Knuth Urges Young Researchers to Shun Trends for Long-Term Prestige

Web of Stories - Life Stories of Remarkable People

Scientists gain more prestige and benefit the world more by pursuing uncrowded problems through deep fundamentals rather than chasing fashionable topics to satisfy academic peers, Knuth says.

AI-assisted summary of Donald Knuth - My advice to young people (93/97) — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2012-05-02

Key ideas

Donald Knuth advises young researchers against pursuing trends or seeking prestige through popular topics, arguing that doing genuine science yields greater long-term benefit and recognition. (0:00)
Knuth rejects top-down summaries, recalling Peter Wegner's 1960s advice to publish a 'Reader's Digest' version of 'The Art of Computer Programming' before tackling the full treatise. (1:38)
Emphasizing bottom-up mastery, Knuth advocates learning 'everything about something' to create 'firm pegs' for subsequent knowledge, noting he often reads extensive material just to write a single sentence with confidence. (2:08)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by Web of Stories - Life Stories of Remarkable People on May 2, 2012, this clip features American computing pioneer Donald Knuth during a 2006 interview recorded by Dikran Karagueuzian. According to the page description, the series highlights Knuth's life and influential career, spanning his multi-volume masterpiece The Art of Computer Programming, TeX, METAFONT, and his distinctive, quirky humor.

## TL;DR Donald Knuth advises young researchers to resist following academic fads and warns against pursuing subjects solely for external prestige, arguing that genuine curiosity and good science produce far greater long-term benefits. Reflecting on his own intellectual temperament, he explains why he rejected colleague Peter Wegner's advice to write a high-level summary of The Art of Computer Programming first, noting that he cannot write comfortably without total bottom-up mastery of the details. Citing his deep-dive study of select biblical verses as an example, Knuth illustrates how establishing exhaustive knowledge in a focused area creates "firm pegs" that support lifelong understanding and instill authoritative confidence in one's writing.

## Atmosphere & style Knuth's delivery is warm, intimate, and delightfully self-effacing, punctuated by wry chuckles as he pokes fun at his own contrarian impulse to distrust anything that becomes too popular. The narrative unfolds at an unhurried, reflective pace, feeling less like an academic lecture and more like a candid, behind-the-scenes conversation about intellectual honesty and working habits. There is a deep, quiet earnestness to his reflections, conveying the immense patience and rigorous solitary effort required to build genuine confidence in one's craft.

## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=0s) Donald Knuth advises young researchers against pursuing trends or seeking prestige through popular topics, arguing that doing genuine science yields greater long-term benefit and recognition. - [01:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=98s) Knuth rejects top-down summaries, recalling Peter Wegner's 1960s advice to publish a 'Reader's Digest' version of 'The Art of Computer Programming' before tackling the full treatise. - [02:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=128s) Emphasizing bottom-up mastery, Knuth advocates learning 'everything about something' to create 'firm pegs' for subsequent knowledge, noting he often reads extensive material just to write a single sentence with confidence.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=0s) Young researchers frequently suppress their gut instincts to conform to community expectations and seek prestige. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=0s) Believing an idea is good simply because it is fashionable is a dangerous trap in academic and scientific pursuits. - [00:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=45s) More prestige and lasting value come from doing good science than from pursuing popular, trendy science. - [00:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=53s) Work motivated by genuine personal conviction has a significantly higher chance of being important in the long run. - [01:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=68s) Knuth authors books solely when he perceives a distinct, unfulfilled need, rather than responding to commissions or market trends. - [01:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=90s) Following individual instinct is far more reliable and productive than following the herd. - [01:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=98s) In the 1960s, Peter Wegner suggested writing an abridged overview of 'The Art of Computer Programming' before writing the multi-volume work. - [01:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=115s) Knuth works strictly from the bottom up, refusing to write about high-level concepts without completely mastering the foundational low-level details. - [02:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=138s) Gaining exhaustive mastery over a small topic, such as a few biblical verses, establishes 'firm pegs' on which to hang further knowledge. - [02:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=156s) Lacking deep knowledge in a subject leaves intellectual understanding feeling flimsy and personally unsatisfying. - [02:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=164s) Knuth embraces the liberal education ideal of learning 'something about everything and everything about something.' - [03:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=182s) Writing authoritatively often demands reading through extensive background material simply to construct a single convincing sentence.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=0s) Resisting Trends and Following Gut Instincts in Science

When asked what guidance he would offer to a young person—noting that people always tend to ask that "funny kind of a question"—Donald Knuth points immediately to the danger of chasing trends. He cautions against assuming that an idea is inherently worthwhile merely because it is fashionable. Acknowledging his own contrarian nature with self-deprecating humor, Knuth admits that he often tilts toward the opposite extreme: if he notices too many people adopting a specific concept, his immediate impulse is to suspect it might be wrong, and if his own work were ever to become excessively popular, he would feel an urge to change direction.

While he openly dismisses that personal reflex as "ridiculous," he sees the inverse problem occurring far too frequently in academic and scientific communities. Young researchers often suppress their genuine gut instincts simply because they believe the wider community expects them to conform. As a consequence, researchers frequently devote themselves to topics they do not find interesting in the hopes of earning prestige. Knuth rejects this calculation, arguing that lasting reputation stems from pursuing substantive truth rather than jumping onto bandwagons: “I think you get more prestige by doing good science than by doing popular science, because if you go with what you really think is important, then it's a higher chance that it really is important in the long run.” In his view, it is ultimately the long-term impact that provides the greatest benefit to the world.

This personal philosophy directly governs Knuth’s approach to writing and publishing. When he sets out to write a book, he does so only because he perceives an unfulfilled need for it, rather than responding to publishers requesting a title or following existing publishing patterns. For Knuth, trusting one's own instincts invariably produces more enduring and meaningful work than simply following the herd.

- Knuth observes that researchers frequently choose subjects they care little about purely in pursuit of external prestige and community approval. - He emphasizes that following genuine intellectual curiosity yields a far higher probability of uncovering work that remains valuable in the long run. - His book projects are initiated solely when he identifies a distinct void that needs filling, rather than by external commission or trend-following.

---

[01:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=98s) Deep Mastery, Firm Pegs, and Writing with Total Confidence

Reflecting on how distinct temperaments require different working styles, Knuth recalls advice given to him in the 1960s by his friend, computer scientist Peter Wegner. Regarding the monumental multi-volume project *The Art of Computer Programming*, Wegner advised Knuth not to write the entire comprehensive series from scratch, but rather to write an introductory, "Reader's Digest" overview first and subsequently expand into the details. While Knuth acknowledges that a top-down summary might have suited Wegner's strengths, it is entirely incompatible with his own intellectual process. Knuth explains that he cannot comfortably write about high-level abstractions until he has completely mastered the underlying details: “I have to see something to the point where I've surrounded it and sort of totally understood it before I can write about it with any confidence.”

To illustrate this bottom-up approach outside computer science, Knuth cites his book exploring selected verses of the Bible. Rather than attempting a shallow, sweeping overview, he immersed himself in library research until he completely understood that specific subset of texts. Achieving comprehensive mastery over a narrow domain provided him with "firm pegs" upon which subsequent knowledge could securely hang. Operating without deep, solid knowledge makes an entire subject feel flimsy and intellectually unsatisfying.

Invoking the traditional maxim, Knuth observes: “The classic phrase is that liberal education is to learn something about everything and everything about something and I like this idea about learning everything about an area before you feel... if you don't know something real solid, then you never have enough confidence.” This demand for rock-solid understanding directly shapes his prose. Knuth often reads through vast amounts of background material solely to construct a single sentence. In his experience, writing from a foundation of genuine mastery naturally informs word choice and tone, whereas superficial knowledge inevitably reveals itself between the lines.

- **Peter Wegner's 1960s proposal:** Suggested publishing an abridged, high-level summary of *The Art of Computer Programming* before writing the full, comprehensive treatise. - **The "firm pegs" philosophy:** Demonstrated through his deep-dive study of specific biblical verses, where exhaustive research into a focused subject established secure mental hooks for all subsequent learning. - **Micro-level precision in writing:** Knuth frequently wades through entire volumes of research to author a single sentence, ensuring that subtle nuance and authoritative confidence are embedded implicitly in the prose.

## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=0s) I think you get more prestige by doing good science than by doing popular science, because if you go with what you really think is important, then it's a higher chance that it really is important in the long run. — Donald Knuth

> [01:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=98s) I have to see something to the point where I've surrounded it and sort of totally understood it before I can write about it with any confidence. — Donald Knuth

## Mentioned Donald Knuth, Peter Wegner, The Art of Computer Programming, Bible, Surreal Numbers, TeX, METAFONT, Dikran Karagueuzian

## Video description To listen to more of Donald Knuth’s stories, go to the playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVV0r6CmEsFzeNLngr1JqyQki3wdoGrCn

Donald Knuth (b. 1938), American computing pioneer, is known for his greatly influential multi-volume work, 'The Art of Computer Programming', his novel 'Surreal Numbers', his invention of TeX and METAFONT electronic publishing tools and his quirky sense of humour. [Listener: Dikran Karagueuzian; date recorded: 2006]

TRANSCRIPT: If somebody said what advice would I give to a... a young person - they always ask that funny kind of a question. And... and I think one of the things that... is... that I would... that would sort of come first to me is this idea of, don't just believe that because something is trendy, that it's good. I'd probably go the other extreme where if... if something... if I find too many people adopting a certain idea I'd probably think it's wrong or if, you know, if... if my work had become too popular I probably would think I had to change. This is, of course, ridiculous but... but I see the... I see the... the other side of it too... too often where people will... will do something against their own gut instincts because they think the community wants them to do it that way, so people will... will work on a certain... a certain subject even though they aren't terribly interested in it because they think that they'll get more prestige by working on it. I think you get more prestige by doing good science than by doing popular science because... because if... if you go with... with what you really think is... is important then it's a higher chance that it really is important in the long run and it's the long run which... which has the most benefit to the world. So... so usually when I'm... when I'm writing a book or... or publishing a book it's... it's different from books that have been done before because I feel there's a need for such a book, not because that... there was somebody saying please write such a book, you know, or... or that other people have... have already done that... that kind of thing. So follow your own instincts it seems to me is better than follow the... the herd. I... my friend Peter Wegner told me in the '60s that I should, for Art of Computer Programming, I shouldn't write the... I shouldn't write the whole series first, I should... I should first write a... a reader's digest of... of it and then expand on the parts afterwards. That would probably work for him better than... much better... but I... I work in a completely different way. I have to see... I have to see something to the point where I've surrounded it and... and, sort of, totally understood it before I'm comf... before I can write about it with any confidence and so that's the... that's the way I work, I don't... I don't want to write about a high level thing unless I've fully understood a low level thing. Other people have completely different strengths I... I know but... but for me, I... you know, I wrote a book about the... a few verses of the Bible, once I had... once I understood those verses and... and sort of everything I could find in the library about a small part of the Bible, all of a sudden I had firm pegs on which I could hang other knowledge about it. But if... but if I went through my whole life only under... without any... any in depth knowledge of any part then it all seems to be flimsy and... and to me doesn't... doesn't give me some satisfaction. Well the... the classic phrase is that liberal education is to learn something about everything and everything about something and... and I like this idea about learning everything about... about an area before you feel... if you don't know something real solid then... then you never have... have enough confidence. A lot of times I'll have to read through a lot of material just in order to write one sentence somehow because... because my sentence will then have... have... I'll choose words that... that make it more convincing than if I... than if I'm... than if I really don't have the knowledge it'll somehow come out implicitly in... in my writing. These are little sort-of-vague thoughts that I have when reflecting over... over some of the directions that distinguish what I've done from what... what I've seen other people doing.

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c)

中文简报

高德纳呼吁年轻研究人员远离潮流以收获长期声望高德纳表示，科学家通过深厚的基础探索冷门问题，比追逐热门话题以迎合学术同行，更能获得声望并造福世界。唐纳德·高德纳（Donald Knuth）建议年轻研究人员抵制追随学术潮流，并告诫不要仅仅为了外界声望而研究某些课题，他认为真正的求知欲和严谨的科研会带来远为巨大的长期益处。在反思自身的治学性格时，他解释了为何拒绝同事彼得·韦格纳（Peter Wegner）关于先撰写一份《计算机程序设计艺术》高层次概述的建议，指出若没有自底向上完全掌握所有细节，自己就无法自如地写作。高德纳以对精选圣经经文的深入研究为例，阐释了在一个专注领域建立详尽透彻的知识如何能搭建起支撑终生理解的“坚固挂钩”，并赋予写作令人信服的权威底气。唐纳德·高德纳建议年轻研究人员不要随波逐流，也不要通过追逐热门话题来寻求声望，他认为从事真正的科学研究能带来更大的长期益处和认可。 (0:00) 高德纳排斥自顶向下的概述；他回忆起彼得·韦格纳曾在20世纪60年代建议他在撰写完整论著之前，先出版一份《计算机程序设计艺术》的“读者文摘”简写版。 (1:38) 高德纳强调自底向上的精通，主张“对某一事物无所不知”，以便为后续的知识建立“坚固的挂钩”；他提到自己常常为了自信地写出一句话而阅读大量资料。 (2:08)

Reading summary

Computer scientist Donald Knuth advises young researchers to follow their genuine intellectual interests rather than chase academic trends, arguing that lasting impact comes from deep, bottom-up mastery of a subject rather than superficial or fashionable work. Resisting Trends to Pursue Substantive Impact (0:00) Knuth cautions young scientists against assuming that an idea is worthwhile merely because it is popular. He observes that researchers often suppress their own instincts to meet community expectations, pursuing fashionable subjects they find uninteresting in a bid for external prestige. While Knuth notes his own contrarian impulse to mistrust widely adopted ideas and abandon work that becomes too popular, he argues more broadly that lasting prestige is built on doing solid science rather than popular science. In his view, following genuine curiosity offers a much higher likelihood of producing work that remains important in the long run. This principle directly dictates how Knuth approaches publishing. He does not write books in response to publisher requests or broader market trends; instead, he undertakes a project only when he perceives an unfilled void that genuinely needs to be addressed. By trusting personal judgment over conformity, researchers can produce work of enduring value to the world. Building Firm Pegs Through Exhaustive Detail (1:38) Addressing different working temperaments, Knuth contrasts his bottom-up methodology with the top-down approach recommended to him in the 1960s by computer scientist Peter Wegner. Wegner advised writing an abridged, high-level overview of The Art of Computer Programming before tackling the full treatise. Knuth rejected this strategy because he requires a complete understanding of underlying mechanics before he can write about abstractions with confidence, stating that he must surround a topic completely before addressing it. To illustrate this need for solid grounding, Knuth cites his study of selected biblical verses, where exhaustive library research into a narrow set of texts provided "firm pegs" upon which subsequent knowledge could securely hang. Invoking the classic maxim of a liberal education—learning "something about everything and everything about something"—Knuth explains that deep mastery directly shapes writing quality. He often reads extensive background material to produce a single sentence, noting that genuine competence informs word choice and tone, whereas superficial understanding inevitably betrays itself. Knuth emphasizes that intellectual confidence depends entirely on rigorous, deep preparation tailored to one's own temperament, though he acknowledges that working styles vary and that his personal contrarian instincts represent an extreme reaction to academic conformity.

精炼阅读摘要

计算机科学家Donald Knuth向年轻研究者提出建议：应抵制追逐学术潮流的诱惑，遵从内在直觉探索真正具有长期价值的课题；同时提倡通过穷尽底层细节的自底向上研究法，建立牢固的认知支点与写作自信。抵制学术潮流与遵从直觉驱动 (0:00) Knuth指出，学术界存在盲目追随风尚的普遍风险。许多年轻科研人员为了迎合学界期待或追求外在声望，常常压抑自己真实的直觉判断，转而去从事自己并不真正感兴趣的热门领域。Knuth自嘲具有强烈的反向叛逆倾向——一旦某种观点被过多的人认可采纳，他的第一反应就是怀疑其可能存在谬误，甚至在自身的研究过分流行时产生转换方向的冲动。尽管他承认这种极端反弹并不合理，但他坚决反对在科研选题上跟风钻营。 Knuth强调，从事扎实而卓越的科学研究，比追求迎合大众的流行科学更能带来经久不衰的学术声誉。在他看来，追随自己深信真正重要的课题，在长期内对世界产生深远实质影响的几率要高得多。这一原则同样支配着Knuth的著述出版规划：他仅在敏锐体察到特定领域存在尚未被满足的切实需求时才会动笔写书，绝不因出版商的商业约稿或当下市场的流行趋势而随波逐流。自底向上构建“坚固支点” (1:38) 在治学与工作模式上，Knuth主张个体必须根据自身心智特点选择合适的方法。他回忆20世纪60年代计算机科学家Peter Wegner曾向其提出建议：在撰写多卷本巨著《计算机程序设计艺术》（The Art of Computer Programming）时，应先写一本类似“读者文摘”式的高层概论，随后再逐步补充细节。Knuth回绝了这一方案，指出自顶向下的宏观概括与自己的思维机制截然不合。他必须在底层细节被完全“包围”并彻底掌握透彻之后，才有信心着手进行高层抽象与学术论述。为说明这种彻底深耕窄门的方法，Knuth列举了自己跨界探讨圣经特定经文的著述经历。他并未采取泛泛而论的浅显浏览，而是扎进图书馆深入挖掘考证，直至将该特定子集的文本脉络全部融会贯通。这种对局部领域的彻底掌控为他提供了牢固的“认知挂钩”（firm pegs），使后续的新知识能够安稳挂靠。Knuth援引通识教育的传统格言“通晓万物之一二，精通一物之全貌”（learn something about everything and everything about something），指出如果未能在某一领域建立起坚实根基，整体的认知大厦就会显得脆弱且无法令人满意。微观严谨度对写作表达的支撑 (1:38) 这种对底层细节的彻底掌握，直接决定了Knuth的著述标准与文字底气。Knuth透露，为了在书稿中精准严密地写出一句具有权威性的话，他往往需要翻阅海量的基础文献与研究材料。在他看来，建立在真正透彻掌握之上的写作，能够自然而在字里行间体现出选词用字的严谨度与信心；相反，如果作者的理解浮于表面，哪怕再刻意粉饰，其知识的欠缺与心虚也终究会在字里行间暴露无遗。 Knuth的经验总结表明，真正具有恒久价值的研究成果并非来自于迎合学术潮流或走捷径式的宏观概括，而源于敢于遵从直觉的独立选题，以及对底层微观细节的穷尽式钻研与彻底掌握。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道“Web of Stories - Life Stories of Remarkable People”于 2012 年 5 月 2 日发布。视频内容选自 2006 年对美国计算机科学先驱唐纳德·高德纳（Donald Knuth）的口述历史访谈，记录了他结合自身学术生涯为年轻人提出的成长与治学建议。 ## TL;DR 高德纳首先告诫年轻人切勿盲从潮流，违背直觉迎合学术热点往往难以持久，唯有坚守内心认为重要的课题、做出扎实优秀的科学，才能在长远中赢得真正的声誉并造福世界。在谈及个人治学方法时，他回忆了自己撰写《计算机程序设计艺术》等著作的经验，强调自己必须自底向上、彻底吃透底层所有细节后才有信心动笔。他推崇“广知万物且精通一隅”的博雅理念，指出只有深厚的知识储备才能形成坚固的认知支点，赋予作品不可动摇的说服力与内心的充实感。 ## Atmosphere & style 整段访谈氛围宁静而睿智，高德纳以幽默自嘲、平易近人的长者姿态娓娓道来，没有居高临下的说教，尽显坦诚与纯粹。他在轻声慢语中流露出对底层真理的极致执着以及对学术浮躁的清醒洞察，让观众在从容温和的叙述中深刻感受到一种笃定求真、厚积薄发的学者风骨。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=0s) 高德纳建议年轻人不要盲从潮流，违背直觉迎合学术圈的热门课题往往得不偿失，做真正优秀的科学比做流行的科学更具长远价值与声誉。 - [01:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=110s) 拒绝先写宏观概括的建议，高德纳在创作《计算机程序设计艺术》时坚持自底向上的研究方法，主张必须彻底理解底层细节才能自信动笔。 - [02:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=170s) 践行“对万物皆有所知，对所专了如指掌”的博雅教育理念，高德纳指出唯有在局部领域建立坚实的认知基础，才能为更广泛的知识提供锚点，写作也能更具说服力。 ## Key takeaways - [00:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=15s) 不要仅仅因为某件事物流行就认为它是好的，盲目追随大众往往容易走入误区。 - [00:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=25s) 高德纳甚至带有走向极端的叛逆心理：若某项成果过于流行，他会怀疑其正确性或考虑转换研究方向。 - [00:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=45s) 许多人违背直觉去研究缺乏兴趣的热门课题，往往是误以为跟风能换取更高的学术声誉。 - [01:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=65s) 做优秀的科学研究比做流行的科学研究能带来更多声望，坚持内心认为重要的事从长远看对世界益处最大。 - [01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=85s) 著书立说的动力应当来源于填补真实需求的自觉，而非外界的请求或随大流的跟风。 - [01:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=110s) 彼得·韦格纳曾建议高德纳先写《计算机程序设计艺术》的文摘版再逐步扩写，但高德纳因研究风格不同而拒绝了该提议。 - [02:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=130s) 高德纳坚持自底向上的工作方式，在没有彻底吃透底层低级细节之前，绝不在宏观高级层面下笔。 - [02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=155s) 在圣经研究中吃透一小部分章节的经历，为高德纳搭建了稳固的“认知挂钩”，使后续吸收其他知识有了坚实依靠。 - [02:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=170s) 终其一生缺乏对任何领域的深度掌握会导致知识体系浮于表面，无法带来真正的内心满足感。 - [03:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=185s) 推崇博雅教育的核心理念：既要广泛涉猎对万物有所了解，又要深度钻研对所专一隅了如指掌。 - [03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=200s) 严苛的治学与写作标准：为了在书中写出精准而有说服力的一句话，宁愿提前阅读海量的背景资料。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=0s) 忠于直觉而非盲从潮流：做真正有长远价值的科学当被问及会给年轻人什么建议时，唐纳德·高德纳（Donald Knuth）首先谈到了人们面对潮流时的普遍盲从。他坦言自己脑海中浮现的第一个念头就是：“不要仅仅因为某件事物流行，就认为它是好的。”高德纳甚至笑着自嘲，他自己的思维往往走向另一个极端——如果发现有太多人正在采纳某种观点，他下意识就会觉得这种观点可能是错的；如果自己的某项研究成果变得过于流行，他甚至会怀疑自己是不是该换个方向了。尽管他承认这种极端的叛逆心理有些荒谬，但在现实中，他更频繁看到的是硬币的另一面：太多学者和年轻人违背自己内心的真实直觉，仅仅因为学术界或同行社区期望他们朝某个方向走，便随波逐流地去研究某些热门课题。高德纳犀利地指出，许多人之所以投身于自己其实并没有强烈兴趣的领域，本质上是因为他们误以为追逐热门能带来更高的学术声誉和地位。但他对此持有截然不同的价值判断。正如高德纳所总结的：“我认为，做优秀的科学研究比做流行的科学研究能为你赢得更多声望，因为如果你坚持做自己真正认为重要的事情，从长远来看它真正具备重要价值的几率就会更高；而正是这种长远的价值，才能为世界带来最大的益处。”（“I think you get more prestige by doing good science than by doing popular science, because if you go with what you really think is important, then it's a higher chance that it really is important in the long run. And it's the long run which has the most benefit to the world.”）这种坚守直觉的理念贯穿了他的整个学术生涯。每当他撰写或出版一本书时，出发点从来不是外界的催促或跟风，而是因为他清晰地感知到了填补空白的真实需求；在他看来，倾听内心的直觉远胜于追随群体的步伐。 - **对追逐潮流的批判**：盲目跟风研究缺乏长远生命力，违背内心直觉去迎合学术圈的热门话题往往得不偿失。 - **真正的学术声望来源**：声望建立在扎实、深刻且具有长远价值的“优秀科学”之上，而非短期博取眼球的“流行科学”。 - **创作与研究的动机**：著书立说应当源于对领域真实需求的洞察，而非顺应他人要求或效仿已有范例。 --- ### [01:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=110s) 自底向上的治学之道：彻底吃透底层才能胸有成竹谈到具体的工作与治学方法，高德纳回忆起了20世纪60年代他与好友彼得·韦格纳（Peter Wegner）之间的一段往事。当时，韦格纳针对高德纳雄心勃勃的巨著《计算机程序设计艺术》（The Art of Computer Programming）提出了建议：不应该一开始就按部就班地撰写整套系列丛书，而是应该先写出一本浓缩精要的“读者文摘版”（Reader's Digest），之后再对各个分支部分逐步展开扩充。高德纳承认，这种由宏观到局部的自顶向下路径对韦格纳本人可能非常管用，但他自己的认知与工作模式却截然相反。他坚定地表示：“我必须将某件事物研究到彻底包围它、完全理解它的地步，我才能带着信心去动笔书写。”（“I have to see something to the point where I've surrounded it and sort of totally understood it before I can write about it with any confidence.”）他无法忍受在没有彻底搞懂低层底层细节的前提下去空谈高层抽象。高德纳进一步举了自己撰写圣经研究专著（指《3:16 圣经文本阐释》）的经历作为例证。当他在图书馆中翻遍所有能找到的资料、把圣经中极小的一部分章节彻底吃透后，他脑海中便突然有了坚固的“挂钩”，能够将后续接触到的其他知识稳稳挂靠其上。高德纳感叹道，如果一个人终其一生对任何领域都缺乏深入透彻的掌握，那么所得的一切知识都将是轻飘浮泛的，根本无法带来内心的满足。他非常推崇关于博雅教育（Liberal Education）的一句经典名言——“对万物皆有所知，对所专了如指掌”（learn something about everything and everything about something）。高德纳坦陈，很多时候为了在书里写下看似简单的一句话，他不得不预先阅读海量的背景文献；正是因为底层理解足够坚实，遣词造句才会自然流露出令人信服的说服力，而知识储备的匮乏也同样会在字里行间无所遁形。 - **彼得·韦格纳的建议与分歧**：韦格纳曾建议高德纳先写《计算机程序设计艺术》的精简文摘版再逐步扩写，但高德纳坚持“彻底吃透细节再下笔”的自底向上研究路径。 - **圣经研究的“认知挂钩”**：在完全掌握一小段圣经经文及其所有背景资料后，形成的深厚基石成为挂靠更广博知识的坚实支点。 - **博雅教育与写作标准**：奉行“广知万物且精通一隅”的原则；为了写出精准有说服力的一句话，宁愿查阅海量资料以确保底层知识坚实无懈。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=0s) 不要仅仅因为某件事物流行，就认为它是好的。 — Donald Knuth > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=0s) 我认为，做优秀的科学研究比做流行的科学研究能为你赢得更多声望，因为如果你坚持做自己真正认为重要的事情，从长远来看它真正具备重要价值的几率就会更高。 — Donald Knuth > [01:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c&t=110s) 我必须将某件事物研究到彻底包围它、完全理解它的地步，我才能带着信心去动笔书写。 — Donald Knuth ## Mentioned Donald Knuth, Peter Wegner, 《计算机程序设计艺术》（The Art of Computer Programming）, 《3:16 圣经文本阐释》（3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated）, TeX, METAFONT, 《Surreal Numbers》 ## Video description To listen to more of Donald Knuth’s stories, go to the playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVV0r6CmEsFzeNLngr1JqyQki3wdoGrCn Donald Knuth (b. 1938), American computing pioneer, is known for his greatly influential multi-volume work, 'The Art of Computer Programming', his novel 'Surreal Numbers', his invention of TeX and METAFONT electronic publishing tools and his quirky sense of humour. [Listener: Dikran Karagueuzian; date recorded: 2006] TRANSCRIPT: If somebody said what advice would I give to a... a young person - they always ask that funny kind of a question. And... and I think one of the things that... is... that I would... that would sort of come first to me is this idea of, don't just believe that because something is trendy, that it's good. I'd probably go the other extreme where if... if something... if I find too many people adopting a certain idea I'd probably think it's wrong or if, you know, if... if my work had become too popular I probably would think I had to change. This is, of course, ridiculous but... but I see the... I see the... the other side of it too... too often where people will... will do something against their own gut instincts because they think the community wants them to do it that way, so people will... will work on a certain... a certain subject even though they aren't terribly interested in it because they think that they'll get more prestige by working on it. I think you get more prestige by doing good science than by doing popular science because... because if... if you go with... with what you really think is... is important then it's a higher chance that it really is important in the long run and it's the long run which... which has the most benefit to the world. So... so usually when I'm... when I'm writing a book or... or publishing a book it's... it's different from books that have been done before because I feel there's a need for such a book, not because that... there was somebody saying please write such a book, you know, or... or that other people have... have already done that... that kind of thing. So follow your own instincts it seems to me is better than follow the... the herd. I... my friend Peter Wegner told me in the '60s that I should, for Art of Computer Programming, I shouldn't write the... I shouldn't write the whole series first, I should... I should first write a... a reader's digest of... of it and then expand on the parts afterwards. That would probably work for him better than... much better... but I... I work in a completely different way. I have to see... I have to see something to the point where I've surrounded it and... and, sort of, totally understood it before I'm comf... before I can write about it with any confidence and so that's the... that's the way I work, I don't... I don't want to write about a high level thing unless I've fully understood a low level thing. Other people have completely different strengths I... I know but... but for me, I... you know, I wrote a book about the... a few verses of the Bible, once I had... once I understood those verses and... and sort of everything I could find in the library about a small part of the Bible, all of a sudden I had firm pegs on which I could hang other knowledge about it. But if... but if I went through my whole life only under... without any... any in depth knowledge of any part then it all seems to be flimsy and... and to me doesn't... doesn't give me some satisfaction. Well the... the classic phrase is that liberal education is to learn something about everything and everything about something and... and I like this idea about learning everything about... about an area before you feel... if you don't know something real solid then... then you never have... have enough confidence. A lot of times I'll have to read through a lot of material just in order to write one sentence somehow because... because my sentence will then have... have... I'll choose words that... that make it more convincing than if I... than if I'm... than if I really don't have the knowledge it'll somehow come out implicitly in... in my writing. These are little sort-of-vague thoughts that I have when reflecting over... over some of the directions that distinguish what I've done from what... what I've seen other people doing. [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75Ju0eM5T2c)

Source quotes

[0:00] Donald Knuth: 不要仅仅因为某件事物流行，就认为它是好的。 [0:00] Donald Knuth: 我认为，做优秀的科学研究比做流行的科学研究能为你赢得更多声望，因为如果你坚持做自己真正认为重要的事情，从长远来看它真正具备重要价值的几率就会更高。 [1:50] Donald Knuth: 我必须将某件事物研究到彻底包围它、完全理解它的地步，我才能带着信心去动笔书写。

Source quotes

[0:00] Donald Knuth: I think you get more prestige by doing good science than by doing popular science, because if you go with what you really think is important, then it's a higher chance that it really is important in the long run. [1:38] Donald Knuth: I have to see something to the point where I've surrounded it and sort of totally understood it before I can write about it with any confidence.

Original transcript

[0:00] If somebody said, what advice would I give to a a young person, they always ask that funny kind of a question and And I think one of the things that Thank you. that would sort of come first to me is this idea of don't just believe that it's because something is trendy that it's good. I probably go the other extreme where if I find too many people... adopting a certain idea, I probably think it's wrong. Or if you know, if, if my work had become too popular, I probably would think I had to change. This is, of course, ridiculous, but I see the other side of it too often, where people will do something against their own gut instincts, because they think the community wants them to do it that way. So people will work on a certain... a certain subject, even though they aren't terribly interested in it, because they think that they'll get more prestige by working on it. I think you get more prestige by doing good science than by doing popular science, because if you go with what you really think is important, then it's a higher chance that it really is important in the long run. And it's the long run which has the most benefit to the world. Thank you. So, usually when I'm writing a book or publishing a book, it's different from books that have been done before, because I feel there's a need for such a book, not because there was somebody saying, please write such a book, or that other people have already done that kind of thing. the herd. My friend Peter Wagner told me in the 60s that I should, for the art of computer programming, I shouldn't write the whole series first. I should first write a reader's digest of it and then expand on the parts afterward. that would probably work for him better than, much better for, but I work in a completely different way. I have to see something to the point where I've surrounded it and sort of totally understood it before I can write about it with any confidence. And so that's the way I work. thing. Other people have completely different strengths, I know, but for me, I wrote a book about a few verses of the Bible. Once I understood those verses and sort of everything I could find in the library about a small part of the Bible, I was a little bit of a little all of a sudden I had firm pegs in which I could hang other knowledge about it. But if I went through my whole life without any in-depth knowledge of any part, then it all seems to be flimsy and to me... doesn't give me some satisfaction. The classic phrase is that liberal education is to learn something about everything and everything about something. And I like this idea of learning everything about an area before you feel...if you don't know something real solid, then you never have enough confidence. A lot of times I'll have to read through a lot of material just in order to write one sentence somehow, because my sentence will then have I'll choose words that make it more convincing than if I really don't have the knowledge, it'll somehow come out implicitly in my writing. These are little sort of vague thoughts that I have when reflecting over. over some of the directions that distinguish what I've done from what I've seen other people doing.