The Aspiring Polymath's Society discussion

What did you think about this book, and about Richard Feynman?

Nobody's piped in yet!

I started this one late (had to request it from another library/finish the 2 books I was already reading). I'm down to the last 30-odd pages now, should be done this evening. I'll talk a bit more at-length about it when I'm done, but some stray observations:

-I was thinking - if someone made a movie where a guy patents an idea for a dollar, and insists on actually receiving the dollar, and then uses the dollar to buy everyone candy, I'd probably think it was annoyingly twee. Something about knowing it's not a writer's precious idea of mischief but actual things Feynman did makes it a lot funnier for me. I mean, books NEVER make me laugh. Folks at the library probably think I'm schizophrenic.

-The introduction mentions that the actual science of Feynman's life is always at the periphery, but what I think is interesting is that most of the book is about him applying a kind of questioning and logical rigor to his everyday life. His curiosity about safecracking is is built on the same scientific thinking as his curiosity about parity law violations. It'd be a good book to give to high-schoolers to show that science applies to every part of life.

I'll ramble more in a day or so when I finish it off. Requesting the next book presently!

Ah excellent! I'm glad someone else is reading it too :)

I'm about 2/3 of the way through the book and I couldn't agree with you more on both points.

He's an incredibly interesting person, and the book really gives you a sense of the strange and admirable things he was willing to try and do, and the very scientific and inquisitive ways he went about doing them. He wasn't attached to his theories (whether in physics or anything else) or his ego, and that humble, open and mischievous approach to both science and life in general is really inspiring to read about.

The book I finished right before this was The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. In that book, he talks about another scientist at Los Alamos - some military person mentions that the general is a "great general," and the scientist, naturally, asks "what makes a general great?" The soldier supposes its that the general has won many battles in a row.

When asked how many consecutive battles would make you great, he says 5, and when asked how many great generals he thinks there are, he says (I think) somewhere aroun 20 or 30. But the scientist crunches the numbers and says that if every general had only a 50/50 shot of winning a battle, through no specialness about 20 or 30 would have a run of 5 purely by chance.

I remembered that a bunch while reading this book (in fact, I forgot which book the anecdote came from for a bit). Feynman does the same several times, deducing whether or not something he's been told is true even though he's no expert on the subject. I think that being able to deduce, through logic, how logical someone else's argument is is not only the core of good science, it's the core of rational thought. Something I try to remember when I get in fights with my Tea Partier friend.

A tea partier friend is no friend at all :p

I just finished the book. It was one of those consistently solid books that built up to an even solider ending, so solid that it deserved a sustained slow clap, if only the author were still around to hear it.

I recently finished a biography of Paul Erdos which talked about Stanislaw Ulam's contributions at Los Alamos, and it was fascinating to tie it together with insight on the project from Feynman's perspective. All these phenomenally interesting minds! In one place! At one time! Knowing that such minds exist even today gives me an eager anticipation for all the collaborations and explorations I can look forward to as I move forward in my field.

For sure, Feynman's well-illustrated devotion to honesty and inquiry are a source of awe. The last chapter particularly spoke to me, as a student of psychology (which Feynman describes, in his 1974 address, as "cargo cult science"). I feel like I learned more about myself as a scientist than I did about Feynman in reading this book. And I learned a hell of a lot about Feynman.

Ha! Were you reading My Brain Is Open? Because I put that one on pause so I could read this!

My Tea Partier friend is a case where I know he doesn't get opposing viewpoints very often, and if we hadn't grown up together he probably wouldn't listen to me. So I make a point to get into a good a good row with him on Facebook now and a again. He's probably the main reason I spend so much time thinking about pseudoscience.

The last chapter was useful (and great) because it's explained very directly something I'll need for my next argument. My friend likes to tell me that I "fundamentally misunderstand" the economy because I discredit Reaganomics. And he's got all these explanations of how Reaganomics works, and it sounds sensible enough of paper to a layperson, but the language pits Reaganomics against non-Reaganomics and makes it a question of belief.

And, of course, Feynman would say, "which one has been demonstrated?" And you don't need to be an economist to ask that, and to see if the answer makes sense.

I kind of didn't want to return the book to the library - I felt like I'd want to reread parts of it fairly soon.

I was actually reading "the other Erdos book," The Man Who Loved Only Numbers. But afterward I added My Brain Is Open to the to-read list because I keep hearing it's even better :D

Feynman in a nutshell: ask questions, try everything, challenge others at things they are better at so that you challenge yourself, don't worry over decisions, talk to anyone and find out what is interesting about them, tell it like it is.

One of the stories that really stuck with me was his address to the Brazilian university at the end of his teaching visit there. It was so blunt. And that brutal honesty got through to the people that mattered and made a difference.

If the whole world were like that... Imagine the results! :o

PS: since you're active and interested in the group, perhaps you'd like to choose the book for November and/or December? I haven't got anything lined up for them yet, so if you've got ideas, I'd love to hear them.

I hope you like My Brain Is Open, the hundred pages I've read so far are great. It's about Erdos, and also kind of about everything (math, Hungarian history, Jewish intellectualism...).

Book for November? I'm honored. Let's see... I'm excited about the new Errol Morris book, Believing Is Seeing: Observations On The Mysteries Of Photography. But it just came out and there are, like, 45 holds on the only copy at the library. So if it's still blocked up, I'm also looking to read Musicophilia: Tales Of Music And The Brain by Oliver Sacks. I've been wanting to read more Sacks for a while.

If either of those sound interesting, then by all means...

Oh man, that Morris book looks fantastic! My library doesn't even have it yet, but I've jumped in the queue. I've already read Musicophilia, but by all means let's make it a monthly read. It's a really good one, the only Sacks book I've really enjoyed.

I'll add those two, making the Morris book tentatively December. I may add an older book to December as well just in case it's too hard for people to get. Thanks Ian!