This book had such a big impact on me. Really helped fuel my love of science and gave me a sense of the scientific community as a special group of people.
The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)
11–20 of 42 posts
Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)
#12[flagged]
How is "womanizing" a concept that makes sense, or has any meaning in modern times? If I understand correctly, it describes a man that only has casual relationships with women. The implication being that all woman only want long term committed relationships, and any man doing this must be somehow exploiting or tricking the woman. Nowadays, it is widely accepted that preferring casual relationships is within the range…
There’s no need to do mental gymnastics around the definition of the word “womanizing” as if all criticisms of Feynman’s behavior can be reduced to that single word and then dismissed by opining over the definition of that single word. In reality, there are a fair number of much more specific claims about his behavior that are not reducible to that single word and can be described without even using that word if one finds it impossible to move past that word.
Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)
#13[flagged]
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.
Mr Feynman is well known (among other) for his work in the field of quantum electrodynamic theory (for which he won the Nobel price), his diagrams, his lectures and his work in the commission investigating the challenger catastrophe.
Are those the self-promoting drives you refer to?
Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is "womanizing" a concept that makes sense, or has any meaning in modern times? If I understand correctly, it describes a man that only has casual relationships with women. The implication being that all woman only want long term committed relationships, and any man doing this must be somehow exploiting or tricking the woman. Nowadays, it is widely accepted that preferring casual relationships is within the range…
There’s no need to do mental gymnastics around the definition of the word “womanizing” as if all criticisms of Feynman’s behavior can be reduced to that single word and then dismissed by opining over the definition of that single word. In reality, there are a fair number of much more specific claims about his behavior that are not reducible to that single word and can be described without even using that word if one…
Go ahead and name these "problematic" claims if you like. It's long since tiresome to see so many historical figures with co much to recommend them being judged through an obsession with their failures to live and think like 21st century human beings of a specific and still very debatable set of morals.
Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no need to do mental gymnastics around the definition of the word “womanizing” as if all criticisms of Feynman’s behavior can be reduced to that single word and then dismissed by opining over the definition of that single word. In reality, there are a fair number of much more specific claims about his behavior that are not reducible to that single word and can be described without even using that word if one…
Go ahead and name these "problematic" claims if you like. It's long since tiresome to see so many historical figures with co much to recommend them being judged through an obsession with their failures to live and think like 21st century human beings of a specific and still very debatable set of morals.
I’m confident you can find the claims in mere minutes if you genuinely haven’t seen them and are interested.
Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)
#16Earlier 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.
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 inventors from that era like Draper who although they were also theoreticians to some degree one suspects might not fit in with a modern research university faculty.)
Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)
#17[flagged]
How is "womanizing" a concept that makes sense, or has any meaning in modern times? If I understand correctly, it describes a man that only has casual relationships with women. The implication being that all woman only want long term committed relationships, and any man doing this must be somehow exploiting or tricking the woman. Nowadays, it is widely accepted that preferring casual relationships is within the range…
Eh, the biography sometimes veers heavily into redpill territory. He has a frank discussion of negging in order to seduce women. I personally think #canceled is far too eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater and if you just cruise through that section with the mentality that he's a product of his time then it's still a fascinating work.
I also personally think that there are multiple parts of the book that have been "spiced up" because that's the kind of personality he has.
Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)
#18> 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…
I graduated from MIT undergrad a few years ago. There were certainly no restrictions on cultural background in the fraternities, though certain fraternities (and some dorm floors) did have reputations for having disproportionate of people coming from a particular ethnicity (e.g. asian) or heading towards a particular career path (e.g. finance, or medicine). FWIW I almost joined a frat that I would've been a minority in, but I never felt excluded while rushing that or any of the other frats.
Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)
#19Earlier 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.
Mr Feynman is well known (among other) for his work in the field of quantum electrodynamic theory (for which he won the Nobel price), his diagrams, his lectures and his work in the commission investigating the challenger catastrophe. Are those the self-promoting drives you refer to?
I assume that the parent commenter was referring to being a good teacher and charismatic lecturer.
Re: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992)
#20[flagged]
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.