Why the NSA and CIA Hate Each Other Recently in the news, there has been some discussion of the new head of National Public Radio (NPR), a Ms. Katherine Maher. She is renowned for her somewhat controversial resume and a series of potentially troubling comments. Here is one example: “Truth is a distraction” — Katherine Maher, head of NPR Ms. Maher previously held positions at a number of organizations like: - The Council on Foreign Relations - UNICEF - National Democratic Institute - World Bank - Wikipedia - Atlantic Council - US State Department Reportedly, Ms Maher also apparently used to run "psyops" for the US Central Intelligence Agency (i.e., the CIA, which my friends refer to as the "Culinary Institute of America") in Syria from Turkey right before the Syrian civil war.[1] At Wikipedia, Ms. Maher seemed to push a left wing agenda, and also was responsible for creating a permanent fund-raising campaign there. Many are not that pleased with the direction that Wikipedia has taken, as a result. Ms. Maher has said in speeches that Wikipedians were not guided by "truth", but instead are attempting to represent our best present information. This is correct.[2] I have previously written essays here on Thinkspot exploring different standards and "epistemologies" for determining truth in various fields and contexts. However, many are wondering about Ms. Maher's attitudes about "truth" as the current head of a partially government-funded news and commentary organization. Certain elements of the IC (intelligence community) sort of nurture and foster this viewpoint that the truth is malleable, or should be. Obviously, if a government espionage agency is attempting to subvert an election, or overthrow a government, or engage in propaganda [3] or engage in assassination [4] or other "dirty tricks", truth and the law and ethics kind of get in the way. And Ms. Maher exhibits exactly the kinds of opinions that are necessary for success in some parts of the "black world". I remember numerous conversations I have had with a friend who was the former head of security an entity related to the US military. He told me, that there are friendly countries, but no friendly intelligence agencies. And that includes intelligence agencies within the same country. I have observed this through my neighbors in a major metropolitan area in the Southwest. The 'Culinary Institute of America' (aka 'Christians In Action', or the CIA) and 'No Such Agency' (NSA) are two sort of extreme examples in the US intelligence community (IC). The CIA and the NSA do not get along with each other very well. They have very different cultures and mindsets. The first and most obvious reason that comes to mind is who they recruit. They both look for reasonably intelligent people, but in different areas.[5] However, the CIA will mostly draw from people who were the head of the High School or College Student Council, or the Prom King (or Queen; no pun intended these days) or the homecoming couple or athletic stars or whatever. The CIA recruits from high school and college "royalty", for the most part. On the other hand, almost all of the most highly sought-after recruits for NSA were on the math team or the chess club, or something akin to these. They are almost exclusively "on the spectrum" and "neurodivergent". They might work odd hours and come to work with food caked on their clothes. They are "boffins" and oddballs and brainiacs. They are problem-solvers, who have no qualms about devoting hours or days or months or years or decades to an attempt to solve seemingly impossible quantitative and technical problems. These two groups are like oil and water. They do not mix. One group were the elites in high school, and beloved and skillful in social circles. The other group is completely awkward around other humans and more like gnomes or trolls. They do not get along, and they do not understand each other. They do not like each other. Both groups can do things the other cannot hope to accomplish. They both have a role in national security. Another reason that these two communities do not mix well are the mind-sets required for success in each. One is completely truth-based. The other is the opposite. A person cannot succeed in mathematics or science or engineering without coming face to face with the difficult realities presented by natural law, or logic. If you are unwilling to recognize the constraints presented by uncomfortable truths, you will fail, completely. No one could make or break codes or build surveillance technology without subscribing to this viewpoint. On the other hand, the HUMINT intelligence people, represented by those at the CIA for example, have a very different set of rules they play by. Their work is all about subterfuge and manipulation and misrepresentation. Truth barely enters into their work except as an inconvenient afterthought. They have a goal to reach, and the truth is just an irritation they want to sweep aside, or are even required to ignore. So, one can see why Ms. Maher subscribes to some of the positions she does. She might be inclined that way naturally, of course. But it might have also been encouraged by the kind of work and experiences she has had. People like myself, and Elon Musk (who is a fierce critic of Ms. Maher), belong to the other camp. Truth, or at least a certain kind of truth, is very important to us. Without some respect for truth and reality, we would accomplish nothing whatsoever. Notes [1] https://x.com/Indian_Bronson/status/1860711077379539252 [2] I write as a previous fairly active contributor to Wikipedia, before it started to head off into the weeds, where it seems to be now. [3] Barack Obama famously signed an executive order allowing the US public to be subject to propaganda by the media and US government agencies. Previously, this was illegal. [4] Also known, "charmingly", as "wet-work". [5] I do not particularly subscribe to the notion that some advance, that all forms of intelligence (in this context, meaning mental acuity) are equivalent, and general in nature. I think some have more gifts in one domain than another.

A few days ago, Jordan Peterson interviewed venture capitalist Marc Andreesen. I found the interview quite fascinating and I include a link below, along with my notes. I provide the notes so you can scan them quickly to see what they talked about. You can decide if you want to spend the time listening to the whole thing yourself, or not. And you do not have to take notes yourself, or you can use my notes as a starting point if you like. Ethics, Power, and Progress: Shaping AI for a Better Tomorrow | Marc Andreessen https://x.com/JBPpod/status/1880020968342712493 -authored Mosaic and Netscape -AIs are training on Reddit but not 4Chan -Reddit is far left and 4Chan is far right -Can one train AIs on copyrighted data? This is in court right now -if they can't train on copyrighted material, then they can only train on books published before 1923 [JBP says that should be an improvement] -Reinforcement Learning by Human Feedback = RLHF, socializes the AI so it can interact with humans and be polite -many of the people fired from trust and safety groups are now socializing the AIs; they are completely woke and corrupted with the woke mind virus -hyperpowerful avatars of our own flaws -AI safety movement -Marek health: evidence based protocols, individualized, 4.9/5 on trustpilot, code Peterson at checkout to get 10% off -closed government corporate cartel to regulate AI systems, so only 2 or 3 would be allowed to exist -same people and ethic behind social media censorship -society is built on self-sacrifice: an ARC principle -F-U money does not really exist, in practice, because as you get wealthier, you are responsible for more things -original definition of hate speech was anything that makes people uncomfortable -Macedonian bot farms led to censorship efforts because they would create click bait, like fake stories about the Pope dying; engine was built for spam but then applied to politics -everything became "misinformation" including objections to 3 years of covid lockdowns -Andreesen wrote a manifesto -Andreesen got into tech in 1994 -everyone in tech was a liberal progressivism, but that broke down in 2012 (-2017?) -philanthropy is no longer a way to wash your sins -demoralization campaign (including degrowth, woke ideology, etc) has been active in the West for at least 6 decades, against technology and capitalism -James Demoore was fired at Google for giving them feedback they asked for, because they thought their staff would burn the place to the ground -JBP Peterson Academy has an internal website for the 40K students, and they had to throw 4 students out, out of 40K users, to make a huge difference because they were behaving badly online -JBP had several best-sellers with Penguin Random House, and then there was a near revolt with his next book. They just moved JBP's book to a different division and everything was fine, but JBP wonders why they did not just fire the troublemakers -companies are now firing activists -antisocial women use reputation saving and exclusion whereas antisocial men use physical aggression -problems in tech were not just the employees, also the executive team, and also that boards of directors were involved and shareholders were involved and even BlackRock was involved and the Biden administration and the press core and so on -new technologies have enabled reputation savagers in all kinds of ways, while allowing them to be anonymous -when woke arrived, disparate impact regulations and laws became very intensified -illegal in Canada to discriminate not just on the basis of gender identity but also gender expression (fashion) -apply the Rooney Rule for applicants, but then into hiring and promotion and layoffs -Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) are formed and are segregated employee groups -tokenization: anyone of a victimhood group is assumed to be incompetent and hired only on that basis -now have ironically have illegal quotas -Spacex required to only hire US citizens but also to hire lots of illegal aliens, but these are incompatible and Spacex would be sued and guilty and at fault either way -same problem with legal requirements to hire the best performing employees but that is also illegal -a Kafka trap

What follows is the first of a series of essays discussing research and development. I focus in these essays particularly on how why anyone should do R&D, and why anyone should fund R&D. This first essay is just the index for the entire series of essays.  Reasons to do Research and Development Part I Abstract Introduction to R&D  Preface Questions about R&D R&D History R&D Currently in the US Analysis of R&D Reasons To Do Research And Development Part II Why Do We as a Society Do Research and Development Types of research and development 1. short term R&D 2. long term R&D Purposes of R&D Purposes of Short Term R&D Purposes of Long Term R&D Notes Reasons To Do Research And Development Part III Reasons Not to Do Research and Development  Notes Reasons To Do Research And Development Part IV Design of Organizations For Research and Development History of Organizations for Research and Development Current R&D Organizations in the US Cursory Thoughts About R&D and R&D Organizations Notes Reasons To Do Research And Development Part V Justification of Spending on Research and Development Short Term, Definite Research Long Term, Open Ended, Blue Sky Research Comparison of Results of Short and Long Term R&D Some Instructive Quotes on the Topic Down to Brass Tacks: Funding The size of effort devoted to Long Term Research compared to Short Term Research Who Decides The Topics of Long Term Research? How Can We Justify Blue Sky Research? Notes Reasons to do Research and Development Part VI Conclusions Summary

Abstract Research and development (R&D) is a common activity in a modern economy. We pursue R&D for profit, to protect ourselves, for pure enjoyment and the seeking of truth.  These reasons are discussed, along with other aspects of R&D. Introduction to R&D Preface Research and development is an important human occupation. Humans are always trying to improve their tools and their environment. In general humans want to make things faster, better and cheaper.  Questions about R&D Let's consider a few questions about research and development. For example, why do humans do this? What drives them to pursue this activity? On the other hand, there are some who do not like the idea of progress and advancement. Why do they feel the way they do? Do their arguments have any validity? Do they hold water? How should humanity organize research and development activities? How can we make them more efficient and more productive? How can we reduce the potential harmful consequences of R&D? Finally, if we decide to pursue some research and development project, sometimes it requires a collective effort that can be expensive. In that case, how do we justify the expenditure of resources on this sort of endeavor? These are the sorts of questions I want to touch on in this series of essays.  R&D History Humans have been around for a few hundred thousand years or more, as near as we can tell, depending on the definition of what a "human" is. Their lives have changed and evolved over this period. For example, most humans are no longer hunter-gatherers, living in caves.  What is striking is that humans tend to be very heavy users of a variety of tools. Sometimes humans notice recurrent patterns in their environment. With their ingenuity, humans can sometimes then exploit these patterns or regularities to create useful tools to manipulate aspects of their environment for their benefit. The information about these tools is communicated to other humans. It is passed on down through the generations as collective knowledge. Language and writing are special types of tools which facilitate this technology documentation, retention and transfer.  R & D Currently We seem to be entering an era of ever-accelerating research and development progress. Ideas and procedures become obsolete very rapidly now, even within a short span of years.  Analysis of R&D Since R&D is an activity that is important to us, we should understand it better. Perhaps it is worthwhile to examine the nature of research and development, including its benefits and drawbacks.  In addition, maybe we should think about how to get more out of research and development. I would suggest that we should try to improve the efficiency of the R&D process, if at all possible. Finally, how should spending resources on research and development be justified? How can we measure progress towards what we might agree on as worthwhile goals?

Reasons Not to Do Research and Development  There is a small but significant and loud fraction of any population that is dead set against research and development of many kinds. In some cases, they oppose all research and development in any area.  are sort of akin to the Luddites of the Industrial Revolution. But these groups now include 'degrowthers' and radical vegans and extreme environmentalists and anti-humanists, members of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and people dedicated to an organic and natural lifestyle. One can see them protesting across Europe, disrupting traffic and athletic matches, in a quest to stop the use of fossil fuels, or in extreme cases, even electricity. They want to destroy public artwork, even of historic value, and prevent people from seeking medical care. They are angry and they are vocal and they are well-funded. Some of them are stridently anti-intellectual. That is, they are angry at educated people, somewhat like China's Red Guard and Cambodia's Khmer Rouge. This ideology appeals at least somewhat to a large fraction of the population. They see their jobs and incomes being threatened by unfettered immigration and massive technological advances. They observe their standard of living collapsing, or at least being put at risk. They are afraid. The elites have kept up a steady drumbeat, warning of looming disaster on multiple fronts, for years and years, without offering much in the way of preparation or mitigation.  In addition, a lot of people are basically staggering under the weight of adapting to new technologies. Things change incredibly rapidly. New software and hardware and methods and procedures are incompatible with the previous generations of hardware and software. There are all kinds of problems with malware and hacking. So understandably, people feel overwhelmed and confused. Also, new technology is always a double-edged sword. It can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill. It is almost impossible to predict how a certain technology will evolve, what it will be used for and what effect it will have on the culture. There are often foreseen potentially disastrous side-effects from any technological advance. Is it possible to stop all scientific and technological progress? This might appear at first glance to be an attractive option. However, it is even worse when one segment of the human population does not adapt to evolving emerging knowledge and methods, and another segment does. If one does not keep up, they will be at the mercy of others. We can see examples of this throughout human history, and even now.  In the wise words of one of my colleagues, perhaps the best one can do is to prepare and participate in the creation of new scientific knowledge and the technical spin-offs that often result. One can either "surf" the onrushing Tsunami of technological change (and hopefully control it a little) or be drowned by it.

Design of Organizations For Research and Development  The design of organizations to do research and development is a large topic, that cannot be covered adequately in this short essay. However, some salient points can be touched upon. History of Organizations for Research and Development The annals of R&D organizations extend back into pre-history. But notable early examples might include the Library at Alexandria, and similar institutions in India and China. The Pythagorean Cult of Greece also was deeply involved in quantitative investigations.  While Europe went through its Dark Ages, the Islamic World nurtured science and mathematics for a few centuries, before the arrival of noted scholar Al Ghazali (1057-1111). Al Ghazali is said to be the second most influential figure in Islam.  After Al Ghazali was appointed to a position at the Al-Nizamiyya of Baghdad (a prominent institution of higher education) in 1091, he published his opus 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers'. There were basically two main points Al Ghazali made in this work. First, Al Ghazali said there are no such things as scientific laws, because they would tie the hands of Allah to perform miracles. And second, Al Ghazali claimed that mathematics was the work of the devil. Not long after the publication of this work, all scientific and mathematical progress ground to a halt in the Islamic Empire. Libraries were repeatedly burned and scholars were put to death. Laboratories and observatories were destroyed. Islamic culture has never recovered, even now, almost 1000 years later. A couple of centuries later, Europe began to awaken from its slumber. Europe entered into a period which we now call the Enlightenment. Universities were started in Northern Italy and in other places in Europe. Oxford, and later Cambridge, were founded in the UK. Universities provided somewhat sheltered locations for doing R&D. But a lot of research and development was still pursued by "gentlemen scientists" and "gentlelady scientists" and the like. Basically, these were people who had inherited wealth, or possibly had a rich patron like a member of a royal family. Therefore, they  could pursue research and development in a beneficial moderately-protected unhindered environment. There have been numerous attempts over the last couple of centuries to create new kinds of institutions for performing R&D, or new mechanisms for supporting R&D. For example, the patent system was intended to be a way for innovators to support themselves. This has not really worked out very well, over the long run. The patent system is now just a mechanism for large organizations to maintain their dominance.  Research prizes of various sorts such as the Nobel Prizes were also intended to provide support for researchers as well. However, these prize systems  have not really worked out as intended, particularly, either. I might also mention other organizations and efforts in the US, like the Franklin Institute, the Smithsonian Institute, the Thomas Edison Labs, the Alexander Graham Bell Labs (like the Volta Lab, the Volta Bureau and the Bell Carriage House) and the Tesla Laboratories. Edison organized large groups to do R&D, mostly of a short term nature. Tesla was more of an individual investigator. The Research Corporation of America attempted to get inventors to pool their patents and the resulting proceeds for the benefit of young investigators. Other early efforts were the Tuxedo Park Labs of Alfred Lee Loomis. There were assorted organizations that undertook investigations to benefit the military such as the US Naval Labs and the US Army Aberdeen Proving Grounds. There were shadowy R&D organizations that supported the nascent US intelligence community. There were other government labs as well doing R&D such as the NIH precursor, the Marine Hospital Service. Some corporations like IBM and AT&T and 3M  undertook R&D efforts and established R&D Labs. However, after World War II, everything changed in scale in US R&D, drastically. There were huge US R&D efforts associated with the war effort such as the Manhattan Project and the MIT and Harvard Radiation Labs. In the aftermath of the war, the US, with guidance from Vannevar Bush of MIT and others, set US R&D on a new path. Current R&D Organizations in the US Presently, R&D is pursued in the US by roughly 4 or 5 types of entities, for the most part. First, there are the Research Colleges and Universities. Then, there are a suite of government labs like the DOE and NASA labs. In addition, some large corporate labs remain, although their character has evolved somewhat, as has the corporations that are participating in R&D.[1] There are also some nonprofit organizations that engage in R&D, including some foundations that both fund R&D and engage in it themselves. The current systems for performing R&D in the US are exhibiting some deficiencies and problems, at least in some cases, anyway. They might not be as productive as they used to be, arguably.  Therefore, perhaps some thought about what R&D organizations require to perform better is in order. We should maybe think about ways to resolve issues that exist in current R&D organizations. Possibly, we could design new models for R&D.  Cursory Thoughts About R&D and R&D Organizations [2] Here is an incomplete list of what is needed for a productive research organization: a. tolerance of neurodiversity b. flexibility c. variety of work environments to accommodate different work styles d. tolerance of behaviors and situations that are conducive to productivity and innovation e. access to the tools of R&D, including research assistants and administrative support f. shielding from irritations and distractions g. security h. stability of support i. some balance of collaboration, cooperation and competition, with coordination as required j. inclusive environments k. access to mentorship and instruction programs l. freedom in the choice of problems and approaches m. supportive environment n. exposure to new problems and new ideas o. some level of recognition from colleagues and community for contributions I will address each of these in a bit more detail in the following paragraphs. To be productive in research and development requires basically three main attributes: (1) Obviously, the people participating in it should have some basic level of intelligence. Being able to absorb information quickly and to retrieve it as needed is valuable.[3]  (2) However, even more important than intelligence and knowledge, is imagination. One needs to be able to think "outside the box" to make progress in really difficult situations.[4] (3) The most important characteristic that is necessary for success in R&D is diligence, also known as perseverance or grit.[5]  Innovative and creative people are sort of special, and a bit different or unusual. They are not all identical to each other, but there are some generalizations we can make. They have some similar traits.  A large fraction of the highest performing STEM innovators are "neurodivergent". In previous years, we would have said they have Asperger's Syndrome.[6] Anyone spending an extended period among the top students and faculty at MIT and Caltech, or the top scoring finalists on mathematics prize exams, would immediately notice this, if they were familiar with neurodivergence. Neurodivergent people are sometimes, but not always, perceived as slightly socially awkward. They can become intensely focused on areas of interest to them. They are often hyper-rational and take things quite literally. "Normal" people, or "neurotypical" people can find them very difficult and frustrating to deal with, or even annoying to a certain extent. If you look at the history of R and D, this is invariably true, or at least pretty accurate in most cases, of figures like Newton and Galois and Einstein and Noethe and Ramanujan and many others. Those who make serious advances march to the beat of a different drummer, and are ridiculed and despised by most. And this has always been true, going back centuries or even millennia.[7] Almost always, the people who were on the "right path" and primed to make substantial advances in a field, were not recognized by their colleagues, and particularly not by the managers. This is where the expression comes from, that science advances one tombstone at a time. People resist new ideas until the older generation dies off, and then the resistance eases. Because of this, R&D organizations must be able to accommodate a diversity of personalities, particularly neurodivergent personality types.  Behaviors that might not be particularly conventional have to be tolerated to a certain extent. Therefore, there should be a certain amount of flexibility in the design of these organizations. Also, different creative individuals find different environments more suitable for their work. Some like a group setting. Some like a shared office. Some like an individual office. Some like cubicles. Some like a social atmosphere. Some need isolation.[8]  In addition, various innovators have different "triggers" for their creativity. If they are working on difficult problems, certain conditions can help stimulate their problem-solving abilities. For example, one person I know typically saturates themselves with a variety of information about the problem, and then goes out for long walks or bike rides to think. They carry paper and writing instruments along with them to record thoughts. Others find gardening conducive to creativity. I know someone who gets his best ideas while listening to classical music at concerts, and often scribbles notes on the programs. I have heard of someone who gets inspiration while watching horror movies during the middle of the day. And so on and so forth.  Every person has their own "creativity triggers". And it helps each person to know what those are, or to figure them out. And any organization focused on creative thought has to be able to allow for this, somehow.  Research and Development organizations need to provide access to the necessary tools of research and development. For example, it is common and sometimes necessary for STEM practitioners to be able to use libraries and computers and conference rooms and lecture halls and laboratories of various kinds. Lectures and classes are frequently useful and stimulating. Discussions and meetings can be helpful, but only if they are of a technical nature and not particularly frequent or mandatory. Sometimes support services are helpful, like administrative assistance and research assistance.  The technical denizens of these institutions might require a certain amount of "shielding" from the media or other irritations, on some occasions. If they are involved in sensitive work, then security also starts to become important.  Some research is more expensive to conduct, and requires expensive equipment. Other research is very inexpensive, and requires minimal facilities. Funding is a constant concern, and stability of funding is almost more important than practically anything else.  Since a modern research enterprise requires so many different specialized skills, it is increasingly rare that a single individual will be able to perform all the necessary tasks themselves. So there must be some allowance for collaborative teams to form, and for their work to be coordinated to a certain extent. If we want our research efforts to be inclusive of diverse teams of researchers, including disabled people, women, married people, parents of children, and other special categories, we have to take this into account. Previous R&D organizations have not always been designed to be able to welcome such a diverse population to their endeavors. However, we must start making efforts to experiment with models of R&D organizations that allow this.  It can be beneficial for researchers to engage in mentorship or instruction of the next generation of researchers. Basically initiation into the R&D 'guild' operates on a sort of apprenticeship model, and has done so for many generations. Not only does the student or mentee benefit, but the mentor or instructor or teacher does as well. As the saying goes, to really learn something, it helps to teach it. By forcing oneself to make a subject understandable to a neophyte or an outsider, the investigator often gains new insights. So a relationship with a nearby or online university can be beneficial, as can other arrangements.  The R&D process can be grueling, with long hours and long weeks and long months of unceasing toil.  Twenty hour days are not uncommon. One hundred and twenty hour weeks are not uncommon.  The overall R&D effort can also incorporate long fallow periods as well. An investigator can hit a temporary dead end, or be slightly burned out and need to recharge and get re-invigorated and motivated. Sometimes sabbaticals are called for. Sometimes conference and lecture tours are stimulating. Sometimes discussions with colleagues help. Another useful technique for an innovator who is "stalled" is to rotate from one project to another, and to keep at least a couple of projects active at any particular time. One can "bounce" between the projects, in that case. Creating breakthroughs cannot really be done on a schedule. This is frustrating for outsiders, but that is just the nature of the process.  Researchers also need a degree of freedom, in their choice of projects and approaches. Many current models fail in this, in that failed researchers who have moved into management dictate the projects and how they should be attacked.  It is beneficial to have a lack of distractions in the research environment. Too many distractions can stall progress. Administrivia and irrelevant meetings and assorted yak-shaving tasks are all distractions. The research environment should not be excessively harsh or demanding or cruel. It should be pleasant and at least minimally supportive.  Some competition is good in the research environment. And some cooperation is also good. There needs to be some balance between cooperation and competition. Exposure to new ideas and new problems is also useful. These can be very stimulating for the research staff. It is nice that successful researchers receive some measure of recognition for their contributions from their colleagues and community. Attacks, which are all too common, are not particularly beneficial. These are just some preliminary thoughts about those who perform R&D, and what they need to do their jobs, and what the organizations they are associated with need to provide. Of course, much more detailed analyses are possible and called for. All of these requirements apply to organizations that are involved in short term research and development, long term research and development, or organizations that are involved in a mixture of both. Notes [1] It is not always easy for a corporation or even a government entity to justify engaging in R&D. Many R&D facilities have fallen victim to cost-cutting and efficiency efforts. This topic is explored a bit more in other sections of this document. [2] I do not have the space here to address various advanced ideas and proposals for how to redesign our research and development institutions. These can be found in other documents.  I also will not spend a lot of effort describing the faults and problems that I have observed in many of our existing R&D organizations. Instead, what I want to do is to provide a couple of observations that might be useful to keep in mind about R&D and the people who perform it. So this is not meant to be a complete and exhaustive analysis in any way. But it might be illustrative. [3] "I was an ordinary person who studied hard. There are no miracle people." -- Richard Feynman [4] "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research." -- Albert Einstein [5] "I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." -- Coleman Cox “Genius is 1 per cent inspiration and 99 per cent perspiration.” -- Thomas Edison "If you want to have good ideas you must have many ideas. Most of them will be wrong, and what you have to learn is which ones to throw away." -- Linus Pauling [6] The original French term for Asperger's is roughly translated as 'idiot savant'. I asked a former girlfriend if she thought the term 'idiot savant' suited me. She said, "Well, I can believe the idiot part..."  Although I found this humorous, and her comment is somewhat amusing (and possibly was meant as a joke; you would have to ask her), there is a grain of truth here as well. Asperger people can sometimes seem quirky, and a bit "odd".  [7] Although it is "only" a line in a screenplay, I found that this quote really resonated with me; "Sometimes it's the very people who no one imagines anything of who do the things no one can imagine." -- Christopher Morcom (played by Jack Bannon) in The Imitation Game (2014). [8] The question of whether it is more beneficial to be alone or in a group setting to perform research and development is a complicated one. I suspect that the answer is either "both" or "it depends". There is a sort of unstated benefit associated with a push to encourage  people to return to the office, after the pandemic. It is to facilitate more unplanned contacts in the hallways and in the lunchroom.  This is not to say that this is a good universally-applicable motivation for "return to work edicts", since solitude can also be very beneficial. Here are three quotes from Nikola Tesla that reinforce this viewpoint: 1. "Be alone, that is the secret of invention; be alone, that is when ideas are born." 2. "The mind is sharper and keener in seclusion and uninterrupted solitude."  3. "Originality thrives in seclusion free of outside influences beating upon us to cripple the creative mind." -- Nikola Tesla This is echoed in the practice of Siberian tribes: "In Siberian tribes, shamans were often isolated from the rest of the community, meaning they lived somewhat apart from the everyday life of the tribe, and this isolation was considered crucial to their role as spiritual mediators who could access the spirit world through deep trance states during rituals; this practice allowed them to focus on their spiritual duties without distractions and was a key aspect of traditional Siberian shamanism." [9] Apparently, young men who were going to be trained as shamans were separated from the rest of the tribe and isolated from an early age. [9] For more information, consult sources like: A Bridge Between Worlds in Siberia: Tatyana Vassilievna Kobezhikova https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/bridge-between-worlds-siberia-tatyana-vassilievna Shamanism in Russia - Ancient Rituals & Traditions, written by Alicja Pietrasz https://www.56thparallel.com/shamanism-in-siberia/