[HN Gopher] What impossible meant to Richard Feynman
___________________________________________________________________
What impossible meant to Richard Feynman
Author : dnetesn
Score : 232 points
Date : 2021-11-30 13:48 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nautil.us)
(TXT) w3m dump (nautil.us)
| tzs wrote:
| > He called out my mistakes using words like "crazy," "nuts,"
| "ridiculous," and "stupid."
|
| One of the things I liked when I was a student at Caltech is that
| (1) most people recognized they were surrounded by people at
| least as smart as they were, (2) most people knew that even the
| most brilliant people occasionally make mistakes (often even
| elementary mistakes), and (3) most realized that someone calling
| your idea "stupid" doesn't mean they were calling _you_ stupid--
| they would freely admit that they too occasionally offered stupid
| ideas.
|
| When you had a stupid idea someone would tell you, without a lot
| of tiptoeing around or trying to work in some praise too to
| balance things out. Just say it and we move on.
|
| This would have been a quite plausible conversation at Caltech:
|
| tzs: we should try X.
|
| someone: that's a stupid approach. It can't work.
|
| tzs: [thinks about it a moment] Yeah, you're right. Never mind.
|
| Also plausible would have been a conversation that starts with
| the same first two sentences but ends like this:
|
| tzs: no it is not.
|
| Someone: [thinks about it a moment] Oh...yeah X should work.
| Let's try it.
| watwut wrote:
| People who barely finished high school routinely call each
| other "stupid" or "ridiculous" and it has nothing to do with
| them realizing any of your points. Many subcultures are rude or
| swear a lot or insult other a lot. This does not imply they
| call everything stupid because they are too humble while being
| aware of how intelligent they are. This just means that Caltech
| had using words like "stupid" normalized.
|
| Frankly, this just shows that Caltech student can twist run-of-
| the-mill rude behavior into tale of their own greatness.
| slingnow wrote:
| I finished high school and college, and my friends and I
| routinely communicate with each other in this way. I also
| never went to Caltech.
|
| Any other odd blanket statements?
| deanCommie wrote:
| The amount of abusive behaviour that gets normalized in
| Academia is outlandish. As is the hero-worship that becomes
| associated with stories of geniuses like Feynman.
|
| > The harsh words stung at first, and caused me to question
| whether I belonged in theoretical physics. But I couldn't help
| noticing that Dick did not seem to take the critical comments
| as seriously as I did. In the next breath, he would always be
| encouraging me to try a different approach and inviting me to
| return when I made progress.
|
| This is survivor bias through and through. Plenty of people
| faced the same harsh words, and took them personally, and left
| theoretical physics. You might say "good riddance", they
| wouldn't have belonged or succeeded in the first place, but I
| don't believe that's true.
|
| Feynman came up in a different time, so let's look forwards not
| backwards.
|
| There is a way that you can be 1) direct, 2) precise, 3)
| honest, 4) efficient without being a dick, being rude,
| aggressive, and unintentionally demoralizing others.
| ksec wrote:
| >One of the things I liked when I was a student at Caltech
|
| How long ago was that?
| triceratops wrote:
| You don't have to call a stupid idea "stupid". You also don't
| have to work in praise or tiptoe around it. The Socratic method
| is quite good at exposing bad ideas. And it (mostly) doesn't
| result in hurt feelings or egos. When done well, everyone (even
| the questioner) can learn something.
| g42gregory wrote:
| I fear Caltech is one of the very few educational institutions
| that kept its scientific integrity in the last decade. Even
| Princeton is seeming going down in the woke wake.
| Unfortunately, Caltech is not for everyone in terms of work and
| dedication involved. Which presents a difficult dilemma for the
| graduating high school students: where do you even apply for
| the undergrad studies?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| The "woke wake"?
|
| Just get your mind out of the culture wars, I guess. I went
| to one of these schools and was fine just putting my head
| down and studying. People are way too overconcerned over
| these things that don't really matter at all. The idea that
| "cancellation" is anything new is an example of a "stupid"
| idea.
|
| At my school, for instance, some people will get "cancelled"
| who I don't think should get cancelled (Chelsea Manning),
| others will get "cancelled" rightfully in my mind (Milo
| Yiannopoulos, maybe Charles Murray but haven't thought too
| much about it). This is nothing even remotely new, and I
| don't pay it too much mind - regardless of which faction is
| getting cancelled today.
| [deleted]
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I heard teachers are so scared of being vilified by
| students, they don't bother to state a fact, or even argue
| anymore.
|
| It's not just an argument in class; it's plastered all over
| the internet and could have far reaching future problems
| for their future.
|
| I like the fact students have more of a say.
|
| In my day, I had a chemistry teacher harrass me to the
| point I needed to change schools. I remember going to a
| school counselor, and the counselor said, "Dr. Bezergian is
| crazy, and you are the type he likes to go after. At the
| time, I didn't understand "the type". It turns out he would
| make life in his class difficult if certain students that
| didn't return his advances. I started putting it all
| together when I was in a bar celebrating finishing second
| semester of Organic Chem. after enrolling in a different
| college. I was giving my usual Dr. Berzergian stories. A
| guy from another table chimed in and knew the PhD. He
| filled me in on his personality picadillos.
|
| My point is even if we had the internet back then I
| probally wouldn't have said anything about the guy, but the
| other guys who had to switch schools for chem, or just drop
| out of college, probally would have posted something about
| the man. Hell, we woukd probally have our tuition paid over
| his sexuality and the way he tried to get his dates?
|
| I lost my point.
|
| I guess it's just discussing topics in class shouldn't be
| posted on the internet, unless those topics are causing
| damage to the students. I guess we will argue over whats
| bad enough to ruin a teacher's reputation in school, and
| socially?
| g42gregory wrote:
| Don't assume my mind is in the culture wars. I don't care
| about people you mentioned above. I care about academic and
| research integrity of our institutions.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Okay? I don't think that there is any unique attack on
| academic and research integrity of our institutions. If
| those institutions could survive jim crow, etc. I'm
| guessing they can survive whatever is happening right
| now.
| otikik wrote:
| I don't doubt that was your personal experience, but I strongly
| doubt that everyone would behave like that all the time with
| everyone else.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| That only works when both people are in on it.
|
| If someone doesn't know "stupid" is code for "that idea is
| stupid" and not "you are stupid", it isn't a very effective
| communication mechanism.
|
| People are complex, and it is not helpful to assume everyone
| should just go about their day to day as an emotionless robot.
| I mean, you can assume that, but unless you're a CEO or a
| famous Professor, you'll just be thought of as an asshole to be
| avoided.
| deltarholamda wrote:
| It's an old saw, but we teach children the "sticks and
| stones" bromide because it's true. Having to bracket
| everything you say in qualifiers and conditions is why press
| releases are completely unreadable dreck.
|
| If you're in a field where Things Have To Get Done, stopping
| every few words to make sure nobody's getting their feelings
| hurt is a cost with very little benefit, other than airy and
| nebulous principles like "inclusivity." Not to mention you
| will never--and I mean never--get people of a certain
| temperament to go along with an ever-changing set of rules
| designed to inflict zero emotional distress. And the people
| of that temperament are very likely to be in technical roles.
|
| I mean, you can want it to be different, but you might as
| well want the sky to rain cheese.
| j7ake wrote:
| If you're in a field where "Things Have To Get Done", why
| add superfluous words like "That is stupid, it won't work
| because X", when "it won't work because X" is sufficient
| and is easier on the ears to the listener?
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| > It's an old saw, but we teach children the "sticks and
| stones" bromide because it's true. Having to bracket
| everything you say in qualifiers and conditions is why
| press releases are completely unreadable dreck.
|
| How very 1940's of you, is it really that inconvenient for
| you to be considerate?
| mbg721 wrote:
| Real respect is different from avoiding the magic-words.
| bettysdiagnose wrote:
| But if you want to communicate that you respect someone
| you will avoid the magic words because it's impossible
| for them to read your mind and understand your true
| intentions. Just empathy isn't it? If someone calls you a
| cunt but in their heart of hearts deeply respects you,
| that's pretty useless isn't it? Because it's impossible
| to know what is truly in their heart, and you can only
| judge them by what they say and what they do. If you
| respect someone why would you communicate in such a way
| that they could reasonably come to the conclusion that
| you in fact don't respect them at all?
| deanCommie wrote:
| We teach them this concept because the world is full of
| a-holes who won't take the bare minimum step of being a
| decent person to others and consider their feelings or how
| their words may have someone feel.
|
| I work in a field where Things Have TO Get Done. We pride
| ourselves on directness, honesty, and precision. NONE OF
| THOSE THINGS REQUIRE YOU TO BE A DICK. You don't use words
| like "stupid". You phrase your criticism surgically to be
| specific about the idea and not the person.
|
| Too many people don't want to learn social graces and use
| the excuse that they are just efficient direct and honest
| to justify being a dick.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I don't think that a professional environment setting
| expectations for how to communicate criticism is as
| difficult or unrealistic as the sky raining cheese.
| rspeele wrote:
| In the example being discussed, it's faster to simply
| change "That's a stupid idea, it won't work because X" to
| "That won't work because X".
|
| If Things Have To Get Done, why waste time making an
| insulting judgement instead of simply getting to the point?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Eh, I think a big part of getting things done is to
| creating an environment where people feel comfortable
| getting things done.
| whydoyoucare wrote:
| I think that is largely a difficult and expensive task,
| since there is no universally accepted definition of
| "feeling comfortable", and it is impossible to comfort a
| snowflake.
|
| I'd rather be happy letting people go than chasing some
| elusive target in the name of political correctness.
| Sooner or later, I will either end up being miserably
| alone or with enough smart people who just get things
| done. I think this risk is worth taking.
| rspeele wrote:
| There is also no universally accepted definition of
| "being an asshole", but nevertheless you know it when you
| see it, right?
|
| Maybe some fragile snowflakes should just get over their
| hysterical emotional need to feel comfortable, and focus
| on doing real work and getting stuff done. But by the
| same token, maybe some assholes should get over their
| pathetic emotional need to belittle others, and stick to
| what contributes to the work.
|
| There is a principle for robustly implementing computer
| communication protocols called Postel's law: be
| conservative in what you output, be liberal in what you
| accept. I think the principle applies equally well to
| human communication protocols.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I don't know - not calling other people's ideas at work
| "stupid" seems pretty obvious to me, it doesn't take some
| great amount of mental effort to just call things "bad"
| or even "not a good idea."
|
| Also, it's possible to have smart people and a failure
| culture and fail. If people are afraid of posing their
| ideas because they think they will be shot down as
| "stupid", that damages your culture.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| Calling "bad braindead pile of stupid shit" "not so good"
| devalues "good".
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Well I'm glad I don't work with you :)
| bettysdiagnose wrote:
| Well firstly it's not actually true, what we teach
| children, in that words absolutely can hurt.
|
| And it's not really hard to be respectful:
|
| >"That's a stupid idea"
|
| versus
|
| >"That idea simply will never work"
|
| identical information transfer, same amount of time taken,
| simply subtracting the implicit disrespect.
|
| As someone who works in academia (physics no less), IMO the
| problem is that some people are complete fucking arseholes
| because for some reason being a complete fucking arsehole
| in academia is accepted, and the problem is not that some
| people are sensitive. It's actually not hard to be nice.
| It's mostly just stuff you learned as a child. I don't
| accept that being a bit of a cunt makes you a better
| physicist or makes a team more productive. Having said that
| working in academia has certainly thickened my skin. I've
| worked with some legendarily awful wankers in my short
| time. I don't get phased any more, but that's not
| necessarily a good thing.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I don't know. "That idea simply will never work." will
| hurt the fragole person just as efficiently as "This idea
| is stupid".
|
| I think better communication us skip your general
| assesment of validity and form the objections you have to
| the idea as your questions about the idea.
|
| Or just say "it's stupid" if you are in a hurry and don't
| care about offending the person but don't expect great
| interactions in the future.
| XMPPwocky wrote:
| "Not to mention you will never--and I mean never--get
| people of a certain temperament to go along with an ever-
| changing set of rules designed to inflict zero emotional
| distress."
|
| Why not? Because they'll throw tantrums, whining about how
| it's just so unfair that they can't call people stupid? Too
| bad. They can suck it up and do their jobs- a part of which
| is effective communication- or they can leave.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| Shut the fuck up, you stupid cunt.
| deltarholamda wrote:
| >or they can leave
|
| That being the key thing here. They won't throw tantrums
| --that's pretty much the exclusive domain of the sorts of
| people who want to control how people speak--but they
| will just go elsewhere. Or stop mentoring people, because
| it's more trouble than dealing with thin-skinned people.
|
| Interestingly, I'm not suggesting that people have to be
| brusque or short. The sort of person who demands speech
| codes is the sort who will brook no personal interactions
| other than the perfectly harmless and anodyne, which
| seems pretty authoritarian to me. Quite a few of the
| technically minded do not care for authoritarianism, and
| they tend to be way out on the right tail of the Bell
| curve. You lose those at your risk.
| triceratops wrote:
| Your whole post is stupid.
|
| See what I mean?
|
| > Not to mention you will never--and I mean never--get
| people of a certain temperament to go along with an ever-
| changing set of rules
|
| In a community that embraced NPM, Gulp, Grunt, Webpack, and
| god knows what else in a span of 10 years?
|
| > we teach children the "sticks and stones" bromide because
| it's true.
|
| We tell them that because tackling bullying is too hard.
| And it makes us feel better when we verbally lash out at
| our children ("It's not like I'm really hurting them!").
| zebraswan wrote:
| Would it be a crazy idea to consider that deploying
| emotional intelligence has less obvious, higher order
| effects, that make up for the initial investment?
| stronglikedan wrote:
| If someone mistakenly interprets "that's a stupid idea" as
| "you're stupid", then that's on them. You can't stop someone
| from thinking the world revolves around them like that.
| pythko wrote:
| In the article, the author says "The harsh words stung at
| first, and caused me to question whether I belonged in
| theoretical physics."
|
| What prevented the author taking this to heart? "In the
| next breath, he would always be encouraging me to try a
| different approach and inviting me to return when I made
| progress."
|
| The appropriate takeaway is that when you call someone's
| ideas stupid, that _does_ make them feel stupid unless you
| counteract it with positive feedback in the same
| conversation.
| JanNash wrote:
| This! Also, tone and general behaviour matters. I think
| many comments here mistake this beautiful article for
| advice to use words like this.
|
| I've read both his biographic books multiple times, read
| into the Feynman Lectures and watched many an interview
| and other stuff with and about him.
|
| If I'd ever gotten to meet him (he's a top candidate on
| my "if you could have dinner with any person, living or
| _dead_ " list) and he'd have called an idea of mine
| stupid, I'm pretty sure that my reaction wouldn't have
| been to be hurt. I would have hoped for him to explain to
| me why it's stupid or give me a hint on where to look to
| find out for myself. Context matters. Character matters.
|
| Don't call people stupid. Don't call things (or ideas)
| stupid unless you can explain what's stupid about the
| thing or idea and why.
|
| If you're passionate about something, try to appreciate
| when someone tells you, without euphemism, why it won't
| work.
|
| If anyone has an idea on how one could get to travel back
| and meet him, we can find out together why it's stupid.
| Or "impossible" :)
| leephillips wrote:
| It's not "code". Saying "that idea is stupid" is different
| from saying "you are stupid". Nobody has to be "in on"
| anything.
|
| However, unless one is used to this frank style of
| communication, I'm sure it can be off-putting.
| crispyambulance wrote:
| "used to" is basically the same thing as "in on it".
|
| Moreover, context matters a lot with language style. One
| can't just lift Feynman's way of talking, transplant it
| somewhere else and expect it to be effective.
| watwut wrote:
| It still makes you a rude jerk in most situations.
| luckydata wrote:
| In the USA it does, in Europe it's way more normal.
| blitzar wrote:
| If I throw a bad pass in a ball game, and it gets called
| out as such, does that imply that they consider me a 'bad
| person'? Possibly some totally irredeemable piece of shit
| that should be locked up and not around children?
|
| Or is a bad pass, like a the bad idea thrown out there,
| just that?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| It's a line. I would not want ideas in my workplace to
| regularly be called "stupid" but I wouldn't mind "bad"
| nearly as much.
| smcl wrote:
| Ok first - no it doesn't make you an irredeemable piece
| of shit or a bad person. But if you do it in a weird way
| it _does_ mean that you 're someone who's lacking in
| social skills. We're talking in abstract ideas so I can't
| possibly know what you meant but:
|
| blitzar: what the fuck is wrong with you, smcl, that's
| two goals you've cost us because you lost your man
|
| and
|
| blitzar: for fuck's sake, smcl, focus, watch #11 he's
| killing us with those runs. we're not out of the game but
| you need to step it up
|
| are two ways you as a teammate could probably admonish me
| for costing our team a couple of goals. Both involve
| swearing, both are blunt and establish some fault. One is
| useless ranting, and will probably heap misery on the
| teammate and make them wish for the final whistle. The
| other is relatively productive and could possibly help
| (depending on how useless or hungover I am). So it
| depends, if by "called out" you mean something like #1
| then I strongly disagree. If it's #2 then cool, I'd like
| you as a teammate :)
|
| But on that original topic, I think that when someone
| says they think "that's a stupid idea" is unconstructive
| or damaging, it doesn't mean they want to be coddled,
| given a treat and told they're special. It just means
| that's a needlessly confrontational approach. If that
| person at the top of this thread is _really_ on the same
| wavelength with some people that they can openly talk
| like that, more power to them. But I suspect what 's
| _actually_ happening is a handful of students were
| talking that way, and most people secretly resented it
| and didn 't enjoy being around them because of how they
| acted.
|
| Then again, if it's coming from Feynmann I imagine
| there's something in the tone, delivery or context that
| would soften the blow :)
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| You have incorrectly interpreted the thread. It literally
| starts with Feynman saying, "That's stupid," and the
| subsequent poster claims that it is to be implied the idea
| is stupid, not the person. I point out that lacking "that
| idea", it becomes code.
| FalconSensei wrote:
| - Hey, I have this idea where xyz...
|
| - That's stupid
|
| It's clearly talking about the idea. No one says "That's
| X" when referring to someone. When someone shows me a
| painting and I say "That's beautiful", I'm obviously
| referring to the painting, right?
| seoaeu wrote:
| If you show someone a painting you made and they tell you
| "That's beautiful", you may reasonably conclude that they
| think you're a good painter.
|
| Similarly, if you come up with an idea and someone tells
| you it's stupid, you might conclude (especially if it's a
| recurring pattern) that they don't think you are very
| smart. If that is not the conclusion they wanted you to
| come to, it is on them for not communicating better
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| No. It is not obvious. That's the whole point of this
| discussion.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| How is that not obvious? Do you hold that position?
| leephillips wrote:
| It's not obvious? So there is a chance "that's beautiful"
| means that the person showing him the painting is
| beautiful? I'm mystified.
| rspeele wrote:
| > So there is a chance "that's beautiful" means that the
| person showing him the painting is beautiful?
|
| No, but I think the choice of adjective is important.
| Suppose instead of saying "That's a beautiful painting" I
| said "That's a masterful painting".
|
| The sentence structure is the same. The adjective is
| still modifying "painting". I'm still saying the painting
| is good. But the word I chose more directly implies a
| judgement of the artist: I am describing the painting as
| the product of a master painter.
|
| I get the same impression from hearing "stupid idea".
| Stupid is a description of intelligence, thinking
| ability, aptitude: attributes which lie with the idea's
| originator, not with the idea itself.
| FalconSensei wrote:
| You wouldn't say "that's a stupid person" unless you were
| talking about a 3rd person
| slingnow wrote:
| So can you explain exactly what the "that" in "That's
| stupid" is referring to?
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| You are free to say whatever you want and speak however
| you like. Just remember not everyone fills in the blanks
| the same way, and when being critical it is important to
| be specific. If that bothers you and you want to grind
| away at it to prove your way of speaking is correct, good
| luck with that. I hope you end up working with people who
| feel the same way.
| OnlineGladiator wrote:
| It's not code. "That's stupid" is short for "that idea is
| stupid." There's no way to change it to "that idea is
| stupid and therefore you are too" without the person
| making the leap on their own. It only says how insecure
| someone is to assume that.
| rspeele wrote:
| It's not much of a leap. "Stupid" is a judgement of
| intelligence. Ideas don't have intelligence, people do.
|
| To say something is "stupid" is to say that's it's the
| product of unintelligent thinking. Somebody calling my
| idea "stupid" may not be saying that I'm universally
| stupid, but they're at least saying that I was
| momentarily stupid to suggest that idea. Same thing if
| you call my idea "retarded" or "idiotic", or conversely,
| "smart" or "clever".
|
| The argument could be made that we should all be rational
| beings of pure logic, incapable of taking personal
| offense or being emotionally slighted or discouraged by
| such judgements. But we're not. And if we were, we would
| also be capable of limiting our _output_ to objective
| conclusions such as "that won't work" rather than
| subjective judgements such as "it was foolish to suggest
| that it could".
| jolmg wrote:
| > without the person making the leap on their own. It
| only says how insecure someone is to assume that.
|
| Not necessarily. There are social environments where
| things aren't said directly, but rather communicated
| through choice of words, body language and actions.
| People can make their thoughts abundantly clear without
| saying them directly, and some would expect you to
| understand even if they don't communicate it directly.
|
| Figuring out if a person/group says things directly or
| indirectly is part of the code. It's not necessarily
| about insecurity. Even a person secure in their own
| abilities can benefit from understanding when people
| communicate heavily between the lines.
| OnlineGladiator wrote:
| I think this is moving the goalposts. Yes, I agree that
| nonverbal communication matters. And I understand it's
| possible there is some code to communication, similar to
| how different cultures use words differently. But that's
| not what's being discussed.
|
| "That's stupid" is referring to _something_ being stupid,
| not _someone_. You need to invent additional context to
| interpret this differently.
| jolmg wrote:
| > But that's not what's being discussed. "That's stupid"
| is referring to something being stupid, not someone.
|
| What I meant is that people don't only ever say you're
| stupid by super-directly saying "you're stupid". "That's
| stupid" is not a big leap. Yes, context is key to
| interpretation.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| We have to be careful, there are toxic people who would
| constantly dismiss other people into submission by calling
| their ideas stupid repeatedly. This is abusive and it better
| not be permitted. They could use a more civil word for it.
| Here's the thing, I don't mind people I'm familiar with (and
| who earned their trust) calling me or my ideas stupid, but if
| it comes from other people they don't really have that
| privilege, they ought to measure up their words, especially if
| do it repeatedly where it could become downright harmful.
| gumby wrote:
| This kind of pattern is also quite common at MIT (or was when
| I was an undergrad). I found it great.
|
| However your caution is warranted. Even if the person saying
| "that's dumb" is a nice person the listener might not know
| that, or might have been conditioned by someone like what you
| describe.
|
| Years ago I was on a panel: there was an organizer (who chose
| the participants) and me. The first words I spoke were, "I
| think [organizer] is completely wrong and in fact has things
| utterly backwards." We spoke for a while and as we walked off
| stage, Organizer said with a smile "That was great. I think
| it went very well".
|
| As we parted an audience member came up and said they were
| shocked at how hostile I had been to Organizer.
|
| I happened to know both people and they had attended MIT as
| well.
|
| Moral: jargon is contextual jargon, even if it consists of
| ordinary words. Think of your audience.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Yes exactly. I'd endear a friend back and forth laughingly
| calling each other POS but in our context it was actually
| ok banter. We were even talking about what a good
| friendship we have so we can allow each other to use those
| words and cross a line without any real threat. Such are
| the contexts that are okay for this type of thing.
| gumby wrote:
| Advice for Australians in the US: you probably call
| someone you don't like a bastard and call your best mate
| a real bastard. Don't learn the hard was as I did: things
| do not work that way in the USA.
| burkaman wrote:
| > someone: that's a stupid approach. It can't work.
|
| Can't you just say "it can't work"? What additional information
| is communicated when you say it's stupid?
|
| If both people are on board with this conversation style then
| obviously it's fine, but I know lots of smart people and none
| of them communicate like this, even when they're telling me
| clearly and concisely that I'm wrong.
| inkblotuniverse wrote:
| That it can't work because of a retroactively obvious
| critical flaw, or it's overcomplicated, or something.
| jkmcf wrote:
| Fresh in my mind after reading two bios of Feynman, is when he,
| a newly minted PhD from Princeton, arrives at Los Alamos and
| tells Hans Bethe his idea is stupid and can't possibly work.
| luketheobscure wrote:
| The problem with this approach is that it pushes out a lot of
| people, especially women and minorities. When you are
| conditioned from birth to believe that you belong somewhere, a
| bit of criticism like this is easily brushed off. White men
| especially are used to seeing board rooms full of similar
| looking people, or equally homogenous computer engineering
| teams. We don't often stop to question if we belong in a STEM
| field. We assume it.
|
| When you've had to fight for your seat at the table, having
| your idea called stupid by a high ranking faculty member might
| rattle you enough to leave. Not because you don't deserve to be
| there, or are somehow intrinsically less capable of receiving
| criticism, but because you don't have the misplaced confidence
| of some of your peers.
| asmos7 wrote:
| in the age of diversity hires I can't imagine calling someone's
| ideal stupid and still having a job
| whydoyoucare wrote:
| Yup, one reason why the bar is getting lower by the day
| across Universities and workplaces.
| pythko wrote:
| Much of the conversation so far in the comments has ignored the
| context of that sentence in the article:
|
| > He called out my mistakes using words like "crazy," "nuts,"
| "ridiculous," and "stupid."
|
| > The harsh words stung at first, and caused me to question
| whether I belonged in theoretical physics. But I couldn't help
| noticing that Dick did not seem to take the critical comments
| as seriously as I did. In the next breath, he would always be
| encouraging me to try a different approach and inviting me to
| return when I made progress.
|
| If you have many repeated interactions with the same people
| where you make it clear you don't think they personally are
| stupid, and also you are almost never wrong when you call
| something crazy/nuts/ridiculous/stupid, perhaps you can get
| away with it. If one of those things is not true, it is not a
| good way of communicating (in North America, at least).
| gugagore wrote:
| Hurt feelings aside, sometimes a naysayer misunderstands, and a
| quick dismissal of an idea misses out on some good ideas, and
| some bad ideas that are still worth dissecting to figure out
| the reason they are bad.
|
| Why not:
|
| tzs: we should try X.
|
| someone: that can't work _because_ of some reason
|
| [...]
|
| We have emotions, and sometimes an emotion tells us an idea is
| bad, and that is more economical than analyzing carefully why
| an idea cannot work to ultimately arrive at the same conclusion
| that our gut already made.
|
| But sometimes your gut can be misleading, and sometimes it is
| worth putting in the work to possibly discover an incorrect
| assumption. In both of those examples I don't really see any
| communication about the reason why something ultimately works
| or doesn't work. All I see is people thinking to themselves.
| thomasahle wrote:
| > We have emotions, and sometimes an emotion tells us an idea
| is bad, and that is more economical than analyzing carefully
| why an idea cannot work to ultimately arrive at the same
| conclusion that our gut already made.
|
| I think this is exactly right. It also fits with what OP was
| saying that it is liberating to be in an environment where
| you can express your feelings like that.
|
| Ylu shouldn't always just blurt out your gomut reactions, but
| if you have an environment of mutual trust, it's
| understandably a nice thing to be able to do.
| lupire wrote:
| > Ylu shouldn't always just blurt out your gomut reactions
|
| case in point :-)
| mjfl wrote:
| It meant picking women up at bars :)
| JTon wrote:
| Good read. Here's the answer to the title question:
|
| > I also learned that "impossible," when used by Feynman, did not
| necessarily mean "unachievable" or "ridiculous." Sometimes it
| meant, "Wow! Here is something amazing that contradicts what we
| would normally expect to be true. This is worth understanding!"
| hasmanean wrote:
| Lewis Carrol wrote in Alice in Wonderland, the red Queen saying
| "sometimes I believe 6 impossible things before breakfast."
| GDC7 wrote:
| To me the most amazing thing about Feynman was his enthusiasm for
| relatively mundane things such as the Rio Carnival, stripclubs,
| the bongos, painting and the fixation for going to Tuva which is
| a place forgotten by both god and men.
|
| You'd think a guy who accomplished the things he accomplished
| would find it harder and harder to become enthusiastic about
| stuff, because of the effect of the hedonistic treadmill.
|
| Somehow I think his biggest accomplishment was his ability to
| slow down the hedonistic tradmill.
| whatshisface wrote:
| If I were to identify anything with the hedonistic treadmill it
| wouldn't be integrals.
| vvoaterr wrote:
| you mean, hedonic treadmill
| whatshisface wrote:
| If there's one thing I'd associate with the hedonic
| treadmill, it wouldn't be remembering the difference
| between hedonic and hedonistic.
| avmich wrote:
| I think, Heinlein in "Have spacesuit - will travel" mentions
| something to the tune of "math is worse than peanuts".
| Integrals could be holding attention quite well - just check
| Youtube channels with explanations of everything, or MOOCs
| which have rather robust audience.
| whatshisface wrote:
| It's not so much that there's no aspect of math that is
| pleasing, as it is that whatever it is, it's exempt from
| the hedonistic treadmill.
| GDC7 wrote:
| It's not math. It's you solving, winning and conquering
| math problems, and beating other people to the solution.
| datameta wrote:
| Precisely. The more one learns the more unsolved problems
| one discovers, each more brain-stimulating than the last!
| montblanc wrote:
| stripclubs? Edit: OK yes there were a bunch of stripclubs lol
| alisonkisk wrote:
| Feyman went to strip clubs to sit and work like people do at
| coffee shops nowadays.
| vvoaterr wrote:
| you mean, hedonic treadmill
| mbg721 wrote:
| As I recall the stories, his playing of the bongos wasn't
| exactly mundane; if anything, he was an expert at establishing
| eccentricity as a personal identity.
| GDC7 wrote:
| I mean, c'mon.....with all due respect for bongo
| players...reaching excellence in that field is also mundane
| as society doesn't exactly put bongo players on a pedestal
| mbg721 wrote:
| I wasn't so much concerned with his technical skill as his
| method of going about it, which was about as eccentric as
| one can get.
| mmphosis wrote:
| The Feynman Lectures on Physics
|
| https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/
|
| Table of Contents (Volumes I II III)
|
| https://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html
|
| https://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_toc.html
|
| https://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_toc.html
|
| Atoms in Motion
|
| https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| An enjoyable read. I think I am suspicious of the usual fawning
| over Feynman that I see (maybe because I am suspicious of any
| cult of personality -- I think we all know Feynman was not
| without flaws).
|
| I found the description of the author's interactions with Feynman
| to be truly delightful. There is a hint of worshipfulness in the
| set-up but I think the infamous physicist delivered.
| tantalor wrote:
| > hint of worshipfulness
|
| "my scientific idol, the legendary physicist"
|
| Certainly a strong hint, isn't it?
| toss1 wrote:
| True, it's strong, but not unreasoned -- he was describing
| his attitude as a student who knew at the time only of
| Feynman's reputation, having not yet had many direct human
| interactions with the "legendary physicist".
|
| Sad that he's gone so those interactions are no longer
| possible in this world. It's wonderful to read how an
| obviously brilliant scientist in his own right treasured
| those times with Feynman, and how often we read such accounts
| here on HN.
| yamazakiwi wrote:
| Cult of personality is quite an exaggeration.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-30 23:00 UTC)