Who is stupider? Pompous fools or the one who tries to argue with them? (I will get to this question but further down the line, just trust me).
Have you ever found a book that profoundly contributed to your perspective on life? While working out recently (if using one of those Tony Little "Gazelle" machines can be considered working out) I have been listening to an audio version of the book "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman", by Ralph Leighton. It is an edited version of some of Feynman's memoirs and it is quite fascinating. The working out part keeps my mind and body focused enough that I can get deep into listening mode, which is a problem if I am just sitting in a room for example. Maybe I would of been a more successful student had I been made to exercise during class.
Richard Feynman was a physicist from the middle of the last century, (which is even weird to write because listening to his memoirs he doesn't seem like some part of recent history, he seems very relevant and insightful). Today's section, (each part is about 45 minutes on audio, which is a convenient way to organize my work out) was about how Mr. Feynman once went to a conference he was invited to, with other professionals of all kinds. It was a conference about how to organize education in a more equal way or something. Feynman did not have a good time and thought the whole thing was fraught full of pompous fools.
One thing I love about Feynman's perspective on life, (the way the book reads it really seems to give you his insightful inner dialogue about situations from his life) is his honesty and the way he always gives every single person he meets (prostitute, Vegas hi-roller, army generals, or other professors) the same kind of honesty and respect. But when the people he meets reveal some part or another of their inner character, he is quick to disengage himself from that situation or those people if he does not agree or think it is interesting.
For example. He goes to the conference thinking he can make some kind of difference by engaging with these other professionals in a real way and coming up with solutions. At first he feels embarrassed that he cannot seem to keep up with their thinking. But as always he really tries and works to understand. He studies a paper by a sociology teacher at the conference, very slowly with great intent. He realizes that the paper is using flowery language to make general statements about life that are really neither here nor there. And, rather than just take this one observation and run with it, he talks to a stenographer of the conference who proclaims that 'surely you are not a professor because you are the only one who makes sense to me'.
His personal and external observations confirms his suspicion that much of what is happening is merely pompous fools patting each other's back while not really accomplishing anything. He does try to steer his group in another direction but comes up empty in that regard and decides never to do a similar type of conference.
Feynman, in these stories from his life, often approaches situations in the same manner. At first a kind of open-minded, give everyone the benefit of the doubt enthusiasm, even a bit of worry about contributing enough to the group. Then he asks simple but poignant questions to gather information and move forward in a way that he thinks is adequate. Then maybe, after not just careful observations, but after these observations are confirmed by more than one piece of evidence outside of himself, he will either continue with the project enthusiastically, or disengage completely. At no point is he directly disrespectful but at the same time he is always completely honest.
Like the time in Brazil when he speaks on his assessment of the country's education system, at least in regard to physics. He is expected to just politely confirm the textbook that the local professor had written and flatter all the nice people that had been nice to him during his stay there. But what does Feynman do? He is completely honest explaining how their system is just complete memorization and has almost no real science because there is no project or real life experiments where you can see the science actually happening.
And what happens? The two students he calls out as being the only good ones, are both new students from other countries trained in a different system. The one professor who he calls out as being worthwhile, is a professor who was taught by an outside force who was in Brazil during or after wartime. He did not know any of that when he called on those students and the professor. Then like a wave everyone listening, starts in with their own story and reason why Feynman's observations are correct.
So in regards to the question at the beginning of this post (which is a problem I seem to have more often than I would like to): Who is stupider - pompous fools or the ones who try to convince them of anything? Feynman would not waste his time with people who he knew were not genuine or interested in real, honest, direct communication and learning between people. Even if the easiest thing in the world would be just to go along and nod politely, Feynman always was honest, especially at the most uncomfortable of times, and was never rude about it. (If we can believe the well written book at least).
I don't need to tell you that pompous fools are all over the place (unfortunately sometimes I become one). So, from now on, when I find myself in one of these situations (or maybe any situation), I am going to ask myself, "what would Dick Feynman do?".
Honestly I do not want to finish the book (I am almost done) because although I am not a passionate man about physics, the great insight into life which the stories provide, is endlessly fascinating to me.
So wherever you are now, my hat is off to you sir, Mr. Richard Feynman! You had an amazing life and your approach to it was a great one.
p.s. Great news, I just read that there was a sequel to the book made, called "What Do You Care What Other People Think". So the fun is not done just yet.
Have you ever found a book that profoundly contributed to your perspective on life? While working out recently (if using one of those Tony Little "Gazelle" machines can be considered working out) I have been listening to an audio version of the book "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman", by Ralph Leighton. It is an edited version of some of Feynman's memoirs and it is quite fascinating. The working out part keeps my mind and body focused enough that I can get deep into listening mode, which is a problem if I am just sitting in a room for example. Maybe I would of been a more successful student had I been made to exercise during class.
Richard Feynman was a physicist from the middle of the last century, (which is even weird to write because listening to his memoirs he doesn't seem like some part of recent history, he seems very relevant and insightful). Today's section, (each part is about 45 minutes on audio, which is a convenient way to organize my work out) was about how Mr. Feynman once went to a conference he was invited to, with other professionals of all kinds. It was a conference about how to organize education in a more equal way or something. Feynman did not have a good time and thought the whole thing was fraught full of pompous fools.
One thing I love about Feynman's perspective on life, (the way the book reads it really seems to give you his insightful inner dialogue about situations from his life) is his honesty and the way he always gives every single person he meets (prostitute, Vegas hi-roller, army generals, or other professors) the same kind of honesty and respect. But when the people he meets reveal some part or another of their inner character, he is quick to disengage himself from that situation or those people if he does not agree or think it is interesting.
For example. He goes to the conference thinking he can make some kind of difference by engaging with these other professionals in a real way and coming up with solutions. At first he feels embarrassed that he cannot seem to keep up with their thinking. But as always he really tries and works to understand. He studies a paper by a sociology teacher at the conference, very slowly with great intent. He realizes that the paper is using flowery language to make general statements about life that are really neither here nor there. And, rather than just take this one observation and run with it, he talks to a stenographer of the conference who proclaims that 'surely you are not a professor because you are the only one who makes sense to me'.
His personal and external observations confirms his suspicion that much of what is happening is merely pompous fools patting each other's back while not really accomplishing anything. He does try to steer his group in another direction but comes up empty in that regard and decides never to do a similar type of conference.
Feynman, in these stories from his life, often approaches situations in the same manner. At first a kind of open-minded, give everyone the benefit of the doubt enthusiasm, even a bit of worry about contributing enough to the group. Then he asks simple but poignant questions to gather information and move forward in a way that he thinks is adequate. Then maybe, after not just careful observations, but after these observations are confirmed by more than one piece of evidence outside of himself, he will either continue with the project enthusiastically, or disengage completely. At no point is he directly disrespectful but at the same time he is always completely honest.
Like the time in Brazil when he speaks on his assessment of the country's education system, at least in regard to physics. He is expected to just politely confirm the textbook that the local professor had written and flatter all the nice people that had been nice to him during his stay there. But what does Feynman do? He is completely honest explaining how their system is just complete memorization and has almost no real science because there is no project or real life experiments where you can see the science actually happening.
And what happens? The two students he calls out as being the only good ones, are both new students from other countries trained in a different system. The one professor who he calls out as being worthwhile, is a professor who was taught by an outside force who was in Brazil during or after wartime. He did not know any of that when he called on those students and the professor. Then like a wave everyone listening, starts in with their own story and reason why Feynman's observations are correct.
So in regards to the question at the beginning of this post (which is a problem I seem to have more often than I would like to): Who is stupider - pompous fools or the ones who try to convince them of anything? Feynman would not waste his time with people who he knew were not genuine or interested in real, honest, direct communication and learning between people. Even if the easiest thing in the world would be just to go along and nod politely, Feynman always was honest, especially at the most uncomfortable of times, and was never rude about it. (If we can believe the well written book at least).
I don't need to tell you that pompous fools are all over the place (unfortunately sometimes I become one). So, from now on, when I find myself in one of these situations (or maybe any situation), I am going to ask myself, "what would Dick Feynman do?".
Honestly I do not want to finish the book (I am almost done) because although I am not a passionate man about physics, the great insight into life which the stories provide, is endlessly fascinating to me.
So wherever you are now, my hat is off to you sir, Mr. Richard Feynman! You had an amazing life and your approach to it was a great one.
p.s. Great news, I just read that there was a sequel to the book made, called "What Do You Care What Other People Think". So the fun is not done just yet.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment