If you do not work on an important problem, it’s unlikely you’ll do important work. It’s perfectly obvious. Great scientists have thought through, in a careful way, a number of important problems in their field, and they keep an eye on wondering how to attack them. Let me warn you, `important problem’ must be phrased carefully. The three outstanding problems in physics, in a certain sense, were never worked on while I was at Bell Labs. By important I mean guaranteed a Nobel Prize and any sum of money you want to mention. We didn’t work on (1) time travel, (2) teleportation, and (3) antigravity. They are not important problems because we do not have an attack. It’s not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack. That is what makes a problem important.
- Richard Hamming, "You And Your Research"

I’d like to understand the true nature of reality and in turn make long lasting contributions to science. Off late, I’ve been thinking a lot about the factors that separates the good from great scientists. Based on my limited experience, I do not see any radical difference in IQ. But there’s a world of difference in research taste, work ethic, etc. Given the context, I found the advice from these articles and lectures illuminating and quite fascinating.