6 ms·

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 dif

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.

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.