Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others • Hacker News Board

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#121

Post by yesenadam » Wed, Oct 18, 2017, 11:12 PM UTC

copperx wrote: post #90

stephengillie wrote: post #70

Therein lies the best career advice I could possibly dispense: just DO things. Chase after the things that interest you and make you happy. Stop acting like you have a set path, because you don't. No one does. You shouldn't be trying to check off the boxes of life; they aren't real and they were created by other people, not you. There is no explicit path I'm following, and I'm not walking in anyone else's footsteps.…

Hamming would be against that.

i.e. Hamming advised everyone to work on the most important problem(s) in their field, and precisely not to "Chase after the things that interest you and make you happy."

Maybe for him these two were the same. There is something cold about his recommendation, though. I'm not sure what motivated him. Impressing himself with important discoveries? I never in all his talking about missile trajectories and weapons-related work came across any evidence of ethical considerations. Godement's Algebra with its inspiring political and ethical conscience - its author was man as well as mathematician - made me vividly aware of how a work of mathematics/physics can either be ethical, or it can pretend that ethics are not its concern. Or rather, like a heartless child, act without ever even considering consequences. Maybe Hamming was just working on the important problems in his field, and disregarding all else, and thought that was enough.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#122

Post by dlwdlw » Wed, Oct 18, 2017, 11:44 PM UTC

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.

I think there's a common lesson though. Geniuses seem Superman because the magic of compounding intelligence is just as astounding as the magic of compounding interest. Geniuses seem superhuman but only because we cannot conjure up the superhuman amount of will required to reach such levels of genius.

By following curiosity however, knowledge in a specific direction as set by your heart compounds. You can become superhuman at being you. (there is some luck involved in whether those skills can transfer into money/power/etc for the given time period)

This is why early success can kill genius because a false God is created, the regard of others. By desiring and aiming, the target is missed. Because genius isn't about hitting targets or any sort of finite game with a goal. It's about the continuous burning of compounding interest, discovering and expanding our knowledge of the universe and life.

Willpower is powerful but myopic, like the electromagnetic force. Curiosity or self driven passion is like gravity, much weaker in small amounts but continuously compounding at all scales.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#123

Post by alimw » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 3:34 AM UTC

bsmithers wrote: post #27

It's interesting that a few people are relating this to team work. I think that is a misinterpretation. By 'others' I would infer something more like 'competitors', though I mean that relatively loosely. Essentially, ignore what other labs are working on and focus on your own (group's) works. My own PhD supervisor had a similar attitude, though it runs against how many others approach a problem I feel. For example, I…

I've heard Bob May say the thing to do is to start off thinking about the problem yourself to see how far you can get before doing the reading. But the reading has to be done.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#124

Post by yesenadam » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 12:09 PM UTC

yesenadam wrote: post #121

copperx wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hamming would be against that.

i.e. Hamming advised everyone to work on the most important problem(s) in their field, and precisely not to "Chase after the things that interest you and make you happy." Maybe for him these two were the same. There is something cold about his recommendation, though. I'm not sure what motivated him. Impressing himself with important discoveries? I never in all his talking about missile trajectories and weapons-relate…

Whoops, I meant Godement's Analysis.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#125

Post by musage » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 12:34 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #54

omegant wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people is going to be criticized if they step out of the beaten path. Powerful people in any field is not keen to radical change that could make them superfluous rather fast. Then there all those who want to be seen as worthy by the powerful that will parrot their opinions. I don't think I would dare to introduce radically new stuf (I'm no scientist so it's easy for me to make this statement), at least in the ar…

I agree with things you are talking about, but there is still more to that. The exactly same suggestion from "our friend" is treated differently then suggestion from "that suspicious dude/girl". It may be difference between mild criticism and "it is ultimate proof he is dumbo". It makes big difference in practical results. It may be difference between "jesus, did you had to say that" and "you are not gonna get respon…

When someone like Stephen Hawking says automation will, given current trends, lead to more inequality, that rightfully doesn't get disputed. When I ask questions on HN that would lead to similar conclusions, I don't even get answers. In person it's the opposite, me being slightly attractive (and actually liking people more than you'd know from my posts) means I can basically say just about anything to anyone. It may not get accepted, but I get away with it. But I often think, if an ugly person stuttered the same statement, they'd get an entirely different reaction. Then I think further of how my impressions of people might distort my interpretation of their words, and I'm completely blind to that by definition. In short, it's all kind of unfair and sucky. I don't think I even added anything to your comment, you put it better. But it's something that's on my mind a lot. We pay too much attention to our impressions of messengers.