3 ms·
Franklin and Feynman were smart but spread themselves too thinly and so didn't develop their genius, in part due to their social escapades. They didn't create a
by joggery 10y ago
Franklin and Feynman were smart but spread themselves too thinly and so didn't develop their genius, in part due to their social escapades. They didn't create as much as they should have. The test of 'getting on' with somebody would have to be something like roommates i.e. spending a significant amount of time together.
Yes it's creepy but ask yourself why. Perhaps it reveals something evil? It's not enough to like one's friends to refute this idea, which goes deep; it's about why you like them. Note that a truly good person loves his enemies while the highly sociable person will toady to some of his 'friends' and exploit others.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago>Franklin and Feynman were smart but spread themselves too thinly and so didn't develop their genius, Oh, no, they're only some of the most celebrated and accomplished men in our whole culture. It's not like they did anything with their lives /s. >Note that a truly good person loves his enemies while the highly sociable person will toady to some of his 'friends' and exploit others. Now you sound like you're just redefining "sociable".
- joggery 10y agoThere's a difference between celebrity and accomplishment. I'm claiming that to an extent they squandered their gifts and could have accomplished more of depth and value. John von Neumann is another example (too social; spread too thin). It's understood that social people are people who enjoy socialising and have lots of friends. But I would say that appearances are deceptive and they're actually not close to any of them. This isn't an accident because what they're really seeking is to allay their secret fear by gaining fame and/or power. Which is just a mistake. It's not wrong to have friends and to like them, even if only to honour the past, or because business demands it. But progress lies in a different (inner) direction.