10 ms·

Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

375 points by knight17 9y ago

Tepix 9y ago
Wow. I got goosebumps reading that at the end. Great writing. Thanks for sharing this valuable advice.
have_faith 9y ago
Does this work for Feynman, because he is a genius? in the same way that lots of successful people offer tidbits of advice that wouldn't apply to someone in different circumstances, or perhaps with a different level of intellect.
- kornish 9y ago
  Your comment reminds me of the Feynman Algorithm [0], which is pure gold: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3. Write down the solution. "The Feynman algorithm was facetiously suggested by Murray Gell-Mann, a colleague of Feynman, in a New York Times interview." [0]: http://wiki.c2.com/?FeynmanAlgorithm http://wiki.c2.com/?FeynmanAlgorithm
  - chairmanwow 9y ago
    I think I might start suggesting this to my coworkers + friends.
    - wiz21c 9y ago
      Not everybody can do that. Note that there's no loop between 2 and 3.
      - akvadrako 9y ago
        There is obviously a missing step though, which is to break the problem down into manageable chunks. That's the only way anyone can do it.
        Klockan 9y ago
        That's a part of step 2.
        boomlinde 9y ago
        Perhaps considered a natural effect of thinking hard about it
  - yxhuvud 9y ago
    Reminds me of a math teacher I had who had the following on some of his exams: "Guidance: Think". The same math teacher also had at least one exam where all the correct answers except one happened to be exactly 3.
  - tlb 9y ago
    Writing down the problem is a very important step that people often omit.
- mar77i 9y ago
  This does work for you, if you're on to something, even though the fact applies that you cannot know if the thing you're on to isn't already discovered and/or correct, which are things that are mostly impossible to know: https://www.xkcd.com/1163/ https://www.xkcd.com/1163/ Your point about working/collaborating/trusting in others is a twofold thing. Environments where everyone thrives to their max are very rare and hard to protect. Centrally here, being aware of what you need and how you can work with (or without) others is the crucial thing, and yes, reverse Dunning-Kruger happens to the best of us. UPDATE: A bit of humility keeps every scientist's personality on the way towards self-improvement and breakthrough.
- scandox 9y ago
  It's just a story about a human being at a particular point in his life. These stories do not yield lessons that are applicable at all times and to all people. They are just insights that may help a particular person at a particular moment - just as he was helped by having that insight at that time. At another time in his career he might have had the opposite insight: I need to immerse myself in listening to others.
- jonnybgood 9y ago
  I don't see what his epiphany of disregarding has to do with genius or intellect. It seems more like his own life lesson about self-doubt.
- omegant 9y ago
  I think it works for everybody but you need to be brave or crazy enough to apply it. If you pay attention to what the others are doing, you are working inside what is socially acceptable in your group and usually you are not going to go against the stablished truth. Hence you will not be able to add any breakthrough to your area of expertise. Feynman as the post says, experienced this social anxiety once he had the fame. He was able to recognice that you can not truly advance in new topics if you don't ignore social preasure, even if it's self inflicted. Of course that means that you risk being called a crank, or not getting tenure, or grants for your proyects. There is huge value in incremental knowledge, but to be Einstein, Watson or Feynman you first need to publish something new that most people will not recognice as valuable at first, if ever... Edit typos.
  - tluyben2 9y ago
    > I think it works for everybody but you need to be brave or crazy enough to apply it. Depends on what you think 'works' means. You get stuff done but chances are (and these chances are quite significant) no-one will care. If you are a genius (even if you don't recognize that yourself) this works because what you do will be recognized by others. Like writers doing their thing despite what others (including publishers) say; the talents become famous, the much larger group that are not so talented (or, unfortunately, for other reasons) are never read.
    - meric 9y ago
      I think that's why evolution selects for a small proportion of insanity in humans - so that some of our geniuses are insane enough to ignore social pressure and make breakthroughs that would be recognised.
      - snikeris 9y ago
        Evolution doesn't concern itself with survival or optimization of the species as a whole.
        9y ago
- SuoDuanDao 9y ago
  Warran Buffet is well known for his 'insulate yourself from public opinion' quote. It appears to me that disregarding the mainstream is necessary to be an outlier in any field. The rub might be though, that outliers lie on both sides of the bell curve.
  - bostik 9y ago
    This isn't that different from Einstein's take: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Keeping one's eyes open to contradictory/heretic/... evidence seems to be a common trait among the giants.
- acqq 9y ago
  Hey, it worked for the current president: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/13/donald-trump-positive-thinking-215704 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/13/donald-tru... "“In conditions of uncertainty and risk,” the researchers explained, “some instances of optimism lead people to make better decisions by helping avoid more costly mistakes and contribute to survival and flourishing.” Even so, it’s true only to a point. “Excessive optimism,” they concluded, “can become problematic and lead to poor strategic planning, disillusionment and disappointment, and risky behaviours"" Trump also wrote, according to the article: "“Someone asked me if I thought I was a genius,” he wrote in 2009 in Think Like a Champion. “I decided to say yes. Why not? Try it out. Tell yourself that you are a genius.”" The researcher's thoughts: "“For most people,” said Norem, who specializes in optimism, pessimism and personality psychology, “there’s a point at which, if that’s all they bring to the table, it breaks down.” The question is where that point is for Trump. He is so clearly not most people. In the words of Mitch Horowitz: “He is a kind of Frankenstein monster of the philosophy” of positive thought."" The whole article is really worth reading.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Never thought I would see anybody comparing Trump to Feynman, please try to see that the one is a poser and the other one a bona-fide genius.
    - acqq 9y ago
      Please note the post to which I respond, specifically: "Does this work for Feynman, because he is a genius? in the same way that lots of successful people offer tidbits of advice that wouldn't apply to someone in different circumstances, or perhaps with a different level of intellect." My response post is answering to that part of the question by referring to the article, which is worth reading exactly because it discusses that problem: when and where can it be said that somebody is just delusional, even if he gets to be a president of the only remaining "superpower". More globally, the attitude described in the article is a broad phenomenon, which is also worth considering. In short, please read the article linked, don't react based only on your initial emotion. I guess you'll understand the post differently. I thought my quotes were a good selection, still I think you really missed the point if you complain that I compare them as equal. As you see in the article and my quotes, Trump operates under the assumption that he's a "genius." Reading the other news, even when somebody (to be precise, a Secretary of State!) calls him a "moron" he responds with the IQ challenge (sounds like a joke but it's not): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/10/donald-trump-forbes-rex-tillerson-moron https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/10/donald-trump... The previous article, here again for clarity, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/13/donald-trump-positive-thinking-215704 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/13/donald-tru... is however clear about the eventual problems of being delusional. Much bigger problem for everybody else than for the person himself.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  The bigger point is to avoid artificial constraint. If you’re not doing things that you think are important and should be done because you are worried about the opinions of peers or sacred cows, you should dare to be bold. Keeping people happy isn’t always the right way. That’s what makes you a leader. That said, jumping off a table is a risk that can be managed. Jumping off a cliff is not likely to end well!
- dlwdlw 9y ago
  I think there's a common lesson though. Geniuses seem Superman because the magic of compounding intelligence is just as astounding as the magic of compounding interest. Geniuses seem superhuman but only because we cannot conjure up the superhuman amount of will required to reach such levels of genius. By following curiosity however, knowledge in a specific direction as set by your heart compounds. You can become superhuman at being you. (there is some luck involved in whether those skills can transfer into money/power/etc for the given time period) This is why early success can kill genius because a false God is created, the regard of others. By desiring and aiming, the target is missed. Because genius isn't about hitting targets or any sort of finite game with a goal. It's about the continuous burning of compounding interest, discovering and expanding our knowledge of the universe and life. Willpower is powerful but myopic, like the electromagnetic force. Curiosity or self driven passion is like gravity, much weaker in small amounts but continuously compounding at all scales.
_vlamacko 9y ago
Very nice little story and good advice, but I think most of us feel that completely disregarding others is not always the best solution. It really is a exploration vs exploitation problem.
- vixen99 9y ago
  You mean 'looking at' versus 'using'. But it should be 'and' not 'versus' i.e., always taking the wider view by looking at what effects the 'using' has on its environment of which we are all part.
grabcocque 9y ago
I'm not sure if it's reassuring or utterly disheartening that even somebody as brilliant as Feynman can be laid low with impostor syndrome.
- sidcool 9y ago
  On the contrary, it's the super Genius who are more likely to suffer from bouts of Imposter syndrome.
  - davidy123 9y ago
    It's not particularly imposter syndrome. He might still acknowledge that he's brilliant and has made some great discoveries, but feel he may not be able to make any more. Someone with imposter syndrome may never acknowledge their own achievements.
Insanity 9y ago
It was a pleasure to read, but of course it should be taken with a grain of salt and not applied to every field :-) Imagine being in a software team and disregarding what others are doing? Screw the rest of the team, I'll work on my own better solution and ignore the parts that are already working well! You might end up with a good solution to the problem, but you'll also manage to piss off a lot of people ^^ A more valuable 'quote' from Feynman would be to "Test everything yourself". Don't just take for granted the results of others but verify it yourself. That (in the field of software) can be quite valuable :-) Still, loved reading that blogpost!
- telesilla 9y ago
  More to the point, consider being the person who decides what that team builds. If you are constantly looking around you, worried about the competition and not trusting your own instinct, you may never build that singular wonderful thing that helps define your career (and gives you energy to pursue difficult things).
- sdrothrock 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify
- srean 9y ago
  > Imagine being in a software team and disregarding what others are doing? Screw the rest of the team, I'll work on my own better solution and ignore the parts that are already working well! If you are competent, have a realistic estimate of your competence, this might not be a bad idea if what you need is a purely technical solution. In many big organizations (lets leave them nameless) most of your time might be going in navigating the politics, guess-estimating different people's internal incentives and how to steer with or around them, not enough time might remain for thinking about the actual technical problem. In these organizations its necessary to take care of these things, because even if you figured out a great solution that ticked all the technical boxes, including technical compatibility with others, all that will come to nought if it is not in alignment with the social and political aspects.
j7ake 9y ago
In general it is high risk and high reward. You need to have sufficient confidence in yourself that what you're doing is valuable to a community that is hostile to you. If your work ends up not being recognised as important, then your losses are much larger than if you followed the crowd and did incremental research. There is probably analogous stories with start up scene, incremental start ups get funded, those considered too radical are not given money. In science it is not obvious whether or not your work will be important or recognised as important until much later. From the point of view from the entire community it makes sense for individuals to go big risk, but for individuals sometimes you also need to manage your risk differently
- SuoDuanDao 9y ago
  Good point. I'd add that the expected payback from doing incremental work is also a variable that can go through extreme changes over the medium term, which can lead to changes in whether it's rational to play it safe or attempt to blaze a trail. That makes me wonder whether changes in rates of entrepreneurialism lead or lag economic downturns...
drawkbox 9y ago
I believe Feynman is saying stay focused on your work, don't get too caught up changing things or keeping up because of other shiny things, you may miss important innovative ideas on your own work. It doesn't mean ignore others work but sometimes it is better to work it through yourself for understanding and then compare. Put all the energy into your work first and foremost. Same could go with starting a company or product - competition needs to be paid attention to, but if you do it too much it will lead you astray. The product may end up chasing or copycatting while missing out on some innovation that is entirely new and possibly important.
- baby 9y ago
  > because of other shiny things It can also be the opinion of others. A lot of people, especially when you're doing something that goes out of the ordinary, will judge you for not researching more conventional things. You end up trimming your research so that it pleases people more.
iamben 9y ago
Just based on some of the comments here - I think this loosely translates not as to literally disregard what others are doing, but more to disregard how you _think_ others are interpreting the work that you yourself are doing. In other words, believe in yourself and everything seems a little easier.
- tome 9y ago
  I don't think that's the case at all. It explicitly says "You have to worry about your own work and ignore what everyone else is doing", not "ignore how everyone else is interpreting the work you yourself are doing". Of course this advice isn't good for those who work in a team.
  - iamben 9y ago
    Perhaps, yup. I could be taking it entirely the wrong way, and maybe that's the beauty of it :-) I've spent a lot of time trying to deal with imposter syndrome. I guess I saw the parallel.
sidcool 9y ago
It may be a stretch to think that what worked for the great Feynman would work for me.
bsmithers 9y ago
It's interesting that a few people are relating this to team work. I think that is a misinterpretation. By 'others' I would infer something more like 'competitors', though I mean that relatively loosely. Essentially, ignore what other labs are working on and focus on your own (group's) works. My own PhD supervisor had a similar attitude, though it runs against how many others approach a problem I feel. For example, I'm unconvinced that starting a project with a thorough literature review is necessarily the best plan. It can shroud your thoughts, make you miss the same things everyone else has and make you feel that all the work has already been done.
- ghthor 9y ago
  This is also critical for software engineering as well. Large organizations, especially older ones that sort of missed the software revolution will get bogged down in making sure they're software engineers don't recreate an existing project within the company. This thought process ruins creativity and motivation. It's more beneficial to recreate the same thing 4 times over, now you have a team of domain experts 4x the size and you can take that expertise and factor out the shared patterns into a service or a product. Trying to do it the other way around is a recipe for failure.
  - slfnflctd 9y ago
    > recreate the same thing 4 times over, now you have a team of domain experts 4x the size [...] factor out the shared patterns This is quite a helpful example. I have spent much of my career concerned about avoiding duplication of effort at all costs, and a significant counterweight just clicked with me. Comparing parallel experiences for new insights is a core competency of our brains. It's true with many other animals as well.
  - pm 9y ago
    There are plenty of counter-examples to this. Just look at Google's messaging efforts (Gmail chat, Hangouts, Duo, Allo, etc.) as a great example of fragmentation without any obvious benefit.
    - deleted 9y ago
Asdfbla 9y ago
I find it is a hard balance to strike, because on the one hand I think you certainly need input, inspiration or feedback from other people and people smarter or more accomplished than you, but on the other hand you it's not good to get self-conscious about your ideas or achievements relative to theirs. In principle those to things could be unrelated, but in practice it can be hard to separate those two aspects.
loup-vaillant 9y ago
Yup. That works. Just don't forget the follow-up, where external feedback is crucial. Shameless plug: I've written my own crypto library¹. Not just for the lulz, I fully intend to use it in production. To do that, I had to disregard the crypto community, that basically says anyone who does that deserves to burn in Crypto Hell the time it takes them to count to 2^256. (I might exaggerate a tad). They say that for a reason however. I had to seek and listen to external advice eventually. Which, judging by the holes they poked through my library, was invaluable. I think there are two phases. The "I'll show them" phase where you hide under your cave doing your thing, and the phase where you actually show some results and confirm whether this was a worthwhile endeavour. [1]: http://loup-vaillant.fr/projects/monocypher http://loup-vaillant.fr/projects/monocypher
- woahhvicky 9y ago
  I think the point is that you don’t need approval from anyone to find value in your own work. Who cares if crypto “experts” condone the use of your library? All that matters is that it provides you value in your endeavors. “Showing them” is not necessary for that.
  - baking 9y ago
    I don't think that is the point at all. To that end lies madness.
    - woahhvicky 9y ago
      If you think so then you’ve misinterpreted my comment.
      - baking 9y ago
        I would make a distinction between 1) working on some project ignoring what others are working on or what they would say about the potential value of the work until you have reached some milestone and are ready to present it to the world and receive critical feedback, and 2) working on something without concern for anyone else ever finding value in it. Feynman is clearly saying disregard others while you are doing the work, not disregard others when you present it for feedback and criticism. That is the spirit with which I responded. As a developer, there is a third option where your work is simply ignored. If it is functional for you and you are satisfied with your own work, then sure, feel free to disregard others lack of interest, like an artist who values their own work but meets a deafening silence. But please don't disregard serious criticism.
317070 9y ago
Ha, that's amazing! I have always encouraged colleagues to read less scientific articles, especially if it is incremental science. It encourages you to think inside the box and you will come up with the same solutions everyone else is. Of course there is more to it, work methodically, formulate problems before solving them, etc. But I'm glad Feynmann agrees with me on this one.
peg_leg 9y ago
This goes for everyone - not just geniuses. The burger flipper at your favorite fast food joint needs to concentrate on his own work, disregarding what the particular tasks of the counter-worker is. An office worker needs to concentrate on their own Excel workbook, disregarding the type or quality of other people's work. One can't be at peak productivity or creativity while constantly comparing their work to others. A very basic trap that even Nobel Prize winners get stuck in apparently.
- simplegeek 9y ago
  One thing I'm not very certain is that can we as software developers totally disregard others work? I think the analogy doesn't apply here. We build on what other people build. Some many times I had to read other people code which I think made me a better engineer. If I work in isolation, not sure if I can improve the quality.
  - TOGoS 9y ago
    Nah, I think it applies just fine. There is a strong culture of building on top of the work of others, and in some cases people build really neat stuff that they could never have done on their own by pulling in years of work in the form of libraries and datasets and etc, but that way of working isn't for everybody. You might end up spending more time trying to keep up with the latest and greatest everything instead of developing your own ideas. I think of Minecraft as a pretty good example. While everyone else was focused on making photorealistic shooters on game engine X Notch was all like "what if everything was cubes that went on forever", and he ended up making something super unique (and extremely popular). Or Chuck Moore with all his wacky Forths. Not the billionaire that Notch is, but he seems pretty happy.
    - yathern 9y ago
      The irony in your Minecraft example is that Notch originally set out to make a better Infiniminer.
dschuetz 9y ago
Independence of thought in a nutshell. Thanks for sharing!
chewyshine 9y ago
This was fun and all but it doesn't apply to modern academics. Now, if you 'disregard' you won't get grants and you won't be in academics long enough to make a contribute. Fun but irrelevant today.
- bitexploder 9y ago
  I think this is not the spirit it was meant in. It is more self help advice for the struggling researcher. I read it more as, despite your doubt, disregard others in your mind, and do your work. You won't get anywhere if you have convinced yourself you won't get anywhere, so why start/try?
agumonkey 9y ago
Shannon also had a care free attitude regarding his ways. Following his intuition is important. Not being blind too. Accept the others, just don't dismiss yours.
amelius 9y ago
But if you disregard others, how do you prevent reinventing the wheel?
- EdwardCoffin 9y ago
  I think he means to disregard what others are currently doing.
  - amelius 9y ago
    Well, they could be inventing a new type of wheel. If you disregard others, you could be inventing the same things as others, or even less smart versions of those things.
    - marcosdumay 9y ago
      Or maybe more smart versions of those things. In a field where one successful work defines a career, this looks like a good move.
- mbrock 9y ago
  Reinventing the wheel is probably a really good exercise for anyone who wants to be an engineer.
keeptrying 9y ago
This applies to scientists, not to software engineers working in a team. (This can also apply to software company founders and side projects but that's a special case.) Scientists and researchers are primarily working to build their own brand and to make a contribution which can be tied To them. A team of s/w emgineers is working to build a cohesive whole. Much different goals and incentives.
- philipov 9y ago
  Scientists are also trying to build a cohesive whole: their research needs to be relevant to the rest of the scientific discussion or people won't bother with it. Likewise, software engineers have incentives to carve out fiefdoms within their company as a path towards recognition and promotion; building one's own team/department within a company begins with these kinds of contributions.
- aptwebapps 9y ago
  > This applies to scientists, not to software engineers working in a team. It applies to anyone attempting to do something new, which does exclude most software engineers. Goals and incentives matter, of course, but are secondary here, I think.
- gerbilly 9y ago
  >This applies to scientists, not to software engineers working in a team. And that'w why no software engineers working on teams will ever win a nobel prize. I don't mean to be disingenuous, but did you ever stop to think why team work is so drummed into us? It's not because teamwork produces better results, it's so corporations can treat us as interchangeable cogs. They want knowledge spread across a whole team to 'de-risk' their projects in case someone leaves. They know full well that the best work is done by expert individuals, but they choose to promote teamwork anyway.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    There's a spectrum. Teams can certainly achieve things that are too large for an individual. And yes, what you said do exist (and on some projects it is even a good thing). I don't think there are easy general answers, except that all the energy promoting team working is there because nobody likes it. If it's a good or a bad thing, that will probably change every time.
stephengillie 9y ago
Therein lies the best career advice I could possibly dispense: just DO things. Chase after the things that interest you and make you happy. Stop acting like you have a set path, because you don't. No one does. You shouldn't be trying to check off the boxes of life; they aren't real and they were created by other people, not you. There is no explicit path I'm following, and I'm not walking in anyone else's footsteps. I'm making it up as I go. - Charlie Hoehn
- graphitezepp 9y ago
  I love this quote thanks for sharing, only thing wrong is that it's framed as career advice and not just general advice. I've spent my life thus far following an explicit path checking the boxes I was 'supposed' to and it was making me deeply unhappy.
- copperx 9y ago
  Hamming would be against that.
  - yesenadam 9y ago
    i.e. Hamming advised everyone to work on the most important problem(s) in their field, and precisely not to "Chase after the things that interest you and make you happy." Maybe for him these two were the same. There is something cold about his recommendation, though. I'm not sure what motivated him. Impressing himself with important discoveries? I never in all his talking about missile trajectories and weapons-related work came across any evidence of ethical considerations. Godement's Algebra with its inspiring political and ethical conscience - its author was man as well as mathematician - made me vividly aware of how a work of mathematics/physics can either be ethical, or it can pretend that ethics are not its concern. Or rather, like a heartless child, act without ever even considering consequences. Maybe Hamming was just working on the important problems in his field, and disregarding all else, and thought that was enough.
    - yesenadam 9y ago
      Whoops, I meant Godement's Analysis.
damontal 9y ago
I noticed they linked to wikiwand in that article instead of wikipedia. Do others here use wikiwand? Is it much of an improvement over wikipedia?
- actionscripted 9y ago
  I've used it and loved it. For me it greatly enhanced readability as they had put a lot of care into the aesthetic and typography. I'm not a fan of the way it takes over the default WikiPedia URLs, however. And the Firefox plugin hasn't been updated since 2016 and isn't compatible with newer versions of Firefox so I don't use it on a regular basis anymore.
skc 9y ago
Wow, I really needed to read this.
wrycoder 9y ago
The truly great ideas in physics are actually quite simply stated. They are subsequently mathematically elaborated, to the point where it can be hard to separate out the core idea. Even a Feynman can’t track all the work going on, and elaboration doesn’t win Nobel prizes. Most physicists don’t have the ability to rise above elaboration and application - it takes an Einstein or a Feynman to grasp and extend the core with big ideas, while not being distracted by the fog of elaborative papers. My favorite is, Wheeler: “Feynman, I know why all electrons are exactly alike!” Feynman: “Why?” Wheeler: “There is only one electron!” [looping through space-time, we see the cross sections]. Ahh....
baxtr 9y ago
Reminds me very much of Steve. I miss him
NumberSix 9y ago
Watson's original account of the discovery of the double helix has been heavily criticized for downplaying the role of Rosalind Franklin's x-ray crystallography measurements of the structure of DNA in the discovery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin Disregard or failure to give credit to others where credit is due?
- NotableAlamode 9y ago
  Might this criticism have been politically motivated? For a while she actively campaigned against DNA being a double helix, see e.g. her 'obiturary' for the double helix [1] which preceeds Watson and Crick’s paper. Might her insistence that DNA is not a double helix have misled Wilkins and others? [1] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-in-the-mind/files/2013/04/Franklinhelixobit.jpg http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-in-the-mind/files/201...
  - NumberSix 9y ago
    This is complicated issue. Specifically, The Double Helix, cited in the original HN post, does mention Rosalind Franklin but in a rather demeaning way that slights her contributions -- which came to be highly criticized in subsequent years. This is the relevant section from the Wikipedia article, which like most Wikipedia articles on contentious topics should be taken with a grain of salt and not substituted for original sources: Recognition of her contribution to the model of DNA Upon the completion of their model, Crick and Watson had invited Wilkins to be a co-author of their paper describing the structure.[186] Wilkins turned down this offer, as he had taken no part in building the model.[187] He later expressed regret that greater discussion of co-authorship had not taken place as this might have helped to clarify the contribution the work at King's had made to the discovery.[188] There is no doubt that Franklin's experimental data were used by Crick and Watson to build their model of DNA in 1953. Some, including Maddox, have explained this citation omission by suggesting that it may be a question of circumstance, because it would have been very difficult to cite the unpublished work from the MRC report they had seen.[78] Indeed, a clear timely acknowledgment would have been awkward, given the unorthodox manner in which data were transferred from King's to Cambridge. However, methods were available. Watson and Crick could have cited the MRC report as a personal communication or else cited the Acta articles in press, or most easily, the third Nature paper that they knew was in press. One of the most important accomplishments of Maddox's widely acclaimed biography is that Maddox made a well-received case for inadequate acknowledgement. "Such acknowledgement as they gave her was very muted and always coupled with the name of Wilkins".[189] Twenty five years after the fact, the first clear recitation of Franklin's contribution appeared as it permeated Watson's account, The Double Helix, although it was buried under descriptions of Watson's (often quite negative) regard towards Franklin during the period of their work on DNA. This attitude is epitomized in the confrontation between Watson and Franklin over a preprint of Pauling's mistaken DNA manuscript.[190] Watson's words impelled Sayre to write her rebuttal, in which the entire chapter nine, "Winner Take All" has the structure of a legal brief dissecting and analyzing the topic of acknowledgement.[191] Sayre's early analysis was often ignored because of perceived feminist overtones in her book. Watson and Crick did not cite the X-ray diffraction work of Wilkins and Franklin in their original paper, though they admit having "been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin and their co-workers at King's College, London".[81] In fact, Watson and Crick cited no experimental data at all in support of their model. Franklin and Gosling's publication of the DNA X-ray image, in the same issue of Nature, served as the principal evidence: Thus our general ideas are not inconsistent with the model proposed by Watson and Crick in the preceding communication.[192]
taeric 9y ago
Feynman's breakthrough seems more to be a full package. I don't think any one thing he did would work for someone else, but collectively he was very effective. My favorite practice of his was keeping toy problems in your head at all times. Whenever you see a new problem or technique, thing how it relates to a set you already know. My favorite behavior of his was uniform respect for everyone. He never assumed that someone else couldn't understand. If anything, he felt he couldn't explain. Subtle but important difference.
nickoakland 9y ago
The literary version of "Disregard" is called "The anxiety of influence" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxiety_of_Influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxiety_of_Influence
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

375 points by knight17 9y ago

Wow. I got goosebumps reading that at the end. Great writing. Thanks for sharing this valuable advice.

Does this work for Feynman, because he is a genius? in the same way that lots of successful people offer tidbits of advice that wouldn't apply to someone in different circumstances, or perhaps with a different level of intellect.

kornish 9y ago
Your comment reminds me of the Feynman Algorithm [0], which is pure gold: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3. Write down the solution. "The Feynman algorithm was facetiously suggested by Murray Gell-Mann, a colleague of Feynman, in a New York Times interview." [0]: http://wiki.c2.com/?FeynmanAlgorithm http://wiki.c2.com/?FeynmanAlgorithm
- chairmanwow 9y ago
  I think I might start suggesting this to my coworkers + friends.
  - wiz21c 9y ago
    Not everybody can do that. Note that there's no loop between 2 and 3.
    - akvadrako 9y ago
      There is obviously a missing step though, which is to break the problem down into manageable chunks. That's the only way anyone can do it.
      - Klockan 9y ago
        That's a part of step 2.
      - boomlinde 9y ago
        Perhaps considered a natural effect of thinking hard about it
- yxhuvud 9y ago
  Reminds me of a math teacher I had who had the following on some of his exams: "Guidance: Think". The same math teacher also had at least one exam where all the correct answers except one happened to be exactly 3.
- tlb 9y ago
  Writing down the problem is a very important step that people often omit.
mar77i 9y ago
This does work for you, if you're on to something, even though the fact applies that you cannot know if the thing you're on to isn't already discovered and/or correct, which are things that are mostly impossible to know: https://www.xkcd.com/1163/ https://www.xkcd.com/1163/ Your point about working/collaborating/trusting in others is a twofold thing. Environments where everyone thrives to their max are very rare and hard to protect. Centrally here, being aware of what you need and how you can work with (or without) others is the crucial thing, and yes, reverse Dunning-Kruger happens to the best of us. UPDATE: A bit of humility keeps every scientist's personality on the way towards self-improvement and breakthrough.
scandox 9y ago
It's just a story about a human being at a particular point in his life. These stories do not yield lessons that are applicable at all times and to all people. They are just insights that may help a particular person at a particular moment - just as he was helped by having that insight at that time. At another time in his career he might have had the opposite insight: I need to immerse myself in listening to others.
jonnybgood 9y ago
I don't see what his epiphany of disregarding has to do with genius or intellect. It seems more like his own life lesson about self-doubt.
omegant 9y ago
I think it works for everybody but you need to be brave or crazy enough to apply it. If you pay attention to what the others are doing, you are working inside what is socially acceptable in your group and usually you are not going to go against the stablished truth. Hence you will not be able to add any breakthrough to your area of expertise. Feynman as the post says, experienced this social anxiety once he had the fame. He was able to recognice that you can not truly advance in new topics if you don't ignore social preasure, even if it's self inflicted. Of course that means that you risk being called a crank, or not getting tenure, or grants for your proyects. There is huge value in incremental knowledge, but to be Einstein, Watson or Feynman you first need to publish something new that most people will not recognice as valuable at first, if ever... Edit typos.
- tluyben2 9y ago
  > I think it works for everybody but you need to be brave or crazy enough to apply it. Depends on what you think 'works' means. You get stuff done but chances are (and these chances are quite significant) no-one will care. If you are a genius (even if you don't recognize that yourself) this works because what you do will be recognized by others. Like writers doing their thing despite what others (including publishers) say; the talents become famous, the much larger group that are not so talented (or, unfortunately, for other reasons) are never read.
  - meric 9y ago
    I think that's why evolution selects for a small proportion of insanity in humans - so that some of our geniuses are insane enough to ignore social pressure and make breakthroughs that would be recognised.
    - snikeris 9y ago
      Evolution doesn't concern itself with survival or optimization of the species as a whole.
      - 9y ago
SuoDuanDao 9y ago
Warran Buffet is well known for his 'insulate yourself from public opinion' quote. It appears to me that disregarding the mainstream is necessary to be an outlier in any field. The rub might be though, that outliers lie on both sides of the bell curve.
- bostik 9y ago
  This isn't that different from Einstein's take: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Keeping one's eyes open to contradictory/heretic/... evidence seems to be a common trait among the giants.
acqq 9y ago
Hey, it worked for the current president: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/13/donald-trump-positive-thinking-215704 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/13/donald-tru... "“In conditions of uncertainty and risk,” the researchers explained, “some instances of optimism lead people to make better decisions by helping avoid more costly mistakes and contribute to survival and flourishing.” Even so, it’s true only to a point. “Excessive optimism,” they concluded, “can become problematic and lead to poor strategic planning, disillusionment and disappointment, and risky behaviours"" Trump also wrote, according to the article: "“Someone asked me if I thought I was a genius,” he wrote in 2009 in Think Like a Champion. “I decided to say yes. Why not? Try it out. Tell yourself that you are a genius.”" The researcher's thoughts: "“For most people,” said Norem, who specializes in optimism, pessimism and personality psychology, “there’s a point at which, if that’s all they bring to the table, it breaks down.” The question is where that point is for Trump. He is so clearly not most people. In the words of Mitch Horowitz: “He is a kind of Frankenstein monster of the philosophy” of positive thought."" The whole article is really worth reading.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Never thought I would see anybody comparing Trump to Feynman, please try to see that the one is a poser and the other one a bona-fide genius.
  - acqq 9y ago
    Please note the post to which I respond, specifically: "Does this work for Feynman, because he is a genius? in the same way that lots of successful people offer tidbits of advice that wouldn't apply to someone in different circumstances, or perhaps with a different level of intellect." My response post is answering to that part of the question by referring to the article, which is worth reading exactly because it discusses that problem: when and where can it be said that somebody is just delusional, even if he gets to be a president of the only remaining "superpower". More globally, the attitude described in the article is a broad phenomenon, which is also worth considering. In short, please read the article linked, don't react based only on your initial emotion. I guess you'll understand the post differently. I thought my quotes were a good selection, still I think you really missed the point if you complain that I compare them as equal. As you see in the article and my quotes, Trump operates under the assumption that he's a "genius." Reading the other news, even when somebody (to be precise, a Secretary of State!) calls him a "moron" he responds with the IQ challenge (sounds like a joke but it's not): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/10/donald-trump-forbes-rex-tillerson-moron https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/10/donald-trump... The previous article, here again for clarity, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/13/donald-trump-positive-thinking-215704 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/13/donald-tru... is however clear about the eventual problems of being delusional. Much bigger problem for everybody else than for the person himself.
Spooky23 9y ago
The bigger point is to avoid artificial constraint. If you’re not doing things that you think are important and should be done because you are worried about the opinions of peers or sacred cows, you should dare to be bold. Keeping people happy isn’t always the right way. That’s what makes you a leader. That said, jumping off a table is a risk that can be managed. Jumping off a cliff is not likely to end well!
dlwdlw 9y ago
I think there's a common lesson though. Geniuses seem Superman because the magic of compounding intelligence is just as astounding as the magic of compounding interest. Geniuses seem superhuman but only because we cannot conjure up the superhuman amount of will required to reach such levels of genius. By following curiosity however, knowledge in a specific direction as set by your heart compounds. You can become superhuman at being you. (there is some luck involved in whether those skills can transfer into money/power/etc for the given time period) This is why early success can kill genius because a false God is created, the regard of others. By desiring and aiming, the target is missed. Because genius isn't about hitting targets or any sort of finite game with a goal. It's about the continuous burning of compounding interest, discovering and expanding our knowledge of the universe and life. Willpower is powerful but myopic, like the electromagnetic force. Curiosity or self driven passion is like gravity, much weaker in small amounts but continuously compounding at all scales.

_vlamacko 9y ago

Very nice little story and good advice, but I think most of us feel that completely disregarding others is not always the best solution. It really is a exploration vs exploitation problem.

vixen99 9y ago
You mean 'looking at' versus 'using'. But it should be 'and' not 'versus' i.e., always taking the wider view by looking at what effects the 'using' has on its environment of which we are all part.

grabcocque 9y ago

I'm not sure if it's reassuring or utterly disheartening that even somebody as brilliant as Feynman can be laid low with impostor syndrome.

sidcool 9y ago
On the contrary, it's the super Genius who are more likely to suffer from bouts of Imposter syndrome.
- davidy123 9y ago
  It's not particularly imposter syndrome. He might still acknowledge that he's brilliant and has made some great discoveries, but feel he may not be able to make any more. Someone with imposter syndrome may never acknowledge their own achievements.

Insanity 9y ago

It was a pleasure to read, but of course it should be taken with a grain of salt and not applied to every field :-) Imagine being in a software team and disregarding what others are doing? Screw the rest of the team, I'll work on my own better solution and ignore the parts that are already working well! You might end up with a good solution to the problem, but you'll also manage to piss off a lot of people ^^ A more valuable 'quote' from Feynman would be to "Test everything yourself". Don't just take for granted the results of others but verify it yourself. That (in the field of software) can be quite valuable :-) Still, loved reading that blogpost!

telesilla 9y ago
More to the point, consider being the person who decides what that team builds. If you are constantly looking around you, worried about the competition and not trusting your own instinct, you may never build that singular wonderful thing that helps define your career (and gives you energy to pursue difficult things).
sdrothrock 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify
srean 9y ago
> Imagine being in a software team and disregarding what others are doing? Screw the rest of the team, I'll work on my own better solution and ignore the parts that are already working well! If you are competent, have a realistic estimate of your competence, this might not be a bad idea if what you need is a purely technical solution. In many big organizations (lets leave them nameless) most of your time might be going in navigating the politics, guess-estimating different people's internal incentives and how to steer with or around them, not enough time might remain for thinking about the actual technical problem. In these organizations its necessary to take care of these things, because even if you figured out a great solution that ticked all the technical boxes, including technical compatibility with others, all that will come to nought if it is not in alignment with the social and political aspects.

j7ake 9y ago

In general it is high risk and high reward. You need to have sufficient confidence in yourself that what you're doing is valuable to a community that is hostile to you. If your work ends up not being recognised as important, then your losses are much larger than if you followed the crowd and did incremental research. There is probably analogous stories with start up scene, incremental start ups get funded, those considered too radical are not given money. In science it is not obvious whether or not your work will be important or recognised as important until much later. From the point of view from the entire community it makes sense for individuals to go big risk, but for individuals sometimes you also need to manage your risk differently

SuoDuanDao 9y ago
Good point. I'd add that the expected payback from doing incremental work is also a variable that can go through extreme changes over the medium term, which can lead to changes in whether it's rational to play it safe or attempt to blaze a trail. That makes me wonder whether changes in rates of entrepreneurialism lead or lag economic downturns...

drawkbox 9y ago

I believe Feynman is saying stay focused on your work, don't get too caught up changing things or keeping up because of other shiny things, you may miss important innovative ideas on your own work. It doesn't mean ignore others work but sometimes it is better to work it through yourself for understanding and then compare. Put all the energy into your work first and foremost. Same could go with starting a company or product - competition needs to be paid attention to, but if you do it too much it will lead you astray. The product may end up chasing or copycatting while missing out on some innovation that is entirely new and possibly important.

baby 9y ago
> because of other shiny things It can also be the opinion of others. A lot of people, especially when you're doing something that goes out of the ordinary, will judge you for not researching more conventional things. You end up trimming your research so that it pleases people more.

iamben 9y ago

Just based on some of the comments here - I think this loosely translates not as to literally disregard what others are doing, but more to disregard how you _think_ others are interpreting the work that you yourself are doing. In other words, believe in yourself and everything seems a little easier.

tome 9y ago
I don't think that's the case at all. It explicitly says "You have to worry about your own work and ignore what everyone else is doing", not "ignore how everyone else is interpreting the work you yourself are doing". Of course this advice isn't good for those who work in a team.
- iamben 9y ago
  Perhaps, yup. I could be taking it entirely the wrong way, and maybe that's the beauty of it :-) I've spent a lot of time trying to deal with imposter syndrome. I guess I saw the parallel.

sidcool 9y ago

It may be a stretch to think that what worked for the great Feynman would work for me.

bsmithers 9y ago

It's interesting that a few people are relating this to team work. I think that is a misinterpretation. By 'others' I would infer something more like 'competitors', though I mean that relatively loosely. Essentially, ignore what other labs are working on and focus on your own (group's) works. My own PhD supervisor had a similar attitude, though it runs against how many others approach a problem I feel. For example, I'm unconvinced that starting a project with a thorough literature review is necessarily the best plan. It can shroud your thoughts, make you miss the same things everyone else has and make you feel that all the work has already been done.

ghthor 9y ago
This is also critical for software engineering as well. Large organizations, especially older ones that sort of missed the software revolution will get bogged down in making sure they're software engineers don't recreate an existing project within the company. This thought process ruins creativity and motivation. It's more beneficial to recreate the same thing 4 times over, now you have a team of domain experts 4x the size and you can take that expertise and factor out the shared patterns into a service or a product. Trying to do it the other way around is a recipe for failure.
- slfnflctd 9y ago
  > recreate the same thing 4 times over, now you have a team of domain experts 4x the size [...] factor out the shared patterns This is quite a helpful example. I have spent much of my career concerned about avoiding duplication of effort at all costs, and a significant counterweight just clicked with me. Comparing parallel experiences for new insights is a core competency of our brains. It's true with many other animals as well.
- pm 9y ago
  There are plenty of counter-examples to this. Just look at Google's messaging efforts (Gmail chat, Hangouts, Duo, Allo, etc.) as a great example of fragmentation without any obvious benefit.
  - deleted 9y ago

Asdfbla 9y ago

I find it is a hard balance to strike, because on the one hand I think you certainly need input, inspiration or feedback from other people and people smarter or more accomplished than you, but on the other hand you it's not good to get self-conscious about your ideas or achievements relative to theirs. In principle those to things could be unrelated, but in practice it can be hard to separate those two aspects.

loup-vaillant 9y ago

Yup. That works. Just don't forget the follow-up, where external feedback is crucial. Shameless plug: I've written my own crypto library¹. Not just for the lulz, I fully intend to use it in production. To do that, I had to disregard the crypto community, that basically says anyone who does that deserves to burn in Crypto Hell the time it takes them to count to 2^256. (I might exaggerate a tad). They say that for a reason however. I had to seek and listen to external advice eventually. Which, judging by the holes they poked through my library, was invaluable. I think there are two phases. The "I'll show them" phase where you hide under your cave doing your thing, and the phase where you actually show some results and confirm whether this was a worthwhile endeavour. [1]: http://loup-vaillant.fr/projects/monocypher http://loup-vaillant.fr/projects/monocypher

woahhvicky 9y ago
I think the point is that you don’t need approval from anyone to find value in your own work. Who cares if crypto “experts” condone the use of your library? All that matters is that it provides you value in your endeavors. “Showing them” is not necessary for that.
- baking 9y ago
  I don't think that is the point at all. To that end lies madness.
  - woahhvicky 9y ago
    If you think so then you’ve misinterpreted my comment.
    - baking 9y ago
      I would make a distinction between 1) working on some project ignoring what others are working on or what they would say about the potential value of the work until you have reached some milestone and are ready to present it to the world and receive critical feedback, and 2) working on something without concern for anyone else ever finding value in it. Feynman is clearly saying disregard others while you are doing the work, not disregard others when you present it for feedback and criticism. That is the spirit with which I responded. As a developer, there is a third option where your work is simply ignored. If it is functional for you and you are satisfied with your own work, then sure, feel free to disregard others lack of interest, like an artist who values their own work but meets a deafening silence. But please don't disregard serious criticism.

317070 9y ago

Ha, that's amazing! I have always encouraged colleagues to read less scientific articles, especially if it is incremental science. It encourages you to think inside the box and you will come up with the same solutions everyone else is. Of course there is more to it, work methodically, formulate problems before solving them, etc. But I'm glad Feynmann agrees with me on this one.

peg_leg 9y ago

This goes for everyone - not just geniuses. The burger flipper at your favorite fast food joint needs to concentrate on his own work, disregarding what the particular tasks of the counter-worker is. An office worker needs to concentrate on their own Excel workbook, disregarding the type or quality of other people's work. One can't be at peak productivity or creativity while constantly comparing their work to others. A very basic trap that even Nobel Prize winners get stuck in apparently.

simplegeek 9y ago
One thing I'm not very certain is that can we as software developers totally disregard others work? I think the analogy doesn't apply here. We build on what other people build. Some many times I had to read other people code which I think made me a better engineer. If I work in isolation, not sure if I can improve the quality.
- TOGoS 9y ago
  Nah, I think it applies just fine. There is a strong culture of building on top of the work of others, and in some cases people build really neat stuff that they could never have done on their own by pulling in years of work in the form of libraries and datasets and etc, but that way of working isn't for everybody. You might end up spending more time trying to keep up with the latest and greatest everything instead of developing your own ideas. I think of Minecraft as a pretty good example. While everyone else was focused on making photorealistic shooters on game engine X Notch was all like "what if everything was cubes that went on forever", and he ended up making something super unique (and extremely popular). Or Chuck Moore with all his wacky Forths. Not the billionaire that Notch is, but he seems pretty happy.
  - yathern 9y ago
    The irony in your Minecraft example is that Notch originally set out to make a better Infiniminer.

dschuetz 9y ago

Independence of thought in a nutshell. Thanks for sharing!

chewyshine 9y ago

This was fun and all but it doesn't apply to modern academics. Now, if you 'disregard' you won't get grants and you won't be in academics long enough to make a contribute. Fun but irrelevant today.

bitexploder 9y ago
I think this is not the spirit it was meant in. It is more self help advice for the struggling researcher. I read it more as, despite your doubt, disregard others in your mind, and do your work. You won't get anywhere if you have convinced yourself you won't get anywhere, so why start/try?

agumonkey 9y ago

Shannon also had a care free attitude regarding his ways. Following his intuition is important. Not being blind too. Accept the others, just don't dismiss yours.

amelius 9y ago

But if you disregard others, how do you prevent reinventing the wheel?

EdwardCoffin 9y ago
I think he means to disregard what others are currently doing.
- amelius 9y ago
  Well, they could be inventing a new type of wheel. If you disregard others, you could be inventing the same things as others, or even less smart versions of those things.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    Or maybe more smart versions of those things. In a field where one successful work defines a career, this looks like a good move.
mbrock 9y ago
Reinventing the wheel is probably a really good exercise for anyone who wants to be an engineer.

keeptrying 9y ago

This applies to scientists, not to software engineers working in a team. (This can also apply to software company founders and side projects but that's a special case.) Scientists and researchers are primarily working to build their own brand and to make a contribution which can be tied To them. A team of s/w emgineers is working to build a cohesive whole. Much different goals and incentives.

philipov 9y ago
Scientists are also trying to build a cohesive whole: their research needs to be relevant to the rest of the scientific discussion or people won't bother with it. Likewise, software engineers have incentives to carve out fiefdoms within their company as a path towards recognition and promotion; building one's own team/department within a company begins with these kinds of contributions.
aptwebapps 9y ago
> This applies to scientists, not to software engineers working in a team. It applies to anyone attempting to do something new, which does exclude most software engineers. Goals and incentives matter, of course, but are secondary here, I think.
gerbilly 9y ago
>This applies to scientists, not to software engineers working in a team. And that'w why no software engineers working on teams will ever win a nobel prize. I don't mean to be disingenuous, but did you ever stop to think why team work is so drummed into us? It's not because teamwork produces better results, it's so corporations can treat us as interchangeable cogs. They want knowledge spread across a whole team to 'de-risk' their projects in case someone leaves. They know full well that the best work is done by expert individuals, but they choose to promote teamwork anyway.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  There's a spectrum. Teams can certainly achieve things that are too large for an individual. And yes, what you said do exist (and on some projects it is even a good thing). I don't think there are easy general answers, except that all the energy promoting team working is there because nobody likes it. If it's a good or a bad thing, that will probably change every time.

stephengillie 9y ago

Therein lies the best career advice I could possibly dispense: just DO things. Chase after the things that interest you and make you happy. Stop acting like you have a set path, because you don't. No one does. You shouldn't be trying to check off the boxes of life; they aren't real and they were created by other people, not you. There is no explicit path I'm following, and I'm not walking in anyone else's footsteps. I'm making it up as I go. - Charlie Hoehn

graphitezepp 9y ago
I love this quote thanks for sharing, only thing wrong is that it's framed as career advice and not just general advice. I've spent my life thus far following an explicit path checking the boxes I was 'supposed' to and it was making me deeply unhappy.
copperx 9y ago
Hamming would be against that.
- yesenadam 9y ago
  i.e. Hamming advised everyone to work on the most important problem(s) in their field, and precisely not to "Chase after the things that interest you and make you happy." Maybe for him these two were the same. There is something cold about his recommendation, though. I'm not sure what motivated him. Impressing himself with important discoveries? I never in all his talking about missile trajectories and weapons-related work came across any evidence of ethical considerations. Godement's Algebra with its inspiring political and ethical conscience - its author was man as well as mathematician - made me vividly aware of how a work of mathematics/physics can either be ethical, or it can pretend that ethics are not its concern. Or rather, like a heartless child, act without ever even considering consequences. Maybe Hamming was just working on the important problems in his field, and disregarding all else, and thought that was enough.
  - yesenadam 9y ago
    Whoops, I meant Godement's Analysis.

damontal 9y ago

I noticed they linked to wikiwand in that article instead of wikipedia. Do others here use wikiwand? Is it much of an improvement over wikipedia?

actionscripted 9y ago
I've used it and loved it. For me it greatly enhanced readability as they had put a lot of care into the aesthetic and typography. I'm not a fan of the way it takes over the default WikiPedia URLs, however. And the Firefox plugin hasn't been updated since 2016 and isn't compatible with newer versions of Firefox so I don't use it on a regular basis anymore.

skc 9y ago

Wow, I really needed to read this.

wrycoder 9y ago

The truly great ideas in physics are actually quite simply stated. They are subsequently mathematically elaborated, to the point where it can be hard to separate out the core idea. Even a Feynman can’t track all the work going on, and elaboration doesn’t win Nobel prizes. Most physicists don’t have the ability to rise above elaboration and application - it takes an Einstein or a Feynman to grasp and extend the core with big ideas, while not being distracted by the fog of elaborative papers. My favorite is, Wheeler: “Feynman, I know why all electrons are exactly alike!” Feynman: “Why?” Wheeler: “There is only one electron!” [looping through space-time, we see the cross sections]. Ahh....

baxtr 9y ago

Reminds me very much of Steve. I miss him

NumberSix 9y ago

Watson's original account of the discovery of the double helix has been heavily criticized for downplaying the role of Rosalind Franklin's x-ray crystallography measurements of the structure of DNA in the discovery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin Disregard or failure to give credit to others where credit is due?

NotableAlamode 9y ago
Might this criticism have been politically motivated? For a while she actively campaigned against DNA being a double helix, see e.g. her 'obiturary' for the double helix [1] which preceeds Watson and Crick’s paper. Might her insistence that DNA is not a double helix have misled Wilkins and others? [1] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-in-the-mind/files/2013/04/Franklinhelixobit.jpg http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-in-the-mind/files/201...
- NumberSix 9y ago
  This is complicated issue. Specifically, The Double Helix, cited in the original HN post, does mention Rosalind Franklin but in a rather demeaning way that slights her contributions -- which came to be highly criticized in subsequent years. This is the relevant section from the Wikipedia article, which like most Wikipedia articles on contentious topics should be taken with a grain of salt and not substituted for original sources: Recognition of her contribution to the model of DNA Upon the completion of their model, Crick and Watson had invited Wilkins to be a co-author of their paper describing the structure.[186] Wilkins turned down this offer, as he had taken no part in building the model.[187] He later expressed regret that greater discussion of co-authorship had not taken place as this might have helped to clarify the contribution the work at King's had made to the discovery.[188] There is no doubt that Franklin's experimental data were used by Crick and Watson to build their model of DNA in 1953. Some, including Maddox, have explained this citation omission by suggesting that it may be a question of circumstance, because it would have been very difficult to cite the unpublished work from the MRC report they had seen.[78] Indeed, a clear timely acknowledgment would have been awkward, given the unorthodox manner in which data were transferred from King's to Cambridge. However, methods were available. Watson and Crick could have cited the MRC report as a personal communication or else cited the Acta articles in press, or most easily, the third Nature paper that they knew was in press. One of the most important accomplishments of Maddox's widely acclaimed biography is that Maddox made a well-received case for inadequate acknowledgement. "Such acknowledgement as they gave her was very muted and always coupled with the name of Wilkins".[189] Twenty five years after the fact, the first clear recitation of Franklin's contribution appeared as it permeated Watson's account, The Double Helix, although it was buried under descriptions of Watson's (often quite negative) regard towards Franklin during the period of their work on DNA. This attitude is epitomized in the confrontation between Watson and Franklin over a preprint of Pauling's mistaken DNA manuscript.[190] Watson's words impelled Sayre to write her rebuttal, in which the entire chapter nine, "Winner Take All" has the structure of a legal brief dissecting and analyzing the topic of acknowledgement.[191] Sayre's early analysis was often ignored because of perceived feminist overtones in her book. Watson and Crick did not cite the X-ray diffraction work of Wilkins and Franklin in their original paper, though they admit having "been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin and their co-workers at King's College, London".[81] In fact, Watson and Crick cited no experimental data at all in support of their model. Franklin and Gosling's publication of the DNA X-ray image, in the same issue of Nature, served as the principal evidence: Thus our general ideas are not inconsistent with the model proposed by Watson and Crick in the preceding communication.[192]

taeric 9y ago

Feynman's breakthrough seems more to be a full package. I don't think any one thing he did would work for someone else, but collectively he was very effective. My favorite practice of his was keeping toy problems in your head at all times. Whenever you see a new problem or technique, thing how it relates to a set you already know. My favorite behavior of his was uniform respect for everyone. He never assumed that someone else couldn't understand. If anything, he felt he couldn't explain. Subtle but important difference.

nickoakland 9y ago

The literary version of "Disregard" is called "The anxiety of influence" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxiety_of_Influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxiety_of_Influence

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]