3 ms·

This is a good summary example of something I find distinctly dangerous about the way people think of figures they don't personally know (i.e. how people on the

This is a good summary example of something I find distinctly dangerous about the way people think of figures they don't personally know (i.e. how people on the social web treat public figures, or even just any stranger they see on the web). We see snapshots and assemble a person in our head. We can barely do that with any degree of fidelity regarding people we personally know, much less public figures. People do good and evil things. But a person, in virtually all cases, is not "good" or "evil". Even if Feynman was engaging in the two behaviors you are thinking of at the same time (whatever those behaviors are - I'm not commenting), it still doesn't make him some kind of paradox. It does so much damage to think like this. This false dichotomy is especially prevalent for sexual topics, because they trigger stronger emotions and push us towards our "that guy good, that guy bad" instincts.

sonicanatidae 3y ago
When you take their actions and consider them as a whole, it clearly paints some as good or evil. Sure, no one is movie villain evil or saint-level good, but when a preponderance of their actions have outcomes that are bad for others, then I think it's pretty clear who they are.
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  Fine, but I explicitly refrained from defending Feynman. The point I made is that it is a sign of a horrible social sickness that we can be confused that it's possible for a person to commit some sexual sin and also for that same person to love somebody. To further clarify, note this sentence in my comment: >it still doesn't make him some kind of paradox I did not say, e.g. >it still doesn't make him, on par, more bad than good
the_af 3y ago
In addition to your comment, what I find mind-boggling is how easily people swing between the two extremes of opinion: it seems every public figure must either be adored and admired, or reviled and ostracized. People (myself included, I don't exclude myself from being human!) do not want to contemplate public figures as complex individuals with dark and bright aspects. It's always all or nothing. So Woody Allen went from being an adored auteur to someone who not only was declared guilty of a horrible crime in public opinion, but also people felt entitled to declare his cinema was never good to begin with (where were these people before Allen fell in disgrace? Nowhere. They only declared his movies trash once he fell in disgrace). Same with Feynman. Same with Asimov. Same with Picasso. And the list goes on forever. People cannot bear the thought that artists, scientists and public figures in general are real people, with flaws and all.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  I think something you're failing to account for in peoples' reactions these figures is that the relationship between their moral transgressions and their work is not spurious. Feynman was a notable scientist but he was also one of the most famous scientists, he was a great populizer of science especially later in life. Finding out he was a sex pest or womanizer or worse has tangible consequences to that role. Was he a good mentor in general, or only to women he wanted to fuck? Or only ones he didn't? Were there any women pushed out of science because of his inappropriate attention or advances? We now have to ask these questions, and their answers can retroactively change how we evaluate his later life's work as an advocate of science. Similarly woody allen makes movies that are compelling because of their portrayal of human connection and vulnerability. As you said, what woody allen is accused of is a great crime, far far beyond routine human flaws. It does change the context and the meaning of the movie to know that this is what its creator thinks of human connection as well. You can decide not to believe the allegations, but for people who do believe them I don't think it's an error or transgression for them to evaluate his movies in light of them. And it is certainly not true that no one criticized these figures before their "faults" were known. Orson Welles famously with woody allen, Picasso was not always revered, and I disliked feynman from reading his own memoirs. It's just these criticisms are not generally welcomed or amplified for figures in the prime of their accolades. Which is an interesting subject itself, I think.
  - the_af 3y ago
    > It's just these criticisms are not generally welcomed or amplified for figures in the prime of their accolades. Which is an interesting subject itself, I think. Yes, this is a fair assessment. The criticisms are given voice and spread once the person falls in disgrace. They are sometimes declared "unpersons", which I find deeply irritating. I suppose this happens to artists or scientists nearer in time; nobody cares to censor/cancel a Greek philosopher if he abused boys, it's just a footnote in their biography.
    - monknomo 3y ago
      It might be different if you could go talk to the boys - with these modern folks you can often literally interview the victim(s) and I think that makes a difference for the reaction
noobface 3y ago
The topic here specifically is his love life. If a person I personally knew was accused of half of what Feynman has been, I'd have second thoughts about inviting them over for dinner. If you're going to argue for a gradient of perspective while assessing the character of a person there are better examples than Feynman.
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  My response would be the same one I gave here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37916016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37916016 The degree of the subject's immorality has no bearing on my point. In fact, it's arguably better to use a "worse" example, by your definition, since it actually challenges the reader to consider the point more carefully. If the subject's crimes are petty, the reader might accidentally ignore my point, instead just jumping to the easy and fallacious thought, "yeah I agree, that person didn't do anything terrible", and moving on. That said, to be clear, I don't have an opinion on where Feynman's indiscretions fall on the spectrum. I don't know the details beyond womanizing/objectifying/going after women in relationships. Again, I'd make the same comment regardless of the answer.
- _yb2s 3y ago
  What is he accused of?
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  Just a correction: I am not making a gradient argument. The word brings to mind a one-dimensional scale. That is a measly one-step-up from black-and-white. The implication of a "gradient" is that there is "good" on one side and "evil" on the other, and everybody falls somewhere on the gradient. This is not strictly false in all senses, but it is almost always a gross oversimplification and, effectively, a useless measure. A core part of my point is multi-dimensionality.
KMag 3y ago
"But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being." -- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
avgcorrection 3y ago
How about we do away with speculating on the personal lives of public figures unless it is pertinent to some issue? So much judgement and pedestal-making. But people will keep lopsidedly downvoting when someone veers towards the judgement-side. As if putting people on pedestals is any better.
zingababba 3y ago
I find the best antidote for this unfortunate way of thinking is imagining the individual passing gas. It's impossible to not see someone as human when they are farting.

sonicanatidae 3y ago

When you take their actions and consider them as a whole, it clearly paints some as good or evil. Sure, no one is movie villain evil or saint-level good, but when a preponderance of their actions have outcomes that are bad for others, then I think it's pretty clear who they are.

happytoexplain 3y ago
Fine, but I explicitly refrained from defending Feynman. The point I made is that it is a sign of a horrible social sickness that we can be confused that it's possible for a person to commit some sexual sin and also for that same person to love somebody. To further clarify, note this sentence in my comment: >it still doesn't make him some kind of paradox I did not say, e.g. >it still doesn't make him, on par, more bad than good

the_af 3y ago

In addition to your comment, what I find mind-boggling is how easily people swing between the two extremes of opinion: it seems every public figure must either be adored and admired, or reviled and ostracized. People (myself included, I don't exclude myself from being human!) do not want to contemplate public figures as complex individuals with dark and bright aspects. It's always all or nothing. So Woody Allen went from being an adored auteur to someone who not only was declared guilty of a horrible crime in public opinion, but also people felt entitled to declare his cinema was never good to begin with (where were these people before Allen fell in disgrace? Nowhere. They only declared his movies trash once he fell in disgrace). Same with Feynman. Same with Asimov. Same with Picasso. And the list goes on forever. People cannot bear the thought that artists, scientists and public figures in general are real people, with flaws and all.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
I think something you're failing to account for in peoples' reactions these figures is that the relationship between their moral transgressions and their work is not spurious. Feynman was a notable scientist but he was also one of the most famous scientists, he was a great populizer of science especially later in life. Finding out he was a sex pest or womanizer or worse has tangible consequences to that role. Was he a good mentor in general, or only to women he wanted to fuck? Or only ones he didn't? Were there any women pushed out of science because of his inappropriate attention or advances? We now have to ask these questions, and their answers can retroactively change how we evaluate his later life's work as an advocate of science. Similarly woody allen makes movies that are compelling because of their portrayal of human connection and vulnerability. As you said, what woody allen is accused of is a great crime, far far beyond routine human flaws. It does change the context and the meaning of the movie to know that this is what its creator thinks of human connection as well. You can decide not to believe the allegations, but for people who do believe them I don't think it's an error or transgression for them to evaluate his movies in light of them. And it is certainly not true that no one criticized these figures before their "faults" were known. Orson Welles famously with woody allen, Picasso was not always revered, and I disliked feynman from reading his own memoirs. It's just these criticisms are not generally welcomed or amplified for figures in the prime of their accolades. Which is an interesting subject itself, I think.
- the_af 3y ago
  > It's just these criticisms are not generally welcomed or amplified for figures in the prime of their accolades. Which is an interesting subject itself, I think. Yes, this is a fair assessment. The criticisms are given voice and spread once the person falls in disgrace. They are sometimes declared "unpersons", which I find deeply irritating. I suppose this happens to artists or scientists nearer in time; nobody cares to censor/cancel a Greek philosopher if he abused boys, it's just a footnote in their biography.
  - monknomo 3y ago
    It might be different if you could go talk to the boys - with these modern folks you can often literally interview the victim(s) and I think that makes a difference for the reaction

noobface 3y ago

The topic here specifically is his love life. If a person I personally knew was accused of half of what Feynman has been, I'd have second thoughts about inviting them over for dinner. If you're going to argue for a gradient of perspective while assessing the character of a person there are better examples than Feynman.

happytoexplain 3y ago
My response would be the same one I gave here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37916016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37916016 The degree of the subject's immorality has no bearing on my point. In fact, it's arguably better to use a "worse" example, by your definition, since it actually challenges the reader to consider the point more carefully. If the subject's crimes are petty, the reader might accidentally ignore my point, instead just jumping to the easy and fallacious thought, "yeah I agree, that person didn't do anything terrible", and moving on. That said, to be clear, I don't have an opinion on where Feynman's indiscretions fall on the spectrum. I don't know the details beyond womanizing/objectifying/going after women in relationships. Again, I'd make the same comment regardless of the answer.
_yb2s 3y ago
What is he accused of?
happytoexplain 3y ago
Just a correction: I am not making a gradient argument. The word brings to mind a one-dimensional scale. That is a measly one-step-up from black-and-white. The implication of a "gradient" is that there is "good" on one side and "evil" on the other, and everybody falls somewhere on the gradient. This is not strictly false in all senses, but it is almost always a gross oversimplification and, effectively, a useless measure. A core part of my point is multi-dimensionality.

KMag 3y ago

"But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being." -- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

avgcorrection 3y ago

How about we do away with speculating on the personal lives of public figures unless it is pertinent to some issue? So much judgement and pedestal-making. But people will keep lopsidedly downvoting when someone veers towards the judgement-side. As if putting people on pedestals is any better.

zingababba 3y ago

I find the best antidote for this unfortunate way of thinking is imagining the individual passing gas. It's impossible to not see someone as human when they are farting.