4 ms·

> I think it's because ordinary everyday English language doesn't have a good way to tell someone that their question is wrong Many people have a tendency to g

> I think it's because ordinary everyday English language doesn't have a good way to tell someone that their question is wrong Many people have a tendency to get defensive when it's pointed out that they're wrong about something in general. They have difficulty separating an attack on, say, a logical falsehood, from an attack on their character or themselves. This is doubly true if the other party seems frustrated, which Feynman seems like he might have been - if only a little, and no matter how understandably - because even if you can convince yourself rationally of the difference, you're now dealing with emotions, and convincing yourself emotionally of the difference is a whole different - and I believe more difficult - challenge. Especially because they're not always separated. If someone criticizes everything you ever do, it's likely because they're critical of you. I can read "all your code sucks, it's terrible, you suck at writing code" and interpret it as a generalized self-deprecating comment about human fallibility in the context of programming, the tongue-in-cheek rationale about why we should all use static typing, unit tests, fuzzing, LISP, or whatever. However, I've had the advantage of decades of dealing with this stuff, of dealing with my own mistakes and the mistakes of others, and being frustrated by it, and enjoying the benefits of being corrected. Were such corrections a controlled substance, I'd be addicted or dead from overdose at this point. I've come to value them, and I can appreciate the truth of the in-joke. Yet if I repeat it to my mother - without carefully bracketing it in explanations - it'll just be extremely rude. Not because she can't or doesn't appreciate the knowledge, or the fundamental point, but because in her experience, "you suck" is a personal attack - it hasn't been twisted into some kind of fundamental greek tragedy of programming like it has in mine. But returning to Feynman - to me, and I believe to you - he comes across as someone willing to explain to us in great detail things in ways we'll understand. We value that highly, and if he expresses a little impatience or frustration, we look past that as a completely natural, a place we've all been, and don't take it personally. If anything, we might appreciate that he doesn't feel the need to coddle us. To others, that he can't even be bothered to hide his impatience or frustration with us, as social etiquette might demand, is rude - not something to be appreciated. He puts on a grand show of how even the interviewer's question is flawed, raising himself at the expense of the interviewer. There's a higher sensitivity to social cohesion - likely quite reasonably, as their day jobs value that social cohesion more. It's at odds with the more... militant style of pursuing the truth, of cutting straight to the point and making it clear without sugarcoating it in niceties. That he has a point only means we can begrudgingly appreciate it instead of just being offended.

ddingus 11y ago
This: We value that highly, and if he expresses a little impatience or frustration... Is only due to the fact that Feynman actually tries hard. And if he's frustrated, or impatient, it's because he is challenged to understand who he is talking to and that makes it hard for him to understand how long it may take to get there --and he really wants them to get there. Doing anything else sucks, because it doesn't mean anything and Feynman wants it to mean something. Getting at the basic meaning of things is what he lived for. People tend to take this all sorts of ways. I find watching and reading about Feynman so notable, because all the bravado and aggression is just fun down deep. He's playful and in the play comes really great insights. He related some of this in one of his stories about the Manhattan Project. He was young, and not yet of superior standing among his physics peers. A famous and very highly regarded physicist engaged Feynman on something one day, and Feynman told him he thought the whole thing nuts! No fear, just raw sharing of mind to mind. That guy would come back and request more dialog time with Feynman because Feynman didn't fear him and just shared his thoughts and feelings about whatever it was unabashedly. That is what people are seeing in the interview, and it's rare. Very, very rare. The interviewer should be quite pleased to see Feynman sharing as he would with any peer and not coddling, or glossing over things for what Feynman would consider shallow and unproductive reasons. Strange as it may appear now, Feynman was showing respect and giving the interview an honest go, not making a show for people who would watch such things as happy curios. Instead, it's a record for those who want to know something about Feynman. And say what you want, Feynman tried hard to demonstrate good intent in his life. Remember that on passages like this. And the good intent here is to spark the interest of the person asking why. Rather than punt, or cheat, he's going to say why, "why?" is tough and that he can't satisfy out of respect for a fellow person he would not want to lead astray. This does require going somewhat astray, but the person will be left with some greater understanding as a consequence, and that is as good as it gets, without actually taking the time to really answer why, which is entirely too much time and outside the scope of the interview mutually agreed upon in advance. That look in the chair, when he sits back and grins a little? It's a challenge. He's opened up a door, and he's inviting anyone watching to go right on in. Think about it some more. Thinking is good, and down that rabbit hole is where the really good stuff is. :) People can get a notch smarter just watching Feynman, and that's as he intended. He's just precise and he cares about that. Nothing nefarious or mean in any of it.

ddingus 11y ago

This: We value that highly, and if he expresses a little impatience or frustration... Is only due to the fact that Feynman actually tries hard. And if he's frustrated, or impatient, it's because he is challenged to understand who he is talking to and that makes it hard for him to understand how long it may take to get there --and he really wants them to get there. Doing anything else sucks, because it doesn't mean anything and Feynman wants it to mean something. Getting at the basic meaning of things is what he lived for. People tend to take this all sorts of ways. I find watching and reading about Feynman so notable, because all the bravado and aggression is just fun down deep. He's playful and in the play comes really great insights. He related some of this in one of his stories about the Manhattan Project. He was young, and not yet of superior standing among his physics peers. A famous and very highly regarded physicist engaged Feynman on something one day, and Feynman told him he thought the whole thing nuts! No fear, just raw sharing of mind to mind. That guy would come back and request more dialog time with Feynman because Feynman didn't fear him and just shared his thoughts and feelings about whatever it was unabashedly. That is what people are seeing in the interview, and it's rare. Very, very rare. The interviewer should be quite pleased to see Feynman sharing as he would with any peer and not coddling, or glossing over things for what Feynman would consider shallow and unproductive reasons. Strange as it may appear now, Feynman was showing respect and giving the interview an honest go, not making a show for people who would watch such things as happy curios. Instead, it's a record for those who want to know something about Feynman. And say what you want, Feynman tried hard to demonstrate good intent in his life. Remember that on passages like this. And the good intent here is to spark the interest of the person asking why. Rather than punt, or cheat, he's going to say why, "why?" is tough and that he can't satisfy out of respect for a fellow person he would not want to lead astray. This does require going somewhat astray, but the person will be left with some greater understanding as a consequence, and that is as good as it gets, without actually taking the time to really answer why, which is entirely too much time and outside the scope of the interview mutually agreed upon in advance. That look in the chair, when he sits back and grins a little? It's a challenge. He's opened up a door, and he's inviting anyone watching to go right on in. Think about it some more. Thinking is good, and down that rabbit hole is where the really good stuff is. :) People can get a notch smarter just watching Feynman, and that's as he intended. He's just precise and he cares about that. Nothing nefarious or mean in any of it.