The life-changing love of Paul Dirac (2015)(theconversation.com)
theconversation.com
The life-changing love of Paul Dirac (2015)
https://theconversation.com/the-life-changing-love-of-one-of-the-20th-centurys-greatest-physicists-51229
49 comments
That's not rambling at all.
No matter what you believe about humans -- that we have a soul or we are (just) very complex biological machinery, in the end, everything scientists do, do for human kind.
High achieving scientists tend to start by focusing on logic and "reason", and that's why they become high achieving.
But there is no reason not to explore our humanness later in life.
Even if MBTI is regarded as pseudoscience, as an INTJ, I know that later in life I must explore and improve my not so developed soft skills, and it only feels natural.
High achieving scientists tend to start by focusing on logic and "reason", and that's why they become high achieving.
But there is no reason not to explore our humanness later in life.
Even if MBTI is regarded as pseudoscience, as an INTJ, I know that later in life I must explore and improve my not so developed soft skills, and it only feels natural.
I, and everyone I know, have found the enneagram to be much more predictive and comprehensive of people's behaviour and how they think. (And much more helpful too)
https://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/test
https://www.reddit.com/r/Enneagram/comments/dc4g4i/a_compreh...
https://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/test
https://www.reddit.com/r/Enneagram/comments/dc4g4i/a_compreh...
People need to experience love to know that they want it. I suspect most people develop a desire for love from their parents, family, peers, and books/media. And that desire evolves into a more romantic notion of love as they mature.
The article briefly suggested that love was not something Dirac had received from his family, so he likely didn't know. If he indeed was a strange outsider among his peers and only read technical books, I can see how he managed to go so many years without developing much desire for an emotional connection with someone else.
It's not mentioned in the article, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that his reticence to engaging with Manci was probably the result of one or more terrible experiences with women which were likely caused by his social awkwardness.
I feel like "rationality" is really a mask that people use to avoid addressing difficult emotions like this. Growing up to be socially stunted is a very difficult handicap to deal with. Not least of all because it's imperceptible to the very people it effects.
The article briefly suggested that love was not something Dirac had received from his family, so he likely didn't know. If he indeed was a strange outsider among his peers and only read technical books, I can see how he managed to go so many years without developing much desire for an emotional connection with someone else.
It's not mentioned in the article, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that his reticence to engaging with Manci was probably the result of one or more terrible experiences with women which were likely caused by his social awkwardness.
I feel like "rationality" is really a mask that people use to avoid addressing difficult emotions like this. Growing up to be socially stunted is a very difficult handicap to deal with. Not least of all because it's imperceptible to the very people it effects.
"A man can do what he wants, but not choose what he wants"
- Schopenhauer
- Schopenhauer
I listened to a very good 'In Our Time' podcast episode about Paul Dirac recently: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000fw0p
He said quite a few words in succession on religion. Somehow most of a century later, the intelligentsia persists in claiming that views such as these (i.e. those also of Dawkins et al.) are somehow "childish" or "culturally illiterate".
I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.
I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.
His father caused his "lack of desire to speak" by beating him for each speaking error while he was a child.
Dirac solved this error as best as a child could: by not speaking. This trauma lasted to his death.
Someone will now say "citation needed", and to those people I give these 2 books to read and what I wrote above will become as clear as day.
Alice Miller: The Drama of the Gifted Child
Alice Miller: The Body Never Lies
Dirac solved this error as best as a child could: by not speaking. This trauma lasted to his death.
Someone will now say "citation needed", and to those people I give these 2 books to read and what I wrote above will become as clear as day.
Alice Miller: The Drama of the Gifted Child
Alice Miller: The Body Never Lies
One of my hobbies is reading (and writing, one day) short romance stories, another one is reading factoids about distinguished people, specially scientists. I was grinning like a fool through most of this article.
I like this because it generally asserts that anyone, even someone as apparently closed off as Dirac, can find love and/or happiness.
I like this because it generally asserts that anyone, even someone as apparently closed off as Dirac, can find love and/or happiness.
Dirac himself told the reason of why he didn't talk much differently:
Wigner:
How much did you talk to your parents?
Dirac:
Very little. My father made the rule that I should only talk to him in French. He thought it would be good for me to learn French in that way. Since I found that I couldn’t express myself in French, it was better for me to stay silent than to talk in English.
Source: https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral...
Wigner:
How much did you talk to your parents?
Dirac:
Very little. My father made the rule that I should only talk to him in French. He thought it would be good for me to learn French in that way. Since I found that I couldn’t express myself in French, it was better for me to stay silent than to talk in English.
Source: https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral...
Perhaps his human side was suppressed.
People with high IQs, who win Nobel prizes are more complex than the average joe. Their motivations, inspirations and behaviour, perhaps, needs a different perspective than normal analysis.
Its a wonderful article, but seems to suggest that his human nature was non existant, rather than hidden. This I find is unbelievable. Perhaps he never had a chance to truly explore his human side, mainly because those who tried to make him explore were not patient nor persistant.
People with high IQs, who win Nobel prizes are more complex than the average joe. Their motivations, inspirations and behaviour, perhaps, needs a different perspective than normal analysis.
Its a wonderful article, but seems to suggest that his human nature was non existant, rather than hidden. This I find is unbelievable. Perhaps he never had a chance to truly explore his human side, mainly because those who tried to make him explore were not patient nor persistant.
This is really sweet.
Not much to say... Life is meant to be lived. Don't forget to live it.
Not much to say... Life is meant to be lived. Don't forget to live it.
It is really wonderful when you get to know someone and they show you a whole new part of life you hadn't experienced before. I think it's a big mistake to close off the possibility of such things ("my life is about facts not feelings"), but then again I have no Nobel prizes to my name.
:o the original Manci Pixie Dream girl
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manic_Pixie_Dream_Girl
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manic_Pixie_Dream_Girl
[deleted]
That seems a bit disrespectul as a summary, even though I have to grudgingly admit that it's not wrong... It would have been nice for the article to say more about the woman, which would have mostly avoided the cliché!
I read the biography the article draws from and it also did not mention that much about her or their relationship. It delved deeply into Dirac's childhood, but mostly ignored his home life as an adult.
It makes some sense, it is a biography of Dirac, but felt strange at the time.
It makes some sense, it is a biography of Dirac, but felt strange at the time.
But the whole article is a cliché!
The socially incompetent techie who is rescued by love from his rationality.
I dont wanna guess how many readers here secretly hope for this event to occur at some point. Like in the story, ideally they'd not even have to court the woman. She would just appear and take care of them. Cliché!
The socially incompetent techie who is rescued by love from his rationality.
I dont wanna guess how many readers here secretly hope for this event to occur at some point. Like in the story, ideally they'd not even have to court the woman. She would just appear and take care of them. Cliché!
It does echo a bad Nicholas Sparks novel (they're all bad). But when the cliché is writ large in real life, it's touching, no? Secretly hoping for _something_ to magically rescue us from the emotional difficulties of our lives ... of course. Likelihood of it happening: (1.0 e -42).
And the original mr. Spock?
honestly closer to Mr. Data. Spock had emotions that were repressed; Data thought he didn't have them and had to discover them, as they were relatively weak.
I believe Data actually needed an 'emotion chip'. I recall some episode where he received one. Sometimes I think that's a pretty good description of most men (we need an emotion chip). I say that as a man, FYI.
If you have time in the covid pandemic SIP era, go back and watch the episodes, it was a running gag that he would do something extremely human, downright emotional, and not realize it. Couple of examples off the top of my head: "The ensigns of command", final scene, where Data says goodbye to Gosheven; "Data's Day", where he proclaims that if he had 'gut feelings' he would be suspicious of the 'vulcan ambassador'; "In theory" where Data 'learns' some "toxic male" emotional behaviour by consuming media.
"The Most Toys" is another very good example, as is "The Measure of a Man". There's not much in TNG, especially early TNG, that strongly moves me, but his conversation with Riker in the latter episode's coda never fails to.
I wonder where Jordan from the film Real Genius fits in to that. She was definitely manic in the film.
But an agent of herself.
Chris Knight is Mitch’s pixie dust, not Jordan. “I couldn’t figure out where to hang your sports coats,so, i threw them out. I’m chris knight!” “oh no” “oh yes!”
Chris Knight is Mitch’s pixie dust, not Jordan. “I couldn’t figure out where to hang your sports coats,so, i threw them out. I’m chris knight!” “oh no” “oh yes!”
Thanks for the link. Reading the article it seems that Dirac was a jerk, his only “luck” was that back in the day physicists were treated like rockstars were treated in the ‘70s and the ‘80s, otherwise I cannot explain why Margit Wigner accepted all those dick letter responses coming from him.
Interesting article. Title needs (2015).
From the title I thought I'd be R. Feynman.
The story also suits the Sheldon character from the Big Bang Theory serial.
Sounds like a graph of the quality of his relationships with other human beings would have a spike at only one point and zero everywhere else...
Just in case anyone didn't get the joke:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function
aaaahhhhhhh .....
I see what you did there .... :D
I see what you did there .... :D
> Dirac pondered this for some minutes before responding, “But Heisenberg, how do you know beforehand that the girls are nice?”
Perhaps Heisenberg was willing to accept some... uncertainty in his life?
Indeed, he probably did not live strictly by principle as we imagine
Dirac used to introduce her as "Wigner's sister" rather than "my wife".
If you want to learn a bit more about Dirac's life, I really recommend reading "The Strangest Man" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Strangest_Man
why should someone be 'less than fully human' if they dont have 'feelings', particularly of the romantic kind.
we accept people of different sexual orientations. we should accept people of all emotional orientations too.
we accept people of different sexual orientations. we should accept people of all emotional orientations too.
Agreed in principle, but even Dirac felt his life was richer for it.
"Feelings" are part of the human condition. They're worth some work.
"Feelings" are part of the human condition. They're worth some work.
'even Dirac': just a human. one human is not superior to another.
people say things - even in their autobiographies - that they dont fully subscribe to. they worry about how they will be perceived for their true feelings.
people say things - even in their autobiographies - that they dont fully subscribe to. they worry about how they will be perceived for their true feelings.
Perhaps. But second-guessing people's statements based on what you imagine their inner thoughts are is a risky venture at best.
Curiously, nothing is said about how this 'life-changing' love actually changed his life and work.
You seem to have somehow missed the part where he dicovered a new outlook and gained the ability to feel.
Yeah sure. But how about, did he do any more physics? The guy was defined by that. If he lost anything there, it would be more significant to history. But nothing mentioned.
Considering that we do not have the ability to walk down the alternative path where they did not meet, it is impossible to know whether it was a bonus or impediment to his scientific work.
As opposed to Erdős, where we know what happened when he kicked speed for a month.
As opposed to Erdős, where we know what happened when he kicked speed for a month.
> “A single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”
I don't understand how this is supposed to be some kind of heart warming story. I mean.... maybe it was something nice for Dirac, but it sounds as much like a ruthless sociopath hunting a the man down like a zebra on the Serengeti plain. I guess there were kids at least! But otherwise there's no indication Dirac ... was any more (or to be fair less) happy afterwords.
I don't understand how this is supposed to be some kind of heart warming story. I mean.... maybe it was something nice for Dirac, but it sounds as much like a ruthless sociopath hunting a the man down like a zebra on the Serengeti plain. I guess there were kids at least! But otherwise there's no indication Dirac ... was any more (or to be fair less) happy afterwords.
> After returning from a visit with her in Budapest, Dirac wrote, “I felt very sad leaving you and still feel that I miss you very much. I do not understand why this should be, as I do not usually miss people when I leave them.”
This line is like something out of a movie.
This line is like something out of a movie.
Paul Dirac, an absolutely brilliant man, decided early on that his life "was mainly concerned with facts and not feelings." In a sense he planned his life out with imperfect information--as we all do--until something came along and completely turned his life around, in this case his future wife.
I think that's a hopeful message? That your life and your thoughts are limited by all that has happened to you, not by what hasn't happened to you yet, by definition, because you can't imagine a future that hasn't happened to you. I know, anecdotally, a handful of people who swore off marriage in their 20s, only to turn right around and get married in their 30s after meeting somebody who changed their minds. The same is true for academics and, really, everything--a student who resigns himself to hating math until he finds a teacher who understands his feelings, etc.
Or maybe it's late and I'm rambling. Either way, I really enjoyed reading this essay.