Chapter 85 - Albert Einstein: A Biographical Portrait
Today’s Chapter is based on the book “Albert Einstein: A Biographical Portrait” by Anton Reiser.
Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist, best known for developing the theories of special and general relativity, which revolutionized our understanding of space, time, and gravity. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 and is widely regarded as one of the most influential scientists of the 20th century.
Here’s what I have learned:
Universalism
“If you skillfully follow the multidisciplinary path, you will never wish to come back. It would be like cutting off your hands.”
— Charlie Munger
One of the main reason for Albert Einstein’s success as a scientist was due to his universalism approach that made him interested in topics beyond his scientific specialization. Anton Reiser explains in his book that “a genuine creative power always sees beyond its province of specialization, and finds it necessary to attach itself to the collective human mind, that is to humanity itself.”
Similarly, rather than confining himself to the narrow confines of his field, Einstein embraced a broader, more inclusive vision that encompassed the entirety of human knowledge and experience. According to Einstein, all intellectual pursuits, whether it’s science, art or philosophy, are all interconnected. As such, from an early age, Einstein was interested in a wide range of fields, from mathematics and physics to philosophy and the arts. He was known to engage in lively discussions with his friends both on scientific work and on philosophical problems.
“There is no human and intellectual sphere which does not interest him. He is interested in all values and occurrences that touch the intellect; no other than a social existence is conceivable to him, for in practical life every man lives with and by other men."
— Anton Reiser
This universalism approach reminds me of the importance of multidisciplinary thinking that we learned from Richard Feynman, another well-known physicist. Feynman believed in multidisciplinary thinking because he noticed that experts will always see and evaluate problems through their own point of view. This can be a bad thing as we can fall into the Man with a Hammer syndrome, meaning that we become biased towards the tools that we possess to solve a problem, regardless of whether such tools are appropriate to the problem at hand.
“Each of us talked about what we thought the “ethics of equality” was, from our own point of view, without paying any attention to the other guy’s point of view. For example, the historian proposed that the way to understand ethical problems is to look historically at how they evolved and how they developed; the international lawyer suggested that the way to do it is to see how in fact people actually act in different situations and make their arrangements; the Jesuit priest was always referring to “the fragmentation of knowledge”; and I, as a scientist, proposed that we should isolate the problem in a way analogous to Galileo’s techniques for experiments; and so on.”
— Richard Feynman
As a matter of fact, Charlie Munger also believes that people who have a broad mind and who understand many different models from many different disciplines make better decisions. This is mainly because it allows one to have a different box of tools when facing a problem. Possessing a different box of tools is certainly an advantage and an edge that Feynman also experienced during his career.
Peter Kaufman, one of Munger's most vivid followers of his multidisciplinary approach, mentions the reason why it is important to be a multidisciplinary thinker in his speech to the California Polytechnic State University Pomona Economics Club:
“The answer comes from the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who said, “To understand is to know what to do.” Could there be anything that sounds simpler than that? And yet it’s a genius line—”to understand is to know what to do.” How many mistakes do you make when you understand something? You don’t make any mistakes. Where do mistakes come from? They come from blind spots, a lack of understanding. Why do you need to be multidisciplinary in your thinking? Because as the Japanese proverb says, “The frog in the well knows nothing of the mighty ocean.” You may know everything there is to know about your specialty, your silo, your “well,” but how are you going to make any good decisions in life—the complex systems of life, the dynamic system of life—if all you know is one well?”
— Peter Kaufman
Relativity
“Perspective often comes from distance or time. If you’re trying to solve a problem and you’re stuck, try shifting your vantage point.”
— Shane Parrish
At the heart of Einstein’s scientific legacy is the theory of relativity which is considered a revolutionary discovery that challenged fundamental assumptions about the nature of space, time and the universe.
Without going into detail about the theory of relativity, I believe that one of the most important concept from it is the relativity of simultaneity. This concept explains that events that are simultaneous in one frame of reference may not be simultaneous in another. For instance, if two lightning strikes hit two trees simultaneously from the perspective of a stationary observer, an observer on a moving train may see them at different times due to the train's motion.
The theory of relativity should reminds us of that we are always going to have an imperfect perspective since we are unable to see everything at once. As such, it is primordial to understand the limitations of our perspective in order to better understand reality. As we have previously learned from Alex Ferguson, it is important to be observant in order to see through different perspectives and to avoid confirmation bias.
Firstly, Ferguson explains that there are two forms of observation: “the first is on the detail and the second is on the big picture.” In fact, he once said that “When you are a step removed from the fray, you see things that come as surprises—and it is important to allow yourself to be surprised. If you are in the middle of a training session with a whistle in your mouth, your entire focus is on the ball. When I stepped back and watched from the sidelines, my field of view was widened and I could absorb the whole session, as well as pick up on players’ moods, energy and habits.”
Ferguson would also often compare himself to a military general who would analyse the opposing team’s weakness on the sideline:
“One lesson I took from the SAS was the effectiveness of a battle formation, where troops attacking on the flanks create softness in the central defences. I took that lesson right to the training pitch where we worked on it for a week before a Liverpool game. I had players attacking the back post and the front post and then Gary Pallister came from right outside the centre of the box to score. In fact Pallister scored twice using precisely the same ploy. It could have been a re-enactment of a battle plan–except none of the TV commentators picked up on that.”
— Alex Ferguson
Secondly, concerning confirmation bias, Ferguson explains that it is extremely difficult to believe what your eyes tell you. He mentions that “It is astonishing how many biases and preconceived notions we carry around, and these influence what we see, or, more precisely, what we think we see.” As such, while it is essential to listen to what other people have to say, it is even more important to “watch with my own eyes without having my judgement swayed by the filters of others.”
To conclude, I believe that the notion of relativity should be a reminder that we should always see things in another perspective in order to avoid any blind spots when making decisions. A good way of doing this is by asking ourselves what would X person do if he or she was in our position. For example, before investing into a company, we could ask ourselves if Charlie Munger or Warren Buffett would invest in it.
Philosophical Approach
“Creativity is seeing what others see and thinking what no one else ever thought.”
— Albert Einstein
As we have learned previously, various inventors such as James Dyson and Edwin Land succeeded by taking an Edisonian’s approach instead of a more systematic theoretical approach. As a matter of fact, Thomas Edison believed in inventing through trial and error discovery as it allowed him to innovate even when there is no adequate theory to base on.
It is worthy to note, however that, before starting any experiments, Edison would vigorously read everything he could find on a subject. As such, he would make his own experiments based on what others have learned before him. As Isaac Newton once said, “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on shoulders of giants.”
“When I want to discover something, I begin by reading up everything that has been done in the past - that’s what all these books in the library are for. I see what has been accomplished at a great labor and expense in the past. I gather data of many thousands of experiments as a starting point, and then I make thousands more.”
— Thomas Edison
Albert Einstein, in the other hand, had a different approach compared to Thomas Edison. In my opinion, Einstein preferred the use of thought experiments over discoveries through trial and error. A thought experiment is an easy tool in order to use one’s imagination in order to investigate the nature of things. This allows us to make experiments at a low cost. For example, if you were asked who would win in a basketball game between Warren Buffett and Michael Jordan, you wouldn’t need to call both of them in order to have them play a game of pick-up to know who would win. You’d easily deduce the results by simulating the game in your mind.
“Our own ideas are more easily and readily at our disposal than physical facts. We experiment with thought, so as to say, at little expense. It shouldn’t surprise us that, oftentime, the thought experiment precedes the physical experiment and prepares the way for it… A thought experiment is also a necessary precondition for a physical experiment. Every inventor and every experimenter must have in his mind the detailed order before he actualizes it.”
— Ernst Mach
Furthermore, Einstein’s approach to science also leaned towards intuition and artistic insights over pure experimentation. In fact, his ability to intuitively grasp complex concepts and to engage with abstract ideas was a key driver of his scientific breakthroughs.
Reiser mentions that Einstein “had an entirely different attitude toward science. He knew that his colleagues were his superiors in erudition, in the mere accumulation of knowledge. But they lacked his inspiring passion, his gift of artistic intuition."
"The supreme task of the physicist is … the search for those most general, elementary laws from which the world picture is to be obtained through pure deduction. No logical path leads to these elementary laws; it is instead just the intuition that rests on an empathic understanding of experience."
— Albert Einstein
As we have seen previously, Einstein had a multidisciplinary approach to thinking which definitely allowed him to have a different perspective compared to his peers. Notably, Einstein believed that it was important for scientists to be taught principles of philosophy. In fact, Einstein famously cut his classes at the Zurich Polytechnic because he was not satisfied with the scientific curriculum that was offered.
“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.“
— Albert Einstein
Einstein explains that having a philosophical mind as a scientist helped in having independent judgment which is necessary in order to seek innovations. As he once said, “Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors.”
This reminds me of how fragile knowledge is. As we have previously learned from Richard Feynman, even experts are susceptible of learning through memorisation which gives them an illusion that they are more knowledgeable on a subject than they actually are. As he once said, “Since then I never pay any attention to anything by “experts.” I calculate everything myself.”
“This assistant of Einstein worked on it for quite a bit before he realized that the answer is the real motion of matter. If you shoot something up in a normal way, so that the time it takes the shell to go up and come down is an hour, that’s the correct motion. It’s the fundamental principle of Einstein’s gravity-that is, what’s called the “proper time” is at a maximum for the actual curve. But when I put it to him, about a rocket with a clock, he didn’t recognize it. It was just like the guys in mechanical drawing class, but this time it wasn’t dumb freshmen. So this kind of fragility is, in fact, fairly common, even with more learned people.”
— Richard Feynman
As such, Feynman warns us to never trust experts and to always test things on your own. This is eerily similar to what Einstein believed in. He insisted that by having a philosophical approach, such as using one’s own intuition and doubting everything, scientists would have a lot more breakthroughs.
This is exactly what happened with Edward Thorp who had the tendency to not accept anything he was told until he tested it out himself. As a matter of fact, Feynman was one of those “experts” who told Thorp on the impossibility of beating the game of roulette through prediction. This encouraged Thorp to find a solution to this “unsolvable” problem.
“If anyone knew whether physical prediction at roulette was possible, it should be Richard Feynman. I asked him, “Is there any way to beat the game of roulette?” When he said there wasn’t, I was relieved and encouraged. This suggested that no one had yet worked out what I believed was possible. With this incentive, I began a series of experiments.”
— Edward Thorp
Beyond the Book
Read "The Multidisciplinary Approach to Thinking" by Farnam Street
Read "Galilean Relativity and the Invasion of Scotland" by Farnam Street
Read "Confirmation Bias And the Power of Disconfirming Evidence" by Farnam Street
Read "Thought Experiment: How Einstein Solved Difficult Problems" by Farnam Street
If you enjoy reading my newsletter, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. You’ll be able to keep this newsletter going! Here’s what you get when you upgrade:
Voting on polls: you’ll get to vote on who I should write about next.
Requesting biographies: you can request a biography for me to read and write about next.
Supporting my next book purchase: all payments received will be used to purchase a new biography.