Do not remain nameless to yourself (1966)(lettersofnote.com)
lettersofnote.com
Do not remain nameless to yourself (1966)
https://lettersofnote.com/2015/10/23/do-not-remain-nameless-to-yourself/
124 comments
Long letters are not dead. I have a short list of old friends whom I communicate via the infrequent long email only. These are old acquaintances with whom I have no regular business with, and they have moved far away in life, so short texting conversations are irrelevant. Usually I initiate these "pen pals" by reaching out on Christmas or Eid, several years after we have lost contact, and I make it clear to them that I want to maintain infrequent long correspondence. Usually they are overjoyed and respond with great enthusiasm, as they may have never received or written a long personal letter before in their life. It often has a powerful effect on people. In terms of content, I try to avoid making the letter too personal, because we have been far separated in time and place, sharing only major milestones in life. The fact that I don't use Facebook or any social media at all helps, because people have NOT seen what I've been up to, nor have I seen what they have been doing. I believe the long letter works better than social media -- you can maintain deep, meaningful relationships, with people far away and long ago, with people of the same and opposite gender, without getting involved in the muck of social media.
When I hear people refer to this as a long letter, I weep.
Just 20-30 years ago this was merely a letter. Most of my hand written letters were longer.
Just 20-30 years ago this was merely a letter. Most of my hand written letters were longer.
I still write long letters. Only to one person though, mostly. She writes back too, and we are each other's best friend. She introduced me to letter writing 5 years ago.
I've also written really long letters to a writer who has written back. I admire his work a lot. (one letter was 18 pages long, another was 42)
Curiously, I have received long responses from a lot of people, but the chain fizzled out mostly. It's just the two of us who write back and forth. I love writing letters.
I've also written really long letters to a writer who has written back. I admire his work a lot. (one letter was 18 pages long, another was 42)
Curiously, I have received long responses from a lot of people, but the chain fizzled out mostly. It's just the two of us who write back and forth. I love writing letters.
It’s a result of how long it took to send messages (days to months, depending on where the recipient was), and that it didn’t usually cost more to send six sheets of paper than one. You wanted to make sure to write everything you had to say.
[edit] it should be added that most of the people whose long letters are interesting and well-written enough that we still care about them were educated a particular kind of way, or at least were immersed in a culture of those who were. Classics and rhetoric—as in, they most likely read and considered parts of Ars Rhetorica during their education—to a much greater degree than we treat those subjects now. We move farther every year, it seems, from considering those to have any value for most people.
[edit] it should be added that most of the people whose long letters are interesting and well-written enough that we still care about them were educated a particular kind of way, or at least were immersed in a culture of those who were. Classics and rhetoric—as in, they most likely read and considered parts of Ars Rhetorica during their education—to a much greater degree than we treat those subjects now. We move farther every year, it seems, from considering those to have any value for most people.
Like a couple others in this thread, I have a hand-written correspondence with a small handful of people that I cherish.
I used to do the same like you did - email, with similar results - but I discovered there is something cathartic about sitting down and taking the time to let one's hand fly across the page, stroke after stroke. Because I write in ink, I can't take a stroke back - so I sometimes have to pause and think carefully about the next paragraph as a whole.
People respond to handwritten letters differently - it's not an email that gets sorted in their "to-do" folder only to be forgotten about. One can never be unconscious of the fact that this handwritten letter took time. Opening it, you are elated to find pages and pages of your friend's response that you can touch in your hands. The last time my correspondent even sent me an origami piece in the same envelope - he doesn't hand-write back, opting to type and print on nice paper - but my argument is that the surprise and genuine delight upon receiving a hand-written letter in the (regular!) mail compels people to respond in kind.
I recommend this quite un-modern substitute to you. If you're pressed for time, try writing a letter on a long flight.
I used to do the same like you did - email, with similar results - but I discovered there is something cathartic about sitting down and taking the time to let one's hand fly across the page, stroke after stroke. Because I write in ink, I can't take a stroke back - so I sometimes have to pause and think carefully about the next paragraph as a whole.
People respond to handwritten letters differently - it's not an email that gets sorted in their "to-do" folder only to be forgotten about. One can never be unconscious of the fact that this handwritten letter took time. Opening it, you are elated to find pages and pages of your friend's response that you can touch in your hands. The last time my correspondent even sent me an origami piece in the same envelope - he doesn't hand-write back, opting to type and print on nice paper - but my argument is that the surprise and genuine delight upon receiving a hand-written letter in the (regular!) mail compels people to respond in kind.
I recommend this quite un-modern substitute to you. If you're pressed for time, try writing a letter on a long flight.
I started writing letters to a friend and former coworker some years ago - and we live in the same city! This while we occasionally would get together for lunch, etc. He then moved elsewhere but we kept it up.
Definitely worth it.
Edit: Should add that for now we've reverted to email to limit the possibility of transmitting COVID-19 ;-)
Definitely worth it.
Edit: Should add that for now we've reverted to email to limit the possibility of transmitting COVID-19 ;-)
> I’m wondering if my experience is an outlier or if this is pretty much what everyone experiences today?
I experience very much the same issues. While I do occasionally have great conversations over IM with select few people, most are similar to what you describe, write a long letter and only receive a few sentences or less. I myself though do still prefer in person conversation, too much inflection, tones and meaning is lost in text based conversation, it is even taken the wrong way a lot as a result.
I experience very much the same issues. While I do occasionally have great conversations over IM with select few people, most are similar to what you describe, write a long letter and only receive a few sentences or less. I myself though do still prefer in person conversation, too much inflection, tones and meaning is lost in text based conversation, it is even taken the wrong way a lot as a result.
Communication is shorter because it is more frequent.
If you can keep people constantly updated about whatever, there is no need to write a long letter essentially repeating yourself.
If you can keep people constantly updated about whatever, there is no need to write a long letter essentially repeating yourself.
It is more frequent and more shallow. Deep sentiments are then never communicated (or even formulated). E.g. who cares really how the weather had been on your vacation, yet that is stated. But what are your plans for life once your children are grown? Are you going to share that in a WhatsUp status?
I used to do long personal emails.
I've recently started engaging my Facebook friends, Instagram followers, and new Tinder matches with daily installments. Not really a long letter, but the content is somewhere between a long letter and a short memoir. Many people are weirded out and confused but there are a number that really love it so far. I explain the concept in this video: https://youtu.be/zUC2aFkBHiw
I've recently started engaging my Facebook friends, Instagram followers, and new Tinder matches with daily installments. Not really a long letter, but the content is somewhere between a long letter and a short memoir. Many people are weirded out and confused but there are a number that really love it so far. I explain the concept in this video: https://youtu.be/zUC2aFkBHiw
Albus Dumbledore?!
> J.K. Rowling’s reply, in character as Albus Dumbledore, to a Professor of Colloid and Polymer Science who applied to become Defence Against the Dark Arts Professor at Hogwarts
Yeah, Marge Simpson too. It probably refers to a letter that the character wrote. But ignore those. Most of the list are real people.
I guess the Marge Simpson letter is notable because of Barbara Bush's warm and humble reply.
https://lettersofnote.com/2011/09/19/with-great-respect-marg...
https://lettersofnote.com/2011/09/19/with-great-respect-marg...
I think this is mainly a problem of social norms- there are few contexts today where people assume you want to have long-form discussion without you going out on a limb and stating it explicitly. Asking someone to coffee is one that still exists; I do this with friends sometimes. But another alternative is to just take that step and explicitly state what you'd like to do. It might be a little awkward, but I bet many people would be receptive.
Long letters have no value. You can find depth in long back and forth discussions because there is an actual exchange. Long letter were conveying / creating little value compared to the amount of words they are using.
As said president macron about a philosopher "he was light because he was profound" (ligth in the french sense of not being "heavy" / painfully laborious and annoying).
Learn the value of saying less.
As said president macron about a philosopher "he was light because he was profound" (ligth in the french sense of not being "heavy" / painfully laborious and annoying).
Learn the value of saying less.
In my experience, such long personal letters still take place in the form of actual physical letters. That and phone calls.
Perhaps blog posts?
That’s publishing. I’m asking about one to one communication. Like the long personal letter Feynman wrote to his colleague. People seem to do much less of that.
Reddit is a modern equivalent.
I write multiple emails of this length or longer every goddamned day. There's nothing particularly long about it, and if you think so, it's because you and your pals have the attention spans of gnats.
Put away your ipotato and use something with a keyboard. Get new friends if you have to. Also, stop texting: use the audio on your phone. That's what it is for.
Put away your ipotato and use something with a keyboard. Get new friends if you have to. Also, stop texting: use the audio on your phone. That's what it is for.
Great read. I've always loved Feynman - but the word "ego" might apply. "I was working on problems close to the gods", and his list of solved (and to be fair, unsolved) investigations remind me of his "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman". Clearly the most brilliant man, and also clearly with a healthy regard for himself. One has to look out at the world and, taking in the successful and unsuccessful, conclude that some ego about oneself might be more or less required for success.
I think we all want to believe that success can "go to your head", but I am beginning to believe the opposite: it's those with temerity and a certain precise lack of hubris who go on to do great things and do not "remain nameless" to the human race. Too many engineers eschew ego as much as possible, but (as Feynman points out) sometimes it's important to congratulate yourself.
I think we all want to believe that success can "go to your head", but I am beginning to believe the opposite: it's those with temerity and a certain precise lack of hubris who go on to do great things and do not "remain nameless" to the human race. Too many engineers eschew ego as much as possible, but (as Feynman points out) sometimes it's important to congratulate yourself.
Too few engineers eschew ego - this is Feynman's point.
Most people are not Feynman. Most engineers today think they have the capability of being Feynman one day - of course, statistics dictates that most will not be.
This is why Feynman's advice is powerful -
The worthwhile problems are the ones you can really solve or help solve, the ones you can really contribute something to.
Feynman here is instructing someone with too much ego, not too little. Koichi Mano thinks the problems he's working on are beneath him - that he should already be working on Feynman level problems! This is why he writes with shame to Feynman about his "humble" problem. Feynman demonstrates to him that no, no problem is too small, and backs it up with how he chipped away at "lesser" problems for a long time to build up confidence and competence. Finally, he closes with advice that could be ported to a middle manager at the smallest bureaucratic company who thinks they don't do anything important -
You say you are a nameless man. You are not to your wife and to your child. You will not long remain so to your immediate colleagues if you can answer their simple questions when they come into your office.
If you do not have too lofty of an opinion of yourself (less ego, not more), then you will not be ashamed of the problems you succeed in, and only then might you have the chance to do something important.
Most people are not Feynman. Most engineers today think they have the capability of being Feynman one day - of course, statistics dictates that most will not be.
This is why Feynman's advice is powerful -
The worthwhile problems are the ones you can really solve or help solve, the ones you can really contribute something to.
Feynman here is instructing someone with too much ego, not too little. Koichi Mano thinks the problems he's working on are beneath him - that he should already be working on Feynman level problems! This is why he writes with shame to Feynman about his "humble" problem. Feynman demonstrates to him that no, no problem is too small, and backs it up with how he chipped away at "lesser" problems for a long time to build up confidence and competence. Finally, he closes with advice that could be ported to a middle manager at the smallest bureaucratic company who thinks they don't do anything important -
You say you are a nameless man. You are not to your wife and to your child. You will not long remain so to your immediate colleagues if you can answer their simple questions when they come into your office.
If you do not have too lofty of an opinion of yourself (less ego, not more), then you will not be ashamed of the problems you succeed in, and only then might you have the chance to do something important.
I had a physics professor who liked to point out that Feynman (who we all idolized as college students studying physics) used to solve hundreds and hundreds of classical mechanics problems for fun, in his spare time. These were the same homework problems that we hated doing and always complained about.
The professor's point was, being great at something isn't just a matter of having a big powerful brain, it's also a result of putting in the work, and that work is not glamorous. A lot of people want to go straight to the big, fun, "important" problems, the big job titles and pay checks, while skipping all the toil that gets you to that level.
The professor's point was, being great at something isn't just a matter of having a big powerful brain, it's also a result of putting in the work, and that work is not glamorous. A lot of people want to go straight to the big, fun, "important" problems, the big job titles and pay checks, while skipping all the toil that gets you to that level.
> used to solve hundreds and hundreds of classical mechanics problems for fun, in his spare time. [emphasis added]
You kind of missed your own (or possibly your professor's) point there: being great at something is a matter (in part) not just of putting in the work, but of having the inclination and motivation to put in so much work. If you think of it as "all the toil that gets you to that level", you're not the kind of person who is going to become great in that field.
You kind of missed your own (or possibly your professor's) point there: being great at something is a matter (in part) not just of putting in the work, but of having the inclination and motivation to put in so much work. If you think of it as "all the toil that gets you to that level", you're not the kind of person who is going to become great in that field.
Indeed, I think it creates an odd inversion over the course of the educational process. The people who started with great work ethic and the motivation of a remunerative career, but little actual interest in the content, did great in high school but eventually gave up and switched majors.
The people with variable work ethic, but who could be motivated by the subject matter itself, mastered the subject and ended up with the remunerative careers "by accident."
The people with variable work ethic, but who could be motivated by the subject matter itself, mastered the subject and ended up with the remunerative careers "by accident."
A lesson I learned too late.
You have to be willing to do the work, yes, but also figure out what you really, really like doing, and then do it -- a lot. Over, and over, and over, for years or even decades.
You have to be willing to do the work, yes, but also figure out what you really, really like doing, and then do it -- a lot. Over, and over, and over, for years or even decades.
A lot of times its simply difficult to find what one really likes doing. But I agree that ones who do end up "succeeding" really follow the template you propose here.
That being said, running after high remuneration in and of itself isn't bad. Sometimes its just what you have to do because a lot of other people depend on it.
That being said, running after high remuneration in and of itself isn't bad. Sometimes its just what you have to do because a lot of other people depend on it.
Sure, I guess that's one way to look at it.
Problems can be quite humbling.
Taking on big stuff isn't necessarily a "big ego" thing, but getting upset that we didn't solve the problem might be.
In my experience, big problems get solved by teams. It's important to be a good team member, even if we are "close to the gods." From what I understand, Feynman seemed to work well in teams, but I never worked with him, so I don't know.
False humility isn't helpful either.
I have worked with, and known, many truly brilliant folks. Some were unbearable, and getting on their team meant you drew the short straw.
Others were so self-effacing that it was actually embarrassing. It was difficult to be on a team with them, as we often accidentally treated them disrespectfully, or ignored their input.
I think it was Mandela that said: "You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you."
Taking on big stuff isn't necessarily a "big ego" thing, but getting upset that we didn't solve the problem might be.
In my experience, big problems get solved by teams. It's important to be a good team member, even if we are "close to the gods." From what I understand, Feynman seemed to work well in teams, but I never worked with him, so I don't know.
False humility isn't helpful either.
I have worked with, and known, many truly brilliant folks. Some were unbearable, and getting on their team meant you drew the short straw.
Others were so self-effacing that it was actually embarrassing. It was difficult to be on a team with them, as we often accidentally treated them disrespectfully, or ignored their input.
I think it was Mandela that said: "You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you."
> Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.
Is this really true? I've always felt that people are more likely to open up and be themselves if I demonstrate that I'm a bit unsure of myself, too.
Don't get me wrong, I _hate_ when someone presents their work by saying "here's my poor attempt at X, it isn't very good" (which is especially enraging if their work is, in fact, good). But helping to bring more quiet members of the team out of their shell by sharing a bit of my own humanity, a bit of my own weakness? That seems like it does serve the world to me.
Is this really true? I've always felt that people are more likely to open up and be themselves if I demonstrate that I'm a bit unsure of myself, too.
Don't get me wrong, I _hate_ when someone presents their work by saying "here's my poor attempt at X, it isn't very good" (which is especially enraging if their work is, in fact, good). But helping to bring more quiet members of the team out of their shell by sharing a bit of my own humanity, a bit of my own weakness? That seems like it does serve the world to me.
Is this really true? I've always felt that people are more likely to open up and be themselves if I demonstrate that I'm a bit unsure of myself, too.
I think the key is that you shouldn't need to shrink. You can be competent and still have weaknesses that you openly acknowledge. And you can play with how you present those weaknesses, but that shouldn't require you to think less of yourself or to present yourself as less than what you are capable of.
I think the key is that you shouldn't need to shrink. You can be competent and still have weaknesses that you openly acknowledge. And you can play with how you present those weaknesses, but that shouldn't require you to think less of yourself or to present yourself as less than what you are capable of.
I think my interpretation was a little bit different on the first read. But looking back at the original quote, it does say "playing small" -- as in, pretending to be smaller than you are. I agree with you that that shouldn't be necessary.
I like your mindset. I think that we forget that we're all humans on this voyage.
Like I said, I have seen both extremes. I feel it's best when we are confident, but not cocksure.
There's always someone better. No matter how good I get, there's probably some kid in a Hanoi Internet café that can totally smoke my best.
But I won't hold back from doing my best, anyway.
Like I said, I have seen both extremes. I feel it's best when we are confident, but not cocksure.
There's always someone better. No matter how good I get, there's probably some kid in a Hanoi Internet café that can totally smoke my best.
But I won't hold back from doing my best, anyway.
That is a powerful quote.
Apparently the author (Marianne Williamson, not Mandela) was flabbergasted and honored that her words were being attributed to Mandela. [0]
0 https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/our-deepest-fear/
Apparently the author (Marianne Williamson, not Mandela) was flabbergasted and honored that her words were being attributed to Mandela. [0]
0 https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/our-deepest-fear/
Ah. Thanks for the correction. I will note that.
Yeah, that's why I said "I think."
LOTS of misattributed quotes out there.
My fave is "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet." -Abraham Lincoln.
UPDATED TO ADD:
I preface my Medium posts[0] with quotes, and those, I tend to research a bit more exhaustively. One of my entries[1] is prefaced by the quote "A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for."
The quote is by John A. Shedd[2], but is often attributed to Grace Hopper, who used it one of her speeches.
[0] https://medium.com/chrismarshallny
[1] https://medium.com/chrismarshallny/thats-not-what-ships-are-...
[2] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Augustus_Shedd
Yeah, that's why I said "I think."
LOTS of misattributed quotes out there.
My fave is "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet." -Abraham Lincoln.
UPDATED TO ADD:
I preface my Medium posts[0] with quotes, and those, I tend to research a bit more exhaustively. One of my entries[1] is prefaced by the quote "A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for."
The quote is by John A. Shedd[2], but is often attributed to Grace Hopper, who used it one of her speeches.
[0] https://medium.com/chrismarshallny
[1] https://medium.com/chrismarshallny/thats-not-what-ships-are-...
[2] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Augustus_Shedd
My mother's favorite actor, singing a song whose German lyrics include "a ship isn't designed just to lie in the harbor; it needs to sail out to the open sea", and other more scandalous metaphors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqzX-uZUtI4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqzX-uZUtI4
Boy, he had great teeth!
It kind of reminds me of how many people remember some particular middle school or high school teacher who had a big impact on them. It’s not like they literally saved their lives, but the way they taught and the lessons learned just stuck with folks.
> Most people are not Feynman. Most engineers today think they have the capability of being Feynman one day - of course, statistics dictates that most will not be.
But Feynman, at least in his written works, was more a reverse engineer than an actual engineer.
But Feynman, at least in his written works, was more a reverse engineer than an actual engineer.
Feynman had a key role in engineering the computations of Manhattan Project. I have no idea what could be more like engineering than this. "With Stanley Frankel and Nicholas Metropolis, he assisted in establishing a system for using IBM punched cards for computation."
But, on the other hand, physics could be described as a way to reverse engineer nature.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Manhattan_Proj...
But, on the other hand, physics could be described as a way to reverse engineer nature.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Manhattan_Proj...
"You met me at the peak of my career when I seemed to you to be concerned with problems close to the gods."
It sounds like Feynman remembered that his student thought highly of the problems he was working on late into his career. Feynman's encouraging his former student, as a recent graduate, to start out with low-hanging fruit.
He goes on to describe some of the easier problems that he worked on in the beginning of his career. That gave his former student some examples of worthwhile problems to start out with.
Personally, I think Feynman was very humble. Especially for a Nobel Prize winner.
It sounds like Feynman remembered that his student thought highly of the problems he was working on late into his career. Feynman's encouraging his former student, as a recent graduate, to start out with low-hanging fruit.
He goes on to describe some of the easier problems that he worked on in the beginning of his career. That gave his former student some examples of worthwhile problems to start out with.
Personally, I think Feynman was very humble. Especially for a Nobel Prize winner.
Feynman, like everyone, has his virtues and vices, but humility is definitely not among his strong points. The majority of the stories he tells about himself are anecdotes in which he is the smart person in the room making (maybe lighthearted and friendly) fun of others with a cheaply superficial pretence of humility.
I think it's likely they are two different types of humility in Feynman's case, whether it's external vs internal humility or problem solving vs social humility or what have you. It does seem to me that Feynman had a humility in how he approached problems that was bolstered by confidence, or perhaps lack of social humility.
The advice he gives in the letter is to be humble in how one approaches which problems to solve. I think it's good advice.
The advice he gives in the letter is to be humble in how one approaches which problems to solve. I think it's good advice.
In most cases he probably was the smartest person in the room.
If he managed to stay lighthearted and friendly while making fun of others he’s doing a better job than me, because I’ve lost much of my patience for stupidity.
If he managed to stay lighthearted and friendly while making fun of others he’s doing a better job than me, because I’ve lost much of my patience for stupidity.
he doesn't really have any right to make fun of others, though. Smart people forget that they require a tremendous amount of resources and support to make best use of their intelligence. A director may be a brilliant movie maker, but he needs a whole film company to realize his visions.
A lot of smart people berate others for their stupidity while relying on them for production power and resources to realize their visions or to make money off of them. There needs to be a lot more humility in general about others, especially since in fields like game design, there are way too many smart or skilled people chasing too few supporters/fans, to the point of underpricing the efforts of their labor.
A lot of smart people berate others for their stupidity while relying on them for production power and resources to realize their visions or to make money off of them. There needs to be a lot more humility in general about others, especially since in fields like game design, there are way too many smart or skilled people chasing too few supporters/fans, to the point of underpricing the efforts of their labor.
We smart people can always hire other serfs. ;)
No, sorry. I agree everybody deserves to be treated with respect, but in my experience many people who talk the talk you talk do not walk the walk at all: if they get a chance to crush somebody smarter or more able than themselves many have no limits whatsoever (except avoiding practical consequences to themselves)...
The thing with people like Feynman who are driven by curiosity is that they are not always “super nice”, but they get no joy out of ridiculing or humiliating other people, the way a lot of “small people” do, unfortunately. I’d much prefer being teased by Feynman than being verbally abused by some of the power and money hungry mediocre people I’ve come across.
No, sorry. I agree everybody deserves to be treated with respect, but in my experience many people who talk the talk you talk do not walk the walk at all: if they get a chance to crush somebody smarter or more able than themselves many have no limits whatsoever (except avoiding practical consequences to themselves)...
The thing with people like Feynman who are driven by curiosity is that they are not always “super nice”, but they get no joy out of ridiculing or humiliating other people, the way a lot of “small people” do, unfortunately. I’d much prefer being teased by Feynman than being verbally abused by some of the power and money hungry mediocre people I’ve come across.
> In most cases he probably was the smartest person in the room.
Excepting the times, of course, when John von Neumann was there.
Excepting the times, of course, when John von Neumann was there.
In his stories he was. And while it was fun to believe him when I was reading them as a teen, now I'm inclined to take most of it with a huge grain of salt.
I don't know. I remember realizing when reading some of his stories, that they are fun to read but I would find that obnoxious/annoying in person.
He seemed to be remarkably charming - so I'm not sure how annoying such behaviour actually would have been.
During the encounter you’d perhaps laugh.
Afterwards you’d find yourself dazed and confused, wondering what happened and what steamrolled you in front of everyone.
Afterwards you’d find yourself dazed and confused, wondering what happened and what steamrolled you in front of everyone.
I just finished reading _Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!_ and I agree - the word that described most of his stories to me was "boastful". Most of his stories involve him being more clever than everyone else around him, rather pointedly.
However, whenever he talks about getting recruited or being tasked with something important, he always claimed to be astonished that anyone thought "little Feynman" worthy of such a high task. I take him at his word that this was his reaction.
I'm not sure what to make of this.
I'll add that though his bragging felt a little distasteful to me, I greatly enjoyed the tales and deeply appreciated his honesty and forthrightness about his life (including aspects I find less savory, like womanizing).
I'd absolutely recommend the book, but perhaps try _The Feynman Tapes_ on audiobook if possible because they're the recordings of his own speech that was written down and became the book.
However, whenever he talks about getting recruited or being tasked with something important, he always claimed to be astonished that anyone thought "little Feynman" worthy of such a high task. I take him at his word that this was his reaction.
I'm not sure what to make of this.
I'll add that though his bragging felt a little distasteful to me, I greatly enjoyed the tales and deeply appreciated his honesty and forthrightness about his life (including aspects I find less savory, like womanizing).
I'd absolutely recommend the book, but perhaps try _The Feynman Tapes_ on audiobook if possible because they're the recordings of his own speech that was written down and became the book.
>Most of his stories involve him being more clever than everyone else around him, rather pointedly.
Well, what would you have expected him to write? He was more clever than everyone around him in virtually every room he was in, for his whole life. Usain Bolt's biography would not have very many stories about the times he was outrun by people. Feynman had a healthy attitude about assigned-at-birth characteristics, he didn't deny them, but he didn't let them make him insufferable either.
Well, what would you have expected him to write? He was more clever than everyone around him in virtually every room he was in, for his whole life. Usain Bolt's biography would not have very many stories about the times he was outrun by people. Feynman had a healthy attitude about assigned-at-birth characteristics, he didn't deny them, but he didn't let them make him insufferable either.
That certainly wasn't the case in the Manhattan project.
Nonetheless, I see your point - most of the time, the alternative would have been to simply not tell the story, and I'm glad these stories were told.
Nonetheless, I see your point - most of the time, the alternative would have been to simply not tell the story, and I'm glad these stories were told.
I remember reading that people who are insecure about something, criticize or make fun others having that quality to feel better about themselves.
If this is true, then maybe Feynman really was insecure about his intelligence ("humble"), and his "boastful" stories were to make him feel better about himself and to cover up this insecurity.
(I am not a psychologist, so I can be completely wrong here.)
If this is true, then maybe Feynman really was insecure about his intelligence ("humble"), and his "boastful" stories were to make him feel better about himself and to cover up this insecurity.
(I am not a psychologist, so I can be completely wrong here.)
I think over the course of his life he became more confident as accolades and successes grew
Quite. Much of the cult status of Feynman was created by the man himself. He had several books written espousing his genius. As for his charm - salesmen are charming, psychopaths are charming. Charm is a 5 letter word for manipulative, as many of his colleagues wives discovered.
Your cynicism is off the charts.
Paying attention to people, listening to them carefully, answering questions and explaining things clearly, talking to them as equals instead of patronizing, etc. is not inherently “manipulative” or “psychopathic”.
Paying attention to people, listening to them carefully, answering questions and explaining things clearly, talking to them as equals instead of patronizing, etc. is not inherently “manipulative” or “psychopathic”.
The book 'Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman' by James Gleick is very balanced. Anyone that has read Surely You're Joking should also read Genius before they start their career.
Charming people are charming.
The word is just a shorthand for people who are able to express themselves in a way that puts other people at ease and engenders a positive emotional state.
It’s pretty much an unmitigated positive trait. Like any positive trait it can be paired with all sorts of other characteristics positive or negative.
But there’s really just nothing wrong with being charming, and no moral authority that derives from not being so.
The word is just a shorthand for people who are able to express themselves in a way that puts other people at ease and engenders a positive emotional state.
It’s pretty much an unmitigated positive trait. Like any positive trait it can be paired with all sorts of other characteristics positive or negative.
But there’s really just nothing wrong with being charming, and no moral authority that derives from not being so.
Perhaps it's neither a positive nor a negative trait, but rather a power with which comes the responsibility to use it for positive purposes?
[deleted]
I think you do him a disservice when you quote it out of context. “You met me at the peak of my career when I seemed to you to be concerned with problems close to the gods.“ doesn’t read like hubris to me, in fact it kind of reads like to opposite. A professor does seem impressive to his students, and Feynman points out its even at the hight of his career which is where he would have appeared the most impressive.
I think that goes well with the encouraging message of finding your place in the world, because you need it to progress.
I think that goes well with the encouraging message of finding your place in the world, because you need it to progress.
>> One has to look out at the world and, taking in the successful and unsuccessful, conclude that some ego about oneself might be more or less required for success.
Well, if you don't think you pack a punch or can take a beating, you don't throw your hat into the ring.
The problem is always to know how to strike a balance- believe in yourself, know what you can achieve, but don't become an overblown bag of farts. Why? Because obviously nobody can stand knowing they're an overblown bag of farts, so if someone is, they don't know the first thing: who they are.
Socrates, the wisest of men, knew how to get out of this one. "I know one thing, and I know it well: I know nothing at all", he said [1]. And, he said, "know thyself" [2].
A scientist is driven by what she doesn't know, and wishes to know. But she must know the immensity of the task, lest she become an idiot who thinks she knows and knows nothing, John Snow.
________
[1] my liberal translation of his laconic "εν οίδα οτι ουδέν οίδα", "I know one thing, that I know no thing".
[2] "Γνώθι σαυτόν".
Well, if you don't think you pack a punch or can take a beating, you don't throw your hat into the ring.
The problem is always to know how to strike a balance- believe in yourself, know what you can achieve, but don't become an overblown bag of farts. Why? Because obviously nobody can stand knowing they're an overblown bag of farts, so if someone is, they don't know the first thing: who they are.
Socrates, the wisest of men, knew how to get out of this one. "I know one thing, and I know it well: I know nothing at all", he said [1]. And, he said, "know thyself" [2].
A scientist is driven by what she doesn't know, and wishes to know. But she must know the immensity of the task, lest she become an idiot who thinks she knows and knows nothing, John Snow.
________
[1] my liberal translation of his laconic "εν οίδα οτι ουδέν οίδα", "I know one thing, that I know no thing".
[2] "Γνώθι σαυτόν".
Quoting Ernest Becker from his The Denial of Death:
"In man a working level of narcissism is inseparable from self-esteem, from a basic sense of self-worth. His sense of self-worth is constituted symbolically, his cherished narcissism feeds on symbols, on an abstract idea of his own worth, an idea composed of words, sounds and images, in the air, in the mind, on paper."
"It is natural for a man to strive to be a hero, it goes deeply in his evolutionary and organismic constitution, and yet the society gets chills when someone admits the honesty of it."
"In man a working level of narcissism is inseparable from self-esteem, from a basic sense of self-worth. His sense of self-worth is constituted symbolically, his cherished narcissism feeds on symbols, on an abstract idea of his own worth, an idea composed of words, sounds and images, in the air, in the mind, on paper."
"It is natural for a man to strive to be a hero, it goes deeply in his evolutionary and organismic constitution, and yet the society gets chills when someone admits the honesty of it."
I got the opposite impression regarding the list. To me it seemed to be trying to illustrate that he was not always working on grand ideas (one of them was a theory of how to fold paper to make a children's toy, after all).
Ego is important because it allows you to seriously attempt problems that many people would consider beyond them.
If you genuinely believe that you can achieve something, you might be willing to sink many months of nonstop work into it despite zero tangible progress. Someone without that ego may not have the tolerance to last that long without progress while still believing it's a good use of time.
If you genuinely believe that you can achieve something, you might be willing to sink many months of nonstop work into it despite zero tangible progress. Someone without that ego may not have the tolerance to last that long without progress while still believing it's a good use of time.
> Ego is important because it allows you to seriously attempt problems that many people would consider beyond them.
This implies that a lack of ego will prevent you from attempting the same thing.
One doesn't need ego to have a healthy awareness of how significant factors like self-discipline, timing, opportunity, privilege, access to resources, and myriad others can be when it comes to success.
This implies that a lack of ego will prevent you from attempting the same thing.
One doesn't need ego to have a healthy awareness of how significant factors like self-discipline, timing, opportunity, privilege, access to resources, and myriad others can be when it comes to success.
Ego probably helps in cases where the investment of time and effort is irrational. Of course, for most people, that's not really 'helping' at all, since they end up investing too much time and effort in hopeless projects. But I guess a few egotistical people luck out and succeed at something which they had very little chance of succeeding at.
This is the definition of start-up culture :)
You filleted the quote. He said.
> You met me at the peak of my career when I seemed to you to be concerned with problems close to the gods.
This is not ego
> You met me at the peak of my career when I seemed to you to be concerned with problems close to the gods.
This is not ego
Indeed - "seemed to you".
Most the discussion is a bit silly.
Some people can't escape "crab bucket" mentality, and have to tear down people who've worked hard to do great things. Perhaps it's unsurprising that those people post in online forums to take cheap shots at dead people.
> Too many engineers eschew ego
I'd like to work wherever you do. ;x
I'd like to work wherever you do. ;x
Maybe you just don't notice the ones who eschew ego? After all, that's precisely the conundrum here.
He had a gargantuan ego... and gargantuan accomplishments to back it up. The Michael Jordan of late 20th century physics, in more ways than one.
"Michael Jordan is the Richard Feynman of late 20th century sports." (Sorry, couldn't resist.. :)
True, it's inflated ego which is a problem. From what I've read about Feynman, I doubt his ego was inflated.
Indeed - if anything his ego was _accurate_ - he correctly thought of himself as the smartest in the room. The question is, did his success lead to his ego, or did his ego lead to his success? I certainly do not mean to defame him - I practically worship Feynman - I've just been exploring the idea that a little bit of ego can really aid in accomplishing big tasks.
One of the earliest stories of his career was breaking into people's offices at Los Alamos and picking their safes to get access to their Manhattan project reports when he was impatient and didn't want to wait for them. I think he's had a healthy does of ego right from the beginning.
Feynman's beginning was very early. Before he joined the Manhattan Project he had already published work that appears in textbooks today.
What you call who I call a healthy disrespect for bad rules that impede people trying to get real work done.
What you call who I call a healthy disrespect for bad rules that impede people trying to get real work done.
"I was working on problems close to the gods"
He’s saying that he’s working on the important stuff, figuring out how the universe works.
I imagine he was simply trying to be poetic.
He’s saying that he’s working on the important stuff, figuring out how the universe works.
I imagine he was simply trying to be poetic.
I think you misread this because he certainly did not say or imply "I was working on problems close to the gods", in fact the phrase he used was "when I seemed to you to be concerned with problems close to the gods", meaning that others considered the things he worked on as being "close to the gods" only because they did not understand them at the same level he did - his list of experiments/problems was about how mundane the problems he was solving actually were. It did not read as him having much of an ego. Most of the problems he worked on have little to no impact on society or people's daily lives, most people still have never even heard of Feynman, and he knew most people wouldn't. That's not ego. If Feynman did have any ego it came from the pleasure he got from living an interesting life, not by how smart he was compared to the rest of humanity.
>
Most of the problems he worked on have little to no impact on society or people's daily lives
Only because he solved so many problems that his side work is more substantial than most successful people's careers.
"Physicist Richard Feynman helped create the atomic bomb, shared a Nobel Prize for his work on quantum electrodynamics, and helped to figure out the source of the space shuttle Challenger explosion" -+livescience.com
Only because he solved so many problems that his side work is more substantial than most successful people's careers.
"Physicist Richard Feynman helped create the atomic bomb, shared a Nobel Prize for his work on quantum electrodynamics, and helped to figure out the source of the space shuttle Challenger explosion" -+livescience.com
Ego is necessary to protect a rather fragile flame of intelligence. When the flame becomes stable, the ego can be discarded. Some do, and in case of Feynman, if he did that, he would be called St. Richard; while some choose to turn their ego into a blast furnace, so the fire would turn inwards.
Sometime ago, I made a MVP for a video game that captured the attention of my peers. They liked playing it, I liked coding it, and I felt very much that it contained a story that deserved to be heard.
But I let grandiosity distract me. “This is just a video game, isn’t it? I mean, it's really cool but shouldn’t I be spending my spare time on something, I don’t know, bigger?”
So I decided to stop and apply myself onto bigger & better (& vaguer) problems whatever they may be. A year passes and, surprise, I found no problem worth my time, and nothing that was fascinating to me as the fruit of that silly little side-project.
The OP’s letter clarifies the lesson I learned: “No problem is too small or too trivial if we can really do something about it”. The video game may have been small, but not only did I care for it, I could also solve it. And If I want to get better at problem-solving. I have to actually solve problems. To paraphrase Feymann, that means figuring out the problems I _can_ solve, not just care to solve, first and then building up the meta-skill from there.
A simple lesson that took me a long, long time to learn.
But I let grandiosity distract me. “This is just a video game, isn’t it? I mean, it's really cool but shouldn’t I be spending my spare time on something, I don’t know, bigger?”
So I decided to stop and apply myself onto bigger & better (& vaguer) problems whatever they may be. A year passes and, surprise, I found no problem worth my time, and nothing that was fascinating to me as the fruit of that silly little side-project.
The OP’s letter clarifies the lesson I learned: “No problem is too small or too trivial if we can really do something about it”. The video game may have been small, but not only did I care for it, I could also solve it. And If I want to get better at problem-solving. I have to actually solve problems. To paraphrase Feymann, that means figuring out the problems I _can_ solve, not just care to solve, first and then building up the meta-skill from there.
A simple lesson that took me a long, long time to learn.
I appreciate the example. Often times I find myself in this thought pattern as well: is this problem beneath me?
"You say you are a nameless man. You are not to your wife and to your child. You will not long remain so to your immediate colleagues if you can answer their simple questions when they come into your office. You are not nameless to me. Do not remain nameless to yourself – it is too sad a way to be. Know your place in the world and evaluate yourself fairly, not in terms of your naïve ideals of your own youth, nor in terms of what you erroneously imagine your teacher’s ideals are."
Something I am going to share with my engineering/science related friends. You can't be shy forever as long as you are going to be a responsible father.
Something I am going to share with my engineering/science related friends. You can't be shy forever as long as you are going to be a responsible father.
As I read it, this letter isn't about the problem of shyness. It's about feeling unsuccessful and unknown ("nameless") because of the small scope of what you're working on.
It took me a while to realise that following Dijkstra's dictum "do only, what only you can do" not only means tackling intellectual problems that one is uniquely suited to address, but also means being the husband and the father.
(the latter being unique up to isomorphism, but if we're not willing to accept a strict equality, it leads us into Ship of Theseus questions about personal identity...)
TIL Al was not only Feynman's student but also a possible inspiration for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaemons , upon reading the wonderful:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/10/24/dres...
(the latter being unique up to isomorphism, but if we're not willing to accept a strict equality, it leads us into Ship of Theseus questions about personal identity...)
TIL Al was not only Feynman's student but also a possible inspiration for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaemons , upon reading the wonderful:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/10/24/dres...
> "do only, what only you can do"
This also reminds me of the famous Theodore Roosevelt’s quote “do what you can with what you have wherever you are”. This ties quite well with the letter too, it doesn’t make much sense to dream about bigger deeds, problems and achievements instead of really applying yourself to the things at hand.
This also reminds me of the famous Theodore Roosevelt’s quote “do what you can with what you have wherever you are”. This ties quite well with the letter too, it doesn’t make much sense to dream about bigger deeds, problems and achievements instead of really applying yourself to the things at hand.
I wonder if Koichi Mano's phrasing "a humble and down-to-earth type of problem" is simply Japanese politeness. And this beautiful letter a chance result of two cultures not entirely understanding each other. That is a nice thought.
I grew up in Japan as well as in the U.S., and I'm inclined to agree with your take. This brilliant letter is the result of a cross-cultural exchange of ideas, philosophy, ways of life.
There's a strong Buddhist influence in Japanese culture, and in that value system, it's emphasized that selflessness is a virtue. "The nameless" is one of the phrases in this tradition, for pointing at the "ineffable mystery" - similar to how other religions like Christianity have words to talk about God indirectly, in deference, as "the Lord" or "the Highest".
In American culture, there's a strong tradition of individualism, self-reliance, and self-respect. Also, generally speaking, there's a sense of society as a competition.
On both sides, there are unhealthy extremes. The self-effacing approach can lead to loss of confidence and purpose, and to suppress the fullest expression of one's unique nature. And being "full of oneself" can lead to arrogance, blindness to one's own limitations, lack of empathy, and so on.
Personally, I read Feynman's letter and feel his humanity, the care and consideration for fellow thinkers, to encourage and support each person to value who they are.
Maybe the Japanese colleague did not need that advice, with a whole another understanding of the value and pride of being nameless - but, I tend to believe that Feynman sensed something, and had empathy to feel that this person needed to hear positive words to be confident in who they are and what they do.
There's a strong Buddhist influence in Japanese culture, and in that value system, it's emphasized that selflessness is a virtue. "The nameless" is one of the phrases in this tradition, for pointing at the "ineffable mystery" - similar to how other religions like Christianity have words to talk about God indirectly, in deference, as "the Lord" or "the Highest".
In American culture, there's a strong tradition of individualism, self-reliance, and self-respect. Also, generally speaking, there's a sense of society as a competition.
On both sides, there are unhealthy extremes. The self-effacing approach can lead to loss of confidence and purpose, and to suppress the fullest expression of one's unique nature. And being "full of oneself" can lead to arrogance, blindness to one's own limitations, lack of empathy, and so on.
Personally, I read Feynman's letter and feel his humanity, the care and consideration for fellow thinkers, to encourage and support each person to value who they are.
Maybe the Japanese colleague did not need that advice, with a whole another understanding of the value and pride of being nameless - but, I tend to believe that Feynman sensed something, and had empathy to feel that this person needed to hear positive words to be confident in who they are and what they do.
Even if Koicho Mano didn't need the letter, the world is lucky Feynman wrote it.
Some advice that I give to aspiring game programmers is: Start small. You're not going to remake Fallout on your first go. Your first project should be something like a text adventure game -- something that you can reach the end of quickly with the skills you have. If you reach the end of that project quickly, you will taste victory early and this will be nitro in your motivation tank that will help you complete the next-bigger project.
> ... Feynman replied with an enquiry about Mano’s current job, to which Mano responded that he was “studying the Coherence theory with some applications to the propagation of electromagnetic waves through turbulent atmosphere […] a humble and down-to-earth type of problem.” Feynman responded with this letter.
I must be missing something. Feynman's letter is full of good advice about the crucial importance of choosing problems to work on carefully, and how to do that.
But Mano's inquiry doesn't seem to warrant Feynman's response, which seeks to correct an error. I can't find one in the short quote from Mano's letter. Where is the original?
I must be missing something. Feynman's letter is full of good advice about the crucial importance of choosing problems to work on carefully, and how to do that.
But Mano's inquiry doesn't seem to warrant Feynman's response, which seeks to correct an error. I can't find one in the short quote from Mano's letter. Where is the original?
I think the error was that Mano referred to his coherence theory problem as "humble and down-to-earth". Feynman sought to correct the implicit assumption that there is some natural dividing line between "humble" and "great" problems. I think he would reject that such a thing as a humble problem does not exist.
In one of Feynman's books he talks about being dispirited and in a rut in his career, and breaking out of it by working on a toy problem inspired by something like plates in a cafeteria.
The error mentioned is that Feynman (as PhD supervisor) supplied an important thesis topic to Mano. Mano didn't get the experience of how to evaluate a problem and find motivation within it:
"I accepted [someone else] as a student because he came to me with the problem he wanted to solve. With you I made a mistake, I gave you the problem instead of letting you find your own; and left you with a wrong idea of what is interesting or pleasant or important to work on (namely those problems you see you may do something about)."
"I accepted [someone else] as a student because he came to me with the problem he wanted to solve. With you I made a mistake, I gave you the problem instead of letting you find your own; and left you with a wrong idea of what is interesting or pleasant or important to work on (namely those problems you see you may do something about)."
Funnily enough, I was reading this letter last week as part of the excellent compilation, Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track (which has many more letters).
I've always admired Feynman's ability and perseverance to "see" something immediately as opposed to doing the long and drawn out calculations that are a badge of honor among engineering grads. Actually he mentioned this need to "see" through problems in one of his stories with John Wheeler who was able to immediately understand the ideas of self-action of an electron that Feynman was presenting with equations were just describing reflected light.
I imagine that in this case, Feynman saw immediately what problems the student was grappling with and had the words to communicate those thoughts in an unpretentious way. It certainly struck a chord with me.
I've always admired Feynman's ability and perseverance to "see" something immediately as opposed to doing the long and drawn out calculations that are a badge of honor among engineering grads. Actually he mentioned this need to "see" through problems in one of his stories with John Wheeler who was able to immediately understand the ideas of self-action of an electron that Feynman was presenting with equations were just describing reflected light.
I imagine that in this case, Feynman saw immediately what problems the student was grappling with and had the words to communicate those thoughts in an unpretentious way. It certainly struck a chord with me.
Feynman's quality (apart from home obvious intellect and contributions to science) is that he has a knack for dispelling pretense.
There's a clip of him on YT in a BBC documentary explaining he can admire a flower just as much if not more than an artistic mind. He wanted to drop the pretense of an analytical mind somehow being less expressive or emotional. He goes on to explain how the science behind the flower is beautiful.
There's a clip of him on YT in a BBC documentary explaining he can admire a flower just as much if not more than an artistic mind. He wanted to drop the pretense of an analytical mind somehow being less expressive or emotional. He goes on to explain how the science behind the flower is beautiful.
Can someone explain why Mano's job description prompted this response from Feynman? I don't know enough to understand what this problem is, or why Feynman thinks any person solving it would be sad.
Feynman was sad that Mano seemed to have a low view of himself. He had described his work as trying to solve a “humble and down-to-earth type of problem” — in contrast to the supposedly more majestic problems that he had seen Feynman solve.
I’m thinking Feynman is a bit high on himself. He assumes that someone who states that his own work is “humble and down-to-earth” has a low view of yourself.
Some Michelin Star chef might ask me what I had for dinner, I’d reply “burgers!”, they’d go “don’t be sad”.
I’d go, “eff you, I didn’t say I don’t like burgers! I love burgers!”
Some Michelin Star chef might ask me what I had for dinner, I’d reply “burgers!”, they’d go “don’t be sad”.
I’d go, “eff you, I didn’t say I don’t like burgers! I love burgers!”
Isn’t it Mano’s self-description as “a nameless man” that Feynman is objecting to?
Or to put it differently, "put your own small dent in the universe"
A couple years ago I built a new website for a local shop. It was a straightforward project - a problem I "could really solve easily" - but it had a real and material impact on the lives of some wonderful people who in turn had a material impact on their community. I sometimes look back at that work as being, in certain ways, more fulfilling than any of the more challenging work I've done since.
A couple years ago I built a new website for a local shop. It was a straightforward project - a problem I "could really solve easily" - but it had a real and material impact on the lives of some wonderful people who in turn had a material impact on their community. I sometimes look back at that work as being, in certain ways, more fulfilling than any of the more challenging work I've done since.
> The worthwhile problems are the ones you can really solve or help solve, the ones you can really contribute something to.
This feels like Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage applied to a philosophy of Living the Good Life. The pleasure comes from contributed your unique insight to a solution that enhances the greater good.
This feels like Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage applied to a philosophy of Living the Good Life. The pleasure comes from contributed your unique insight to a solution that enhances the greater good.
Feynman talks about this in his book, "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman"
-----------
Then I had another thought: Physics disgusts me a little bit now, but I used to enjoy doing physics. Why did I enjoy it? I used to play with it. I used to do whatever I felt like doing - it didn't have to do with whether it was important for the development of nuclear physics, but whether it was interesting and amusing for me to play with. When I was in high school, I'd see water running out of a faucet growing narrower, and wonder if I could figure out what determines that curve. I found it was rather easy to do. I didn't have to do it; it wasn't important for the future of science; somebody else had already done it. That didn't make any difference. I'd invent things and play with things for my own entertainment. So I got this new attitude. Now that I am burned out and I'll never accomplish anything, I've got this nice position at the university teaching classes which I rather enjoy, and just like I read the Arabian Nights for pleasure, I'm going to play with physics, whenever I want to, without worrying about any importance whatsoever.
Within a week I was in the cafeteria and some guy, fooling around, throws a plate in the air. As the plate went up in the air I saw it wobble, and I noticed the red medallion of Cornell on the plate going around. It was pretty obvious to me that the medallion went around faster than the wobbling.
I had nothing to do, so I start to figure out the motion of the rotating plate. I discover that when the angle is very slight, the medallion rotates twice as fast as the wobble rate - two to one [Note: Feynman mis-remembers here---the factor of 2 is the other way]. It came out of a complicated equation! Then I thought, "Is there some way I can see in a more fundamental way, by looking at the forces or the dynamics, why it's two to one?"
I don't remember how I did it, but I ultimately worked out what the motion of the mass particles is, and how all the accelerations balance to make it come out two to one.
I still remember going to Hans Bethe and saying, "Hey, Hans! I noticed something interesting. Here the plate goes around so, and the reason it's two to one is ..." and I showed him the accelerations.
He says, "Feynman, that's pretty interesting, but what's the importance of it? Why are you doing it?"
"Hah!" I say. "There's no importance whatsoever. I'm just doing it for the fun of it." His reaction didn't discourage me; I had made up my mind I was going to enjoy physics and do whatever I liked.
I went on to work out equations of wobbles. Then I thought about how electron orbits start to move in relativity. Then there's the Dirac Equation in electrodynamics. And then quantum electrodynamics. And before I knew it (it was a very short time) I was "playing" - working, really - with the same old problem that I loved so much, that I had stopped working on when I went to Los Alamos: my thesis-type problems; all those old-fashioned, wonderful things.
It was effortless. It was easy to play with these things. It was like uncorking a bottle: Everything flowed out effortlessly. I almost tried to resist it! There was no importance to what I was doing, but ultimately there was. The diagrams and the whole business that I got the Nobel Prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate.
-----------
Then I had another thought: Physics disgusts me a little bit now, but I used to enjoy doing physics. Why did I enjoy it? I used to play with it. I used to do whatever I felt like doing - it didn't have to do with whether it was important for the development of nuclear physics, but whether it was interesting and amusing for me to play with. When I was in high school, I'd see water running out of a faucet growing narrower, and wonder if I could figure out what determines that curve. I found it was rather easy to do. I didn't have to do it; it wasn't important for the future of science; somebody else had already done it. That didn't make any difference. I'd invent things and play with things for my own entertainment. So I got this new attitude. Now that I am burned out and I'll never accomplish anything, I've got this nice position at the university teaching classes which I rather enjoy, and just like I read the Arabian Nights for pleasure, I'm going to play with physics, whenever I want to, without worrying about any importance whatsoever.
Within a week I was in the cafeteria and some guy, fooling around, throws a plate in the air. As the plate went up in the air I saw it wobble, and I noticed the red medallion of Cornell on the plate going around. It was pretty obvious to me that the medallion went around faster than the wobbling.
I had nothing to do, so I start to figure out the motion of the rotating plate. I discover that when the angle is very slight, the medallion rotates twice as fast as the wobble rate - two to one [Note: Feynman mis-remembers here---the factor of 2 is the other way]. It came out of a complicated equation! Then I thought, "Is there some way I can see in a more fundamental way, by looking at the forces or the dynamics, why it's two to one?"
I don't remember how I did it, but I ultimately worked out what the motion of the mass particles is, and how all the accelerations balance to make it come out two to one.
I still remember going to Hans Bethe and saying, "Hey, Hans! I noticed something interesting. Here the plate goes around so, and the reason it's two to one is ..." and I showed him the accelerations.
He says, "Feynman, that's pretty interesting, but what's the importance of it? Why are you doing it?"
"Hah!" I say. "There's no importance whatsoever. I'm just doing it for the fun of it." His reaction didn't discourage me; I had made up my mind I was going to enjoy physics and do whatever I liked.
I went on to work out equations of wobbles. Then I thought about how electron orbits start to move in relativity. Then there's the Dirac Equation in electrodynamics. And then quantum electrodynamics. And before I knew it (it was a very short time) I was "playing" - working, really - with the same old problem that I loved so much, that I had stopped working on when I went to Los Alamos: my thesis-type problems; all those old-fashioned, wonderful things.
It was effortless. It was easy to play with these things. It was like uncorking a bottle: Everything flowed out effortlessly. I almost tried to resist it! There was no importance to what I was doing, but ultimately there was. The diagrams and the whole business that I got the Nobel Prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate.
“The worthwhile problems are the ones you can really solve or help solve, the ones you can really contribute something to.”
The ones we can solve right now? Or the ones we might solve eventually... if we make the right choices and exert the right effort?
The ones we can solve right now? Or the ones we might solve eventually... if we make the right choices and exert the right effort?
Perhaps Mano was making a pun on "down-to-earth" and Feynman in his single-minded arrogance simply missed that.
The arrogance of physicists is so "normalized" at this point. Perhaps there are exceptions, but the most humble that I've seen (was just watching a presentation by Kip Thorne tonight, etc.) are full of humblebrag. It's seriously a problem.
In particular, among a culture that celebrates the Nobel prize. The most non-Nobel prize thing Feynman could've done is instead of saying "take it back, etc, etc." - would've been to keep doing good physics and just ignore it. That's the part so many people miss. It's a culture of obsession over insight. And this letter is more a therapy session for Feynman than anything else.
No problem, no discussion.
The arrogance of physicists is so "normalized" at this point. Perhaps there are exceptions, but the most humble that I've seen (was just watching a presentation by Kip Thorne tonight, etc.) are full of humblebrag. It's seriously a problem.
In particular, among a culture that celebrates the Nobel prize. The most non-Nobel prize thing Feynman could've done is instead of saying "take it back, etc, etc." - would've been to keep doing good physics and just ignore it. That's the part so many people miss. It's a culture of obsession over insight. And this letter is more a therapy session for Feynman than anything else.
No problem, no discussion.
A great read and a lesson many of us can take solace in.
I like to write letters with people. HMU.
> written correspondence includes letters from: Jane Austen, Richard Burton, Helen Keller, Alan Turing, Albus Dumbledore, Eleanor Roosevelt, Henry James, Sylvia Plath, John Lennon, Gerald Durrell, Janis Joplin, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Hunter S. Thompson, C. G. Jung, Katherine Mansfield, Marge Simpson, David Bowie, Dorothy Parker, Buckminster Fuller, Beatrix Potter, Che Guevara, Evelyn Waugh, Charlotte Brontë.
These are some important and busy people. Yet they wrote long personal letters. Whenever I write a long personal letter (by email), the most I get back is 3 or 4 sentences. And forget about having a real discussion by IM or WhatsApp — the replies are two-word sound bites. As far as I can tell, the only place real personal discussion takes place now is in person. Kind of ironic that we have far greater communication power than any of those letter writers did. I’m wondering if my experience is an outlier or if this is pretty much what everyone experiences today?