Faculty job search timelineNovember 2013 (postdoc) (This article is an excerpt from the Appendix of Reflections on my tenure-track assistant professor job search.) Several people have asked me about the faculty job search timeline, so I have documented mine here for reference. Note that most job candidates had far more preparation time than I did, since I decided to apply last-minute. Also note that I applied only to Computer Science departments in the United States, so timelines are probably different in other fields or countries. NOVEMBER 2012Nov 3 – decided to apply to 2 primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs) near where I lived (the San Francisco Bay Area) with only five weeks before application deadlines Nov 5 – emailed potential recommendation letter writers to ask whether they would be willing to write me a letter within the next five weeks; luckily they agreed, and it was on! Nov 12 – started working on my C.V. Nov 15 – decided to expand my job search to 6 PUIs around the U.S., since I was now willing to move out of the San Francisco Bay Area if I could get an offer Nov 15 – started writing my teaching statement first since I was focusing on PUIs Nov 16 – decided to expand my job search to Ph.D.-granting research universities and apply to 8 of those schools (mostly where I had personal contacts) in addition to the 6 PUIs Nov 22 – started writing separate research statements for PUIs and research universities Nov 25 – started writing cover letters for schools with early December deadlines Nov 27 – surprise informational phone call from the faculty search committee chair of a PUI (where I had a personal contact) to give me suggestions and advice to improve my application Nov 30 – submitted all 6 PUI job applications; switching focus to research university applications DECEMBER 2012Dec 1–7 – expanded my job search to 5 more research universities with recent public job postings, bringing the total up to 13 research universities plus 6 PUIs Dec 8 – submitted all 13 research university job applications online (most had a Dec 15 deadline) Dec 14 – confirmed that all of my applications and recommendation letters had been received, thus completing my application process; now the waiting and agonizing began (seeSection 3.1) mid-December – sent a link to my job application materials to close colleagues (e.g., former advisors and mentors) and asked them to put in a good word for me wherever possible (see Section 3.3) Dec 20 – applied to another school on a whim since I saw on their job post website that they had a January 15, 2013 deadline Dec 24 – started brainstorming the outline for my job talk, even though I didn't know whether I would get any interviews yet Dec 27 – applied to another few schools that posted late job ads, thus bringing my total up to 22 JANUARY 2013Jan 5 – applied to one more school where I had a personal contact, bringing my total up to 23 Jan 8 – did a second round of notifying colleagues about my job application materials, this time emailing a larger set of more distant contacts (see Section 3.3) Jan 10 – applied to one final school where I had a personal contact, bringing my total up to 24 Jan 11 – received an invitation for a first-round phone interview; feeling excited that I got at least one preliminary interview, which meant that my application wasn't totally bogus! Jan 16 – received my first on-campus interview invitation (at a different school); more excited! Jan 17 – 30-minute phone (video chat) interview with the school that invited me on Jan 11 Jan 18 – started preparing my job talk since I had at least one on-campus interview now Jan 22 – received two more on-campus interview invitations, bringing my total up to 3 Jan 28 – received one more on-campus interview invitation, bringing my total up to 4 Jan 29 – received one more on-campus interview invitation, bringing my total up to 5 Jan 29 – received one additional phone interview invitation Jan 30 – received my first rejection notice (from a PUI) via email; note that most schools don't send rejection notices, so not receiving an interview invitation means that you've been rejected. FEBRUARY 2013Feb 1 – received one more on-campus interview invitation (from the school where I did a phone interview on Jan 17), bringing my total up to 6 interviews; decided to quit my software engineering job at Google, since I didn't have enough vacation days to prepare and travel for interviews Feb 4 – 30-minute phone interview with the school that invited me on Jan 29 Feb 5 – received one more on-campus interview invitation, bringing my total up to 7 Feb 8 – received one more on-campus interview invitation, bringing my total up to 8 Feb 10–12 – travel for my first on-campus interview Feb 14 – last day of work at Google; sad to leave my friends there on such short notice, but super-super-pumped for the next month of focusing solely on interviews! Feb 17–22 – travel for on-campus interviews 2 and 3 (together on one trip) Feb 18 – received one more on-campus interview invitation (from the school where I did a phone interview on Feb 4), bringing my total up to 9 Feb 19 – faculty search committee chair from interview 1 called to ask about my interview timeline and priorities, which indicated interest on their part Feb 21 – search chair from interview 1 said that they would likely make me an offer Feb 25 – on-campus interview 4 (local in the San Francisco Bay Area, so no traveling) Feb 27 – received an offer from interview 1, about two weeks after that interview; my first job offer! Feb 28 – received one final on-campus interview invitation, bringing my total up to 10 MARCH 2013Mar 3 – cancelled two of my interviews due to lack of energy, time, and the fact that I already had an offer from a place that I preferred over those two schools; now I was down to 8 total interviews Mar 5–7 – travel for on-campus interview 5 Mar 12–22 – travel for on-campus interviews 6, 7, and 8; the University of Rochester was interview number 7; completely exhausted after my final interview and was rewarded by getting stranded overnight at the Denver airport due to a massive snowstorm! Mar 21 – email from the University of Rochester search chair saying that they were close to making me an offer, but a few more faculty wanted to chat with me; scheduled a call for Mar 26 Mar 21 – received my second job offer (from interview 5), again about two weeks after my interview Mar 26 – video chatted with a few more faculty at the University of Rochester (who were out of town during my on-campus interview), and received a job offer that afternoon Mar 27 – turned down one of my offers, thus leaving me with two final choices to consider Mar 27 – emailed my main contact from interview 4 to update him on my plans to accept the offer at one of my final two choices, thus taking myself out of the running at his school Mar 28 – the search chair from interview 8 called to gauge my interest, and I told him that I was already narrowing down to two final offers and thus took myself out of the running there APRIL 2013Apr 1 – my contact from interview 6 emailed to check on my status, and I told him that I was already narrowing down to two final offers and thus took myself out of the running there Apr 1–3 – second visit to the University of Rochester and offer negotiations (see Section 6.3) Apr 4–6 – second visit to my other final choice school Apr 7 – accepted my offer at the University of Rochester Apr 10 – the search chair from interview 3 told me that I would most likely get an offer there since their top choice would most likely decline; but I had already decided on the University of Rochester by then, so I took myself out of the running there mid-April – wrote a TON of thank-you notes to everyone who helped me in the past few months Apr 16 – started writing this document (whoa, meta!) |
Reflections on my tenure-track assistant professor job search
http://www.pgbovine.net/faculty-job-search-timeline.htm
How to get a faculty job, Part 1: The application
http://matt-welsh.blogspot.com/2012/12/how-to-get-faculty-job-part-1.html
This is going to be the first in a series of three blog posts on getting a faculty job in Computer Science. Part one is about applying for the job. Part two will be about doing interviews. And part three will be about negotiating the offer and making a decision.
I did my faculty job search back in 2002 after finishing my PhD at UC Berkeley. Back then, academic Computer Science departments were hiring like crazy and the number of job openings far outstripped the number of highly-qualified applicants. I ended up with something like a dozen interviews, and also interviewed at IBM Research (both coasts), HP Labs, and a little search engine startup called Google. (I regret not having interviewed at Microsoft Research, but at the time I was dead-set on an academic position and had a hard time seeing myself working at MSR.) I got offers at all of the industry places and several of the universities; and ended up taking a faculty job at Harvard.
The process of getting an academic job is tremendously painful and takes months of effort. Faculty job applications are usually due in December or January, interviews happen around March and April, and job offers made in April and May. Before summer break most job applicants will have their position sorted out and know where they will be heading in the fall.
The job application itself usually consists of five components: Your CV, a cover letter, a research statement, a teaching statement, and letters of recommendation. I'll go through these in detail below.
In case you're curious, I posted my original (2002) faculty job application materials online here.
These days, most departments accept the job application online, either via a web form or email. When I applied, only about half of the departments accepted email and I had to send physical copies of my application to the other places.
The first critical component of the job application is your personal web page. I am always amazed at how many faculty applicants fail to maintain an up-to-date web page with their publications, research interests, source code releases, and so forth. Never assume that hiring committees will have your "official" application materials at hand: These days it's much easier to Google someone's name and look at their projects and papers online. For that matter, always post your job application materials prominently on your web page. In case someone is reviewing a set of candidates and can't find your research statement, everything should be linked to your web page so people can find it easily.
The curriculum vitae is probably the easiest part to get right. This should be a detailed summary of your research interests, publications, talks, service work, teaching credentials, and any other factoids that might be of interest to the hiring committee. Under no circumstances should it be a one-page "resume". My 2002-era CV is here as an example. Note how it provides a one-page summary of my research interests and a detailed breakdown of my job experience. The "invited talks" section is provided to give a sense of my experience giving keynotes and lectures at various conferences and universities.
The cover letter is a point of great confusion. First off, it's not always obvious that it's needed, and even when you have a cover letter, not everyone knows what it should say. These days, the cover letter might take the form of the body of the email that you send when submitting your materials. In my experience, the cover letter is a "school specific" statement of why you are applying to this school in particular. It should call specific attention to any potential collaborators at the school you are applying to.
For example, a good cover letter might say something like,
The research statement is one of the hardest parts of the application to get right. It is intended to serve two purposes: To provide a narrative summary of your research contributions (and especially how they all tie together), and what areas you intend to work on in the future. It's usually about 3-4 pages long and needs to nail what your specific research "angle" is, why the area is important, what your track record is, and what your research vision is going forward. It is not a personal essay like you might have written applying to college or grad school -- If the expression "when I was a child, computers always fascinated me" appears anywhere in your research statement, you're doing it very wrong.
Nobody is going to hold you to working on the specific things you say you want to do for future research directions, but you should articulate a clear vision of what kind of direction you would take when starting a faculty job. This is important. Hiring committees are not hiring you based only on your track record -- they are hiring you based on your potential to be a (potentially) life-long colleague. They want to see that you have an independent and compelling vision for at least the first few years of your faculty job. If the best you can come up with is a couple of papers' worth of extensions to your thesis, you're in trouble. Try to think of a three-to-five year agenda that would get people excited to have you part of the faculty.
The teaching statement is like the research statement, but focuses on teaching. Most grad students have precious little teaching experience beyond a couple of semesters of TA work, so it's kind of hard to say much. Still, do your best. Keep in mind that teaching is ahuge part of a faculty job and one of the most important criteria for extending an offer is whether you can teach well. If you have advised any undergraduate researchers or mentored junior grad students, include this in your teaching statement, as mentorship is important too. Finally, be clear on what kinds of courses you would be willing and able to teach. It's not always obvious based on your research background if you could take on, say, the OS or databases course -- make it explicit.
As for letters of recommendation, you usually need three or four. Resist the urge to have more than four rec letters: More is not always better, in case anyone writes anything to give the hiring committee pause. In general it is best if all of your recommendation letters are from well-known professors. Obviously one should be from your thesis advisor. A letter from a top-flight researcher in an industry lab is fine, too, but you should have no more than one of these: It's commonly held that industry folks write fluffy letters and hiring committees care more about the opinion of dyed-in-the-wool academics. One piece of advise I got when applying for faculty jobs was to have one letter from someonenot at your home institution, who could comment more broadly (and objectively) on the impact of your research. I was fortunate to get a letter from the great Geoffrey Fox, whom I had met a couple of times and my advisor suggested would be a good "external" letter writer for me. It was kind of strange asking a near-stranger for a letter like this, but he agreed and I guess it did the trick, since I got interviews pretty much everywhere I applied.
Keep in mind that the job application only gets you an interview, it does not get you the job. The interview is far, far more important than the application materials. It's also important to understand that hiring committees at top schools get many, many hundreds of applications, from all over the world, for a single faculty job opening. So, make sure your packet stands out. A strong publication record is the main thing. Strong letters are second. The research and teaching statement matter much less, so don't stress over them too much. You can't make up for a weak publication record with a brilliant research statement.
Finally, a note on where to apply for jobs. I often see students make the mistake of only applying to the top five or so universities, with the idea that they could only be happy at a place like MIT or Berkeley. This is a huge mistake. First of all, the probability that you're going to get a job at your "top" school is vanishingly small, considering the number of qualified applicants and scarcity of jobs. Second, you might find out (as I did) that schools that look great from a distance don't seem so hot when you're up close and interviewing there. This can cause you to seriously rethink your preferences for both what kind of school you want to be at, where you want to live, and where you see yourself building an academic career.
The converse is also true: You might fall in love with a place you would have never considered seriously before. For example, I knew next to nothing about Harvard before I interviewed there, and never imagined I would end up there -- until I visited, and found that I loved the place and the people. So try to keep an open mind about where you might go. There are lots of great departments out there, lots of great places to live, and many, many factors that count towards your overall happiness and ability to be successful. Apply broadly, include a few "safety schools" in your application list, and then cull the list later if you end up with too many invitations to interview. Most people don't have this problem, so don't be too picky.
I did my faculty job search back in 2002 after finishing my PhD at UC Berkeley. Back then, academic Computer Science departments were hiring like crazy and the number of job openings far outstripped the number of highly-qualified applicants. I ended up with something like a dozen interviews, and also interviewed at IBM Research (both coasts), HP Labs, and a little search engine startup called Google. (I regret not having interviewed at Microsoft Research, but at the time I was dead-set on an academic position and had a hard time seeing myself working at MSR.) I got offers at all of the industry places and several of the universities; and ended up taking a faculty job at Harvard.
The process of getting an academic job is tremendously painful and takes months of effort. Faculty job applications are usually due in December or January, interviews happen around March and April, and job offers made in April and May. Before summer break most job applicants will have their position sorted out and know where they will be heading in the fall.
The job application itself usually consists of five components: Your CV, a cover letter, a research statement, a teaching statement, and letters of recommendation. I'll go through these in detail below.
In case you're curious, I posted my original (2002) faculty job application materials online here.
These days, most departments accept the job application online, either via a web form or email. When I applied, only about half of the departments accepted email and I had to send physical copies of my application to the other places.
The first critical component of the job application is your personal web page. I am always amazed at how many faculty applicants fail to maintain an up-to-date web page with their publications, research interests, source code releases, and so forth. Never assume that hiring committees will have your "official" application materials at hand: These days it's much easier to Google someone's name and look at their projects and papers online. For that matter, always post your job application materials prominently on your web page. In case someone is reviewing a set of candidates and can't find your research statement, everything should be linked to your web page so people can find it easily.
The curriculum vitae is probably the easiest part to get right. This should be a detailed summary of your research interests, publications, talks, service work, teaching credentials, and any other factoids that might be of interest to the hiring committee. Under no circumstances should it be a one-page "resume". My 2002-era CV is here as an example. Note how it provides a one-page summary of my research interests and a detailed breakdown of my job experience. The "invited talks" section is provided to give a sense of my experience giving keynotes and lectures at various conferences and universities.
The cover letter is a point of great confusion. First off, it's not always obvious that it's needed, and even when you have a cover letter, not everyone knows what it should say. These days, the cover letter might take the form of the body of the email that you send when submitting your materials. In my experience, the cover letter is a "school specific" statement of why you are applying to this school in particular. It should call specific attention to any potential collaborators at the school you are applying to.
For example, a good cover letter might say something like,
Dear Prof. Zuckerberg,
I am writing to apply for the position of Assistant Professor of Computer Science in your department. My research interests are in the area of computer systems and programming languages, and my thesis topic is "Rooter: A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy." My thesis advisor is Prof. David Culler.
I am excited by the opportunity to teach and do research at University of East Nunavut. My research interests are highly complementary to Profs. Jobs and Ballmer in your department, and I would be particularly interested in collaborating with the Center for Computational Phrenology.
Please find attached my CV, research and teaching statements, and list of references. I look forward to hearing from you.You get the idea. It need not be long but it's a good way to customize your application for the specific school, while keeping the rest of your application materials generic.
The research statement is one of the hardest parts of the application to get right. It is intended to serve two purposes: To provide a narrative summary of your research contributions (and especially how they all tie together), and what areas you intend to work on in the future. It's usually about 3-4 pages long and needs to nail what your specific research "angle" is, why the area is important, what your track record is, and what your research vision is going forward. It is not a personal essay like you might have written applying to college or grad school -- If the expression "when I was a child, computers always fascinated me" appears anywhere in your research statement, you're doing it very wrong.
Nobody is going to hold you to working on the specific things you say you want to do for future research directions, but you should articulate a clear vision of what kind of direction you would take when starting a faculty job. This is important. Hiring committees are not hiring you based only on your track record -- they are hiring you based on your potential to be a (potentially) life-long colleague. They want to see that you have an independent and compelling vision for at least the first few years of your faculty job. If the best you can come up with is a couple of papers' worth of extensions to your thesis, you're in trouble. Try to think of a three-to-five year agenda that would get people excited to have you part of the faculty.
The teaching statement is like the research statement, but focuses on teaching. Most grad students have precious little teaching experience beyond a couple of semesters of TA work, so it's kind of hard to say much. Still, do your best. Keep in mind that teaching is ahuge part of a faculty job and one of the most important criteria for extending an offer is whether you can teach well. If you have advised any undergraduate researchers or mentored junior grad students, include this in your teaching statement, as mentorship is important too. Finally, be clear on what kinds of courses you would be willing and able to teach. It's not always obvious based on your research background if you could take on, say, the OS or databases course -- make it explicit.
As for letters of recommendation, you usually need three or four. Resist the urge to have more than four rec letters: More is not always better, in case anyone writes anything to give the hiring committee pause. In general it is best if all of your recommendation letters are from well-known professors. Obviously one should be from your thesis advisor. A letter from a top-flight researcher in an industry lab is fine, too, but you should have no more than one of these: It's commonly held that industry folks write fluffy letters and hiring committees care more about the opinion of dyed-in-the-wool academics. One piece of advise I got when applying for faculty jobs was to have one letter from someonenot at your home institution, who could comment more broadly (and objectively) on the impact of your research. I was fortunate to get a letter from the great Geoffrey Fox, whom I had met a couple of times and my advisor suggested would be a good "external" letter writer for me. It was kind of strange asking a near-stranger for a letter like this, but he agreed and I guess it did the trick, since I got interviews pretty much everywhere I applied.
Keep in mind that the job application only gets you an interview, it does not get you the job. The interview is far, far more important than the application materials. It's also important to understand that hiring committees at top schools get many, many hundreds of applications, from all over the world, for a single faculty job opening. So, make sure your packet stands out. A strong publication record is the main thing. Strong letters are second. The research and teaching statement matter much less, so don't stress over them too much. You can't make up for a weak publication record with a brilliant research statement.
Finally, a note on where to apply for jobs. I often see students make the mistake of only applying to the top five or so universities, with the idea that they could only be happy at a place like MIT or Berkeley. This is a huge mistake. First of all, the probability that you're going to get a job at your "top" school is vanishingly small, considering the number of qualified applicants and scarcity of jobs. Second, you might find out (as I did) that schools that look great from a distance don't seem so hot when you're up close and interviewing there. This can cause you to seriously rethink your preferences for both what kind of school you want to be at, where you want to live, and where you see yourself building an academic career.
The converse is also true: You might fall in love with a place you would have never considered seriously before. For example, I knew next to nothing about Harvard before I interviewed there, and never imagined I would end up there -- until I visited, and found that I loved the place and the people. So try to keep an open mind about where you might go. There are lots of great departments out there, lots of great places to live, and many, many factors that count towards your overall happiness and ability to be successful. Apply broadly, include a few "safety schools" in your application list, and then cull the list later if you end up with too many invitations to interview. Most people don't have this problem, so don't be too picky.
平衡一下工业界与学术界之争，说些学术界负面的东西 zzfMITBBS
灵致按：世界上并没有完美的工作，和完美的生活。要用心生活，很多时候都可以找到不错的意义和生活，总店是，要用心生活。不要偏听，要综合性的观点。
作有负面评价但是其实教授工作有很多正面的好处是工业界不容易有的，只是这里不细说
教授是一个工种，不是伟大的事业，曾经确实是伟大的事业，比如1850年的时候，1900
年代，professor那可是不得了的，比如当当剑桥的柳卡斯讲席教授，动不动向皇家学
会宣读自己的文章，现在不一样了，教授仍然可以当得很high，但是是有如下人为的外
因决定的：
1，文章通货膨胀，每年无数垃圾杂志创刊，包括网络杂志，还动不动邀请你做编委，
其实坐上了编委又怎么样？水平还是不死不活，我第一篇文章发的杂志IF是2.3，现在
至少3.5了，膨胀得很厉害，因为钓丝杂志太多
2，发文章简直太容易了，有各类杂志总有一款适合你，我曾经有一篇老大难文章，为
发文而发文，被拒了三次，后来降到IF1.0，推荐了我的一个朋友做reviewer，这种杂
志基本上有人愿意审稿都不错了，所以我推荐的他们肯定要用，唱了一会儿双簧，发表
了，高端一点的也同样炮制，三个reviewer倒有两个是朋友，所以现在你搞个100篇文
章根本不算什么，想想四十年前发文章可是不得了事情
3，各类奖项，学术不行的，系里给发教学奖，service奖，开会最佳论文奖，学生
travel award，资深的开小会搞一个杰出成就奖，其实这些全是安慰奖，嘛用都没有不
要当真
4，大家越来越文明，开会的时候你给个talk，下面的人不是问很外行的基础问题就是
不痛不痒的问题，问问题不再是诘难你，而是自己发言作秀，给完talk大家握握手哈哈
笑笑，没人care你说的对不对，人家关心的是呆会吃午饭要去跟大牛蹭着吃饭谈合作，
至于合作结束了你的结论有没有重大意义倒不是主要的，学术界你可以这样argue，也
可以那样argue，所以现在没人较真
5，学术无限细分，每个人都能成为一个小山头的小牛，看出去都没有了对手，其实这
个小山头有没有必要存在还说不清楚，
以上1到5，综合起来的后果就是当教授有人造成就感，非常容易feel good，非常容易
陷入feel good的陷阱里，结果一辈子没有真的成就，背离了当初的热情
我在工业界混了几年，回过头看学术圈，就是个小世界，这两年见过好些名校教授到我
们公司来要合作要经费，作的东西颇为幼稚，而且充满了学术界常见的argue来argue去
就是没有定论的通病；也充满了学术界数学花哨无比其实啥问题都不能解决的通病，回
头有空再详细说
我给以前的合作者作独立consultation，合作者还请了另一个佛罗里达的教授，斯坦福
毕业的根红苗正，作的model居然从没验证过就敢发表，这回上真格的了model要用了才
知道根本不work，搞了整一年没搞出来，我的合作者给他投了不少钱做实验修改model
，这家伙恬不知耻说今年继续做实验，我齐头并进另一种方法晚上自己搞搞几个月都作
完了，合作者说估计教授还在努力中，我没好意思说那家伙屁都不懂就是骗钱的
我有两个老中朋友，他们互相不认识，但是很相似，都是多年苦逼百折不回终于混上教
职，都在主流州立大学的破分校，工程专业，9个月都只有5万多的薪水，都继续坚韧不
拔的招学生建group，或许对research真有热情，但是也或许没搞清楚research有时候
也就是扯淡的，不要当真就好
张朝阳:我什么都有竟然这么痛苦 zz
张朝阳回忆自己内心痛苦时说“我不能工作了，要去寻找我的解决方案”。当时他选择了“闭关”研究宗教和心理学。他说：“我不再想活到150岁了，再看两年前的我，虽然挺快乐，但特别幼稚。” 如今陷入吸毒疑云的他，内心真的得到安宁了吗？
今日，有网友在微博上爆料一个北京的IT大佬昨晚开房吸毒被抓，一时间各位大佬纷纷成为怀疑对象，其中搜狐CEO张朝阳和京东CEO刘强东成为热点怀疑对象。
随后，奇虎360董事长周鸿�发微博为该事进行了辟谣：“我问了，老张状态很好，说明这是谣言”。周鸿�还暗示，最近谁没有出来浇冰水，就有可能是该谣言中的当事人。
前搜狐视频首席运营官刘春发微博称：“人家今天一早就更新朋友圈了，现在正在办公室上班，还有人在造谣，真想用冰桶装上开水浇在这些人头上。”
传言的主角张朝阳在19日8点更新了朋友圈，感叹命运无偿，只能妥协或者完全接受。
截止目前，张朝阳没有进行官方的辟谣。搜狐方面除了零星的员工辟谣就只有旗下的搜狗搜索在用户输入“张朝阳”关键字时出现“张朝阳将于今天下午5:00在此告知大家”的字样。
事件仍在持续发酵中，张朝阳会在5点钟告知大家什么信息我们还不得而知。在等待的时间里，中企哥带大家一起回顾下这位对哲学情有独钟的IT大佬。
面对一位年轻媒体人，张朝阳主动伸出了手。
对方没有料到这位互联网大佬会这么热情，没有把手伸出来。换成任何人，拒绝握手都是对男人尊严的挑战。张朝阳的手僵在那里，但他丝毫没有尴尬，很自然地把悬在半空中的手收了回来。
接近他的人说：“现在的Charles非常淡定，外界的任何事情都不会让他觉得不自在了。”
用张朝阳的话形容，2012年是最悲催的一年。“我有很多恐惧，但都没办法描述……脑子里的一些虚妄的想法赶不走。”
和他谈商业，他有些不在状态，谈到哲学与脑科学，他的眼睛亮了。上一个阶段张朝阳修炼后的宣言是，“我要活到150岁”。让张朝阳猛然惊醒的是衰退。他感知到的自然衰退发生在两年前，之前他觉得自己完全不像这个年龄的人。现在他说：“我不再想活到150岁了，再看两年前的我，虽然挺快乐，但特别幼稚。”
如果把活到150岁当成对自己健康的信心，没有问题。但如果把150岁当成对人生的要求，你的自我就太强了，你把自己看得太重要了。你觉得自己跟其它同类是不一样的，你是特别独特的，你应该活得最长，你应该活得最年轻，你应该得到一切。当你这么想，你需要不断地满足这个自我。如果你碰到一些事，不能按照你的意愿发展，你就会受到挫折，人的大脑就会进入一种负向循环，这是很危险的。
年少得志的人经历都会比较极端。因为媒体的包围、社会的认同、良好的教育背景，都能导致你变得自我，然后你就突破尝试，按照自我的指引做事情，你的大脑就会走向极端。
其实实现目标并不能保证幸福，你的快乐完全是你的回忆录。但你得到得越多，就越担心失去，或者你越追求完美。在你追求完美的过程中，你的大脑会和你作对，所以很多名人最终都特别惨。因为他没有一个很强的信仰来支持他的成功，成功是要靠信仰支持的，如果支撑不了，成功反而带来痛苦。
如果你能走出这种幻象，重新获得认知就是一次涅�。但是你很容易走不出来。
张朝阳对团队说，“我不能工作了，我要去寻找我的解决方案……我真的什么都有，但是我竟然这么痛苦。”
寻找一个适合他的解决方案并不容易。不要忘了，张朝阳是麻省理工的物理学博士，不会轻易臣服于某种理论或是宗教仪式，那些“心灵鸡汤”或是简单的情绪安慰剂对他毫无效果。
他选择了“闭关”，这种“闭关”并非宗教的修炼法门，需要斋戒、素食、禁言。他研究各种宗教，拜访美国的科学家、心理医生，在世界各种文化体系下寻找答案，既读了西方有关大脑科学最新进展的书，也去过东方的尼泊尔实地感受。
我现在理解这个问题了，我现在终于理解这个问题了。各种情绪来自大脑的不稳定结构，都是幻象。
人类大脑的发展实际上是有缺陷的。过去两百万年，大脑容量从五百毫升增加到一千五百毫升，这是一种超常发展。这种超常发展导致大脑皮层在情绪脑那部分，发展的并没有太快，增加的容量大多数都负责推理的那部分大脑。所以，人类思维高度发达，可以带来很多智慧。
但同时，人类大脑不稳定的结构，导致了对各种信息的无限放大。一头牛、一只猪、一条狗，整天快乐，被宰杀之前也快乐。但人类经常无限放大负面信息，有的人还没怎样就怀疑我是不是得癌症了，然后吓得要命。这些都是幻觉，你在当下的每一件事，说话、看书、走路，甚至洗脸刷牙都是真实的存在，任何真实存在都比你的焦虑更重要。
这就是活在当下的科学解释。现在社会更复杂，资讯大爆炸，每人每天接收的信息都是十年前的百倍甚至千倍。如果一个人，没有很强的传统和信仰，大脑就会变得非常不稳定，受到刺激之后，变得非常容易崩溃。
信仰未必是宗教，而是一整套的准则，一个理论体系。如果你没有它，就好像生活没有扶手。什么叫意志？意志就是持续的注意力，持续的关注一件事情最终就变成坚持，像曼德拉为了非洲的解放持续努力。所以人一定要有准则，能把你的注意力垄断到这里，而不是让注意力散乱。注意力散乱了，会导致很多问题，飞轮转偏了，就飞出去了，人就完蛋了。
生活是一种态度
生活首先是一种态度，态度决定行为,行为养成习惯,习惯形成性格,性格决定命运。忘
了谁说此话了。
有一种人，他眼里只有黑与白，对与错，不知道世间还存在许多灰色地带，有许多似是
而非的东西存在，这种态度用来做学问可以，但用在生活中就会处处碰壁，因为他不懂
得去妥协，不懂有舍才有得的道理，这就是不见棺材不落泪，见了棺材也不见得落泪的
那种人。
无论先天还是后天形成的，这种人的一个鲜明的特点就是认为世界本该围着他转，应该
按他想象的那般运行，认为自己想的一定是对的，这个事情就本该如此，一旦发现别人
想的做的不一样就抓狂。
这种人虽然看起来强大其实是个纸老虎，他的内心其实是十分缺乏安全感的，怕被抛弃
和背叛，因此常会把一件很小的事情无限放大跟你闹，他会把它当作你要离开他的信号
而认真的应对，所以一定要赢你来加强他的信心。
在家里，当他发现家人不照自己的意思走就反家人。在朋友中，当遇到问题时发现朋友
不支持他的观点就和朋友翻脸。在单位，爱和同事领导争吵闹矛盾。在法庭上，发现法
官判决不向着自己就和社会对抗，最终形成反社会人格，好像全世界都和自己过不去。
这种人如果是个旷世奇才，比如毛泽东，他会去起来推翻那个世界。如果是乔布斯，他
也有能力去影响自己周围世界。但这样的人与他生活在一起一定是十分痛苦的，因为你
事无巨细无时无刻不在他的控制之下。当然我说的这种人属极端情况，正常人有时也有
一些类似的问题，但都知道矫正自己的行为，而不是根本就不察觉自己有任何错误和问
题。
那你说这种人有救吗，能劝吗？我以为是浪费口舌。江山易改本性难移啊!
了谁说此话了。
有一种人，他眼里只有黑与白，对与错，不知道世间还存在许多灰色地带，有许多似是
而非的东西存在，这种态度用来做学问可以，但用在生活中就会处处碰壁，因为他不懂
得去妥协，不懂有舍才有得的道理，这就是不见棺材不落泪，见了棺材也不见得落泪的
那种人。
无论先天还是后天形成的，这种人的一个鲜明的特点就是认为世界本该围着他转，应该
按他想象的那般运行，认为自己想的一定是对的，这个事情就本该如此，一旦发现别人
想的做的不一样就抓狂。
这种人虽然看起来强大其实是个纸老虎，他的内心其实是十分缺乏安全感的，怕被抛弃
和背叛，因此常会把一件很小的事情无限放大跟你闹，他会把它当作你要离开他的信号
而认真的应对，所以一定要赢你来加强他的信心。
在家里，当他发现家人不照自己的意思走就反家人。在朋友中，当遇到问题时发现朋友
不支持他的观点就和朋友翻脸。在单位，爱和同事领导争吵闹矛盾。在法庭上，发现法
官判决不向着自己就和社会对抗，最终形成反社会人格，好像全世界都和自己过不去。
这种人如果是个旷世奇才，比如毛泽东，他会去起来推翻那个世界。如果是乔布斯，他
也有能力去影响自己周围世界。但这样的人与他生活在一起一定是十分痛苦的，因为你
事无巨细无时无刻不在他的控制之下。当然我说的这种人属极端情况，正常人有时也有
一些类似的问题，但都知道矫正自己的行为，而不是根本就不察觉自己有任何错误和问
题。
那你说这种人有救吗，能劝吗？我以为是浪费口舌。江山易改本性难移啊!
订阅：
博文 (Atom)