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

Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

stepsandleaps.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 125 posts

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#111

Post by bostik »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #24
have_faith wrote: post #3

Does this work for Feynman, because he is a genius? in the same way that lots of successful people offer tidbits of advice that wouldn't apply to someone in different circumstances, or perhaps with a different level of intellect.

Warran Buffet is well known for his 'insulate yourself from public opinion' quote. It appears to me that disregarding the mainstream is necessary to be an outlier in any field. The rub might be though, that outliers lie on both sides of the bell curve.

This isn't that different from Einstein's take: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Keeping one's eyes open to contradictory/heretic/... evidence seems to be a common trait among the giants.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#112

Post by meric »

snikeris wrote: post #91
meric wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's why evolution selects for a small proportion of insanity in humans - so that some of our geniuses are insane enough to ignore social pressure and make breakthroughs that would be recognised.

Evolution doesn't concern itself with survival or optimization of the species as a whole.

It does for individual societies like ant colonies.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#113

Post by NumberSix »

NotableAlamode wrote: post #108
NumberSix wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is complicated issue. Specifically, The Double Helix, cited in the original HN post, does mention Rosalind Franklin but in a rather demeaning way that slights her contributions -- which came to be highly criticized in subsequent years. This is the relevant section from the Wikipedia article, which like most Wikipedia articles on contentious topics should be taken with a grain of salt and not substituted for orig…

The section you cite does not mention that F. explicitly campaigned against the helix model for a while. Why? If we exclude the option that she deliberately lied about it and publically spoke against the helix model so as to mislead others (which would be a major breach of scientic ethics) -- and we should: "de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est" -- then she failed to see what others did see. To use the vernacular:…

This is the link to the Discover blog post text:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-in-the-mind/2013/04/2...

The issue with Watson's original account is here in the Johnson's text:

After negotiations between both labs, papers by Wilkins and by Franklin and Gosling appeared in the same issue of Nature along with the one by Watson and Crick. (They can all be found on a website at Nature, and an annotated version of the Watson-Crick paper is at the Exploratorium’s site.) Toward the end of their paper, they flatly state that “We were not aware of the details of the results presented [by the King’s scientists] when we devised our structure, which rests mainly though not entirely on published experimental data and stereochemical arguments.” Yet they go on to write in an acknowledgment, three paragraphs later: “We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin and their co-workers at King’s College, London.”

The sentences seem to contradict each other, and in any case Watson made a point, in his book The Double Helix, to describe the pivotal moment when he saw Photo 51.

So the controversy continues. Was it ethical for Wilkins to show Watson his colleague’s work without asking her first? Should she have been invited to be a coauthor on the historic paper? Watson hardly helped his case with his belittling comments about Franklin in The Double Helix.

The bigger issue from the original Hacker News post is Watson and also Feynman's portrayal of their work as highly independent of their colleagues: "disregarding" others.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#114

Post by yathern »

TOGoS wrote: post #98
simplegeek wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I'm not very certain is that can we as software developers totally disregard others work? I think the analogy doesn't apply here. We build on what other people build. Some many times I had to read other people code which I think made me a better engineer. If I work in isolation, not sure if I can improve the quality.

Nah, I think it applies just fine. There is a strong culture of building on top of the work of others, and in some cases people build really neat stuff that they could never have done on their own by pulling in years of work in the form of libraries and datasets and etc, but that way of working isn't for everybody. You might end up spending more time trying to keep up with the latest and greatest everything instead o…

The irony in your Minecraft example is that Notch originally set out to make a better Infiniminer.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#116

Post by tlb »

kornish wrote: post #4
have_faith wrote: post #3

Does this work for Feynman, because he is a genius? in the same way that lots of successful people offer tidbits of advice that wouldn't apply to someone in different circumstances, or perhaps with a different level of intellect.

Your comment reminds me of the Feynman Algorithm [0], which is pure gold: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think real hard. 3. Write down the solution. "The Feynman algorithm was facetiously suggested by Murray Gell-Mann, a colleague of Feynman, in a New York Times interview." [0]: http://wiki.c2.com/?FeynmanAlgorithm

Writing down the problem is a very important step that people often omit.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#117

Post by NotableAlamode »

NumberSix wrote: post #113
NotableAlamode wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The section you cite does not mention that F. explicitly campaigned against the helix model for a while. Why? If we exclude the option that she deliberately lied about it and publically spoke against the helix model so as to mislead others (which would be a major breach of scientic ethics) -- and we should: "de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est" -- then she failed to see what others did see. To use the vernacular:…

This is the link to the Discover blog post text: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-in-the-mind/2013/04/2... The issue with Watson's original account is here in the Johnson's text: After negotiations between both labs, papers by Wilkins and by Franklin and Gosling appeared in the same issue of Nature along with the one by Watson and Crick. (They can all be found on a website at Nature, and an annotated version of…

You keep ignoring the elephant in the room: that she was wrong (in the charitable interpretation). Why?

I'd appreciate it if you could state clearly whether you think

- F. got it wrong, or

- she knew/assumed early on that it was a helix, but lied about it?

Thank you.

As to whether the X-rays should have been seen by Crick/Watson, The research was publically funded. Publically funded research should be open and transparent. Or do you disagree with transparency of taxpayer money? Would it have even been legally possible for F. to refuse the communication of her tax-payer funded results?

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#118

Post by snikeris »

meric wrote: post #112
snikeris wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolution doesn't concern itself with survival or optimization of the species as a whole.

It does for individual societies like ant colonies.

Since most ants are unable to reproduce, I like to think of the entire colony as the organism.

If you're interested in how evolution works, check out The Selfish Gene.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#119

Post by mark-r »

keeptrying wrote: post #65

This applies to scientists, not to software engineers working in a team. (This can also apply to software company founders and side projects but that's a special case.) Scientists and researchers are primarily working to build their own brand and to make a contribution which can be tied To them. A team of s/w emgineers is working to build a cohesive whole. Much different goals and incentives.

It depends on who you're disregarding. Disregarding your team members makes you difficult to work with. Disregarding your competitors may lead to a different approach that catapults you to the forefront of your industry.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#120

Post by meric »

snikeris wrote: post #118
meric wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does for individual societies like ant colonies.

Since most ants are unable to reproduce, I like to think of the entire colony as the organism. If you're interested in how evolution works, check out The Selfish Gene.

My point is insane geniuses become famous and have a good chance of passing down their genes, and their insanity and genius maybe separate genes, so some descendants may receive only the insane ones. Apologies for not expressing myself in proper academic nonmenclature.
Post reply on HN