) check e-mail, we’re often optimizing the wrong metric: the speed with which you clear messages.

Boosting this metric feels good in the moment — as if you’re really accomplishing something — but the side effect is ambiguous and minimally useful message that cause the threads to persist much longer than necessary, devouring your time and attention along the way.

I’m as guilty of this as anyone. For example, look at this terrible reply to a meeting request that I actually sent not long ago:

I’m definitely game to catch up this week.

Ugh. As I sent the above I knew that in the interest of replying as quickly as possible, I probably tripled the number of messages required before this meeting came to fruition.

E-mail Protocols

What’s the solution?

Here’s a tactic that I’ve sporadically toyed with and that seems to work well: when starting or first replying to an e-mail thread, include in your message a “protocol” which identifies the goal of the thread and outlines an efficient process for accomplishing the goal (where “efficient” usually means a process that minimizes the total number of e-mails sent).

Consider, for example, the following improved version of my above response:

I’m definitely game to catch up this week. See below…
—–
Here are three time and date combinations that work for me to talk this week. If any of these three work for you, choose one: I’ll consider your reply a confirmation of the call. You can reach me then at <number>.

If none of these work, reply with a few combinations that do work, and I’ll choose one.

Option #1: <date and time>

Option #2: <date and time>

Option #3: <date and time>

Notice the format of this message. It opens with the normal informal tone that people expect from e-mail, and then segregates the more systematic protocol portion under a dividing line. In this case, the sample protocol is designed to reduce the thread to two e-mail messages if at all possible.

Pros and Cons

The hard part about this strategy is that it takes a little more time to craft each of your messages. It returns, however, two important benefits…

The first benefit is obvious: a well-designed protocol will reduce the number of e-mails you send and receive, and therefore reduce the overall time you spend tending your inbox (even if the messages you do send take slightly longer to write).

The second benefit is less obvious in the abstract but clear in practice: you feel less stress. When you fire off a quick and ambiguous e-mail, your mind knows the related project is still open, and therefore it will reserve some mental space to keep worrying about it.

If you instead identify the relevant goal and lay out a clear process for accomplishing it, your mind believes things are handled, and it’s more willing to let it go.

I know it sounds weird, but it’s true: including protocols in your e-mail, though somewhat clunky and artificial, really does reduce the grip your inbox has on your mood and attention.

I don’t use this strategy nearly as much as I should, but whenever I do, it works wonders for me. If your inbox is frustrating you, it’s worth experimenting with. I’ll be interested to hear about your experience.

The E-mail Productivity Curve

A Mixed Response

Late last year, Pew Research found that online workers identified e-mail as their most important tool, beating out both phones and the Internet by sizable margins. Almost half of the workers surveyed claimed that the technology made them “feel more productive.”

As Pew summarized: “[e-mail] continues to be the main digital artery that workers believe is important to their job.”

Around the same time this research was released, however, Sir Cary Cooper, a professor of organizational psychology, made waves at the British Psychological Society’s annual conference by identifying British workers’ “macho,” always-connected e-mail culture as a factor in the UK’s falling productivity (it now has the second-lowest productivity in the G7).

Cooper went so far as to advocate companies shutting down their e-mail servers after work hours and perhaps even banning all internal e-mail communication.

This bipolar reaction to e-mail — either it’s fundamental to success or terrible — extends beyond research circles and often characterizes popular conversations about the technology.

So what explains this oddly mixed reaction?

I propose that the productivity curve at the top of this post provides some answers…

The E-mail Productivity Curve

The above curve shows the rise and fall of productivity (y-axis) as e-mail use (x-axis) increases from a minimum of no e-mail to a theoretical maximum of non-stop e-mail use.

Notice, at the left most extreme (i.e., no e-mail use) productivity remains healthily above zero. This captures the obvious reality that even if e-mail (and similar digital communication tools) were banned, companies could still get stuff done, as they did in the many decades before such technologies were introduced.

As we begin to move to the right (increasing e-mail use) productivity increases. This point should also be obvious.  It’s hard to argue against the proposition that e-mail is an immensely useful technology: universal addressing, instant information transfer, asynchronous storage and retrieval — these are all hard communication problems that e-mail solves elegantly.

As we continue to move to the right, however,  things get interesting.

Eventually we will arrive at a theoretical maximum point on the x-axis where all workers ever do is check and send e-mails. At this point, no time is left for any actual work, so productivity would be zero.

If we step back, we see our three obvious observations from above tell us the following about any curve that describes a measure of productivity versus increasing e-mail use: the curve will start above zero; it will rise for a while; and it will eventually decrease all the way down to zero.

Any curve matching these criteria will, like the sample curve above, features two crucial points: one where the productivity produced by e-mail use hits a maximum point (marked by the first blue X above), and a break-even point after which  e-mail use makes users less productive than if they didn’t have e-mail at all (the second blue X).

I propose that the mixed reaction to e-mail summarized at the beginning of this post can be better understood with respect to the different regions of this curve.

In more detail…

Those who aggressively defend the e-mail (like the workers surveyed by Pew), are responding to the reality that much of this productivity curve is above the no e-mail level. That is, they’re reacting to the true observation that e-mail can make you more productive than no e-mail.

Those who decry e-mail (like Cary Cooper), are responding to the reality that an increasing number of organizations are to the right of the first blue X (and perhaps even to the right of the second X), and therefore their e-mail habits are making them less productive than they could be if they were more discerning about their use of this technology.

It’s possible, in other words, for your e-mail use to be both making you more productive (as compared to no e-mail) and less productive (as compared to its optimal use).

Holding both these thoughts in one’s head at the same time can be confusing — thus explaining, to some degree, the muddled polarization of e-mail rhetoric.

Pursue Metrics that Matter

Three Measures of Success

I’ve been thinking recently about the metrics we use to measure success when pursuing self-motivated ambitions. These metrics tend to fall into three major categories, which I’ll list from easiest to hardest to achieve:

1. Participation Metrics: The goal here is to simply invest regular time toward the ambition. For example, if you want to become a writer, this might involve creating a daily writing ritual.

2. Unconventional Custom Metrics: The goal here is now clarified to specify concrete outcomes, but these outcomes tend to be custom-built and not widely recognized as marks of success in the field. Returning to our writer example, a custom path to success might steer toward self-publishing, with much of your focus now directed on mastering the technical mechanics of Scribner, KDP, freelance cover designs, and well-paced e-mail marketing campaigns.

3. Conventional Competitive Metrics: The goal here is to achieve outcomes that are widely recognized as impressive. In our writer example, this might be a big book deal with a major publisher.

The Power of Competition

When it comes to the three categories from above, I think the first category is reasonable for dabbling with a topic, but it won’t take you much farther than that, so you shouldn’t be satisfied with this measure of success for too long.

The second category is more worrisome.

These unconventional metrics are insidious because they provide enough illusion of accomplishment to keep hijacking your limited energy, but ultimately they rarely provide much return.

Should we age restrict porn – and if so, is it even viable?

Access to pornography is recurring subject of much debate and strong views, and it’s back in the news again. The Conservatives have vowed to take existing filtering one stage further if they win the 2015 general election – if the party wins they plan to force adult content sites to employ strict age verification or be blocked from the internet. But is it possible, should it be done and is such a strict practice really needed?
Where we are right now
Currently UK internet service providers are compelled to provide parental controls that can block access to adult content. On setting up a new home broadband connection in the UK, the bill payer is given a choice: to filter content under various headings, including pornography and piracy sites, or to deliver the internet without filters beyond illegal content.
The majority of UK ISPs provide granular controls for filtering various content and sites by type, but it is an active decision that must be taken before internet access is provided.
The tools are intended to help parents control access to content, but as with all internet filtering technology there are ways to route around the restrictions.
The Conservatives want to take filtering one stage further and force adult content sites to verify age beyond the simple “I am 18 or older” age gates that do not force users to prove that they are as old as they say they are.
Any site that does not comply with the age verification restrictions will be blocked from the internet by ISPs in the UK.
Isn’t age-restricting online porn a good idea?
On the face of it, verifying the age of viewers of hardcore pornography seems like a good idea – the content is designed and produced for adults and most parents would like to prevent their children from viewing it.
However, verifying age on the internet is a significant challenge. Most age verification relies on the possession of a credit card, which typically only those over the age of 18 can possess – but those as young as 13 can be issued with a pre-paid credit card, which behaves like a standard credit card but only uses funds preloaded into a virtual wallet.
Using a credit card to verify access to pornography also directly links an identifiable person with their viewing habits, while the process typically requires a charge on the credit card to verify possession and is therefore likely to damage adult content sites offering free access.
But perhaps the biggest challenge to the Conservatives’ plan is that circumventing age verification and blocking at the ISP level is relatively easy. A similar blockade of piracy sites, including the notorious Pirate Bay, has shown that users are willing to use virtual private networks, proxies and other technologies to easily route around the blockade.
Given that many sites are operated outside of the UK and the internet is a non-geographic entity, it is likely that those who cannot verify their age but want to view adult content will find a way of accessing it with little technical knowledge required.
Is it right that the government at least tries to implement an age verification system for adult content, and would legitimate viewers of hardcore pornography be comfortable with verifying their age and linking their viewing habits directly to themselves? Will it even perform the job it is supposed to do and prevent minors from accessing the content? And should the government really be doing this or should it be down to the parents to control their children’s access to the internet?
Tells us your views in the comments below.

Nearly 1m birds were killed on British military base in Cyprus, says RSPB

Almost a million birds were illegally killed in just two months on a British military base in Cyprus last year, according to the RSPB.
Dr Tim Stowe, the RSPB’s international director, called on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to do more to stop local poachers, who reportedly took 15,000 birds every day during September and October from British Dhekelia Sovereign Base Area (SBA).
“The report highlights the illegal trapping of songbirds on the British military base has escalated and we are urging the Ministry of Defence and the Base Area authorities to resolve it before this autumn’s migration,” said Stowe.
But the MoD rejected the RSPB’s findings and questioned the methodology of the survey.
“We do not accept the report’s unverified claims about loss of bird life during this period, which was based upon data collected from a very short period,” said an MoD spokeswoman.
“We are committed to tackling poaching which is why we arrested nearly 50 poachers and seized 450 nets and 286 piece of poaching equipment during the last migration period. When we catch poachers we can fine them €17,000, or send them to prison for up to three years. We continue to work with local organisations to discuss how we can work as effectively as possible.”

A rare male Cyprus warbler, one of the species at risk of being captured. Photograph: Alamy

RSPB overseas territories team leader Jonathan Hall said the MoD had signed off on the 12 year old survey’s methodology and that, if anything, the numbers were conservative.
“It is unfortunate to be questioning something which they previously accepted. We are confident that the methodology is as robust as we can make it, does allow valid year on year comparisons, and that our real priority is to direct energy towards solving the problem,” he said.
BBC wildlife presenter Chris Packham, who has reported extensively from Cyprus and campaigned against the bird hunt said he believed the numbers, which were gathered in conjuction with Birdlife Cyprus.
“Birdlife and the RSPB are highly credible organizations and could and would not be guilty of exaggeration . So yes , incredible but credible . As for the base , its a disgrace that these figures are so high but perhaps in times of hefty cuts to their resources and significant military duties their focus has been understandably elsewhere .
“I’ve worked with the bases on Cyprus before , and know of their commitment , so I am again confident that action will be taken now. However, what about what is going on off the bases ? The Cypriot government need to be seriously reprimanded and reminded of their duties to uphold their laws to protect birds , something our government should be lobbying for.”
The RSPB believe that organised crime groups are now involved in the sale of the birds’ meat as a black market delicacy. Their monitors have noted the large scale planting of acacia scrub that both attracts birds and creates corridors for poachers’ nets to hang. Stowe said the military had made good initial steps to remove acacia scrub.
Each autumn, vast numbers of songbirds use Cyprus as a place to rest and feed as they migrate south from Europe to Africa. For centuries Cypriots have hunted the birds each September and October to make a local dish called Ambelopoulia.
Traditionally trapping was done using branches covered in sticky lime that birds would land on and be unable to escape. But the invention of large-scale, indiscriminate netting techniques that capture thousands of birds, including threatened species, lead to the outlawing of both the dish and the hunting in 1974.
Despite the ban, those in the know can still find Ambelopoulia in the local tavernas and illicit demand is driving number of birds killed to unprecedented levels. The RSPB said the amount of birds captured in Dhekelia has tripled since their monitoring started in 2002.
The majority of the birds captured by the poachers are common species such as robin and blackcap and the practice of netting them has a negligible effect on their conservation. The RSPB said the practice is problematic because it also captures rare species including the Cyprus wheatear and Cyprus warbler.
The SBA is home to almost 16,000 people, half of them British military personnel and half Cypriots. The RSPB has suggested the MoD is loathe to come down too hard on the poachers because it will antagonise the local community.

---

Discussion About Difference Between Study Skills and Techniques

Some people are scared they'll mess up their Bibles. Don't be. Make notes in the margins of your Bible and highlight passages that touch your heart. This makes it easier to sit down from time to time and revisit the things you've learned. Use a mini post-it so that the revelation you received will be there waiting for you next time you flip past. 

Instead of using bookmarks, use small sticky tabs to indicate verses you want to come back to or meditate on. This way, you can color code your study topics by using different colored tabs, and even keep track of more scriptures. It creates a visible, physical, and personal location where your studies are carried out, providing support facilities for your study activities. It is a place where you go to in order to do only one thing, study. If you do have to use a kitchen or living room, then you will need to alter your studying schedule so that you are studying when others are not present in these areas. Don't try to study in the same room as others, or where there is domestic activity visible or audible. The essentials are a keyboard that is comfortable to type on for long periods, and a screen that is comfortable on the eyes for long periods of work. 

A printer is essential (a basic, low cost one will do) even if you email your documents to your tutor. One is able to remember much better what has been seen in the mind's eye than what has been thought in abstract terms. Therefore, one should always consciously try to think in terms of pictures. Review after 5 minutes. Take 3 minutes of the next study period to review the study material of the previous study period, before new material is again summarized and thoroughly studied. Take 3 minutes to review the work that was reviewed 7 days ago, before reviewing the work that was studied the day before, and then reviewing the work that was studied 5 minutes ago.