On "productive stupidity"

Martin Schwartz offers some interesting observations about the important role of what he calls "productive stupidity" in scientific research. He begins by explaining the great epiphany that I think all scientists (at least the good ones) eventually have — namely, that no matter how smart or well informed we think we might be, we really don't know all that much:

The crucial lesson was that the scope of things I didn't know wasn't merely vast; it was, for all practical purposes, infinite. That realization, instead of being discouraging, was liberating.

However, such ignorance is far from a bad thing, as it's a key factor in developing research questions (emphasis mine):

Productive stupidity means being ignorant by choice. Focusing on important questions puts us in the awkward position of being ignorant. One of the beautiful things about science is that it allows us to bumble along, getting it wrong time after time, and feel perfectly fine as long as we learn something each time. … The more comfortable we become with being stupid, the deeper we will wade into the unknown and the more likely we are to make big discoveries.

Schwartz notes that the current PhD system fails students by (1) not helping them "understand how hard it is to do research" and (2) not teaching "how to be productively stupid", i.e., that feeling "stupid" is not the same as "not really trying".

One minor quibble I have with this article is Schwartz's choice of words. In the context of driving research, "stupidity" has entirely the wrong connotation. We'd do much better calling this "productive ignorance" instead.

Schwartz's article is a great reminder why it's important, especially for grad students and post-docs starting out in their research careers, to talk to people outside their labs and specific field on interest. PIs and lab members certainly help in identifying the depth of one's ignorance, but going back to the old quip that experts know everything about nothing, discovering the true breadth of your ignorance requires communicating with people in completely unrelated fields.

In my experience at least, "formal" settings such as group meetings or conference talks are strangely not the best places to engage in such communication. Such settings often make us feel constrained about the questions we think about and ask, for reasons ranging from time constraints limiting us to ask precise questions on technical details to not wanting to appear completely ignorant to senior members in our field.

Therefore, I think there's something to be said for meeting as often as possible in more informal settings, e.g., happy hours or meals at conferences with people whose sessions we never really cared to attend. Even better are gatherings with people who don't do research for a living. Deep down, all scientists have more than a little geeky. We like to be asked about and telling stories about our work, and in informal settings, it's far easier to raise those "silly" questions and kick around those "crazy" ideas that ultimately lead to profound research problems and great discoveries.