4 ms·

I'm unsure of what is surprising to Feynman. Is he saying that he assumed clever men would be obnoxious and self-righteous when they weren't? Although an anecd

I'm unsure of what is surprising to Feynman. Is he saying that he assumed clever men would be obnoxious and self-righteous when they weren't? Although an anecdote, I would imagine there are plenty of examples where the opposite would happen to people who could still fairly be called great men/people. In fact, some times, great people are necessarily obnoxious - or at least cold. I can't imagine that kind/warm people could have got Tesla or Apple to where they are, it takes a certain hard nose to make hard choices in business.

vasco 5y ago
I interpreted it as it merely being a side point, this aspect of obnoxiousness. What Feynman was impressed it was the fact that they didn't need to repeat the ideas more than once. I think you're trying to see a deeper argument when this is the argument itself. Even in groups of smart people I've found that the group needs to write ideas down as it discusses them and repeat some of them to clarify to one person in the group that didn't get it the first time. If you don't do the writing down / repeating most people will lose track of most ideas, the same way most people can't play blind chess and remember all the pieces on the board. It's a comment on mental capacity moreso than manners.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  As an aside, while I don’t do Feynman point regarding some of the exceptional meetings he has been to, as a chairperson my experience is you can significantly improve the meeting by systematically restating arguments, asking for clarification when a participant doesn’t agree with your restatement and providing a brief summary of propositions before a decision is made.
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  I don’t know anything about uranium separation, but is it possible the situation was not “Arthur Compton has the best idea, nobody needed to repeat it because they all remembered it on one hearing” and was more like “Arthur Compton started the meeting by setting out the main Uranium separation plan we all know well and have been leaning towards for weeks, and everyone lay out their previously hotly argued views and no dealbreakers with better alternatives arose so the committee agreed on the way”. Or perhaps that nobody had any stake in doing Uranium separation one way over another way for personal identity reasons? Perhaps the surprising bit was that they could all agree on the not-ideal method because they needed to move on and the meeting was a formality of agreement and alignment, not a brainstorming fight for your own idea session? We have another anecdote of Feynman being shown blueprints of a nuclear power plant and he doesn’t understand and eventually asks a stupid question about a part, “expecting” to be laughed at and told it’s a door, but it turns out to be a valve which could cause a problem if it fails. Nobody else had noticed, implying they were pretending their understanding, and they left thinking he was a great insightful man which he’s saying he isn’t (but is likely downplaying for comedy as well as humbleness)
nefitty 5y ago
It's interesting to me that when I imagine the trope of an idealized executive, I imagine a cold, stonefaced person. When I imagine a manager, my imagined ideal is a warm and conscientious person. For individual contributors, I imagine lukewarm and single-minded. For team members, warm and cooperative. So if most of humanity values warmth, how did executive types end up at the top of the pile? I thought that I would eventually move into executive levels when I was focused on a management career, but the managers I admired who could move their people always seemed distinct from the hardasses who could move mountains. I'm just now realizing this. Anyways, your comment piqued my interest because of the big impact the mental model of "warm/cold" has had on my social life. I'm more compassionate of cold people because I assume that they just haven't learned that mental model. I also literally sometimes imagine myself as cozy warm to help me open up and welcome in.
ricardo81 5y ago
For me, it was the 'correctness being unsaid', he was thinking to himself the ideas being shared were running away from what seemed right. Another interpretation might be that he considers this a rare trait in people.
dguest 5y ago
There are plenty of kind / warn / "great" people who got Tesla and Apple to where they are. They aren't all figureheads, but they are there.
rawoke083600 5y ago
I guess there really are a spectrum of the graph if you plot: intelligence-VS-nice-guy-rating. I was lucky enough to work with some 'really really clever people (math+physics+cs)' in my career. Bar one or two generally the nicer they were the higher their intelligence seems to be at least from my point of view. The reverse were also true. I've also had the misfortune to work with some really 'difficult individuals' and you can spot their lack of basic knowledge + intelligence from a mile away. Maybe it's an evolution thing ? The "dumber" you are... the more you need to be aggressive (I.e Caveman: No charm, but I got a club to seduce females + competitors) to have your genes continue. Versus if you clever, you don't need all that aggression, you can finder clever ways to "woo" the women to carry on your genes :) ?

vasco 5y ago

I interpreted it as it merely being a side point, this aspect of obnoxiousness. What Feynman was impressed it was the fact that they didn't need to repeat the ideas more than once. I think you're trying to see a deeper argument when this is the argument itself. Even in groups of smart people I've found that the group needs to write ideas down as it discusses them and repeat some of them to clarify to one person in the group that didn't get it the first time. If you don't do the writing down / repeating most people will lose track of most ideas, the same way most people can't play blind chess and remember all the pieces on the board. It's a comment on mental capacity moreso than manners.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago
As an aside, while I don’t do Feynman point regarding some of the exceptional meetings he has been to, as a chairperson my experience is you can significantly improve the meeting by systematically restating arguments, asking for clarification when a participant doesn’t agree with your restatement and providing a brief summary of propositions before a decision is made.
jodrellblank 5y ago
I don’t know anything about uranium separation, but is it possible the situation was not “Arthur Compton has the best idea, nobody needed to repeat it because they all remembered it on one hearing” and was more like “Arthur Compton started the meeting by setting out the main Uranium separation plan we all know well and have been leaning towards for weeks, and everyone lay out their previously hotly argued views and no dealbreakers with better alternatives arose so the committee agreed on the way”. Or perhaps that nobody had any stake in doing Uranium separation one way over another way for personal identity reasons? Perhaps the surprising bit was that they could all agree on the not-ideal method because they needed to move on and the meeting was a formality of agreement and alignment, not a brainstorming fight for your own idea session? We have another anecdote of Feynman being shown blueprints of a nuclear power plant and he doesn’t understand and eventually asks a stupid question about a part, “expecting” to be laughed at and told it’s a door, but it turns out to be a valve which could cause a problem if it fails. Nobody else had noticed, implying they were pretending their understanding, and they left thinking he was a great insightful man which he’s saying he isn’t (but is likely downplaying for comedy as well as humbleness)

nefitty 5y ago

It's interesting to me that when I imagine the trope of an idealized executive, I imagine a cold, stonefaced person. When I imagine a manager, my imagined ideal is a warm and conscientious person. For individual contributors, I imagine lukewarm and single-minded. For team members, warm and cooperative. So if most of humanity values warmth, how did executive types end up at the top of the pile? I thought that I would eventually move into executive levels when I was focused on a management career, but the managers I admired who could move their people always seemed distinct from the hardasses who could move mountains. I'm just now realizing this. Anyways, your comment piqued my interest because of the big impact the mental model of "warm/cold" has had on my social life. I'm more compassionate of cold people because I assume that they just haven't learned that mental model. I also literally sometimes imagine myself as cozy warm to help me open up and welcome in.

ricardo81 5y ago

For me, it was the 'correctness being unsaid', he was thinking to himself the ideas being shared were running away from what seemed right. Another interpretation might be that he considers this a rare trait in people.

dguest 5y ago

There are plenty of kind / warn / "great" people who got Tesla and Apple to where they are. They aren't all figureheads, but they are there.

rawoke083600 5y ago

I guess there really are a spectrum of the graph if you plot: intelligence-VS-nice-guy-rating. I was lucky enough to work with some 'really really clever people (math+physics+cs)' in my career. Bar one or two generally the nicer they were the higher their intelligence seems to be at least from my point of view. The reverse were also true. I've also had the misfortune to work with some really 'difficult individuals' and you can spot their lack of basic knowledge + intelligence from a mile away. Maybe it's an evolution thing ? The "dumber" you are... the more you need to be aggressive (I.e Caveman: No charm, but I got a club to seduce females + competitors) to have your genes continue. Versus if you clever, you don't need all that aggression, you can finder clever ways to "woo" the women to carry on your genes :) ?