<p>Attended Stephen Hawking's lecture last night with my father, a Cambridge alumnus and amateur astronomer. He got quite agitated towards the end. Here is a message, no more and no less, he wants me to pass onto those three graduate students from the Departments of Mechanical Engineering, Chemistry and Physics respectively, who were invited to read out their questions.</p>
<p>"It's natural to be nervous speaking in front of an audience of that size. However, do remember in a situation like that, you are far more than a Caltech student, you are the representative of the student body or even of the whole Caltech community. Please act like an educated man. Steer clear of your junior high vocabulary. It is Professor Hawking, not 'hi' or 'hello'!" </p>
<p>On our way out of the wedding cake, I calmed him down by reminding him at least they didn't say 'dude' or 'awesome'! I must say my father has always been an angry man. We were watching NCAA final the night before. After the postgame interview (of the players, not the coach), he exclaimed: "Son, you are lucky, I am sending you to Pasadena, not south." Hope he is not going to change his mind.</p>
<p>In seriousness though, what did the grad students do that was so horrifying? I was unable to attend the lecture, and thus have no idea what you are referring to. In the future, please note that the best way to communicate with grad students is to tell them your comment directly or to e-mail them. Anyway, congratulations on his decision to send you to Caltech!</p>
<p>I went to the student-only one on Monday and it didn't seem like a particularly formal event. I thought the two grad students that asked questions then did fine, especially considering the long wait they had to stand through on stage when Stephen Hawking had to go through all of his menus again to get to his responses. I also don't see what's so juvenile about "hello" or "hi." Would your father have preferred them say "Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo" or something?</p>
<p>Please convey to your daddy (but only if this won't cause him to refuse to send you to Caltech).</p>
<p>Dearest Sir,
I must respectfully remark that you seem to misunderstand the Caltech spirit. Saying "hi" to a professor is not an oversight; it is part of the rulebook. Formal titles and elaborate manners get in the way of everyone treating everyone else as an intellectual equal. Of course, courtesy is never optional, but starchy formality is looked down upon here. In an Asian country, you would never have cause to complain about a student using "junior high vocabulary" when addressing a professor, and look how far that's gotten them. Exaggerated respect for authority and thinking about nonsense like titles and the first word you say are the enemies of free, irreverent creativity and useful intellectual debate. Stephen Hawking is a man whom I respect and admire greatly, so I'd never insult him by thinking that he cares about the way I address him, assuming it is an English greeting not involving profanity. They who think about such things need better things to think about! In closing, may I recommend to you Richard Feynman's brilliant little essay "Would You Solve the Dirac Equation?" from Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!.
Respectfully yours,
Ben</p>
<p>Haha, nice letter Ben! I experienced the spirit first-hand when I saw President Chameau about an hour ago, said hi to him, and talked to him while we walked together until splitting up (going to different places)...</p>
<p>I will relay your messages to the 'angry man' and see what his reaction is. </p>
<p>To Ben Golub, let's look at the technicality of the issue. I truly believe you are a big fan of Stephen Hawking. Wouldn't it be nice to show your respect by saying 'Hi, Professor Hawking'? Why is it so difficult? Unwilling or incapable? Or you would consider that as "Exaggerated respect for authority and thinking about nonsense like titles" and "the first word you say are the enemies of free, irreverent creativity and useful intellectual debate"? Forgive me being blunt, this is one of the, if not THE, biggest BS I have ever encountered. Thought you could do better than that.</p>
<p>Regarding your "In an Asian country, you would never have cause to complain about a student using "junior high vocabulary" when addressing a professor, and look how far that's gotten them?". Hmm, I have a piece of advice for you: do not treat this type of proclamation lightly despite your entitlement. I say this based on the assumption you are not stating that from personal experience, and will never be able to, i.e. you are not one of them. You might have treated that as causal remarks, thus depriving it of any serious deliberation. Think twice, and even more!</p>
<p>Regardless what my father will do, I will definitely read the Richard Feynman's essay you recommended. Have you ever heard of Zhuangzi by Chuang-Tzu (ISBN: 7543820870)? He was no astrophysicist for sure. But you will be stunted by how well-matched his logic is with Stephen Hawking's. I highly recommend it to you. Another world is out there, always waiting, beyond the Caltech community.</p>
<p>It's a little hard for me to parse your response, but let me try my best to answer. My point is simply that at Caltech, I can walk into a professor's office (assuming of course, that I know him), and say "Hey Chris, what's this equation in your paper? I thought about it and it doesn't seem to follow from Theorem 4." According to your dad, that would evidently be a "junior high" way of addressing someone, and I should avoid it.</p>
<p>But I assure you that if the first words out of my mouth were, "Hello, Professor Smith, I have a question," that would set a whole different tone for the conversation, and not one that's as useful for getting to the heart of the matter. Don't try to argue here until you've tried it both ways. </p>
<p>And so I don't see why we should do it differently when it's Stephen Hawking talking to a bunch of us instead of just me chatting with a professor.</p>
<p>As for this mumbling about Asia in your post, I have no idea what you mean, but my point is precisely that an overemphasis on respect and authority has been a big reason for the failure of Asia to take its rightful place as a knowledge-generating continent on par with America. Asian students work harder, are on average smarter, and are better trained than their American counterparts, and yet very few of them generate good ideas without entering the American system. My considered belief is that a big part of this is this Confucian attitude of respect for the master that prevents people from thinking with their brains as much as they should be. And I think that you should come and try it my way before you protest.</p>
<p>Just to be fair, the grad students did not include 'Stephen'. Might have made a big difference to my father, the same way as you think calling them 'Professor' would set off a different "tone" deviating the conversation from "getting to the heart of the matter". (I like to repeat: this is the biggest BS I have ever encountered). </p>
<p>I don't know much about Confucius, and only thought his waning influence, good or bad, was limited to the Chinese. Apparently, you are of very different opinion, for which I have respect. </p>
<p>I would construe your "Don't try to argue here until you've tried it both ways" and "And I think that you should come and try it my way before you protest" as irrational by imposing those prerequisites. Thus, I don't anticipate any further discussion would prove meaningful since you are taking such an attitude. The case is hence closed, unilaterally at least.</p>
<p>To lizzardfire, I didn't notice your message #5 when I posted mine #6. Good for you to have such wonderful experience with President Chameau. However, your endorsement to the letter reminded me of Condoleezza Rice. You may not have the intent, but you are murdering Ben Golub's incentive to stay rational as a scientist should always be. Caltech needs no cheerleaders.</p>
<p>Tell your Dad to chill out...Who cares if they said "hi", or "hello Professor Hawking." If they want to be casual, let them; I'm sure Stephen Hawking doesn't care much for titles and he probably didn't think twice about how they addressed him anyway.</p>
<p>Frankly I've always called professors "Professor" unless they tell me to use their given name, even if I have known them for years. Of course many professors at Caltech <em>will</em> tell you to use their first name, but as far as I'm concerned that's their choice. It's fine if others disagree with this, but it honestly makes me feel more comfortable--I would have felt terribly presumptuous greeting (former) President Baltimore with "hey Dave!" or something along those lines.</p>
<p>But saying "hi" or "hello" is another thing entirely. This might be as much a cultural differences thing as anything else, and you can assure your dad that Stephen Hawking spents enough time in California to be aware of the prevailing customs for greetings.</p>
<p>You think that the title which you use to address someone doesn't affect the nature of the conversation? You think that's BS? Think about talking to someone on a first name basis vs. saying doctor or mister all the time. Are those really the same to you? Calling something BS seems to be your way of saying you have no better argument, which is fine with me.</p>
<p>As for how to address professors, it can sometimes be delicate, but in almost all labs/groups I've seen, it's always first names and people who deviate from that would be conspicuous. But of course one should follow the equilibrium. My feeling is that at Caltech it's often very casual, which is the way I like it.</p>
<p>There are entire studies in linguistics based on how people address each other and how that affects the flow of ideas. I remember once reading an example of a plane crash caused by ice on the wings for which they later analyzed the conversation in the cockpit. The copilot happened to have greater experience flying in those conditions, unbenownst to the pilot, but used a deferential tone and wording because of his inferior status. Because of this wording, the pilot did not give much weight to the copilot's comment about ice on the wing, and the result was disastrous. </p>
<p>This is obviously an extreme example, but the point is that Ben's assertion about the importance of a free and equal discussion and its setup based on address is not BS.</p>
<p>"To lizzardfire, I didn't notice your message #5 when I posted mine #6. Good for you to have such wonderful experience with President Chameau. However, your endorsement to the letter reminded me of Condoleezza Rice. You may not have the intent, but you are murdering Ben Golub's incentive to stay rational as a scientist should always be. Caltech needs no cheerleaders."</p>
<p>Biggs, I don't even understand what you're saying. Let's examine what I posted in a rational, scientific manner. </p>
<p>The post was comprised of two sentences. The first sentence was my personal approval of Ben's letter. I thought it was well written and amusing. The second sentence was an anecdote of mine that exemplified the spirit Ben spoke of. Nothing irrational about either of those...</p>
<p>I really could care less whether you think my "endorsement" sounds like something Condi Rice wrote (is that supposed to be an insult?) but since I don't really have extensive knowledge of how Condi Rice writes endorsements I guess I can't really debate it, heh. </p>
<p>As for your second comment, that I was murdering incentive for rationality, I have to ask if you understand the meaning of rational. If you do, then please explain to me what was irrational about my post. In addition, I fail to see how sharing a positive experience constitutes cheerleading--I didn't say, OH MAN CALTECH IS THE BEST--I just told a true story. </p>
<p>One more thing: I find it a bit ironic that a student who makes a post about the proper way to address individuals politely finds a way to insult an individual three times in response to two short (and unoffensive!) sentences.</p>
<p>I think Hawking would be about the last person in the world to be offended by informality -- according to the scientist gossip, he was quite the arrogant little snot in his younger years.</p>
<p>Scientists don't tend to get too hung up about modes of address in general, but I think Hawking would be particularly inclined not to care.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know much about Confucius, and only thought his waning influence, good or bad, was limited to the Chinese. Apparently, you are of very different opinion, for which I have respect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know much about the rest of the argument-- nor is it of interest to me as a grad student at a program where first names are tossed around like candy-- but I do know Confucius.</p>
<p>And Confucius is not waning as much as some Westerners seem inclined to believe. Nor is his influence limited to China in any way. I might suggest that biggs read up on Norinaga Motoori and Fu.kuzawa Yukichi to see just how pervasive Confucian thought was in Japan (which was based on a much stricter Confucian hierarchy than China ever was!) Similarly, read up on the continuing debate on Confucianism's place in Korea, and how in many ways Korea remains the most Confucian state in Northeast Asia. </p>
<p>That's only Northeast Asia. Zheng He et. al. made sure as recently as the 15th century that Southeast Asia was a good little Confucian tributary region by the sword. The Qing wouldn't push the matter like the Ming did, but soft power in the region alone ensured Confucian influence as far as the boundaries of Laos...</p>
<p>Sorry, I just couldn't help but jump in on something that I care and know about. Oh, and a quick trip to your local Japanese secondary school will show you how despite the apostasy that the Meiji era elites committed, Confucian hierarchy still exists in some fashion even in the "liberal" state of Japan.</p>
<p>I hate to rub salt in the wound, but biggs: quit while you're less far behind than you're about to become.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Ben on this one. I personally think that it is of the highest importance to always understand our own place in the world, and never hold ourselves so highly that we're offended by a greeting. On the other hand, having grown up with parents who heavily stressed respect and politeness, I can understand biggs's father's point about respectful greeting. On the other hand, I think we can all agree that the perceived transgression (if it could even be considered that) was so minor as to not be worth noting. Hawking evidently didn't care, the students didn't care, and I would bet it set a good tone for the talk.</p>
<p>A lack of formalities can be very useful when it reflects an ease of communication that allows for free exchange of ideas. If it reflects lack of respect, only then is it a problem - and I don't think it did, in this case.</p>
<p>As a grad student myself, I tend to find that many of the most brilliant and well-established professors simply stop caring about the titles. Some continue to care because it's a nice trophy to hang on to, but most simply tell grad students to address them on a first name basis. After all, they're training future equals, right?</p>