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

91–100 of 125 posts

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#91

Post by snikeris »

meric wrote: post #20
tluyben2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it works for everybody but you need to be brave or crazy enough to apply it. Depends on what you think 'works' means. You get stuff done but chances are (and these chances are quite significant) no-one will care. If you are a genius (even if you don't recognize that yourself) this works because what you do will be recognized by others. Like writers doing their thing despite what others (including publishers…

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.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#92

Post by Spooky23 »

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.

The bigger point is to avoid artificial constraint.

If you’re not doing things that you think are important and should be done because you are worried about the opinions of peers or sacred cows, you should dare to be bold. Keeping people happy isn’t always the right way. That’s what makes you a leader.

That said, jumping off a table is a risk that can be managed. Jumping off a cliff is not likely to end well!

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#93

Post by loup-vaillant »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #32

Yup. That works. Just don't forget the follow-up, where external feedback is crucial. Shameless plug: I've written my own crypto library¹. Not just for the lulz, I fully intend to use it in production. To do that, I had to disregard the crypto community, that basically says anyone who does that deserves to burn in Crypto Hell the time it takes them to count to 2^256. (I might exaggerate a tad). They say that for a re…

Strange. This comment used to be on top, and in very little time got buried to the very bottom, despite its relatively high score (24).

Could there be an algorithmic reason for this surprising behaviour, or is this a manual intervention?

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#94

Post by NumberSix »

Watson's original account of the discovery of the double helix has been heavily criticized for downplaying the role of Rosalind Franklin's x-ray crystallography measurements of the structure of DNA in the discovery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

Disregard or failure to give credit to others where credit is due?

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#95

Post by simplegeek »

peg_leg wrote: post #42

This goes for everyone - not just geniuses. The burger flipper at your favorite fast food joint needs to concentrate on his own work, disregarding what the particular tasks of the counter-worker is. An office worker needs to concentrate on their own Excel workbook, disregarding the type or quality of other people's work. One can't be at peak productivity or creativity while constantly comparing their work to others.…

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.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#96

Post by NotableAlamode »

NumberSix wrote: post #94

Watson's original account of the discovery of the double helix has been heavily criticized for downplaying the role of Rosalind Franklin's x-ray crystallography measurements of the structure of DNA in the discovery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin Disregard or failure to give credit to others where credit is due?

Might this criticism have been politically motivated?

For a while she actively campaigned against DNA being a double helix, see e.g. her 'obiturary' for the double helix [1] which preceeds Watson and Crick’s paper. Might her insistence that DNA is not a double helix have misled Wilkins and others?

[1] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-in-the-mind/files/201...

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#97

Post by noir_lord »

jamesrcole wrote: post #77
noir_lord wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first principle thing is interesting because I've seen Elon Musk hammer that point in many of his talks. SpaceX was started because he sat on a plane and worked out the cost to orbit is limited only by fuel costs if you can make things reusable. It's something I've considered frequently since. Though I'm nowhere near as smart as Feynman or Musk.

I wonder, how many people could actually work through things from first principles, if they were taught how? I don't know, but I suspect a lot more than currently can/do. The education system doesn't currently make any attempt to teach these kinds of skills (AFAIK). I also wonder how much working through stuff like that might actually contribute to making people smart. It would be a valuable thing to find out.

When I was in high school I had a teacher who taught us to consider lateral thinking when approaching a problem, it was valuable and something that's come in useful ever since.

You are right, schools don't encourage it enough imo.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#98

Post by TOGoS »

simplegeek wrote: post #95
peg_leg wrote: post #42

This goes for everyone - not just geniuses. The burger flipper at your favorite fast food joint needs to concentrate on his own work, disregarding what the particular tasks of the counter-worker is. An office worker needs to concentrate on their own Excel workbook, disregarding the type or quality of other people's work. One can't be at peak productivity or creativity while constantly comparing their work to others.…

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 of developing your own ideas.

I think of Minecraft as a pretty good example. While everyone else was focused on making photorealistic shooters on game engine X Notch was all like "what if everything was cubes that went on forever", and he ended up making something super unique (and extremely popular).

Or Chuck Moore with all his wacky Forths. Not the billionaire that Notch is, but he seems pretty happy.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#99

Post by baking »

woahhvicky wrote: post #60
baking wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that is the point at all. To that end lies madness.

If you think so then you’ve misinterpreted my comment.

I would make a distinction between 1) working on some project ignoring what others are working on or what they would say about the potential value of the work until you have reached some milestone and are ready to present it to the world and receive critical feedback, and 2) working on something without concern for anyone else ever finding value in it.

Feynman is clearly saying disregard others while you are doing the work, not disregard others when you present it for feedback and criticism. That is the spirit with which I responded.

As a developer, there is a third option where your work is simply ignored. If it is functional for you and you are satisfied with your own work, then sure, feel free to disregard others lack of interest, like an artist who values their own work but meets a deafening silence. But please don't disregard serious criticism.

Re: Feynman’s Breakthrough: Disregard Others

#100

Post by baking »

lovemenot wrote: post #64
baking wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that is the point at all. To that end lies madness.

I suspect you may've misinterpreted your parent. Showing "them" would be pure social validation and, according to your parent, not recommended. Showing "that" would be sanity protection, just as you understand it.

Thanks for the clarification.
Post reply on HN