I'm Dave Sholl the school 

chair and it's a pleasure to welcome you


to the new academic year and to our

seminar series for the year our well now


two year old tradition is that I've given

a talk in the first seminar each year and


have not chosen a technical topic but have

chosen something related to the world of


doing research as we go through

the semester you'll find that we've got


a really great series of speakers external

speakers coming in to tell us about their


research we also one day have an alumni

panel where we're having several of our


former Ph D. students who are now

very successful either in industry or


academia come back to talk to

us about non-technical skills


that are important to them so I think

you'll find their whole seminar series


Very good let me see if we're

going to just the lighting here.


All right so what I'd like to do today

is give you a talk motivated by this guy


this is Stephen Covey who quite a number

of years ago wrote a book called


The Seven Habits of Highly Effective

People so you can see on the cover there


that it sold many millions of copies then

it's actually a very good book so it's one


of the sort of classics of the if you call

if you like the self-help literature and


I'd recommend that you read it some

time his basic idea is that to be really


effective you have to have good habits of

character and then good habits of how you


do things and so the book obviously is

about seven particular habits to do that


now a useful heuristic if you're

interested in creating new ideas is often


to state the opposite of the idea that

you're really interested in so hopefully


all of you are interested in being highly

effective people but that brings me to


the title of my talk in order to think

about doing very effective research we're


going to talk about the seven habits of

highly ineffective researchers and so


I'm going to give you a list of all

talk through several things that people


do including myself have

done in the past that


limit the kind of effectiveness

we can have doing research and


so hopefully in doing that we'll talk and

think about ways of doing better.


So let's jump right into it we're going to

have at number one which if I can get my

clicker to work here I can't so I'll just.

That's right number one is use

media effectively All right so


you know number one is

believe your own hype OK So


all of you if you are working on a new

project or you're writing a paper you know


you might get some information and you'll

read that first paragraph of the paper and


it'll tell you that if only we could solve

this problem the entire world would change


OK so that's great and we all need that

information to get out in proposals funded


but that's not necessarily how we actually

do work just to give you one example so


this summer we got some great news

that a new research center that's


going to be led by Dr Walton has been

funded by the Department of Energy This is


a really big center eleven million dollars

over four years seventeen people at


Georgia Tech elsewhere all kinds of great

stuff some of you will end up working as


part of the center and we will presumably

give you a copy of the proposal so


when you do read the proposal you'll

find that the goals of the center are to


develop a deep knowledge base

characterizing acid gas interactions


a pleasurable to a broad class

of materials sounds pretty good


would be good if we could do that and

to advance fundamental understanding of


the characterization and

control of defects and


poor solvents So I would argue that

those words are all very good and


very powerful but if you come into

the lab to your new project and


you think that's what you're going to

do it's unclear what to do it all OK so


this kind of information

does not translate at all


into a near term research project it

doesn't actually tell you what to do


so it's important to have the hype and

be able to explain in a general sense


what you want to do in your work but

you need to be able to focus what you're


really trying to do now I think useful way

to do that is to think about the kind of


person that you're trying to impress with

your results so a number of years ago.


I had a rather unusual experience and that

is that I went to an international meeting


this meeting was actually in Iceland and

it was a major technical meeting but for


various reasons my parents came with me

and so that meant that I went to give my


talk at this conference and

my mother was able to come to the talks so


that's not actually my mother but

you know that's so


my mother happens to be a good cook she

is not an expert in technical matters and


so the good news is that my mother

was impressed with my talk OK


that's you know if you can do that

that's probably not a good sign and


says something about your family perhaps

but I'd argue that this is not really


a sufficient level to aim for OK so

let's aim a little higher than that.


Around the same time as I went to that

conference I went to a university


in this country to give a seminar and so

we gave a seminar something like this and


in the front row sat a very senior

very well known faculty member


someone who's in the National Academy

of Engineering who are called Dr X.


so as not to reveal his identity and

so I gave my talk and


at the end he asked a question and

I answered the question that was all fine


after the talk I was talking to one

of the other faculty members and


he said to me Well that was just

the greatest seminar we've had for


a long time and I thought wow that's

you know I felt good about that and


he said You're Dr X.

stayed awake the whole time.


All right so you know hopefully you also

don't want to see this in the room when


you're talking so again that something

to aim for if not totally boring your


audience to sleep but it's still that's

maybe not the right thing to aim for


so what you need to do in thinking about

focusing your research is I think having


in mind a model of someone who is really

really into the details of what you're


doing OK this is the sort of person that

when you go to an international conference


they don't come up to you and

ask how long did you come in for.


So how is your trip they start the

conversation by saying in your paper in


two thousand and eight you said this

OK And so you need to imagine someone like


that if you are a follower of the Big Bang

theory you might imagine this individual


and so I think this is actually a pretty

good model you should imagine trying to


impress someone like this in your field

with your results OK so it's great to have


the big picture but don't let the hype get

to you you've actually got to figure out


what it is that will impress the people

in your field that actually takes a deep


knowledge of the field and a deep

understanding and I think will help you


move forward in doing your research All

right that's have it number one let's look


at have it number two the UPS see if I can

go backwards here or I'd have a number


two is don't learn from the past there's

a famous quotation from George Santayana


who said those who cannot remember

the past are condemned to repeat it


that's obviously true in doing scientific

research now to illustrate this I want


to show you a verbatim review of a paper

I'm an editor for Langley earned that


means I get to read hundreds and hundreds

of reviews every year so let's look and


see what this reviewer said

about this particular paper.


Topic is very interesting and the paper is

clearly written however my major concerns


are novelty of the conclusion is unclear

data not rigorously collected and


analysis and discussion lack

depth that was the entire review.


This this is not really a review that you

want to get when you submit a paper to


a journal but I actually want

to highlight something here and


that is even if they'd just put number

one if they had just said the novelty of


the conclusions is unclear that's enough

for the paper to be rejected OK in doing


scientific research what we want to do

is we want to move the field forward and


in order to do that we have to know

what's happened in the field before


now there's really no excuse for

not knowing the history it's extra.


Remotely easy these days to

learn the history of a field


extremely easy to search for past papers

you can search for papers going back


a long time you know a long time like

back to when I was doing my Ph D.


that might seem like a long time ago and

there's just no excuse for not finding


these things a practical exercise I'd

suggest for you if you're already involved


in doing research is to think about this

question if you look five ten twenty years


ago in your field what are the seminal

papers what are the things that you really


think that everybody in the field should

know about because there there are papers


like that if there aren't it's not quite

clear where the field is going OK so


that's habit number two don't learn

from the past have a number three is


work alone so one of the Aka tiple ideas

of a scientist or a genius is someone


who works all by themself and they're

often in their own little cocoon and


they generate something new so Actually

that's what this guy did this is a man


who before he did his

work studied physics and


then it turned out that his one of

his physics professors suggested that


in order to advance his career he should

become a monk and so he did I think that


maybe said something about his ability

in physics I'm not quite sure this is


Gregor Mendel works all right so

I got to get control of this thing so


Gregor Mendel you know he developed

Mendel's laws of inheritance so


he's a very very famous scientist he might

have had a little trouble with the modern


tenure and promotion system it took

him let's see seven years to grow

twenty nine thousand P.

plants that it took him another three

years to analyze his data he finally


published a paper that was cited by three

people in the next thirty five years but


nonetheless he actually now is remembered

by a lord that we refer to in genetics and


so that's a wonderful story and it's

sort of if you think about the image of


a solitary individual working

on things that's a nice image.


I would argue in reality in doing

science in the modern world


this is not a useful model of all science

is a logic collaborative effort and


instead you have to think of a model where

many people work together to do something


and so I think a useful metaphor actually

is thinking about the group of people

who make a movie and so to do that.

We're going to look here at

the end credits from a movie.


Right all right this is the Lego movie if

you haven't seen it then you've really

missed out but

what I want you to do is watch is involved

All right we've got the directors so


they're involved in the creative content

you've got the screenplays the someone


else was involved in developing the

screenplay it took one two three four P.


people to write the story apparently this

these two guys who were the producers.


Turns out there were more people who were

produces So there's another three produces


more producers three more exactly I don't

know what executive producers do but


it's even more executive producer

that you'll find as we go along but


if you watch the credits of a movie you'll

find there's a tremendous number of people


who play different roles in actually

getting thing to work right and


so if you watch a really long movie like

Lord Of The Rings the credits actually


take about twenty minutes because

they have to credit everybody who


brought a sandwich to the set or something

I don't know but one of the things I want


you to think about in doing research is

that even when you're working by yourself


in a sense you have to play all of these

roles you've got to play the director role


of having the creative vision of what's

going on you've got to have the producer


role of who actually lines things up and

gets it done you've got to have the talent


that actually does the experiments so

there's all these different things there's


another guy who's a producer associate

produces I mean I don't know


what that what they were all doing really

but I think this is a useful metaphor


to think about doing science as

your planning out a month or


three months worth of work in science

don't think of yourself as just had.


One roll at a time instead think

about all the different pieces


that have to go in order for

things to work all right so


you have to listen to

the music on your own.


So my kids were impressed that I

can fit the Lego movie into this.


All right have a number for

confuse activity with productivity so


I've got a couple of dictionary

definitions here for you a slacker is


a person who avoids work or effort and a

loser is a person who fails frequently or


is generally unsuccessful in life

now my hope is that you don't


find your the people in your research

group or your advisor using these terms


to describe you that would not be a good

outcome but I would argue this is


not the issue right I'm not talking about

people who are not trying at all what


I'm really thinking about in this talk is

folks who are trying to be effective but


are not being as effective as they can and

so rather than talking about losers and


slackers I'm going to claim

that in fact it's possible for


a highly ineffective research or

to actually be a work a lot and


to look like they're getting a lot done

but in fact achieve very little and


so we're going to talk a little

bit about time management and


this is one of the key things that Covey

covers in his book so one of Covey's ideas


which I think is powerful is

to think about time management


using these four quadrants so

what you see here on the horizontal axis


is dividing tasks into things that are

urgent and things that are not urgent and


then on the vertical axis dividing things

in between things that are important and


things that are not important

OK just because something is


urgent doesn't mean it's important I mean

it might might really need to be done but


it's not the most important

thing to do and so


he's there listed here some

of the kinds of things that


fall in these different categories so for

instance the person who made this shot put


trivia busywork in internet

surfing down on the not.


Important not urgent category I would

actually go further it's like you could


almost make the argument that anything

involving the Internet perhaps could go in


the not urgent not important category

the challenge is to really identify


the tasks that fall in the top right hand

part the things that are important but


not urgent and get those done those

are the things that we tend to put off and


so I put my list on the right hand side of

some of the ones that I think are really


critical in doing effective research

staying current with the literature


thinking deeply about your data and

learning new skills or techniques


I think all of us would agree that those

are really important things to do and in


the long run if you want to be very very

effective in doing research that you have


to do all three of those things however

none of them are urgent none of them


are as urgent as any of the things that we

all have to do from day to day and so we


have to somehow organize our time in order

to prioritize those kinds of things so


there's actually a couple of things I'd

like you to think about in terms of


doing this the first is to actually

assess how you use your time and so


on challenge you for a couple of weeks to

keep a Time Diary perhaps just an hourly


diary during the day and just honestly

record how you use your time and


then it would actually be a very good

idea to share that information with some


close friends maybe get them to

do the same and show you and


once you've done that think about

the tasks over a couple of weeks


that are not important excuse me that

are important but not urgent and honestly


assess how much time you spent doing

those things the natural tendency for all


of us is to put those things off put them

off because they're not urgent and so I


think this is a useful exercise certainly

as engineers we like to quantify things so


this might be a good way to do it there's

an illustration that Cubbie uses in his


book that's been around now for a long

time that I think is very useful and

it's to imagine that you have to take.

A jar and you have to fill that

jar with sand and with rocks and


the idea here is that the large rocks

represent the most important things but


the sand represents the things

that are most urgent and


the idea of the illustration is that if

you put the sand in first then it's going


to be hard to put the rocks in the jar OK

there's no great mystery in doing that


if On the other hand you put

the large rocks in first and


then you trickle the sand in it turns

out they fit in pretty well right so


that's definitely the same with managing

our time if we prioritize those really


important things and get those done first

it turns out that just about all the time


you can fit in the urgent things

around them now this is in


Stephen Covey's book there's actually

a strange inversion of this story that I


found when I was looking around which

involves adding a glass of beer to the mix

ups are about then.

And so the observation here is that even

once you've put in the big rocks and


then you've added the sand you can

still take a glass of beer and


pour it in there and

that's going to fit just fine as well and


that illustrates the fact that there's

always time for a beer with your friends.


So the other question I put up

there is think about we all I think


as people look at our time when we said

this is magical idea that at some point in


the future my life will be different I'll

be more organized I'll have more time and


the honest answer is that's just not true

OK it's not true in my life it's probably

not true in your life and

so the challenge is not to make

some magical change in our life but


it's just to use the time that we already

have and to prioritize things correctly.


Or it's were a bit more hot bit more than

halfway through now seven habits this is


the fourth habit so

here's habit number five.


There we go all right so

all right I think what I might do is.

Using this is going to be more effective.
Well maybe I won't use that.

All right have at number

five exclude all input


that is not immediately relevant OK So

one way you might imagine to be


extremely extremely effective in doing

research is to be hyper focused and


just think about one thing no matter

what else is going on around you I would


actually argue that in the long run that's

a fairly counterproductive strategy so


let's look at what a couple of

people have said about then.


We can get the computer to wake up Linus

Pauling who was a reasonably smart guy won


the Nobel Prize twice said the best way to

have a good idea is to have lots of ideas


so his suggestions just

think of lots of things and


some of them will be good there's

a guy called beverage great


name who said that originality

of thought that should say I'm


sorry consists in linking up ideas whose

connection was not previously suspected So


that's a nice way to think about it

the exactly the same idea was expressed in


a much more pithy way

by Steve Jobs who said


creativity is just connecting things and

I think if you think about


doing creative research that is often

true often the people who really make big


advances are the people who can connect

ideas that previously didn't connect


together OK Now in order to do that

effectively you have to be able to


think of many many things and understand

how they connect OK So let's talk for


a little bit about how you

might actually do that.


So one way to think about this is to think

what are the sources of input from for


you from a technical point of

view I would argue it's a very


good idea to regularly

read some scientific


news kinds of things that I've

listed several sources here so CYA.


It's nature and Chemical Engineering News

all have a weekly section that describes


advances in science and research at an

accessible level so that's a good place to


start getting this information I would

argue that this seminar series is a great


place to do that so some of you I know

will only come to the seminars for


the rest of the semester because it is a

requirement and by golly I've got to do it


OK so a better reason to come is

to think that this is a way for


you to hear from carefully selected

people from around the country who


are doing really interesting research and

to start to try and make connections and


learn about things that you otherwise

would not hear about Same thing can be


true for going to thesis proposals and

thesis defenses we have a large Ph D.


program here so there's always

people defending their thesis and


proposing a thesis those are open to

all of us and you're welcome to go and


learn about what's happening in other

groups and of course you should


read the literature in a very broad sense

not just in a very very hyper focused

way.

It's not quite enough just

to come to the seminar and


stare blankly at the screen and

think about where you might like to go on


vacation next year instead you actually

have to engage somehow and so one way I


would suggest to do that is the following

that after each seminar no matter how far


afield it is from the research that you

think you are doing ask yourself What was


the key thing that was advanced in

the field hopefully if the speaker


is good they actually answer that question

in a clear way sometimes they want but


it's a good way to think about what

advance was made why does that advance


matter was this some key idea or

technique that was used and


if so could you explain to someone

else in this room how it works


because if there's a new technique that

has really made some large advance and


you can't explain and

even general terms how it works.


Well that suggests there's something

useful to know and finally I'd argue that


it's useful to think carefully about

whether there is an analogy between that


work and your own research this might

sometimes seem quite difficult because


the topics of the seminar the topic

of your research might seem very very


different but this idea of thinking by

analogy I think is very very powerful and


in fact is something that you know

we can develop with practice and so


I'm going to do something that I promise

won't happen in any other seminar this is


semester and that is we're going to have

a contest with actual prize money and so


I'm going to have a contest only graduate

students are eligible to enter and


to enter you need to send

me an email by Friday and


the person who does best entry I'll

give one hundred dollars to all right so


to do that I have to tell you a little

bit of use it theory this year is


the sesquicentennial of the battle

of Atlanta in the civil war or


as we like to say here the War

of Northern Aggression.


If you know your history you might

remember that the battle of Atlanta


didn't go so well for Atlanta but

we got past it c'est recent Henry means


it's the one hundred fiftieth anniversary

so I was thinking about that and


it reminded me of a term in

music which is said Terra So


here's the definition of

terror it's relating to or


denoting a ratio of three to two so

actually you can see the connection with


the one hundred fifty it's also related

to an idea called a hemiola which is


a musical rhythm in which six equal notes

may be heard as two groups of three or


three groups of two and in fact there's a

famous example this is the guitar can show


by Were dream go where it

starts in groups of three and


then switches into groups of two and

then back into groups of three


one two three one two three one two one

two one two one two three one two three


one two one two one two that's a hymn you

all are very useful idea here in music


one more piece of trivia I've got

to tell you here about terror.


Which also kind of fits with the three and

two idea if I asked any of you to be time


in two you could do it just think about

marching one two one two one two that's


pretty easy if I ask you to beat three you

could do that that's a waltz one two three


one two three one two three easy enough if

I ask you to be in four that's extremely


easy if you turn on the radio every song

here in the radio is in one two three four


one two three four but if I ask you to

beat in five then it gets a little harder


so actually c'est wheelchair is useful

because it turns out it has five syllables


with equal stress and so if you want

to think about counting in five says.


Tara one two three four five one two

three four five works very well OK so


little trick or right what's all this

got to do with research the answer is


this is an exercise I want to give

you in thanking by analogy right so


here is the contest think of

an engineering process that is


analogous to set here or him you know

it's not at all this this is something


that does not have a right answer I'm

not thinking of something in my head but


I want you just to practice

this idea of taking an idea and


trying to think about analogies you

might think about cyclical process in


engineering you might think about things

that are divided into pieces I don't care


what it is the objective of this

exercise is just to help you


think in a creative way as

a fairly exotic example


of how drawing analogies between

things might be helpful to you.


All right so that's habit number five

where working our way down to the end of


the seven habits for this now let's

look at have it Number six so.


Have it under six is to criticize

others but never yourself OK Some


of you in fact most of us have been

sitting thinking through this list and


every single habit you think

yeah that's a terrible habit.


And that guy over there does it all the

time right well you know this problem has


been around for a long time if you read

the book of Matthew that describes


Jesus when he was traveling on earth and

teaching one of the things he did a lot


was to criticize the religious leaders of

the day and he did that by using hyperbole


and so one point he talked to them and

he said Why do you look at the speck of


sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no

attention to the plank in your own eyes so


that's clear hyperbole he's saying

not literally those things but


my suggestion here is go away from this

seminar instead of thinking about your


group mate who has bad habits really try

and reflect on your own behavior and


think how these things might influence

you so here's my list of several


times when it might be a good idea to

be self-critical in research it's good


to do it when your results are bad it's

good to do in your results are good and


it's certainly good to do it when you have

no results OK Basically any time during


your research you should be

self-critical of your results and


thinking about what they mean are they

valid are they helpful have they been


interpreted correctly OK this

is not a habit of being under


confident this in fact is a whole mark of

doing high quality scientific research


someone who is always thinking about these

things I think one of the things that


we can all do actually is develop

a culture where criticism and


critiquing research is viewed

in a positive way and so


let me suggest several ways that we

can do that in a positive way so


in a cultural way first

of all it's important


to critique the research never the person

OK it has to be totally acceptable for


us to ask questions about

each other's research but


without any With that we

are specifically criticizing a person


at the same time we all have to welcome

questions while this thing is really.

Alright let's see.
If you get my money back on this.
All right there we go.

When we are questions about our research

we should welcome those questions we


shouldn't get defensive

about them any time you get


a question about your research that's

a chance to strengthen your thinking and


further understand the work that you're

doing and I think especially we shouldn't


be satisfied in giving superficial answers

any of us who have given talks about


research have probably had the feeling of

giving a talk in answering a question and


knowing that that answer really wasn't

very compelling and wasn't really getting


to the heart of the matter OK that means

that probably there's some more homework


we need to do and we should be really

sort of craving the experience I think


of being able to give an answer that's

truly satisfying to someone who's really


interested in the details of

what's going on in our research.


Or at the final of the seven habits I have

to say actually that when I was developing


this talk I was trying to write down

a list of seven Habits and I thought about


ineffective ways to do research and

I wrote down a lot more than seven.

So I had to sort of condense it down and

so I've given you you know I guess

seven that I think matter a lot so


here's the seventh one we've talked

about being self critiquing.

Yeah.

Don't let your personal background hold

you back I'm going to tell you a story


here when I had finished my Ph D. I'd done

my Ph D. I was pretty successful published


a whole bunch of papers I then when did

a post-doc at Penn State and that was good


about publish more papers then I moved to

a second post-doc at Yale University and


when I arrived at Yale after

a few weeks I realize.


I was really intimidated by the place

I was walking around every day and


I'm really thinking to

myself wow I'm at this fancy


Ivy League institution all these

people are really really smart and


finally it occurred to me that well you

know I'm not smarter than these people but


I have just as many qualifications as them

in fact compared to most of the students


I have more qualifications because

i've already have my Ph D.


and some experience and I was just

letting my the story I was telling


myself hold me back I think all of us

can do that it's easy to look around and


think well there are people that have

better preparation than me they have


better equipment they have more funding

than I do they have less complex personal


lives they have more creative colleagues

they have better looking friends you know


all those kinds of things that might

limit us in our life and all of that may


be true to some level but I think it's

important to realize that having a healthy


level of self-confidence is really a good

thing I'll just point out that here


we are Georgia Tech Georgia Tech in

the last week was ranked as the number


six engineering university

in the world OK So


none of us need to feel like we're at

a place where we can't achieve highly


This is something where really research is

being done every day where we can achieve


at the very very highest level and we can

have that kind of healthy self-confidence


to tell you a little bit more

about that I want to show you


one way that I could have thought about

my story so I grew up in a little


town called Ahmed el shown there with the

star which is totally disproportionate to


its size so that the town of Armidale

has a population of twenty thousand


you notice that if you went directly west

from Armidale about three thousand miles


later you'd get to Perth that is after

passing nothing in between because


there is nothing in between so

I'm going to it's a very very far place in


terms of the rest of the world and

it certainly would have been possible for


me to convince myself that I'm from

this background this small room.


Real talent and you know what can I do in

the world OK so I just want to show you to


people who lived at least part

of their life in Armidale and


convince you that that kind of

background shouldn't hold you back so


the first person is this guy could

tell Evans So Condell won the Tour de


France in two thousand and eleven as

far as we can tell he did it without


taking poor performance enhancing drugs

which frankly I think to finish the Tour


de France without taking drugs is probably

a pretty impressive thing to do so


that was great you can see that he

didn't have an necessarily an easy life


you got to be tough to grow up in

Australia right so when he was eight


he was kicked in the head by a horse

was in a coma for a week but


apparently he got over that just fine and

went on to become a world class cyclist so


that's one example of someone who grew

up in the little town where I came from

another person is this individual right.
John corn fourth who.
Won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

So he just died last year actually grew up

as I said in Armidale won the Nobel Prize


in one thousand seventy five and did work

on the mechanisms of biosynthesis and


cholesterol so that's great you think wow

you know really good things can come out


again and it's interesting to look

into his personal history and


realize that he had so the disadvantages

that he had to overcome so


as well as growing up in rural Australia

it turned out that he became completely


deaf as a teenager and so around the time

he was finishing high school he had


become completely deaf he then went off to

university and studied chemistry and again


became a world class expert in things now

the reason to show you these is just to


say that I don't think there's a reason to

let our personal backgrounds hold us back


everybody have things in their personal

backgrounds that might create challenges


for them or where other people have more

advantages and that's fine but if we.


We shouldn't tell ourselves a story that

those will prevent us from doing things


OK Certainly these two people didn't

do that and it's just useful to realize


that in many respects especially when

you're studying for something like a Ph D.


you have the capability to change

the way that your future comes out and


so hopefully this is these two individuals

use for people in order to keep in mind


now you may be wondering and this will

be unusual I suspect for a seminar but


you may be wondering why

there's a piano here and


the reason is that after watching

the end credits of the movie I got


to thinking you know wouldn't it be great

to have music at the end of a seminar for


the end credits and

I thought it really would be and so


I got Dr Honolulu is going to come and

she's going to play some music for


us while we have the end of the seminar

and the end of the discussion.


So it's important to show you that we have

a faculty that are not only scientifically


talented but bring many many

other talents to bear as well.


To make sure that everything set up for

you here only.


All right so

while she's getting set I would just.

Conclude the talk.

What I've shown you are what I'll

call here the seven habits of highly


ineffective researchers dumpling believe

your own hype don't learn from the past


work alone confuse activity

with productivity exclude all


inputs that on immediately relevant

criticize others but never yourself and


let your personal

background hold you back.

I love this.

Now it's tempting when you come

to a seminar like this to think


this was great and

I enjoyed it maybe there's even a joke or


two that made you laugh but

it's also tempting best to go away and


forget about it and so what I did

was to with Amish night is hell.


To make a copy of this final

slide on these postcards and


I vos Jeff dollar if they could come and

give me a hand as you leave today


what I want you to do is

just take a copy of this.


And maybe put it in your lab notebook or

stick it on the wall in your office find


somewhere to look at it so that periodic

Lee when you're thinking of spending time


on the Internet watching cat videos

instead you look at these things and


think about whether there's some way

that you can become a truly effective


researcher instead of a highly ineffective

researcher So with that I'll conclude and


I'd be happy to take any questions

that you have thanks thanks.

Thanks.

I'm still hoping that she's going to fit a

sense we all Terry in there somewhere and.

Any questions or comments or
discussion.
What's that.

On there with the musical notation it's

actually broken into groups of three or


groups of two so

just by looking at it you can see

the difference.
And the other questions or comments.
Anyone want to admit to a bad habit.

All right well I'll let you enjoy

the music don't forget and the contest


one hundred dollars so I'll be looking

forward to your entries by Friday thank


you very much and I'll see you at the rest

of the seminars through the semester.