The professor's point was, being great at something isn't just a matter of having a big powerful brain, it's also a result of putting in the work, and that work is not glamorous. A lot of people want to go straight to the big, fun, "important" problems, the big job titles and pay checks, while skipping all the toil that gets you to that level.
You kind of missed your own (or possibly your professor's) point there: being great at something is a matter (in part) not just of putting in the work, but of having the inclination and motivation to put in so much work. If you think of it as "all the toil that gets you to that level", you're not the kind of person who is going to become great in that field.
The people with variable work ethic, but who could be motivated by the subject matter itself, mastered the subject and ended up with the remunerative careers "by accident."
You have to be willing to do the work, yes, but also figure out what you really, really like doing, and then do it -- a lot. Over, and over, and over, for years or even decades.
That being said, running after high remuneration in and of itself isn't bad. Sometimes its just what you have to do because a lot of other people depend on it.
Taking on big stuff isn't necessarily a "big ego" thing, but getting upset that we didn't solve the problem might be.
In my experience, big problems get solved by teams. It's important to be a good team member, even if we are "close to the gods." From what I understand, Feynman seemed to work well in teams, but I never worked with him, so I don't know.
False humility isn't helpful either.
I have worked with, and known, many truly brilliant folks. Some were unbearable, and getting on their team meant you drew the short straw.
Others were so self-effacing that it was actually embarrassing. It was difficult to be on a team with them, as we often accidentally treated them disrespectfully, or ignored their input.
I think it was Mandela that said: "You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you."
Is this really true? I've always felt that people are more likely to open up and be themselves if I demonstrate that I'm a bit unsure of myself, too.
Don't get me wrong, I _hate_ when someone presents their work by saying "here's my poor attempt at X, it isn't very good" (which is especially enraging if their work is, in fact, good). But helping to bring more quiet members of the team out of their shell by sharing a bit of my own humanity, a bit of my own weakness? That seems like it does serve the world to me.
I think the key is that you shouldn't need to shrink. You can be competent and still have weaknesses that you openly acknowledge. And you can play with how you present those weaknesses, but that shouldn't require you to think less of yourself or to present yourself as less than what you are capable of.
Like I said, I have seen both extremes. I feel it's best when we are confident, but not cocksure.
There's always someone better. No matter how good I get, there's probably some kid in a Hanoi Internet café that can totally smoke my best.
But I won't hold back from doing my best, anyway.
Apparently the author (Marianne Williamson, not Mandela) was flabbergasted and honored that her words were being attributed to Mandela. [0]
Yeah, that's why I said "I think."
LOTS of misattributed quotes out there.
My fave is "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet." -Abraham Lincoln.
UPDATED TO ADD:
I preface my Medium posts[0] with quotes, and those, I tend to research a bit more exhaustively. One of my entries[1] is prefaced by the quote "A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for."
The quote is by John A. Shedd[2], but is often attributed to Grace Hopper, who used it one of her speeches.
[0] https://medium.com/chrismarshallny
[1] https://medium.com/chrismarshallny/thats-not-what-ships-are-...
But Feynman, at least in his written works, was more a reverse engineer than an actual engineer.
But, on the other hand, physics could be described as a way to reverse engineer nature.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Manhattan_Proj...
Most people are not Feynman. Most engineers today think they have the capability of being Feynman one day - of course, statistics dictates that most will not be.
This is why Feynman's advice is powerful -
The worthwhile problems are the ones you can really solve or help solve, the ones you can really contribute something to.
Feynman here is instructing someone with too much ego, not too little. Koichi Mano thinks the problems he's working on are beneath him - that he should already be working on Feynman level problems! This is why he writes with shame to Feynman about his "humble" problem. Feynman demonstrates to him that no, no problem is too small, and backs it up with how he chipped away at "lesser" problems for a long time to build up confidence and competence. Finally, he closes with advice that could be ported to a middle manager at the smallest bureaucratic company who thinks they don't do anything important -
You say you are a nameless man. You are not to your wife and to your child. You will not long remain so to your immediate colleagues if you can answer their simple questions when they come into your office.
If you do not have too lofty of an opinion of yourself (less ego, not more), then you will not be ashamed of the problems you succeed in, and only then might you have the chance to do something important.