{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02626552053486151, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.901408450704225, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Anatomy of Collaboration

In a commanding position in the Wheeler home hangs a picture of Niels Bohr. It is not possible to write in any detail about John Wheeler without mentioning the central place Niels Bohr held in his esteem and how Bohr's influence shaped him. Others have told me that this influence extended to facial expressions and mannerisms. I never met Niels Bohr, and yet feel I have watched him through John's hesitant, careful, serious speech, his invariant politeness (invariant as observed in every frame of reference!), and his ability to mold a critique from positive comments—traits so charming and insidious that I find myself adopting them, at least in caricature. How similar were their habits of mind I cannot say, yet John's admiration for Bohr was intense and unembarrassed. When John, as a young man, applied to visit Copenhagen, he did so because of his conviction that Niels Bohr had the ability to see farthest into the way physics must develop. John told me that Bohr's office had one wall filled with narrow drawers. In each drawer resided a manuscript in some stage of preparation. As Bohr's musings, conversations, and collaborations revealed a subject to him in a new light, he would retrieve the relevant manuscript, work it over awhile, and return it to the drawer until finally, fully ripe after many reworkings over months or years of time, the completed manuscript would be posted to a journal—"Too great for haste, too high for rivalry." John told me also of Bohr's tactic for generating and criticizing new ideas. On alternate days of the week—say Monday, Wednesday, and Friday—he would think of a flood of new ideas on whatever topic was absorbing his attention, prodigiously, prodigally, without a trace of restraint or thought of counterargument. Then on the remaining alternate days—Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday—he subjected these raw thoughts to the most careful scrutiny under the blackest presumption of error. By this means the exuberance of creativity and the inhibitions of logic and experimental verification could live side by side.