Tie It, or Let Go

"If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things." ~ Albert Einstein


I learned about this quote only two years ago, yet it has kept popping up in my mind. I used to think there could be a hundred reasons for people to live a happy or miserable life, but now I've started to believe there is only one. 

We have seen rich people whose lives are meaningful and gratifying, as well as people who do all sorts of silly things just to confirm they have money. The difference is, the former has a goal, whether it is to make more money or to assist college students. The latter might have had a goal some time ago, but made the mistake by announcing that they had ultimately realized their dream, leaving the rest of their lives a ship sailing without a course. Some say, people need to have jobs to keep their spirit up. That's true only when the job is something they care about, not a treadmill they have to tolerate in order to receive paychecks. 

Approaching forty, I finally understood that one cannot put one's happiness in other people's hands. We shall work hard for our goals. Although achieving a goal isn't completely independent of luck, generally speaking, we have a fairly good control of our progress and performance. Successful or not, we often find the result coming with a good reason. We need this type of "logic", as well as a somewhat objective judgment on how well we have been doing. When working towards a goal, we are grounded. We may be exhausted by hard work, but we sleep soundly at night.

In contrast, "people and things" are less predictable. One day we may think we have them, the next they are gone. Clinging to something like that will make us vulnerable, although there might be a period of time in which we have the illusion that they belong to us through and through. It's good that they are here. Treat our family and friends as pleasant surprises, not something granted. Appreciate their presence, but keep in mind that they, as well as a lot of other things---money, health, social status---might be taken away from us one day. Try to take it easy when we have to let go. Pessimistic people are often too affected by uncertainties and ephermeralness, so afraid of losing something they have been attached to that they may even choose not to have it in the first place.

Boiling down to the essentials, it all has something to do with our limited lifespan, with the death we are inevitably heading towards. Goals provide us with opportunities to prove our values and leave behind evidence that we once existed. Deadlines make us finish things. Death is the deadline for us to achieve our goals; it stimulates action. What we have truly accomplished is our most powerful weapon in defying mortality. And that's often the only thing for people in the future to associate with our names.

Interview with Dr. Xi Yin

                                          By Fiona Rawsontile, Sept 2015

This interview was inspired by an earlier interview of Dr. Yin I saw on the Internet, which made me think that we can’t expect someone who normally writes for entertainment to understand a physicist. To “provoke” a scientist, we need another scientist. So I volunteered (to myself) and sent an invitation to Dr. Yin, who was recently promoted to Professor in Physics at Harvard University at the age of 31. It is a great pleasure for me to share with you his experience and wisdom. 


Fiona: As a faculty member at Harvard, you must have met many outstanding students and researchers. When you recruit students into your lab, what personal traits or qualification do you particularly look for? What type of students is an absolute NO? Can you talk about your mentoring style?

Dr. Yin: Indeed, I have interacted with numerous spectacular talents at Harvard: students, postdoctoral fellows, faculties. It’s one of the best things about being at Harvard.

I should clarify a few things. First of all, I’m a theoretical physicist and I work with pens, papers, chalks, and computers. Sometimes I work with the Harvard supercomputing cluster, but I do not have a lab, nor would I need one. 

Fiona commented: You reminded me of a joke I read. “I’m a mathematician. All I need is paper and a trash basket.” “Too bad you are not a philosopher; then you wouldn’t need the basket.”

Dr Yin: Second of all, unlike many other institutes, in the physics department at Harvard each faculty does not recruit students directly from colleges. Each year an admission committee consisting of around ten professors handle the applicants to our PhD program, with a loose quota in each subfield. The admitted students will choose their thesis advisors and/or labs later on. Typically, experimental physicists require more students to run their labs. We theorists do not depend on or need students as much. Our students are more independent in their research. While I’m perfectly happy to collaborate with my students, they are also free to work on their own projects and publish on their own, if they wish to.

Initially, students that are interested in working with me will come to talk to me, often towards the end of their first year or during their second year in graduate school, and ask for research problems/projects. I would hand them a number of papers to study, and ask them to come back and report on what they have learned. If they make progress, we will discuss and they read more, and at some point we arrive at a concrete and interesting problem to develop and work on. In a way this is also a selection process. About half of the students who talk to me will not end up working with me. I rarely turn away a student. The students would turn away on their own if they do not find it productive to be working with me.

（插入作者高妹/Fiona的话：向大家推荐我正在连载的玄幻---武打---佛道---言情故事《魅羽活佛》，晋江链接：http://www.jjwxc.net/onebook.php?novelid=4880087  故事简介：鬼道中的魇荒门，七个师姐妹都以绝世美颜著称。然而这次的任务中，二弟子魅羽却要化作一个中年油腻肥秃僧，卷入佛国、道门，和修罗界的斗争. 还要让咱们古往今来文采武功都称霸天下的帅哥活佛，对她一见倾心，矢志不渝。）

Fiona commented: Well, your model sounds like a classic Socrates-type mentorship. I run a biomedical lab, and have to spend a lot of energy in money raising and management, including motivating or firing employees.

Dr. Yin: I do not require any specific quality of a student, as long as they have the basic integrity and are capable of getting the job done. One type of students I definitely do NOT work with are those who pretend to understand what they don’t know. It’s perfectly okay to be ignorant about a subject, but it’s not okay to pretend that you know something and you really don’t.

I think in reality my selection process puts fairly high demands on the students. All the students I ended up working with have been terrific. I work quite closely with my students, we discuss our work nearly daily, and I try to keep all of my students informed on all topics I’m interested in, even if they are not actively working on it. I believe the students should not confine their knowledge into a tiny area of their own research, but rather they should learn broadly and keep their eyes open on all subjects of interest.

Fiona: The next question is related to your view of the scientific environment in China. What do you think is the critical advantage researchers have in top Chinese institutions, such as funding opportunities, student availability/quality, or the tenure system? On the other hand, what is the biggest issue that hinders the progress of their research or prevents them from being recognized internationally?

Dr. Yin: I’m not as familiar with the scientific environment in China as I should. I believe there is plenty of funding opportunities at top institutes in China for fundamental research. A key disadvantage, however, is that it is difficult for a top institute in China to attract high quality foreign researchers, especially postdoctoral fellows who contribute in an essential way to the research in my field. It’s no secret that many of the top talents in Chinese colleges apply to graduate schools in the United States, leaving a somewhat weak talent pool for graduate schools in China. I am not familiar with the tenure system in China. 

I have observed that there is a huge disparity between faculty members of different levels in China, in terms of privilege as well as salary. I believe this is deeply unhealthy and hinders the scientific progress tremendously. I strongly favor the Israeli academic system (which in my opinion is better than that of the US), where all faculties have a flat base salary, with bonus each year based on their productivity and the quality of their works. Such a system stimulates a collaborative atmosphere and curbs unhealthy competitions. Professors should never have to worry about their salaries and administrative duties. They should be able to focus entirely on research and teaching.

Fiona: A flat base salary model may be difficult to implement in the US because of the huge variation of living costs in different areas of the country, but hopefully there are other ways of promoting equity. Anyway, as a physicist, what would you say is the most important personality for your success, such as curiosity, vision, imagination, or persistence? (You don’t have to choose from the list.) Do you have a life-long goal you’d like to achieve, such as solving a long-existing problem, establishing a new area, or educating the public? 

Dr. Yin: I would say the one personality of mine that benefits my scientific work is that tendency of being obsessive. When I’m onto a problem, I can skip meals and sleep and work tireless until I’m satisfied. I would have a hard time going to sleep, say, when I know that there is a mistake in my work and I haven’t been able to identify it.

Fiona: Obsessive. You reminded me of what Oscar Wilde said, “Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.”

Dr. Yin: I do have a few long standing problems in my mind, that I contemplate from time to time. However, my experience in research is that, more often than not, ground breaking work originates from attempts of patching up a tiny hole. I spend most of my time patching up tiny gaps in our knowledge here and there. It often happens that progress in these little problems leads to major breakthroughs.

My style of research is probably more known for problem solving than for establishing a new area of research. I wouldn’t mind doing the latter, but I don’t seem to be particularly good at it. What I really like to do is to solve a problem that many people have looked at and thought about but could not solve. If I happen to invent a new method and open up a new direction of research while doing so, it would be icing on the cake.

Fiona: So you like String Theory. I’m a biomedical engineer. Could you give me a reason why I should care about it? About gravity, Einstein said it’s space-time curvature; quantum mechanics says it’s executed by gravitons (correct me if I’m wrong). How do you reconcile the two interpretations?

Dr. Yin: Don’t you want to know what is the tiniest, most fundamental building block of our universe? What lies beyond the standard model of particle physics? Are quarks and leptons truly fundamental particles or do they have internal structures?

One may say that such questions are endless and you could always try to divide things up further and it never ends. While this could have been the case in the world of particle physics without gravity, it cannot be so in the world of quantum AND gravity. Here is why. In the quantum world, it takes energy to probe short distances, or “divide stuff into small pieces”. The energy it takes is inversely proportional to the size. Roughly speaking, the energy it takes to probe a certain tiny distance scale is of order the Planck constant times the speed of light, divided by the distance scale of question. This is why to make tiny new particles we need huge particle accelerators, like the Large Hadron Collider. That is all fine, but in a world with gravity, a large amount of energy cannot stay confined in a tiny space. This is because energy is mass (according to the famous equation E=mc^2 you see on T-shirts), and mass gravitates, and when there is enough mass in a small volume of space, it makes a black hole. To the outside observer, a black hole is as big as its horizon, and the horizon size grows with the mass (or energy) of the black hole. Now you see, gravity does not want you to probe arbitrarily short distances. You might take this as a hint that perhaps there is a fundamental size after all, beyond which there is no structure. Well, to understand all of this, you need string theory. :)

Regarding your question of reconciling the classical description of gravity as spacetime curvature and the quantum nature of gravitons, it does not touch the essence of quantum gravity and is in fact well understood within the framework of quantum field theory. The question is not different in any essential way from reconciling the description of electromagnetic fields and photons. The answer is that the notion of “field” (or curvature of spacetime, in the context of gravity) may be viewed as a classical approximation of a certain type of quantum states, known as coherent states, that are superpositions of states involving many photons (or gravitons) in such a way that they exhibit semi-classical behavior.

Fiona: I still can’t perceive gravity in the same way of an electromagnetic field and photons. For example, if, for any bizarre reason, a heavy item is suddenly “born” at a particular point of space, the rest of the universe would not instantly know its existence, because gravitons have to travel at speed of light? That is, we cannot be “attracted” by something before we can “see” it?

Dr. Yin: Firstly, one has to be careful in asking hypothetical questions in physics, because the laws of physics do not leave much room for modifications. One could easily arrive at inconsistent and contradictory conclusions based on faulty assumptions. The conservation of energy and momentum is essential for a consistent theory of gravity, just as the conservation of charge is essential in electromagnetism.

It is true that, if the sun explodes for some reason, we would only perceive the resulting gravitational disturbance eight minutes later, the same amount of time it takes for light to travel the distance from the sun to the earth. In this perspective, gravity is not all that different from electromagnetism, if you substitute charge with mass.

One thing that makes gravity different, however, is that Einstein’s equations of gravity are nonlinear, whereas Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism are linear. This nonlinearity makes the equations of gravity a whole lot more complicated. However, the nonlinearity of Einstein’s equations is important only in the presence of strong gravitational fields, and allows for all sorts of bizarre phenomena such as black holes.

Your question though is really about classical gravity, which to the first order approximation was understood by Einstein in 1915 (even though it took decades to verify experimentally various aspects of his theory). The questions string theorists are tackling are really about quantum gravity, and effects of quantum gravity are expected to be important only in the presence of extremely high energy and/or extremely strong gravitational fields.

Fiona: In our field, theorists often collaborate with experimenters. Does your study depend on such collaborations? Have you proposed any hypothesis that you really want to verify experimentally but are unable to do so due to technological infeasibilities?

Dr. Yin: The short answer is no, and we make up for the lack of experiments with mathematical rigor. 

Physics is the most mature among all subjects of natural science. We have come to understand the theory so well, to the point that the very logical and mathematical consistency of the theory itself leaves little room for adjustments. We are not talking about models of economics where you can adjust parameters here and there to fit experiments. The laws of physics are supposed to be absolute. If there is any small violation of the laws of physics by any experiment, the entire foundation of modern physics could be shattered and we would have to rethink everything. This has happened a few times in history, most notably the black body radiation and the constant speed of light, which shattered Newtonian physics and paved the way to quantum mechanics and relativity. 

Now just because we know the principles doesn’t mean we know what theory is exactly. For instance, the theory of quantum electrodynamics is based simply on the principle of quantum mechanics and relativity, but it took decades and works of thousands of brilliant physicists to understand how to calculate and make experimental predictions with this theory. Eventually, the theory was proven to be successful, perhaps more successful than any other theory in the history of mankind. For instance it successfully predicted the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to eleven digits. As a layman’s analogy, that is better than predicting the exact number of human population on the earth, to the accuracy of a single person.

In modern theoretical physics, we don’t simply fit models with data or come up with new hypothesis. We try to understand what the theory is based on its own mathematical consistency, and its compatibility with basic principles that we believe to hold absolutely. We are driven not by the need to explain a certain piece of experimental data, but rather questions like “what is the cross section of graviton scattering at Planck energy?” and “what is the state of a black hole at the end of Hawking evaporation?” There are a number of deep theoretical puzzles that drive us to advance our understanding of the theory itself.

That is not to say we know for sure that string theory is correct. We would like to understand how quantum gravity works, and string theory is the only theory known to mankind that works, and it works beautifully. Over the last two decades we have learned that the mathematical structure of string theory is inevitable in the study of quantum field theories, and quantum field theory is our establish framework that explains all phenomena of particle physics to date. 

I personally think we don’t understand string theory well enough yet to even attempt a direct comparison with experiments in particle physics and astrophysics. On the other hand we are learning tremendous fundamental physics by studying string theory, and it gave us deep insights into other fields as well, such as nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and even fluid dynamics.

That being said, I am interested (as a side project) in aspects of fluid dynamics that involves turbulence, and the possibility of applying quantum field theory to understand the universality of turbulence. In this case experimental data would be helpful, but really what we need is computer simulations (which could be called experiments by the theoretical physicists’ standard).

Fiona: Truth is objective, but the pursuing of it, which we call scientific activity, is imprinted with human characters. Is there someone who had a significant influence on your professional life, without whom you might have become a different individual?

Dr. Yin: There are a few people that have made significant impact on my research career. One of them is my PhD advisor Andy Strominger. He has the inimitable skill of reaching deep conclusions with the simplest possible calculation, and he has a terrific taste in telling the good physics from the bad ones. 

Another person that shaped my approach to research is Davide Gaiotto, with whom I had collaborated extensively while he was a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard. He is now a faculty at Perimeter Institute and one of the stars of my field. One thing I learned from him is that, when you don’t know where to start in trying to solve a problem, don’t look around. Go to the blackboard, start writing down equations. You are probably wrong initially, but little by little you will correct them, until when things click.

Fiona: The academic system in the U.S. is generally reasonable and functioning, albeit not perfect. What aspects would you like to see change, including, but not limited to, job recruitment, peer reviewing, tenure, etc.?

Dr. Yin: The academic system in the US is quite tough on the young people, partially due to the publish-or-perish culture. Junior researchers are often forced to work on topics in which they can be productive in terms of publications, and are discouraged from taking risks on truly original and unexplored research directions.

In my field there are extremely few faculty jobs compared to the number of PhDs awarded each year. (Fiona sighed. “Dare I say this is the case for a lot of majors now!”) Many tremendously talented physicists spend years working as postdocs, which is quite difficult for those who have families especially kids, due to the constant need for relocations. And still, in the end most of them are forced to leave academia due to the lack of faculty position openings.

I would say the peer reviewing system in my field is acceptable but very, very far from perfect. In certain fields such as mathematics, research papers are put to great scrutiny before publication. Proofs are checked line by line. This is possible only when people don’t write many papers. Physicists tend to write a lot more papers than mathematicians. It is difficult and impractical for every physics paper to be inspected and verified line by line before its publication. The peer review system does little more than filtering out crackpots. In my field, the quality of a research paper is not judged based on the journal on which it is published, but rather through a reputation that is built based on seminars, private discussions, and follow-up works. Most of the time, the truly important and original papers do become known to the community, and that’s what matters in the end.

I think I’ve made a number of complaints here, with no immediate solutions to offer. I enjoy working in the field of string theory, particularly because in our community people are open with sharing ideas (often before publication) and most of us value the progress in our field more than the assignment of credits on a piece of publication.

Fiona: Has your Chinese background (cultural, educational) influenced your career, in either positive or negative ways? Do you have particular advice for Asian scientists who strive in the Western academia?

Dr. Yin: I think my ethnic background has had zero influence on my career. I feel completely comfortable living and working in the US, as well as during my extended visits to India, Israel, and Japan. I never feel tied to a certain place. I think Asian students tend to focus too much on course work and do not spend enough time socializing and live a balanced life. I’m an introvert myself, but I can be social when I need to be. I see many successful Asian scientists in the US, and I don't think they need any advice from me. Go vote, that’s my only advice to Asians in this country.:)

Fiona: All right. Thank you so much, Dr. Yin, for taking the time to offer us your invaluable insights. Is there anything else you would like to share with us that hasn’t been covered by the above topics?

Dr. Yin: The other day I receive an email which was practically a dating/marriage proposal. While flattered, I would like to clarify that I have been happily married for 10 years and my daughter is 7 years old and she loves AC/DC. I enjoy rock climbing so if anyone goes to Rumney, NH I’d gladly join and partner up.

（插入作者高妹/Fiona的话：向大家推荐我正在连载的玄幻---武打---佛道---言情故事《魅羽活佛》，晋江链接：http://www.jjwxc.net/onebook.php?novelid=4880087  故事简介：鬼道中的魇荒门，七个师姐妹都以绝世美颜著称。然而这次的任务中，二弟子魅羽却要化作一个中年油腻肥秃僧，卷入佛国、道门，和修罗界的斗争. 还要让咱们古往今来文采武功都称霸天下的帅哥活佛，对她一见倾心，矢志不渝。）

论PI的调养

“When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do you will
sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float.” (Alan Watts)


1. 调心

当个PI是个独立性很强的工作，要承担很大的压力和风险。不干这行的人，哪怕是身为
薄后的“准PI”们，也是难以体会到的。我几乎可以说，每当一个PI出了chronic的问
题，至少有50%以上有精神上的原因。

人很少真的是因为纯粹的累垮下的，很多时候夹杂了担忧，想要尽快改变某种状况，或
者frustration，努力得不到应有的回报。最累的是耗心，其次是耗神，最后才是耗力
。曾听一个美国老师说，她看过一个介绍，东方父母赞美孩子，喜欢夸聪明，而美国父
母赞扬的更多的是hardworking。她认为后者是更合适的，鼓励的应该是行为，而不要
太在意成果。不过楼主还是认为应该在意成果的，否则自己也不会满意。不过这种成果
是客观的对进展的评定，不能完全用回报来衡量。”If you want to live a happy 
life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things.” ~ Albert Einstein 简单说
来，就是要看自己能够掌握的部分。一个人无论做任何事，如果喜怒哀乐最终掌握在别
人手里，就算喜都是暂时的，从长远看一定不是好事。（这个道理同样适用于怨妇。）
对苦逼专业的PI来说，现在的形势实在艰难。Frustrated的时候，看看如果是没有足够
投入和进展，自责是应该的。但如果各方面都已经进了力了，要定时在精神上给予自己
正确的肯定。

这种self-evaluation一定要定期做，倒并不完全是为自己开脱。有时回头一看，自己
这个阶段确实有些问题，要及时改善。注意，这里的调心不是只做positive的鉴定。有
时候你之所以心慌，之所以无所适从，并不是因为成果，而是因为自己某些方面确实存
在问题而又不愿意面对，但潜意识知道是无从逃避的。这个时候正视问题的存在，老老
实实承认自己的失误，反而会有“定心丸”的作用。举个例子，你的proposal被
reviewers狠批一顿，你就来到买买提上，大大数落了一下这些评审员的无知和刻薄，
网友也支持了你一番。完了把proposal扔到一边，高兴了吗？不会。你还是郁闷。其实
这时最好的办法就是虚心把comments滤一边，没道理的就划掉，有道理的就承认这个我
确实没写好。这样做完了不会让心情更糟，反而能平静下来，该干啥干啥去。

2. 调情

你看你，又庸俗了吧？这里的“情”不是你想的那个意思啦！这里说的是情调，情趣。
都说人该有个爱好，爱好不分贵贱，是真的enjoy就好，比如打牌钓鱼。但一种爱好如
果能同时带来成就感，有进步的potential，就更值得培养。比如当自己事业上遇到挫
折，去种种花草，或者来买买提骂架，固然可以放松怡情，但潜意识里还是难以摆脱
loser的阴影。如果你搞的是绘画，虽然不是主业，但断断续续的进步，尤其是得到行
业一定认可时，对自己的能力是种正面的肯定，这种爱好对事业也有鼓励的成分 ，而
不仅是逃避。

对我来说，高雅乐趣好过低俗乐趣的原因，不是因为它高雅，而是它有更大的发展空间
，甚至理论基础，能越挖越深，越攀越高，还可以让你和很多这方面的杰出人物神交（
杰出人物能带给我们的通常不仅仅是一项技艺的提升）。而轻易可以掌握的乐趣，做久
了就成了重复，乐也就没了。

3. 调食

以前谈过谷物的妙用，就不重复了。
http://www.mitbbs.com/article/Faculty/31725415_3.html
这里介绍几款滋补饮食，都是切身实践。
甜酒酿枸杞汤。水开后倒入酒酿，几分钟后加入打散鸡蛋，关火后再放枸杞。无论冬夏
都很滋补，又简单。
南瓜干瑶柱尾龙骨汤。就是这三样慢炖就行了，补钙（注，楼主从不服食维生素）。
猴头菇乌鸡汤，养胃。随着年龄增大，各种粥也要多食。
楼主office抽屉里常备黑芝麻山药等饮品。零食已逐渐从多糖膨化食品转为红枣龟苓膏
之类。常食鲜桂圆（这是给女人补血的吧？这话说的，男人体内没血吗？）。

楼主认为，伤风感冒严重时，如果吃些西药片，固然最后能好，但好了也觉得伤寒弱。
楼主的秘方是生姜，红糖，加葱白连须，水开后煮十分钟。前两样很多人都知道，比如
LD病了，有时非要自己搞，又懒，就省了最后一项，结果总是不如楼主的方子管用。把
葱去掉绿色，一定要连着根放进去。靠这个治好的，没有觉得那么体弱。


4. 调体

先说下，楼主是从来都不锻炼的。不是不想，而是白天上班，回家马上给两娃缠住，没
有时间。楼主调节的方式是偶尔静坐。隔壁贴里有人提过，但没引起注意，因为没试过
的人不相信它的好处。很多人说，累了睡觉不就完了吗？佛教认为，凡人的精神总是处
在两种境界，散乱或者昏沉。白天被纷繁的刺激搞得心智杂散，睡着了虽然可以休息，
但其实是回到了混沌未开化的境地，达不到洗涤精神的目的。静坐是有意识的排除杂念
，坐得好的，绝对比睡同样时间的觉更养神养体，而且真正入定，几小时一晃而过（楼
主还未达到这个程度），出定时的感觉就是电池充饱了。

那有人说，静坐的姿势俺们不懂啊！楼主年幼功夫浅时，是很注意姿势的。当然，标准
的姿势包括手的摆放是利于气脉流通的。近些年已不再刻意，坐着就行，但有几个要点
。背尽量直，头尽量直，因为这是种“积极”的放松。最好能舌尖顶上腭，“生津”。
杂念来了不怕，让它自然走掉就是了。如果困了，不要硬坐，赶快睡觉去。

再说下另一“掉零件”帖的问题。养生要尽量自然，也就是夏天少空调风扇，热了出些
汗其实没有什么。冬天暖气开小些，尤其睡觉，冷一点才好。比如说你站在高楼大窗前
，一阵巨风吹来，虽然冷些，也不会难受。但一个小小的风扇或者冷气孔，吹一会儿就
开始关节痛（尤其是肩，肘，头）。我不是学触觉的，但我的理论是我们的身体不喜欢
constant sensory input。

Speak Like an Administrator

“I write as straight as I can, just as I walk as straight as I can, because that is the best way to get there.” ~ H.G. Wells

1. Get to your point, quickly

Have you ever heard the following speech?

“I have some suggestions. You might have heard me talking about this. It’s not completely related, but, it’s similar to what John said, that is, if we ever want to reach our goal, I’m not saying we aren’t on the right track, but given what we have been doing, my point is, is it even feasible to believe that, well, of course everybody may have his own way of judging our performance, but, realistically, say, if you are an outsider, and you are asked to assess our progress …”

Okay, maybe not the exact sentences, but you’ve heard something similar, most likely from lab technicians or staff, who speak with their arms and hands fumbling around to help express their opinions. This type of indirect and uncertain speeches is not uncommon in our daily life, but should be avoided for a PI, especially in formal meetings. It wastes your listeners’ time. It can easily get you redirected to other topics, and you may never have a second chance to come back and address your original point. In fact, after all the distractions, you may not even remember what you were going to say in the first place.

Often, people circle round and round before they get to the point because they don’t want to offend anybody, or to challenge an existing system. They move forward a little bit, then immediately back up, or they divert to something else. They seem to speak complete sentences, but when you examine the meaning, halfway it’s changed to something else. This kind of verbal style reflects the speaker’s lack of confidence and compromises his authority. There is cowardice inside and out.

That’s why we rarely hear such speeches from high-level administrators, like your dean. Note that this is not to say that we have to speak in an absolutely straightforward way. For example, when you criticize someone’s approach, simply saying that “Your solution will help alleviate some of the concerns, but the major issue remains.” is polite enough. There’s no need to overly elaborate, “Yes, I could see your point. I guess you are right, considering the situation, that it would have been nice if we could …”

A competent administrator knows to stick to the subject; otherwise he won’t get anything done. Sometimes they get carried away briefly, but they always know to go back to the topic and tie up loose ends. When someone can control his own thoughts and behaviors, there is a higher chance for him to control others.

2. Finish your sentences

An even worth habit than not getting to the point is not finishing sentences. They say the first half of the sentence, they spread out their hands or shrug their shoulders, and then either move on to the next sentence or add quickly, “You know what I mean?”, leaving the listeners to fill the blank. Occasionally, this might be the best strategy to handle a tough situation, but most of the time, a PI, or a higher educator, should try to talk in complete structures.

This may particularly be an issue for non-native speakers. Sometimes we have difficulty finding the right words, and we simply give up, knowing that people will figure out what we are trying to say. Still, it’s safer to be explicit. Tell your students what’s not allowed, and what’s expected. Leave no room for misinterpretations. Some people’s excuse is, “I don’t want to say something wrong. By being vague, I can make sure that nobody can use my words to accuse me later.” Well, you are a PI. It’s better to be a responsible person who makes wrong choices, than to develop a sly personality.

3. Show that you are educated

I once worked with a vet who was also a high-level admin in the medical school. Every time there was a meeting involving him, I would fly over to listen to his speech. His sentences were beautifully constructed, with sophisticated and accurate word choices. Some of us may say, “That’s too hard for non-native speakers.” It may not be as hard has you have imagined, if you consciously work on it.

They key is to think about what you want to say before you open your mouth. Even for native speakers, when they are pressured to respond fast, they are less likely to speak well. As non-native speakers, we have all suffered, when we first came to this country, the embarrassment of not being able to articulate promptly. As a negative effect, later we tend to err on the other extreme, which is to respond prematurely, before we have given the question the thought it deserves. We should learn to take our time. Don’t be afraid that the listeners may lose their patience. Taking time to plan for what we are going to say and how we say it does not waste as much their time as talking on and on without hitting the point. If we observe the conversations around us, we could find that impatience occurs more often when the speaker is unable to “shut up”.

Okay, we all agree that content matters. Why do we care about how well it is narrated? First, it affects how people judge us. For example, right after I came to this country, my Ph.D. advisor told me, “If you need to contact researchers in our field, let me look at your email first. People in this country tend to link grammatical errors to low education, which is really unfair for foreigners.” Unfair, but that’s the reality. Since then, I’ve always treated email communication as a serious thing unless I was in a rush. Second, words have power. “Language is neither innocent nor neutral. Linguistic habits condition our view of the world and hinder social change.” (Carmen Martinez Ten)

If you write well, then you have the ability to speak well, by allowing yourself time to organize your words (and your thoughts) and speak slowly.

4. Avoid rush decisions

The only thing that’s worse than a rush response is a rush decision. Having been a student and trainee for two decades, we are too eager to please others, when we should have taken more time, “off line”, to weight the pros and cons. Unfortunately, the transition from a trainee to a PI is something that can be learned but cannot be taught. We learn to think carefully before making any commitment only after multiple lessons. Last year I always said, “Sure, you can work in my lab.” This year I tended to say, “Sure, we can talk about it.”

Believe me, in the years ahead, you’ll find that the time spent pondering on your decisions always pays off.