Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)

#31

Post by chowells »

nearmuse wrote: post #20
ftxbro wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like his womanizing behavior was bad and that it was also somehow wrapped up in his attention seeking and other self promoting drives that made him so well known. I don't think it should be hidden.

I am really tired of dirt being brought up each time a discussion of a renowned figure is happening. It obviously detracts from the inspiration or immersion people are trying to derive from bringing up those renowned figures. They are intentionally focusing on the positive aspects, and those who are bringing the garbage up are intentionally detracting from it.

You think there's a problem reminding readers that venerated people aren't good role models? Why? Why not strive to be better than them, intentionally moving past their flaws?

Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)

#32

Post by ioblomov »

ghaff wrote: post #23
sillysaurusx wrote: post #7

> He joined a fraternity, one of the two that took in Jews. This was a surprising reminder that things were very different in 1935. I wonder, is there any group like this today? “One of the two that took in X” for any X seems like an interesting formula for locating outliers, whether good or bad. A lot of nasty examples come to mind, but it’s hard to know how Jews were regarded at the time. I wonder what the official…

There were a ton of membership organizations that, probably even quite a bit later, required one or more members to vouch for you and generally excluded people who didn't fit the generally WASPy mold. (And often male--male only organizations were quite widespread until relatively recently and AFAIK frats--as well as sororities--can be single-sex but mostly based on the fact that some level of living arrangements are…

Surprisingly, Columbia didn’t accept women until 1983. Like Harvard and Radcliffe, it was affiliated with the all-female Barnard.

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/23/nyregion/columbia-plans-t...

Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)

#33

Post by ghaff »

ioblomov wrote: post #32
ghaff wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were a ton of membership organizations that, probably even quite a bit later, required one or more members to vouch for you and generally excluded people who didn't fit the generally WASPy mold. (And often male--male only organizations were quite widespread until relatively recently and AFAIK frats--as well as sororities--can be single-sex but mostly based on the fact that some level of living arrangements are…

Surprisingly, Columbia didn’t accept women until 1983. Like Harvard and Radcliffe, it was affiliated with the all-female Barnard. https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/23/nyregion/columbia-plans-t...

A lot of well-known private colleges/universities were single-sex, albeit sometimes with exchange programs/affiliates, until relatively recently and there remain significant single-sex, especially all-women, colleges today. Dartmouth, another Ivy, didn't go co-ed until 1972.

A lot of universities, especially those more focused on science and engineering, that were technically co-ed--even from their start in the 1800s--also didn't have a lot of women for a long time. The percentage of women at MIT was still under 20% in the late seventies.

Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)

#34

Post by lying4fun »

jhbadger wrote: post #8
sillysaurusx wrote: post #7

> He joined a fraternity, one of the two that took in Jews. This was a surprising reminder that things were very different in 1935. I wonder, is there any group like this today? “One of the two that took in X” for any X seems like an interesting formula for locating outliers, whether good or bad. A lot of nasty examples come to mind, but it’s hard to know how Jews were regarded at the time. I wonder what the official…

And he only went to MIT as an undergraduate because his first choice Columbia had a "Jew quota" and they had already admitted all the Jews they wanted to for that year. Besides the antisemitism, it's also a reminder that in the 1930s MIT was seen as a good, but not particularly elite school and would be somebody's backup school.

From an interview[0] with Charles Weiner in 1966 Feynmann reminisces about not wanting to go Princenton and rather staying at MIT after graduating, because “MIT is MIT”, but does so only after being persuaded by one of the professors from MIT. I think he made several remarks of MIT having a high status at the time.

[0] https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral...

Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)

#35

Post by peter303 »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #7

> He joined a fraternity, one of the two that took in Jews. This was a surprising reminder that things were very different in 1935. I wonder, is there any group like this today? “One of the two that took in X” for any X seems like an interesting formula for locating outliers, whether good or bad. A lot of nasty examples come to mind, but it’s hard to know how Jews were regarded at the time. I wonder what the official…

More recently it would be self-professed gays. A frat might feel the gay might come on to them, or brand the entire frat as gay. The other similarity is there is at least one predominantly gay frat.

These days there is so much gay publicity, that many young people would no longer think this is an issue, as it no is with Black and Jewish members.

Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)

#36

Post by jacquesm »

ghaff wrote: post #16
jhbadger wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably WWII, with the American radar research program (not as famous as the Manhattan Project but probably equally or more important) centered there.

Gunsights too. That was how Doc Draper who later pioneered inertial navigation and whose lab designed the Apollo Guidance Computer first made his name. (Draper Labs is no longer formally affiliated with MIT as it was divested during the Vietnam War.) But WWII was probably a major catalyst in the US to the rise in prominence of all the great science and engineering research universities. (There are actually a lot of i…

> But WWII was probably a major catalyst in the US to the rise in prominence of all the great science and engineering research universities.

That and several other high tech societies in the world were simultaneously set back a decade or more.

Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)

#37

Post by _yb2s »

zamfi wrote: post #21
sillysaurusx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that’s fascinating. Thank you. Both that Columbia was as regarded as MIT and that MIT hadn’t achieved its current fame. It’s odd to realize that I’ve always thought of MIT as MIT, yet (obviously, now) it wasn’t always that way. I wonder what the tipping point was.

MIT was only a few decades old at the time -- having been founded about 75 years prior. Columbia was over twice as old at the time (185 years) and was well-established as a global center of physics research.

It seems to me that the prestige of a university is largely a function of it's age. It takes time to become prestigious in the eyes of the public through word of mouth. If you look now at the research universities that are only about 70 years old or less, they are not taken very seriously and are "backup schools" regardless of the quality of research or instruction going on there. Moreover, some of the prestigious "ivy" schools have fallen off their game and aren't really top tier in any academic fields anymore, yet are still highly regarded by the general public.

Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)

#38

Post by _yb2s »

chowells wrote: post #31
nearmuse wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am really tired of dirt being brought up each time a discussion of a renowned figure is happening. It obviously detracts from the inspiration or immersion people are trying to derive from bringing up those renowned figures. They are intentionally focusing on the positive aspects, and those who are bringing the garbage up are intentionally detracting from it.

You think there's a problem reminding readers that venerated people aren't good role models? Why? Why not strive to be better than them, intentionally moving past their flaws?

I think that attitude would be great, but that isn't what I see happening. There is a widespread movement to cancel basically all famous historical figures, and dismiss the value of their work along with discrediting their personalities. It's frustrating to see, since many of these people were really inspiring to me as a kid, making me want to be a scientist/engineer myself.

Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)

#40

Post by rcarmo »

michael_nielsen wrote: post #28

I've heard that Murray Gell-Mann said of this book that "Jim Gleick has written a biography about Feynman's genius in order to illustrate his own". A bit backhanded, perhaps, but it captures the essence well: it's an extraordinary book about an extraordinary person. The best biography I've ever read, along with Skidelsky's one-volume Keynes.

That’s a pretty typical Gell-Mann quote, and I don’t think he meant anything bad about it.
Post reply on HN