1. Ordinary Genius
Dr. Brooks is by many regarded as what can be called an "ordinary
genius".
"There are two kinds of geniuses: the 'ordinary' and
the 'magicians'. An ordinary genius is a fellow whom you and I
would be just as good as, if we were only many times better.
There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand
what they've done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done
it. It is different with the magicians. Even after we understand
what they have done it is completely dark. Richard
Feynman is a magician of the highest calibre." - Mark Kac.
Feynman Diagrams are sometimes given as an example of a product of
magician genius. Instead of performing difficult
mathematical derivations in Quantum Field Theory to calculate
arbitrarily nested interpretations of a particle interaction, one draws
Feynman Diagrams and
then simply writes down the answer by copying parts of the
diagrams in sequence
to the mathematical equivalent of each graphed symbol, gradually building up sometimes a pages long equation.
Returning to the ordinary genius as described in the quote above,
"There is no mystery as to how his mind works." In some
cases perhaps. Mystery is in surplus in the case of Dr.
Brooks. Dr. Brooks's ordinary genius of insight and decision
making seem to be simple, common sense, the essence, something
that any one of us could have thought of. But we didn't, and
figuring out why is vexatious. The ordinary genius is no
less worthy of study than the magician genius, perhaps more so.
Of all the geniuses that live among us, none fascinate more than
the ordinary geniuses, because they transform unexpectedly from
the familiar into the wise. For those, one seeks nuggets of
insight that can magically lay the mystery to rest. The
familiar difficult decision, at least as seen by those unschooled
in righteous judgment, has something of this character; the
question is usually innocent and straightforward, but is capable
of becoming a monster of alternatives missed or of uncertain
value, as to yield only to exceptional insight. Yes, I
adapted this paragraph from that other one ....
"Of all the monsters that fill the nightmares of our
folklore, none terrify more than werewolves, because they
transform unexpectedly from the familiar into horrors. For
these, one seeks bullets of silver that can magically lay them
to rest. The familiar software project, at least as seen
by the nontechnical manager, has something of this character; it
is usually innocent and straightforward, but is capable of
becoming a monster of missed schedules, blown budgets, and
flawed products." - from Brooks "No
Silver Bullet—Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering" Computer Magazine, 20 (4): 1987.
On two
occasions a graduate student walked up and announced something
like, "I want to be like Dr. Brooks. I'm going to try to be
like Dr. Brooks.", and then walked away without me saying
anything. Why did they say this and why to me? Weirds
me out. But I did watch them, and, over time, no
change. This suggests some mysterious, essential difficulty.
2. No pattern
Presented before the faculty was a matter for decision.
It went back and forth, but alternatives seemed equal. Then, one
faculty member spoke (approximate quote - I was there): "Let's
wait for Dr. Brooks to get back in town. When he hears this, he
will say something. We don't know what he will say, but it will
make the correct choice clear and obvious to all of us." Nods all
around. Grown men looking up to Dr. Brooks as if as
children. I noticed especially, "We don't know what he will
say," There is no Brooks-like decision. His wisdom seems to
not have a pattern.
3. Fred Brooks Think-alike Contest
Here, you give it a try. You get two chances:
Round 1
A professor was up for his tenure decision. He had asked back when
he arrived at UNC not teach numerical analysis, because he did not know
it and intensely hated it. Other than that, he was, some say, the
best teacher (besides Dr. Brooks) in the department. Some
students chose their electives only by his teaching schedule. The
tenure rules were that a candidate must score either "medium" or "high"
on both teaching and also on research. This candidate scored
"high" on teaching but "low" on research. He would be out.
The rules are not flexible.
Pause to think of what you might do.
A lesser man might have denied tenure. But Dr. Brooks considered
the purpose of the rule, that the rule existed to weed out the great
teacher today, who would still be a great teacher in a few years, but
teaching things that nobody cared about anymore. Good research
can prevent stagnation. Dr. Brooks considered that maybe
something else can, may be another, equal test. Brooks assigned
the candidate to teach numerical analysis graduate level, two semesters,
and by all accounts, with struggle and anguish, he did a good
job. If he could learn his most hated subject, he could learn and
stay current in anything. Tenure approved. And righteously
so.
Dr. Brooks did not give Steve Weiss any special breaks really. He
had to meet at its essence the same requirement as did anyone else, and
in so doing not a single person from any point of view could or did voice
dissatisfaction.
Round 2
A terminal Master's student, who was terminal
because he had flunked not just out of the degree program but out of
graduate school itself and then re-admitted as terminal, nevertheless
wrote a Master's thesis that read to Dr. Brooks, and to at least one
other member of the Master's committee, more like a dissertation, and
the student even labeled it a Dissertation on the title page, because
academics value accuracy.
Pause to think of what you might do.
A lesser man might have just signed-off the student and closed the book
on him, as it were, cowed by fear of personal or professional
risk in sticking one's neck out for a student whose subsequent failure,
should that happen, might raise questions coming back to Dr.
Brooks. But for Dr. Brooks does not live in fear.
Dr. Brooks called a meeting with the student
acknowledging to the student that the purpose of the Ph.D. course work
additional beyond the Masters, of the Ph.D. Written, and of the Ph.D.
Oral was to prepare the student to pursue a dissertation, and that the
student having written a dissertation it made no sense to require these
prerequisites. Nevertheless, Dr, Brooks proposed to the student to
go forward on two principles (approximate quote):
- "I don't want
anyone to say that Jim Lipscomb got away with something, so you are
going to have to pass the extra courses, the Written, and the Oral just
like everyone else, and ...
- ... if you don't, then we shall not have another
conversation about whether or not this makes any sense."
Circumstances being what they were, I
accepted And I was righteously tasked. I cleared all hurdles
the same ones that everyone else. No further
conversation of course.
Dr. Brooks did not give me any special breaks really. I had to
meet at its essence the same requirements as did anyone else, and in so
doing not a single person from any point of view could or did voice
dissatisfaction.
4. No Extraneous Agenda
Starting late, finishing first
Perhaps a dozen chemistry labs around the world had already started on
building interactive molecular graphics systems to enable
crystallographers to manually assemble bits of large protein structure
models into views of experimental electron-density data and thereby
build a model of the protein with full atomic detail. Dr. Brooks
decided, with the coaxing of a university Provost (or Dean?), that he
too would assemble a team to build such a molecular graphics system
(GRIP-75). According to crystallographers who used it, it was the
first to succeed, which their published structure paper stated in its
abstract viewable online at Tsernoglou D, Petsko GA, Tu AT, "
Protein sequencing by computer graphics". Biochim. Biophys. Acta. (April 1977).
So how did Dr. Brooks start late and finish first?
Other labs had extraneous agendas at every point:
-
Other labs hated spending money at the large university computing
centers, and do not we all. Such ongoing money is hard to find in
the
compartmentalized structure of grants. If the lab had its own
minicomputer, it could compute, at min-computer speed and size of
course, anything at will for minimal, constant overhead cost. They
saw building a protein structure fitting system as a way to get
funding for a lab minicomputer, to be used principally for
computation. Such lab computers typically had 16-bit size limited
memory, which was too small for electron density data without heroic
programming.for data swapping and data fragmentation and reassembly.
-
Other labs mostly caved to the low drawing speed of displays of the time
and tried to
accomplish the protein fitting task with heavy flicker and not enough
lines visible even then to see enough context to make proper decisions.
This, and the 16 bit CPU limitation above added complexities and slowed
programming so much that such systems,
when they did succeed, were late (e.g. Washington Univ. MMS-X).
-
Other labs had only a graduate student or two was assigned to write
code, the graphics system being secondary to the primary purpose of
obtaining a minicomputer for lab computations. To succeed this student
had to be proficient in all skills. Learning these in sequence
took much time, and these systems were late.
By contrast Dr. Brooks shaped decisions to fit the containers of the essences of the problem at hand:
-
Brooks evaluated that the large electron density data was inherently a
24-bit size issue, best and quickest addressed by
interactive interaction with a 24-bit computer, the IBM 360/50 at the
computer center, while his lab computer (DEC PDP 11/45) with a display
did the joystick part of the job. He solved the problem of cost
per hour at the university computer center by buying a bank of memory
dedicated to this project on the university computer, but also available
for the computer center when not doing our graphics, in exchange for no
hourly charge.
-
Brooks evaluated the drawing speed required for the display and held
to that spec, even at one point returning to the manufacturer a display
that did not meet his spec. Waiting years for a display up to the
job made the eventual programming very fast, saving time overall.
-
Brooks obtained funding for a large, diverse team that could solve in
parallel problems requiring diverse expertise. At the core he
placed what best practices calls a Surgical Team, a small team for
effective communication and for conceptual integrity, four people here
to do just the application coding without distractions, providing for
them the same programming language for the two communicating systems,
custom system communications code, a graphics package, an analog to digital
converter interface, memory mapping, and more.
All of this may seem obvious in retrospect. But the patience
and willpower to wait until conditions are right in a race to be first
with everyone else years ahead is hard to express to one who has not
lived it.
5. No Way / First Principles Thinking
To summarize:
Bruce Lee, besides being a star of martial arts movies, was also a
serious student of the martial arts. He learned many Ways, the Way of
the Crane for example. Each is a complete, consistent system.
Bruce Lee studied these Ways with an eye towards which might be
best. His conclusion was that the best Way is "
No Way".
Rather than following a set plan or set teaching one must flow like
water, not in the meek sense, but rapidly, vigorously, and forcefully to
instantly take the shape of the container (the situation). He grew this idea into the philosophy of "
having no limitation as limitation".
Elon Musk (Tesla) employs the similar idea of
First Principles Thinking in three steps, solving
a problem not by starting from where we are, but from down below at the
essence of what needs solving, leading upward to sometimes a novel,
better solution.
Dr. Brooks' thinking seems to work like these two things, which although expressed differently may be substantially the same.
