I have a rather naive approach, I think, to my job.
I'm interested in light. It's a very direct, pragmatic, American, rather naive approach.
What attracted me to immunology was that the whole thing seemed to revolve around a very simple experiment: take two different antibody molecules and compare their primary sequences. The secret of antibody diversity would emerge from that. Fortunately at the time I was sufficiently ignorant of the subject not to realise how naive I was being.
I sometimes get accused of being 'faux-naive,' but for me, it's really just about getting down to the basics of something.
If anything attacked us, we could just panic at it until it went away.
I never read the scripts at all carefully and never wanted to know what was going on, because i felt that being a benevolent alien, that's the way it should be.
I became a script writer with absolutely no idea of how to write a script whatsoever. I still feel a bit of an outsider in that regard. If I can maintain that approach to screenwriting, it can continue to be enjoyable.
As a younger player, I never really thought about where I should be on the field. It was just about doing a job.
I never knew how to do anything before I did it, really.
I have a very childish attitude to books - a very non-analytic enthusiasm... like Alice falling down the chute.
I wrote a letter to the CIA on my manual college typewriter. I mailed it to CIA with my resume. I didn't have an address. So I just put, 'CIA. Washington, D.C.'
Just taking the front wing and saying that will make racing better, it's quite a naive and ultimately expensive approach.
Every mathematical discipline goes through three periods of development: the naive, the formal, and the critical.
