Feynman’s Breakthrough, Disregard Others (2017)
stepsandleaps.wordpress.com
Feynman’s Breakthrough, Disregard Others (2017)
1–10 of 88 posts
Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough, Disregard Others (2017)
#2This resembles the titular lesson from (Feynman’s second set of memoirs) “Why do you care what other people think?” ... when he had a breakthrough by stopping himself from caring about expectations and just started playing with what interested him. That led to the discovery which led to his Nobel prize.
Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough, Disregard Others (2017)
#3Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15497442
Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough, Disregard Others (2017)
#4Not caring about what other people think is truly freeing. The other important ting to realize is people just don't care most of the time.
Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough, Disregard Others (2017)
#5This resembles the titular lesson from (Feynman’s second set of memoirs) “Why do you care what other people think?” ... when he had a breakthrough by stopping himself from caring about expectations and just started playing with what interested him. That led to the discovery which led to his Nobel prize.
From it’s wiki:
“Of note is the story of his first wife, Arline, who was diagnosed with tuberculosis. She died while Feynman was working on the Manhattan Project; the book's title is taken from a question she often put to him when he seemed preoccupied with his colleagues' opinions about his work, which echoed his earlier words to her.”
Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough, Disregard Others (2017)
#6It is subtle that he didn't just dismiss others, per se. He specifically disregarded what they were working on. If he was brought in to consult or help, he was now working on it so would help.
That is, he did not dismiss people. Or problems brought to him. He just did not worry about reinventing wheels. Odds are, other people are working on something and have made really smart contributions. Don't worry about that. Take advantage of it when you can, but largely don't worry about it.
Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough, Disregard Others (2017)
#7This feels like the sort of advice that increases the variance of outcomes more than the mean, if that makes any sense. It'll help some people, but also really won't help others. It's like... You'd need some serious disregard for the rest of the physics community to think you can figure out a reactionless drive. This is great if you actually can, but otherwise it's going to lead you to failure.
In a lot of ways, getting advice from the outliers on the very edge of a field is like getting advice from lottery winners. That's not to say you shouldn't - but at the same time a lot of effort has to be made to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough, Disregard Others (2017)
#8This feels like the sort of advice that increases the variance of outcomes more than the mean , if that makes any sense. It'll help some people, but also really won't help others. It's like... You'd need some serious disregard for the rest of the physics community to think you can figure out a reactionless drive. This is great if you actually can, but otherwise it's going to lead you to failure. In a lot of ways, get…
No. Pay attention to what other people do that help what you're doing. That raises the mean by reducing drag.
Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough, Disregard Others (2017)
#9This feels like the sort of advice that increases the variance of outcomes more than the mean , if that makes any sense. It'll help some people, but also really won't help others. It's like... You'd need some serious disregard for the rest of the physics community to think you can figure out a reactionless drive. This is great if you actually can, but otherwise it's going to lead you to failure. In a lot of ways, get…
I think it would be very desirable to increase the variance of outcomes without significantly decreasing the mean.
The way research funding is structured now, researchers are incentivized towards taking small publishable steps without too much risk. This is needed of course, but it isn't going to bring about another Newton.
I think we desperately need a few more Newtons if we're to prosper in the next hundred years.
Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough, Disregard Others (2017)
#10This feels like the sort of advice that increases the variance of outcomes more than the mean , if that makes any sense. It'll help some people, but also really won't help others. It's like... You'd need some serious disregard for the rest of the physics community to think you can figure out a reactionless drive. This is great if you actually can, but otherwise it's going to lead you to failure. In a lot of ways, get…
I think it would be very desirable to increase the variance of outcomes without significantly decreasing the mean. The way research funding is structured now, researchers are incentivized towards taking small publishable steps without too much risk. This is needed of course, but it isn't going to bring about another Newton. I think we desperately need a few more Newtons if we're to prosper in the next hundred years.
A research infrastructure that could support improving the variance of results without significantly impacting the mean would be an enormous boon to the world.