51–60 of 71 posts
There's the famous Feynman method i.e. Study hard, Teach it to others, Identify the gaps in your own knowledge, and Simplify/Synthesize. But people often also forget that there is another method associated with Feynman aka The Feynman Algorithm (which was outlined by his colleague Murray Gell-Mann, a noble prize winning physicist himself). This method goes as follows: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3.…
There's the famous Feynman method i.e. Study hard, Teach it to others, Identify the gaps in your own knowledge, and Simplify/Synthesize. But people often also forget that there is another method associated with Feynman aka The Feynman Algorithm (which was outlined by his colleague Murray Gell-Mann, a noble prize winning physicist himself). This method goes as follows: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3.…
> Teach it to others If there's no one around, try explaining it to yourself. An easy method to determine whether you superficially understood a topic or not. After reading some material, it's remarkable how little of it you've truly understood sometimes.
We generally sat opposite each other at a table drinking tea and eating biscuits while describing our problems to each other. Neither of us ever really said much about the other person's problems, we certainly didn't attempt to offer any real solutions, but it was striking how many problems that had seemed intractable before the tea break were trivially soluble afterward.
We were designing and programming embedded controllers in the early '80s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so what accounts for variability in ability, outcomes when you control for time & practice?
I'm not sure those things have ever been controlled. I have been around many many many smart people. So many of them seem naturally gifted. It's effortless how easily they solve things. But if you hang around long enough, it's also impressive when they reveal their magic: they just used so-and-so's technique from some discipline I've never heard of. Oh. Of course! How easy, when you put it that way. How long did it t…
I also believe the smartest people also come with a different family/life background that is unknowingly supportive in ways they cannot explain, quantify or teach others to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
his humbleness is why he's so popular. But you don't win Putnam by studying. you got to be really brilliant too.
You don't actually know this. I acknowledge it might be true but it also might not. How do you know what you're calling brilliance isn't a different kind of study, for example? Feynman suggests he got a buzz out of puzzles his whole life from a very early age and sought them out. With his local reputation among family, friends, school others brought them to him as well. He did inter-school stand-up math competitions,…
You can't just train to win the Putnam if you don't have the talents. Have you ever sat and worked problems with someone exceptional in that area? Try it if you get the chance. The variation in ability will blow you away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so what accounts for variability in ability, outcomes when you control for time & practice?
I'm not sure those things have ever been controlled. I have been around many many many smart people. So many of them seem naturally gifted. It's effortless how easily they solve things. But if you hang around long enough, it's also impressive when they reveal their magic: they just used so-and-so's technique from some discipline I've never heard of. Oh. Of course! How easy, when you put it that way. How long did it t…
I was valedictorian. That might be achievable through work. Fair enough. But that's nothing compared to what top-tier minds can do.
I also had a childhood friend who tested 4 standard deviations out on a psychologist administered IQ test in high school. We had similar backgrounds. We sometimes "tied" in grades, but there is a huge gaping ability gap between me and him. You cannot study your way to that level. The raw throughput, creativity, and abstract conceptual ability cannot be achieved through practice. Maybe you have to see it yourself to believe it.
And really this shouldn't surprise us. There is huge variation in athletic talent, and anyone can see it. Why should our brains be different?
There's the famous Feynman method i.e. Study hard, Teach it to others, Identify the gaps in your own knowledge, and Simplify/Synthesize. But people often also forget that there is another method associated with Feynman aka The Feynman Algorithm (which was outlined by his colleague Murray Gell-Mann, a noble prize winning physicist himself). This method goes as follows: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3.…
Gell-Mann probably had his tongue at least a little bit in his cheek when he said that: the two had a competitive relationship. I always took it as a dig at the way Feynman liked to make out that ideas just came naturally to him, when in fact (as Murray would have known) Feynman had to put the work in the same as everyone else, even if he was a genius.
There's the famous Feynman method i.e. Study hard, Teach it to others, Identify the gaps in your own knowledge, and Simplify/Synthesize. But people often also forget that there is another method associated with Feynman aka The Feynman Algorithm (which was outlined by his colleague Murray Gell-Mann, a noble prize winning physicist himself). This method goes as follows: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3.…
>Not to discount or discredit anything (or anyone) here but we must understand that Feynman was no average person and that his advice on anything related to learning or problem-solving must be viewed through an optics that adequately adjusts for his intellect as well. I wonder about this a little. Let's assume the premise, Feynman was "no average person". To what extent is this explained by the hardware, as it were,…
But putting jokes aside - we know for sure that there are conditions that limits brains capacity to learn. Be it genetical, environmental or acquired through some events (if I hit You hard enough with metal rod at right spot at head there will be some possibility for You to loose ability to retain memory). And its quite for me to believe that this conditions are discrete - I would expect some continuity.
>>We genuinely do not /know/ what makes a person into someone with Feynman's intellectual abilities.
We don't event know what makes people learn to think critically (a opposed to learn just to repeat facts ad verbum). If You look at debates of education specialists in my country all You can see is people that try to create some giant sieves that will pick up students that are worth investing in and throw out others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, I think Feynman applies this in sequence. I.e Study hard, Teach it to others, Identify the gaps in your own knowledge, and Simplify/Synthesize. THEN 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3. Write the solution. If a problem seems intractable, return to the first process. Also, remember that Feynman also spent weeks at play with problems that interested him. Do that too. Be kind to yourself.
Nothing of importance that Feynman had to "think real hard" about in his adult life could have been studied because the methods did not exist yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Richard Feynman might disagree. https://youtu.be/IIDLcaQVMqw
I didn’t believe in talent until after I spent over ten years trying to learn music, and then seeing 5 year-olds on YouTube doing stuff I can only dream of. True, some, perhaps most of it is hard work, but talent makes the process a lot easier.