Feynman on group decision-making at Los Alamos (1985)(cs.au.dk)
cs.au.dk
Feynman on group decision-making at Los Alamos (1985)
https://cs.au.dk/~danvy/lafb.html
162 comments
I think one of the most important life hacks of all is to search out the reasons why you are wrong, not the reasons why you are right. Your brain is primed to tell you why you are right already. It takes active cognitive effort to find the reasons why you are wrong.
I've characterized this before as the single most important aspect of science [1]. It is obviously very important in engineering. It's important in navigating the noise of propaganda and lies out there in the world. It's important in day to day life, e.g., it's hard to scam someone who is actively trying to figure out why your scam offer is not going to work rather than helpfully talking themselves into going along with it.
I suppose there is an excessive negativity trap. In the end you must decide something. But for many people that would still be an upgrade, vs. letting their natural inclination to self-justify every decision with the full power of the human brain run rampant.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5680397
I've characterized this before as the single most important aspect of science [1]. It is obviously very important in engineering. It's important in navigating the noise of propaganda and lies out there in the world. It's important in day to day life, e.g., it's hard to scam someone who is actively trying to figure out why your scam offer is not going to work rather than helpfully talking themselves into going along with it.
I suppose there is an excessive negativity trap. In the end you must decide something. But for many people that would still be an upgrade, vs. letting their natural inclination to self-justify every decision with the full power of the human brain run rampant.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5680397
For a book around this, I would recommend Scout Mindset by Julia Galef, which close to a self-help-type book but still highly informative while still being digestible. From the ACX review [1]:
> Of the fifty-odd biases discovered by Kahneman, Tversky, and their successors, forty-nine are cute quirks, and one is destroying civilization. This last one is confirmation bias - our tendency to interpret evidence as confirming our pre-existing beliefs instead of changing our minds.
I certainly agree with the premise that there is a deep epistemic flaw in the nature of our reasoning that we can counteract with conscious intervention, such as your suggestion.
[1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-scout-...
> Of the fifty-odd biases discovered by Kahneman, Tversky, and their successors, forty-nine are cute quirks, and one is destroying civilization. This last one is confirmation bias - our tendency to interpret evidence as confirming our pre-existing beliefs instead of changing our minds.
I certainly agree with the premise that there is a deep epistemic flaw in the nature of our reasoning that we can counteract with conscious intervention, such as your suggestion.
[1] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-scout-...
Absolutely. This is a distinguishing mark of experts in any field: they are quick to construct situations that disprove their mental models.
So instead of looking for corroboration, they actively set up a situation which they think could disprove their hypothesis. This is a very economical way to zero in on truth.
It's also why I ask seemingly stupid questions when someone teaches me something. It's not that I don't think I know the answer -- it's precisely because I think the answer is obvious. One out of fifty times the answer is different, and that tells me my mental model is seriously flawed and I should question everything else I thought I just learned.
So instead of looking for corroboration, they actively set up a situation which they think could disprove their hypothesis. This is a very economical way to zero in on truth.
It's also why I ask seemingly stupid questions when someone teaches me something. It's not that I don't think I know the answer -- it's precisely because I think the answer is obvious. One out of fifty times the answer is different, and that tells me my mental model is seriously flawed and I should question everything else I thought I just learned.
[deleted]
Tangential to this is I have observed one thing. I work in science, and a lot of our hires are fresh PhDs/postdocs. The best question to ask is the limitations of their approach. The more thoroughly they have worked on it, the better they know the limitations.
On the other hand, people who are super confident and wave away any limitations of their approach have invariably been problematic hires.
There is a cultural aspect to this too, because America for some reasons worships confidence and hates ambiguity.
On the other hand, people who are super confident and wave away any limitations of their approach have invariably been problematic hires.
There is a cultural aspect to this too, because America for some reasons worships confidence and hates ambiguity.
> talking through every possible objection to an idea is how you can tell that people are starting to zero in on it as the most likely best solution. The closer an idea gets to acceptance, the more thoroughly you vet it. The more it becomes clear that an idea is the best way forward, the more you start to prepare for dealing with the reality of it.
Sounds a lot like the Braintrust described in the book "Creativity, Inc." which was accredited with a large portion of the credit for Pixar's success.
> This makes practical sense, but not political sense
The book says that to create the kind of environment that a Braintrust can function in takes a deal of care and one thing was all politics needed to be removed. Great book though highly recommend it.
Sounds a lot like the Braintrust described in the book "Creativity, Inc." which was accredited with a large portion of the credit for Pixar's success.
> This makes practical sense, but not political sense
The book says that to create the kind of environment that a Braintrust can function in takes a deal of care and one thing was all politics needed to be removed. Great book though highly recommend it.
Not just politics, everyone has to be actively engaged with the process because it runs contrary to instincts.
One time I saw a room full of zoned out world-class scientists do this exact thing: reject the heavily vetted good option and accept the bad alternative because in the back of their heads they were just counting up positive attention and negative attention. The leader of the group realized what was going on, swung the conversation around again, re-framed things on more even footing, and people came to their senses.
Still, it was a pretty stark reminder that we're all human and prone to misusing the "attention survey" shortcut if the group is even slightly disengaged.
One time I saw a room full of zoned out world-class scientists do this exact thing: reject the heavily vetted good option and accept the bad alternative because in the back of their heads they were just counting up positive attention and negative attention. The leader of the group realized what was going on, swung the conversation around again, re-framed things on more even footing, and people came to their senses.
Still, it was a pretty stark reminder that we're all human and prone to misusing the "attention survey" shortcut if the group is even slightly disengaged.
Put a lawyer in the mix and everyone loses their minds. No offense to lawyers, they’re just doing their job, but I’ve seen the group pick the absolute worst option over and over because a lawyer mentioned maybe something might be possibly questionable. When debriefed after shipping the lawyer couldn’t understand why no one pushed back.
There are at two paths when you vet an idea to death (life?) like that. One is that you come to the optimal solution. Another is that enough people get exhausted defending their objections and eventually give in to what is a suboptimal solution.
So there is something still missing from the recipe for coherent decision-making. It's the reason Feynman says these are "great men" - it's NOT the process which makes it work, but rather a quality inherent in the character of these men.
I don't have an answer for what that may have been, but in the spirit of your second paragraph I just wanted to bring up this thought.
So there is something still missing from the recipe for coherent decision-making. It's the reason Feynman says these are "great men" - it's NOT the process which makes it work, but rather a quality inherent in the character of these men.
I don't have an answer for what that may have been, but in the spirit of your second paragraph I just wanted to bring up this thought.
Even in literary criticism, this balance and specificity is such a pleasure. It's one of the things I love about Samuel Johnson's essays. (Contrast with what people are saying in the article about failing literary magazines.)
I just started reading Boswell's biography, and the introduction to the Everyman's Library edition makes the same point:
> Part of this comes from a literal-mindedness that won't mistake one fault for another or all others. This worked even when his dominant feeling was not of fondness (as for Smart) but of dislike (as for Sterne). Boswell reports Goldsmith toadying up to Johnson, in a conversation on Sterne, by saying 'And a very dull fellow': Johnson replied 'Why, no, sir.' Fact.
I just started reading Boswell's biography, and the introduction to the Everyman's Library edition makes the same point:
> Part of this comes from a literal-mindedness that won't mistake one fault for another or all others. This worked even when his dominant feeling was not of fondness (as for Smart) but of dislike (as for Sterne). Boswell reports Goldsmith toadying up to Johnson, in a conversation on Sterne, by saying 'And a very dull fellow': Johnson replied 'Why, no, sir.' Fact.
[deleted]
In my experience (and coming just out of a meeting alike) these types of respectful and forward-moving meetings are typically in a case where each attendant has roughly the same level expertise in a given domain and knows the basics of scientific principles. Hence, everybody in the meeting brings in his or her unique view of the topic at hand and knows intrinsically when it makes sense to contribute something to the discussion. Usually things get out of hands, if somebody is talking just for the noise or, and this is worse, a clearly bad idea wins the discussion because politics or the messenger has shouted the loudest.
Maybe it's not necessary for everyone to be at the same level, you just need to have everyone knowing everyone else's level and be humble about it. "Bob says the tractor can't pull this load, and he knows more about tractors than I do."
Even if participants have same level of domain understanding, it takes more to be willing to work towards a solution without their egos, their achievements, their alpha-ness getting in the way. I’ve seen the opposite more often than not. Where I do see this level of camaraderie is amongst close friends who know better about each other.
I think experts naturally tend to befriend each other, for the simple reason that they are the only one who can understand each other. And that even when there is rivalry in the ideas.
Maybe being alone at the top is good for the ego, and some people like that, but it is also boring. If you are at the top in some field, is is probably your passion, something you want to talk about all day, but no one understands you, you feel like you are talking to babies, repeating "obvious" things over and over. On the opposite, you can't find anyone to teach anything new to you, being a pioneer is nice, but if you get stuck, you can't count on anyone but yourself, and it can become tedious.
So, when you finally meet someone on your level, it is someone you want to keep. At last, you can talk with someone who understand you, who can provide a meaningful input, and even teach you a thing or two. And even if there is some rivalry, you have a worthy opponent, not an annoyance.
Maybe being alone at the top is good for the ego, and some people like that, but it is also boring. If you are at the top in some field, is is probably your passion, something you want to talk about all day, but no one understands you, you feel like you are talking to babies, repeating "obvious" things over and over. On the opposite, you can't find anyone to teach anything new to you, being a pioneer is nice, but if you get stuck, you can't count on anyone but yourself, and it can become tedious.
So, when you finally meet someone on your level, it is someone you want to keep. At last, you can talk with someone who understand you, who can provide a meaningful input, and even teach you a thing or two. And even if there is some rivalry, you have a worthy opponent, not an annoyance.
Overheard on such a meeting yesterday: "Well, an alternative would be to use the coordinate system named after me."
I feel these meetings work best when there is no career pressure, but when people have aligned goals and just want to make progress. It's easier to leave good points unsaid if everyone prefers having any conclusion to having no conclusion.
I feel these meetings work best when there is no career pressure, but when people have aligned goals and just want to make progress. It's easier to leave good points unsaid if everyone prefers having any conclusion to having no conclusion.
Can you get Descartes’ autograph for me? Thx
I don't want to dox the professor that uttered the quote, but he was talking about these coordinates ;-) http://fusionwiki.ciemat.es/wiki/Boozer_coordinates
It could also have been Dr Polar
It's also important for each participant to not be afraid to not be heard. I feel like that's a big issue in a lot of meetings, especially between developers, where it often feels like people are interrupting each other and talking over each other, where the strongest opinion wins, instead of letting each other finish and waiting your turn to speak. It reinforces people's tendency to talk over each other - "if I don't jump in now, the conversation will have moved on" - while at the same time reinforces less verbal / confident people to just keep their opinion to themselves while others talk over each other.
Don't hesitate to call others out for their behaviour, as it occurs. And involve those who seem to be withdrawn or quiet, ask them about their opinion and input. It takes concerted efforts, if not coaching and training, to get out of that habit.
Don't hesitate to call others out for their behaviour, as it occurs. And involve those who seem to be withdrawn or quiet, ask them about their opinion and input. It takes concerted efforts, if not coaching and training, to get out of that habit.
There used to be meetings where I wished we could have installed those campaign debate buttons that buzz when someone's time is up. It could be infuriating. I have high hopes that remote meeting software will grow features like this eventually.
Two keys here I think. One is the way the team was built. The people selected had truly remarkable skills in their own domains such that everyone already had the respect of others. There was nothing to prove in part because the team fit together so well. Big credit should go to the person or people who selected the team.
Second is the chairman facilitating who didn't controlled the conversation, didn't leave time for bullshit, and probably had a very tight agenda.
Second is the chairman facilitating who didn't controlled the conversation, didn't leave time for bullshit, and probably had a very tight agenda.
I suspect it may partly also be cultural for that segment of people. Repeating yourself at seminars or other academic meetings was highly frowned upon in several instances I've seen, it was not just greatness/respect/intrinsic etc.
Perhaps sufficient greatness of attention span is a prerequisite to remember what everyone has said since the start of the meeting :-)
Perhaps sufficient greatness of attention span is a prerequisite to remember what everyone has said since the start of the meeting :-)
I suspect the men in the feynman meeting had been rigorously or even ruthlessly chosen to form an effective group (for such an important mission)
I have been in such environments and I while I hadn't considered that the reason they worked so well was that they were great people: they were, in fact, great people.
An interesting thing happens when there's a high level of respect.
People stop being so anxious about not "winning", or "being heard", people just remove themselves from their ideas and feel comfortable and confident.
I left that company because the company around that team was a bit shit, but I wish I could foster an environment of high trust and mutual respect like that again.
An interesting thing happens when there's a high level of respect.
People stop being so anxious about not "winning", or "being heard", people just remove themselves from their ideas and feel comfortable and confident.
I left that company because the company around that team was a bit shit, but I wish I could foster an environment of high trust and mutual respect like that again.
I dont think it is just the question of quality of individual. It is result of the way leadership shapes the place, what it rewards or not. People react greatly to the environment they are in.
Whether people worry about being heard, whether being winning is important or not influences a lot how they will discuss. Whether you can afford to remove yourself from the idea is artefact of the environment too.
Whether people worry about being heard, whether being winning is important or not influences a lot how they will discuss. Whether you can afford to remove yourself from the idea is artefact of the environment too.
I agree with the thought about leadership. Peer to peer discussions can be exhausting, where a consensus is hard to achieve and a majority vote is often unsatisfying. A good leader can listen to every idea, make a decision and steer everyone in that direction.
Well I imagine when you're an Arthur Compton or a Richard Feynman or an Oppenheimer, you don't have a whole lot to prove.
I like how you included all the Oppenheimers :)
...and all the Arthur Comptons and Richard Feynmans!
[deleted]
Several comments here about what is the missing X factor - why did these guys get along. The quoted story takes place during World War II, and they were developing nuclear technology, specifically The Bomb. It's very easy to look back and criticize the outcome, but AT THE TIME, these people thought that they had to do this to preserve their way of life and defeat evil.
I think this is a critical component of any moonshot - you have to have competition or some motivation that feels like an external compulsion.
I think this is a critical component of any moonshot - you have to have competition or some motivation that feels like an external compulsion.
What I hear is that these people are really listening and paying attention.
In so many normal conversations people are repeating over and over again because they assume it goes in one ear and out the other and they are right.
In so many normal conversations people are repeating over and over again because they assume it goes in one ear and out the other and they are right.
I think most conversations are each person waiting for the other person’s mouth to stop moving so they can make their own point. I.e. no listening, just talking. Worse in larger groups.
I find part of the issue is how fleeting opportunities for intimate conversation are. It's been a long time since I've sat down with a drink, a friend and a few hours to kill. I have friends and do a lot of things, but they're all activity based. I do love that, but it can make conversation pretty shallow.
Another part of the issue is the internet, for many reasons, but specifically related to this is that it's killed people's curiosity and their ability to discuss a topic for fun. The internet gives people their opinions, and answers any ambiguity in an instant. Want to know what the best tire for your bike is? No need to discuss it, the internet told them what's correct, case closed.
Another part of the issue is the internet, for many reasons, but specifically related to this is that it's killed people's curiosity and their ability to discuss a topic for fun. The internet gives people their opinions, and answers any ambiguity in an instant. Want to know what the best tire for your bike is? No need to discuss it, the internet told them what's correct, case closed.
"I find part of the issue is how fleeting opportunities for intimate conversation are. It's been a long time since I've sat down with a drink, a friend and a few hours to kill. I have friends and do a lot of things, but they're all activity based. I do love that, but it can make conversation pretty shallow."
It's rather curious to me to see how others live their lives in ways that they're limited on details that I take for granted as normal and regular. I see many people here describing activities that I haven't done in years or ever too, and then run into something like your comment above, where sitting down with a friend for a drink and a few hours of conversation is a rare thing, though in my case I usually find the time to do it at least once a week to refresh and relax, and have done it without interruptions for years now. Just an observation on these differences between lives in general.
It's rather curious to me to see how others live their lives in ways that they're limited on details that I take for granted as normal and regular. I see many people here describing activities that I haven't done in years or ever too, and then run into something like your comment above, where sitting down with a friend for a drink and a few hours of conversation is a rare thing, though in my case I usually find the time to do it at least once a week to refresh and relax, and have done it without interruptions for years now. Just an observation on these differences between lives in general.
Covid has had an effect. I like to do things like ski, backpack and such with my friends. We'd usually drive up together in a car, or couple of cars, which gave time for all sorts of yakking. With Covid you're supposed to take individual cars.
There was a really good TED talk at some point about effective communication - and probably books as well - where points in your comment and other sibling ones were addressed; repeating oneself was one of them, it assumes the other party wasn't listening. Not listening was another one, either through distraction or because of waiting for their turn to speak.
I've seen it a lot in meetings, part of it is excitement, people really eager to bring their Knowledge to the table, or that they need to get things out of their system before the conversation goes somewhere else.
I think there should be a lot more formalized meetings, in the sense that people are coached to finish one sentence / idea before moving on to the next, to ensure that all voices are heard, etc.
I've seen it a lot in meetings, part of it is excitement, people really eager to bring their Knowledge to the table, or that they need to get things out of their system before the conversation goes somewhere else.
I think there should be a lot more formalized meetings, in the sense that people are coached to finish one sentence / idea before moving on to the next, to ensure that all voices are heard, etc.
I think about how to get better at it a lot.
I worked at a mediation center with a woman (a founder) who could listen to two people talk about a dispute for 90 minutes, not take any notes, listen carefully and make a detailed verbal summary of what the people said. It amazed me.
I was in a call just now where there was a knock-down drag-out discussion going on that we've had before. It was tempting to disengage, daydream. I was waiting to write this comment the whole time but was able to stop it because it was worth listening to the group which is the only way out of the impasse. I find myself asking, "What is it going take for this person to feel heard?" (I wish I could just ask them that!)
David Snyder is a hypnotist who makes videos on Youtube and he says that if you want people to feel mirrored it's powerful to remember and be able to repeat what the person said using the same words in the same order. Even if there is a place for paraphrasing, the more exact you can be the more certain you can be heard.
We were having a stoned discussion at my house and my son was feeling that people were talking over him so I cleared off the whiteboard and summarized what he said. I was not going to "lose" and let him walk away saying that I hadn't listened to him. Sometimes he got really upset when I made him pause so I could take a picture of the board and clear it but I didn't stop until he didn't have anything more to say and he acknowledged that he'd been heard.
I have an ideal of working towards of being able to offer people an unreasonable level of mirroring because of the power it has for drawing people in. I know I can't be perfect at it and can't expect perfect mirroring for others but I try to imagine there's no limit to how good I can do it.
I was at a party the other day and a woman tried to flatter me based on a superficial thing about my intelligence and my first reaction was "Yuck! I've always felt my intelligence was something that separated me from other people. I'd appreciate it if somebody said I was funny or brave and probably not be able to think straight if somebody said I was handsome, but..." I had to step back and try to appreciate the sentiment but I thought about it and thought some more and decided I'd rather not make that mistake when I'm trying to seduce someone.
I see a lot of people at the gym who have their bodies on display but are really defended and I don't feel I could talk to anybody about their superficial characteristics. I am only going to talk to somebody if I can show I really saw something about them that was personal, unique and touches me.
There's one lady who really whoops it up when the Baltimore Ravens are playing on Sunday and that's one of the very few people I can talk to because boy I know she is crazy about football!
I worked at a mediation center with a woman (a founder) who could listen to two people talk about a dispute for 90 minutes, not take any notes, listen carefully and make a detailed verbal summary of what the people said. It amazed me.
I was in a call just now where there was a knock-down drag-out discussion going on that we've had before. It was tempting to disengage, daydream. I was waiting to write this comment the whole time but was able to stop it because it was worth listening to the group which is the only way out of the impasse. I find myself asking, "What is it going take for this person to feel heard?" (I wish I could just ask them that!)
David Snyder is a hypnotist who makes videos on Youtube and he says that if you want people to feel mirrored it's powerful to remember and be able to repeat what the person said using the same words in the same order. Even if there is a place for paraphrasing, the more exact you can be the more certain you can be heard.
We were having a stoned discussion at my house and my son was feeling that people were talking over him so I cleared off the whiteboard and summarized what he said. I was not going to "lose" and let him walk away saying that I hadn't listened to him. Sometimes he got really upset when I made him pause so I could take a picture of the board and clear it but I didn't stop until he didn't have anything more to say and he acknowledged that he'd been heard.
I have an ideal of working towards of being able to offer people an unreasonable level of mirroring because of the power it has for drawing people in. I know I can't be perfect at it and can't expect perfect mirroring for others but I try to imagine there's no limit to how good I can do it.
I was at a party the other day and a woman tried to flatter me based on a superficial thing about my intelligence and my first reaction was "Yuck! I've always felt my intelligence was something that separated me from other people. I'd appreciate it if somebody said I was funny or brave and probably not be able to think straight if somebody said I was handsome, but..." I had to step back and try to appreciate the sentiment but I thought about it and thought some more and decided I'd rather not make that mistake when I'm trying to seduce someone.
I see a lot of people at the gym who have their bodies on display but are really defended and I don't feel I could talk to anybody about their superficial characteristics. I am only going to talk to somebody if I can show I really saw something about them that was personal, unique and touches me.
There's one lady who really whoops it up when the Baltimore Ravens are playing on Sunday and that's one of the very few people I can talk to because boy I know she is crazy about football!
If the context wasn't WWII then the meeting might have gone very differently. A high level of crisis can tend to focus things a bit. It will, by necessity, bias things towards action when some action is definitively required. At that point the hope is that you stumble upon a moderately effective (or better) course of action and not just one that says, "we have to do something. $X is something, therefore we have to do $X"
In my workplace during the pandemic I have seen this bias towards action play out. New (barely MVP) systems and integrations build in a week that would have been a year to get to the same point normally. A yes, there were a few nonsense "$action must be done" as well, but we managed the crisis too.
In my workplace during the pandemic I have seen this bias towards action play out. New (barely MVP) systems and integrations build in a week that would have been a year to get to the same point normally. A yes, there were a few nonsense "$action must be done" as well, but we managed the crisis too.
You're missing the point of the story. It wasn't "bias toward action". It was "the point was made once sat the beginning of a long meeting, never brought up again, and ended up being considered the right outcome at the end." That is, what made the meeting exciting was that everyone presented an opinion, did it one time, and retained what everyone else said.
Yes, and I'm saying that if it weren't a war crisis that meeting may have played out very differently. And I'm saying that meetings today, now & throughout the COVID crisis, have played out very differently than before, resembling that of the linked article more closely.
There has certainly been more discussion & review of options than in the linked article, more debating of relative merits. But, then again, the circumstances I've been working through in my organization are not as clear cut as the optimal method of extracting a substance where there are discrete known facts. And the people involved have been experts in varying domains, not all physicists or related backgrounds where the merits of an opinion can be understood by the others without more discussion. Also this was one meeting: I doubt that every meeting among the people in the article all went so smoothly, with never debate or need for someone to rearticulate or expand their explanation of a point of view.
Please note that I am not saying these men weren't great, and that the group dynamic Feynman describes isn't at least partly indicative of their level of intelligence. What I am saying is that the group dynamic described is not unique to people of towering genius. Having weathered many crisis (to be sure none on the scale of WW II) my observation is that this group dynamic cannot be disentangled from the crisis context and only-- somewhat simplistically-- attributed to "these were great men". Greatness of mind is not a universal panacea for indecision and uncertainly. Crisis on the other hand forces people to push through those things.
There has certainly been more discussion & review of options than in the linked article, more debating of relative merits. But, then again, the circumstances I've been working through in my organization are not as clear cut as the optimal method of extracting a substance where there are discrete known facts. And the people involved have been experts in varying domains, not all physicists or related backgrounds where the merits of an opinion can be understood by the others without more discussion. Also this was one meeting: I doubt that every meeting among the people in the article all went so smoothly, with never debate or need for someone to rearticulate or expand their explanation of a point of view.
Please note that I am not saying these men weren't great, and that the group dynamic Feynman describes isn't at least partly indicative of their level of intelligence. What I am saying is that the group dynamic described is not unique to people of towering genius. Having weathered many crisis (to be sure none on the scale of WW II) my observation is that this group dynamic cannot be disentangled from the crisis context and only-- somewhat simplistically-- attributed to "these were great men". Greatness of mind is not a universal panacea for indecision and uncertainly. Crisis on the other hand forces people to push through those things.
An alternative theory is that they all got along because they were mostly Ashkenazi Jews from central Europe, especially Hungary.
Also, these were the only guys who were trying seriously, they were on a mission,and in a military environment
Not sure who, besides the Japanese at the time, have really criticised the outcome. Even now the Japanese seem to at least understand why it had to happen. It was the difference between Nazi fascism winning global hegemony or not. I don’t think there’s a serious argument that it shouldn’t have happened.
There are very convincing historical arguments on why the bomb was both unnecessary and also why it didn't in fact play any role in Japan's surrender (it sound unlikely, but conventional bombing raids were annihilating Japanese cities at such a clip that Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't even register as anything different with the decision-making group; they decided to capitulate when the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and all hopes of avoiding unconditional surrender were dashed). Google brings up plenty of reading material.
Those arguments decontextualize the war and are self-defeating in that the Allies were willing to give Dresden and other cities a treatment not much different from Hiroshima in the end. At the scale of 2 bombs, the a-bomb was wasn’t a revolution in war, that wasn’t going to happen until solidly in the mid 1950s where there was a large supply of devices that were practical use.
Another factor was that the U.S. thought it was very possible we’d be going to war with Russia and was slow to demobilize so there was definitely the intent to intimidate the Soviet Union even that early.
Another factor was that the U.S. thought it was very possible we’d be going to war with Russia and was slow to demobilize so there was definitely the intent to intimidate the Soviet Union even that early.
Adding this link: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-a...
Listen to at least the end of the “Supernova in the East” episodes of Hardcore History.
Depends what you mean by "the outcome" here.
If you mean developing the bomb, then fine.
If you mean dropping the bomb, then that seems pretty controversial.
I thought it was pretty well established that the USA knew Japan was willing to surrender, but dropped the bomb anyway?
If you mean developing the bomb, then fine.
If you mean dropping the bomb, then that seems pretty controversial.
I thought it was pretty well established that the USA knew Japan was willing to surrender, but dropped the bomb anyway?
> the USA knew Japan was willing to surrender, but dropped the bomb anyway?
This is the opposite of what I usually hear? I've heard things about how Japan was getting ready to fight to the last man, starting to arm civilians.
I have heard that the emperor was maybe willing to surrender, but that the country was essentially being run by the military leadership, who would ~never see surrender as an option.
This is the opposite of what I usually hear? I've heard things about how Japan was getting ready to fight to the last man, starting to arm civilians.
I have heard that the emperor was maybe willing to surrender, but that the country was essentially being run by the military leadership, who would ~never see surrender as an option.
>If you mean dropping the bomb, then that seems pretty controversial
I honestly see this as a purely gut-level reaction to the astonishing power of the nuclear bomb more than anything about the victims. The casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are but a rounding error next to all those who died by fire bombing, carpet bombing, siege and starvations, and all the other infernos of WW2.
It's not that this makes it okay, it just makes it strange that the bombings get all this attention in popular culture over other much more horrific atrocities and massacres. This was probably an effect of the 1960s/1970s/1980s terror of nuclear projected back on the events of 1945.
I honestly see this as a purely gut-level reaction to the astonishing power of the nuclear bomb more than anything about the victims. The casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are but a rounding error next to all those who died by fire bombing, carpet bombing, siege and starvations, and all the other infernos of WW2.
It's not that this makes it okay, it just makes it strange that the bombings get all this attention in popular culture over other much more horrific atrocities and massacres. This was probably an effect of the 1960s/1970s/1980s terror of nuclear projected back on the events of 1945.
Pure gut level reactions do make a difference though. The exact mechanism of threat can make a substantive difference to fear and how an enemy react. The brutal nature of nuclear weapons could be a feature.
I'm pretty sure the US thought that every man between 16 and 65 was going to be given a weapon and fight for every inch of Japanese soil. That at the time it was considered likely that we would have to fight a long war of attrition across the island losing hundreds of thousands of Americans and being forced to kill uncountable Japanese conscripts.
We never had to do that. We could have simply not invaded the main islands. Furthermore, we could have offered a peace agreement that ends the war without occupation of Japan.
I don't know if we could have just offered peace. The Japanese forces on various islands were refusing to surrender, even when vastly outnumbered. Japan may not have recognized a peace treaty without an occupation. Further, if the US didn't occupy Japan, the USSR could and the Japanese people could have been absorbed as another soviet state.
We know the Japanese forces outside of Japan would have surrendered if there was a peace treaty, because that's what happened. That would be the purpose of a peace treaty (and exchange of prisoners, etc.).
If the USSR decided to invade Japan on its own, who cares? We could let them fight. Or we could ally with Japan.
If the USSR decided to invade Japan on its own, who cares? We could let them fight. Or we could ally with Japan.
I have studied this and as yet I am unable to find any evidence that Truman thought Japans surrender was imminent. All evidence I have found seems to point to Truman actually believing that dropping the bomb would save lives- both American and Japanese.
If you have any evidence otherwise, I would be interested in reviewing it.
If you have any evidence otherwise, I would be interested in reviewing it.
I thought it was pretty well established that the USA knew Japan was willing to surrender, but dropped the bomb anyway?
There are a few different theories about this, and still some controversy about it all to this very day as I understand it.
One idea holds that Japan would have surrendered earlier had the Allies not insisted on the abolition of the role of the Emperor (who as I understand it, is something akin to God in Japanese culture). This was apparently a step too far for the Japanese at the time.
Another idea holds that even if the Allies had invaded, the Japanese would have quickly capitulated IF the Russians were part of the invasion. Supposedly Japan was uniquely afraid of Russia at that moment in history, for some reason. I don't recall now the details behind this suggestion.
I can't say much about the veracity of either position, but those are two themes I've heard repeatedly about the situation.
There are a few different theories about this, and still some controversy about it all to this very day as I understand it.
One idea holds that Japan would have surrendered earlier had the Allies not insisted on the abolition of the role of the Emperor (who as I understand it, is something akin to God in Japanese culture). This was apparently a step too far for the Japanese at the time.
Another idea holds that even if the Allies had invaded, the Japanese would have quickly capitulated IF the Russians were part of the invasion. Supposedly Japan was uniquely afraid of Russia at that moment in history, for some reason. I don't recall now the details behind this suggestion.
I can't say much about the veracity of either position, but those are two themes I've heard repeatedly about the situation.
The speculation I’ve read is that dropping the bomb was as much about deterring the Russians than preventing a ground invasion of Japan.
If you want to have a comprehensive view of what happened and why things happened, I cannot recommend Dan Carlin's Hardcore History series enough on this topic [0].
The A bomb is extensively discussed late in the series, with shift in the strategy from strategic bombing to mass firebombing as US were preparing the invasion of mainland japan.
TL;DR: > I thought it was pretty well established that the USA knew Japan was willing to surrender, but dropped the bomb anyway?
Simply not true, however answering if Abomb was good move or not, is such a complex and nuanced question you cannot just have a simple statement for or against.
The USA feared the invasion of mainland japan because of the unimaginable looses they would incur. Japan's population was prepared to fight USA with sharpened bamboo stick, and I mean population as in civilians, as in EVERY single person is possibly out to get you. Just imagine what kind of mental damage you would put of your soldiers to have to mow down scores of suicidal civilians. Note that this behaviour was already showing up as US were nearing closer to actual japan.
Also you had USSR freed from fighting nazis having a massive score to settle with japan. Do you want uncle stalin also be involved? (given what happened to west/east germany was it better japan avoided est/west japan split?)
Have a listen to [1] on the accounts of firebombing of Tokyo. It horrendous fate in comparison to A-bomb. On top the horror of slowly burning alive trapped in fire cage there were far more death from firebombings/carpetbombings than Abombs.
[0]https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-supern...
[1]https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-67-supern...
The A bomb is extensively discussed late in the series, with shift in the strategy from strategic bombing to mass firebombing as US were preparing the invasion of mainland japan.
TL;DR: > I thought it was pretty well established that the USA knew Japan was willing to surrender, but dropped the bomb anyway?
Simply not true, however answering if Abomb was good move or not, is such a complex and nuanced question you cannot just have a simple statement for or against.
The USA feared the invasion of mainland japan because of the unimaginable looses they would incur. Japan's population was prepared to fight USA with sharpened bamboo stick, and I mean population as in civilians, as in EVERY single person is possibly out to get you. Just imagine what kind of mental damage you would put of your soldiers to have to mow down scores of suicidal civilians. Note that this behaviour was already showing up as US were nearing closer to actual japan.
Also you had USSR freed from fighting nazis having a massive score to settle with japan. Do you want uncle stalin also be involved? (given what happened to west/east germany was it better japan avoided est/west japan split?)
Have a listen to [1] on the accounts of firebombing of Tokyo. It horrendous fate in comparison to A-bomb. On top the horror of slowly burning alive trapped in fire cage there were far more death from firebombings/carpetbombings than Abombs.
[0]https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-supern...
[1]https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-67-supern...
That is wrong. The difference was how quickly Japan would lose the war after Germany was already a non-factor. The cost was how bloody the defeat would be and the calculation was that the bombs would result in fewer lives lost overall. Japan wasn’t going to win one way or the other.
I'm not well read on the topic, and I do tend to agree with you, but I can imagine an argument like:
- nuclear threat is a serious cost to productivity and well-being - the bomb merely brought forward a conclusion that was already looking inevitable
There's an obvious counter that some nation likely would have developed nuclear weapons independently - America was merely the first.
Nonetheless, I think it's not a given that the bomb was a positive.
- nuclear threat is a serious cost to productivity and well-being - the bomb merely brought forward a conclusion that was already looking inevitable
There's an obvious counter that some nation likely would have developed nuclear weapons independently - America was merely the first.
Nonetheless, I think it's not a given that the bomb was a positive.
[deleted]
> It was the difference between Nazi fascism winning global hegemony or not. I don’t think there’s a serious argument that it shouldn’t have happened.
By the time nukes were dropped on Japan [0] in August 1945 nazi Germany was defeated, the war in Europe ended, Soviets attacked Japanese army in Manchuria [1] on August 9-th -- the day of Nagasaki bombing.
Dropping bombs on Japan had one main purpose - to show the Soviets who is the boss and prevent them from invading and occupying Japan before the USA can do it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War
By the time nukes were dropped on Japan [0] in August 1945 nazi Germany was defeated, the war in Europe ended, Soviets attacked Japanese army in Manchuria [1] on August 9-th -- the day of Nagasaki bombing.
Dropping bombs on Japan had one main purpose - to show the Soviets who is the boss and prevent them from invading and occupying Japan before the USA can do it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War
The atom bomb project was initiated out of a fear that Germany would get it first.
Which has nothing to do with the question of why the bombs where dropped years later.
That's a pretty bizarre reading of history. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan because Stalin had promised Roosevelt and Churchill at the 1943 Tehran conference, so this was not some sort of surprising or unwelcome development.
The surprising development was just how quickly the Manchurian front collapsed against the Soviet Union. The Kwantung Army, and Japan's ability to continue the war, even in a defensive capability completely fell apart in 7 days. Japan was utterly reliant on supplies and raw materials from its Chinese and Korean puppet states.
Between that, and the amphibious attacks against Korea, the Kurils, and Sakhalin, the US was on a pretty short clock to end the war before communism had a chance to move in, and settle down.
Stalin respected the pre-agreed partition of Europe, but neither Postdam, nor Tehran said very much about who would be in control of what part of the Japanese empire after the war... And in practice, this meant that when the war ended, possession, in the form of 'whose army is parked where' was nine tenths of the law.
The United States was not at all interested in seeing an East/West Japan partition. North/South Korea was bad enough.
Between that, and the amphibious attacks against Korea, the Kurils, and Sakhalin, the US was on a pretty short clock to end the war before communism had a chance to move in, and settle down.
Stalin respected the pre-agreed partition of Europe, but neither Postdam, nor Tehran said very much about who would be in control of what part of the Japanese empire after the war... And in practice, this meant that when the war ended, possession, in the form of 'whose army is parked where' was nine tenths of the law.
The United States was not at all interested in seeing an East/West Japan partition. North/South Korea was bad enough.
It was not surprising for sure, but Truman who succeeded Roosevelt was not keen seeing Russians meddling in Japan when it was already on a brink of defeat and surrender.
Nukes can cool off Stalin's appetite quite effectively.
Plenty do criticize the outcome and with reasonable justification. Your reasoning doesn't take into account that when the nukes were dropped Nazi Germany had already unconditionally surrendered. Sure, it was too costly to invade Japan.. but in retrospect, blockading and sanctioning might have achieved the same goals without indiscriminately obliterating 200,000 innocents.
A blockade and air raids also causes deaths. The literal name for the blockading operations with mines around Japan was Operation Starvation.
Sometimes there are only bad options available. The bomb was the best choice
Sometimes there are only bad options available. The bomb was the best choice
Thanks for the interesting reading! I took a dive and it turns out Operation Starvation was remarkably effective and arguably should have been used earlier [0]. Also it didn't actually lead to any deaths from starvation [1]. Here are some excerpts.
"After the war, the commander of Japan's minesweeping operations noted that he thought this mining campaign could have directly led to the defeat of Japan on its own had it begun earlier. Similar conclusions were reached by American analysts who reported in July 1946 in the United States Strategic Bombing Survey that it would have been more efficient to combine the United States' effective anti-shipping submarine effort with land- and carrier-based air power to strike harder against merchant shipping and begin a more extensive aerial mining campaign earlier in the war. This would have starved Japan, forcing an earlier end to the war." [0]&[2]
"While some of the main actors (the UK, the US, Germany, and Japan) escaped famine..." [1]
"In Britain, Germany, and Japan, rationing was effective; even though food availability was sharply reduced almost everywhere, few literally died of hunger. Britain and Germany managed to maintain food consumption per capita at about 3,000 calories throughout the war. In Japan consumption fell from a norm of 2,000 calories per capita before Pearl Harbor to 1,900 calories in 1944, plummeting to 1,680 calories by the war’s end." [1]
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Starvation
1: https://voxeu.org/article/famines-wwii
2: https://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm
"After the war, the commander of Japan's minesweeping operations noted that he thought this mining campaign could have directly led to the defeat of Japan on its own had it begun earlier. Similar conclusions were reached by American analysts who reported in July 1946 in the United States Strategic Bombing Survey that it would have been more efficient to combine the United States' effective anti-shipping submarine effort with land- and carrier-based air power to strike harder against merchant shipping and begin a more extensive aerial mining campaign earlier in the war. This would have starved Japan, forcing an earlier end to the war." [0]&[2]
"While some of the main actors (the UK, the US, Germany, and Japan) escaped famine..." [1]
"In Britain, Germany, and Japan, rationing was effective; even though food availability was sharply reduced almost everywhere, few literally died of hunger. Britain and Germany managed to maintain food consumption per capita at about 3,000 calories throughout the war. In Japan consumption fell from a norm of 2,000 calories per capita before Pearl Harbor to 1,900 calories in 1944, plummeting to 1,680 calories by the war’s end." [1]
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Starvation
1: https://voxeu.org/article/famines-wwii
2: https://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm
Germany did not unconditionally surrender until Hitler was dead and Berlin was overrun. Japan would have done the same. More than 200k innocents would have died.
Why did they need to unconditionally surrender?
Mostly to free Korea, Burma, and China.
Why would that be needed for that? "Conditional surrender" doesn't mean there are no conditions the other way.
Japan rejected losing the occupied territories.
And nothing other than murdering thousands of civilians with an atomic bomb could change that?
Hence blockade and sanction. No need to invade.
I fail to see how that would have led to a more humane outcome for the civilian population. The military controlled the government, they get first dibs on resources, not the civilian population.
More than 200k still would have died under that scheme as well.
Would they?
Yes
And how do you know that?
You're welcome to find the original sources. There are several excellent books on the topic. I suggest using Google to find one that piques your interest. You definitely seem like the type to "do your own research" Mr Just-Asking-Questions guy.
If I want to make a serious effort to know the truth of a controversial matter, I make it a point to argue without using fallacies or relying on cognitive biases. This kind of arguing tends to work better in traditional forums instead of newsy forums like HN and Reddit. One can spend a long time researching one's argument and come back several days later with a well researched and formed argument and bump the thread back to the top. In HN and Reddit, by the time one has done this research, everyone has moved on.
This also describes companies during the "we're creating a great product / service" phase, when meetings aren't "won" by those who can sell themselves or their ideas best.
Companies on the decline will always have very charismatic / well-spoken / authoritarian characters at the top who'll put their own ego before sustainable success. Think Ballmer at Microsoft.
>Companies on the decline will always have very charismatic / well-spoken / authoritarian characters at the top who'll put their own ego before sustainable success.
And countries.
And countries.
I was at a conference in Amsterdam once with a lot of talks from CEO's of fast growing companies. The day was very inspirational. The speakers were obviously very competent and the questions from the CEO's in the audience were interesting and they all received great answers.
To top it off the chairman of the day summarised the whole event in a speech that I still remember to this day. It was so charming, intelligent and erudite. I was floored.
To top it off the chairman of the day summarised the whole event in a speech that I still remember to this day. It was so charming, intelligent and erudite. I was floored.
Name of the conference? :)
I can't find it. It doesn't exist anymore. Something like "High Growth Conference" in 2010-ish. Chairman of the day was Harry Starren.
I recommend everyone read "Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman."
The parts on Brazil were particularly interesting.
The parts on Brazil were particularly interesting.
Narrator: What these guys didn't know is that Compton talked it over with the chair before the meeting.
If you've worked in a bureaucracy, you'll know that the important decisions are not made in meetings.
If you've worked in a bureaucracy, you'll know that the important decisions are not made in meetings.
It's a great angle on the communication side of science.
I think the notion of "great man" like the genius of "Einstein" or "Newton" is seriously skewed. If you take a closer look at their correspondence and upbringing, they both were very well "connected" in their own ways beforehand.
This picture of a loner sitting bored at a Patent Office and all by himself coming up with 4 groundbreaking papers (photoelectric effect, brownian motion, special relativity) in 1905 - [or Newtons "annus mirabilis" after fleeing Cambridge University because of the plague in 1665 and "quarantining" himself for 2 years in his native village (by his own account (!) there he singlehandendly developed integral calculus, dicovered the composite nature of light and finally refined his gravitational theory)] - readily highlights the individual instances of "genius" which I do not want to dismiss here - but entirely blanks out how those free floating ideas were able to circulate and bounce off each other giving rise to those great insights in the "quiet" moments of those "geniuses".
Only after their recognition of "genius" they seemed to develop some really unhealthy stubbornness.
Newton - beginning in 1686 with his publication of the Principia - "disputing" any influence Hooke might have had and at his height of power letting his "Royal Society" create a comittee to decide against Leibniz "priority" regarding "calculus" in 1712).
Einstein beginning with the Bohr debate (1927 onwards) and productively contributing to the EPR paradox in 1934 (further developed by Bell to the infamous "Bell's theorem") felt more and more "misunderstood" and isolated himself to work on his own "unified field theory" and from then on did not participate in any of the "quantum mechanics" of his time.
I think the notion of "great man" like the genius of "Einstein" or "Newton" is seriously skewed. If you take a closer look at their correspondence and upbringing, they both were very well "connected" in their own ways beforehand.
This picture of a loner sitting bored at a Patent Office and all by himself coming up with 4 groundbreaking papers (photoelectric effect, brownian motion, special relativity) in 1905 - [or Newtons "annus mirabilis" after fleeing Cambridge University because of the plague in 1665 and "quarantining" himself for 2 years in his native village (by his own account (!) there he singlehandendly developed integral calculus, dicovered the composite nature of light and finally refined his gravitational theory)] - readily highlights the individual instances of "genius" which I do not want to dismiss here - but entirely blanks out how those free floating ideas were able to circulate and bounce off each other giving rise to those great insights in the "quiet" moments of those "geniuses".
Only after their recognition of "genius" they seemed to develop some really unhealthy stubbornness.
Newton - beginning in 1686 with his publication of the Principia - "disputing" any influence Hooke might have had and at his height of power letting his "Royal Society" create a comittee to decide against Leibniz "priority" regarding "calculus" in 1712).
Einstein beginning with the Bohr debate (1927 onwards) and productively contributing to the EPR paradox in 1934 (further developed by Bell to the infamous "Bell's theorem") felt more and more "misunderstood" and isolated himself to work on his own "unified field theory" and from then on did not participate in any of the "quantum mechanics" of his time.
Judging from his book, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, he was not a very modest person himself, with regard to his own accomplishments and ideas, maybe that's why he was shocked by the modesty and restraint of other men with (presumably) similarly great talents.
I think you have to distinguish between being socially humble and being humble about truth.
Feynman was humble in that he tried to learn what was true instead of assuming that he already knew. He was always looking to improve his understanding.
Being humble in the search for truth can sometimes even seem arrogant socially. It means that you'll regularly question not only your own beliefs but those of other people as well.
Feynman was humble in that he tried to learn what was true instead of assuming that he already knew. He was always looking to improve his understanding.
Being humble in the search for truth can sometimes even seem arrogant socially. It means that you'll regularly question not only your own beliefs but those of other people as well.
>Being humble in the search for truth can sometimes even seem arrogant socially. It means that you'll regularly question not only your own beliefs but those of other people as well.
Although according to Murray Gell-Mann, Feynman might have gone a bit too far in that regard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnMsgxIIQEE
Although according to Murray Gell-Mann, Feynman might have gone a bit too far in that regard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnMsgxIIQEE
Doesn't it depend on whether you feel he had a substantially realistic view as to his talents or not? Few would disagree that he was correct on that score. Moreover Feynman told a number of stories against himself - of how he turned out to be quite wrong about something. We may agree that false modesty is not much better than hyping one's non-existent qualities.
for some reason, a great many people on the internet don't seem to understand that it is not "his book". It was written after his death by his friend.
It was published 3 years before his death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surely_You%27re_Joking,_Mr._Fe...!
Oh wow my mistake. Yes it is actually the sequel "what do you care what other people think" that was written after his death.
Yeah knowing he wrote it, I guess it does come off a little more egotistical than I at first assumed. Still a good book though.
Yeah knowing he wrote it, I guess it does come off a little more egotistical than I at first assumed. Still a good book though.
An idea I'm coming around to is that the "great men" dynamic Feynman is talking about isn't actually a property of individual people, it's situational.
Like, being humble, competent in your field, mature enough to actively listen to other people, etc, all help. But there are also more subtle factors like compatibility, company culture, project parameters, etc, that are also necessary to have that dynamic where everybody cooperates in discussions.
Getting those subtle factors to align is hard, sometimes it's down to conditions you can't control, and it's definitely not as simple as "just" getting great people in a room.
Like, being humble, competent in your field, mature enough to actively listen to other people, etc, all help. But there are also more subtle factors like compatibility, company culture, project parameters, etc, that are also necessary to have that dynamic where everybody cooperates in discussions.
Getting those subtle factors to align is hard, sometimes it's down to conditions you can't control, and it's definitely not as simple as "just" getting great people in a room.
In the words of Richard Hamming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3msMuwqp-o&list=PLctkxgWNSR...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3msMuwqp-o&list=PLctkxgWNSR...
Text version: https://wcarss.ca/reading/you_and_your_research/
This is a great recommendation (thanks!) and worth watching.
There is something magical when everyone leaves their ego at the door and is willing to build upon each other’s ideas like improv.
In the end, you’re left committing to only one idea and everyone is supporting it because that’s the only way it’s going to be successful. This is known intrinsically by everyone participating.
What this quote is missing is all the context. They were fighting for time and had to make a decision to get started on experiments. Many of these contributors were doing experimental work and Feynman was doing theoretical work.
Also he was 24 years old at the time.
In the end, you’re left committing to only one idea and everyone is supporting it because that’s the only way it’s going to be successful. This is known intrinsically by everyone participating.
What this quote is missing is all the context. They were fighting for time and had to make a decision to get started on experiments. Many of these contributors were doing experimental work and Feynman was doing theoretical work.
Also he was 24 years old at the time.
My takeaway from the anecdote is that greatness != omniscience. These smart fellows brought experience and biases to difficult questions and had to have enough trust and confidence in the group to let the group function as a seminar.
The best teachers never really quit being students.
The best teachers never really quit being students.
The more you learn the more ignorant you feel. It was refreshing to hear that even eg Noam Chomsky feels this way.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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 :) ?
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 :) ?
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.
Another interpretation might be that he considers this a rare trait in people.
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.
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.
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.
Honestly, my reading of this wasn't as clear cut as most of the other comments here. That said, I'm a devotee of the likes of Evelyn Waugh and Joseph Heller .. satirists both
[deleted]
I wish there was anything close to this in healthcare.
Most medical group meetings are:
a)A small number of people that understand the issue (generally specialists) being drowned out by:
b)A large number of people with a vague understanding of the issue (related specialists and generalists)
c)A number of people with no understanding of the issue with the most political clout (administrators)
And then a final decision made by the least knowledgeable, most political administrator with the most vested interests.
Most medical group meetings are:
a)A small number of people that understand the issue (generally specialists) being drowned out by:
b)A large number of people with a vague understanding of the issue (related specialists and generalists)
c)A number of people with no understanding of the issue with the most political clout (administrators)
And then a final decision made by the least knowledgeable, most political administrator with the most vested interests.
>It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, while remembering what the other fella said, so that, at the end, the decision is made as to which idea was the best---summing it all up---without having to say it three times.
Can we attribute this to the fact that in physics, everything can be validated mathematically? Hence less room for debate.
Can we attribute this to the fact that in physics, everything can be validated mathematically? Hence less room for debate.
No, because he’s clearly describing an engineering problem, not a physics problem.
Right, so it can be validated experimentally, but this team had a real goal and a real deadline. To succeed they needed to get things as right as possible as quickly as possible. They needed to be efficient.
This was the value I saw in my PhD. It has opened doors to jobs where the people I work with are brilliant and generally objective in their evaluation of competing ideas. It is an absolute treat to work in an environment like that. On many occasions, I worked with people who just knew more than me on a certain topic, and I was enthusiastic to take a back seat and learn from them.
I'm curious, does one really need a PhD outside academia? Does sufficient experience make up for it?
Definitely don’t need it, but it does introduce you to cool people.
[deleted]
It’s unclear what is being praised- is it the high working memory (and reasoning power) of those great men or the ability to have an open discussion about the merits of a case?
i think he was praising their ability to not bring in their egos to the discussion while trusting that best idea will win. best idea won without lot of inefficiency of repetition which often happens.
It looks like it's both. But either way, it's not that extraordinary.
What's not extraordinary? "the ability to have an open discussion about the merits of a case"? You'd be surprised...
The memory one could be, depending on how much detail and new ground is covered. Imagine your first day as a developer and you hear their architecture for the first time, and you recall all the points if a discussion between 5 expert people there. You remember the words and build the mental model simultaneously. It would be impressive, unless your full time job is consulting in such meetings.
“ It would be impressive, unless your full time job is consulting in such meetings.”
There’s self section of individuals with high working memory into such roles. There are many managers who attend meetings all day and can’t synthesize what’s being discussed in real time, indicating that this isn’t about practice.
There’s self section of individuals with high working memory into such roles. There are many managers who attend meetings all day and can’t synthesize what’s being discussed in real time, indicating that this isn’t about practice.
This made me almost cry. In most companies the person who is the loudest or most persistent wins. The merit of an idea is almost irrelevant.
It is a great pleasure to be among people who respect each other, listen, focus on the topics instead of on ego/politics.
Sad if most companies are not like that, I must have been lucky to be in the right teams then.
Sad if most companies are not like that, I must have been lucky to be in the right teams then.
Commented on another post before reading in classic HN fashion, but the environment of the committee described sounds very much like the Braintrust Pixar leadership uses to create their stories. Any leaders looking to cultivate an environment that supports that kind of productive decision making can likely find some great tactics in the book "Creativity, Inc."
I get the feeling this anecdote leaves out some important information. Perhaps whether people were giving hints about how confident they were on their contribution, or whether there was an aha-reaction to something insightful that was said.
But also it's important to separate oneself from ideas that appear in one's head and not be too closely invested in them.
But also it's important to separate oneself from ideas that appear in one's head and not be too closely invested in them.
I am wondering what would have happened if the committee chooses another idea instead of Compton's. Would Compton leave the committee? Would Feynman resent the decision? Or they wouldn't do that that is why they are called "great men"?
Feynman is impressed because the committee remembered the best argument and got to the right decision without Compton having to insist on himself. Compton made the best argument, once, and won.
If the committee didn't choose Compton's idea, it would just be an average lame committee where quality of thought isn't a priority.
There's a reason "design by committee" is an epithet. People thinking in groups normally suck at it.
If the committee didn't choose Compton's idea, it would just be an average lame committee where quality of thought isn't a priority.
There's a reason "design by committee" is an epithet. People thinking in groups normally suck at it.
It's always a great pleasure to work with people that aren't only at the same level, but also recognize and use that to not dwell on things that are obvious to everyone in the group.
Just because you are best at arguing doesn't mean you are right...
My ex-gf will disagree ! :P
One can not overstate how important it also is, that the public is suspended for this type of meetings.
Meaning no gathering of material for self-aggrandizing or as ammunition for department warfare.
No PR-stunts and no humiliation for gaps in knowledge. The person and ego has to be suspended for a moment and the "competition" of man go take a hike, replaced by a competition of ideas.
Fairness has to be upheld, as in everyone in the round has to be a good sport and accept his/her idea to be less likely. Todays self-obsessed culture makes such a round nearly impossible, except - ironically for near anonymous internet forums.
Meaning no gathering of material for self-aggrandizing or as ammunition for department warfare.
No PR-stunts and no humiliation for gaps in knowledge. The person and ego has to be suspended for a moment and the "competition" of man go take a hike, replaced by a competition of ideas.
Fairness has to be upheld, as in everyone in the round has to be a good sport and accept his/her idea to be less likely. Todays self-obsessed culture makes such a round nearly impossible, except - ironically for near anonymous internet forums.
I recently read “Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!“ and it’s a good little book filled with stories like these.
I just sat through 3 hours of meetings. I wish this had been read before we started.
[deleted]
mseepgood(1)
samim(5)
We have a better way of doing things now-a-days.
Whatever politico has enough sway with the social media companies makes it known what the proper narrative is, and then any other point of view is simply labelled as misinformation.
That way we don't have to put up with the misinformed views of great men.
Whatever politico has enough sway with the social media companies makes it known what the proper narrative is, and then any other point of view is simply labelled as misinformation.
That way we don't have to put up with the misinformed views of great men.
I think it's important for engineering decision-makers to be comfortable with this culture. It's disheartening when you have a great conversation like the one Feynman describes, the engineers are in agreement, and then the person in charge stands up and says, "Look, if everybody hates this idea, we can't be lazy and go forward with it just because we don't have a better one," or, "I guess we can't make a decision on this, because there's too much negativity and people are just going to nit-pick every idea to death!" No, no, talking through every possible objection to an idea is how you can tell that people are starting to zero in on it as the most likely best solution. The closer an idea gets to acceptance, the more thoroughly you vet it. The more it becomes clear that an idea is the best way forward, the more you start to prepare for dealing with the reality of it.
This makes practical sense, but not political sense, so it seems weird and unnatural to a lot of outside observers, who expect respect to be communicated by agreement, and emerging consensus around an idea to be expressed by a shared avoidance of mentioning the downsides.