From someone who did watch the video, my summary of its thesis statements: Feynman never wrote a book. All of the books that we have "by Richard Feynman," those books that create the legacy of...
Exemplary
From someone who did watch the video, my summary of its thesis statements:
Feynman never wrote a book. All of the books that we have "by Richard Feynman," those books that create the legacy of Feynman as a person in popular consciousness, were written or assembled by others who had their own interests. Feynman's legacy is chiefly the result of Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman, which is the assembly of a bunch of stories told by a then-50s Feynman to a then-20s Richard Leighton. Other books came later as everything Feynman touched became gold.
The stories in Surely You're Joking are not true. Most are completely unverifiable, happening in anonymous places to anonymous people, but when we do have extrinsic evidence it contradicts the story as told. That doesn't mean that Feynman completely made them up, but he did 'workshop' them to retell them for maximal impact. They're closer to tall tales about the fish that got away than an authentic recounting of his life.
Feynman deliberately projected this image; the tales that showed up in Surely were indeed told by him on recording. By all accounts, he was an asshole. However, at least for much of his life he was nicer to people than these stories would suggest, and in later life he recognized that the casual misogyny of his earlier stories was at least inappropriate if not wrong. This reflection is missing from his legacy, presumably since 'brilliant asshole' sells better.
Despite being a genuinely brilliant physicist, there's no physics in Feynman's legacy as a person and media figure. This does a disservice to Feynman fans (including just about every teenager who is pointed towards Surely You're Joking after expressing an interest in science), who are implicitly told that the important part of 'brilliant asshole' is 'asshole'. Feynman had a genuine enthusiasm for new knowledge and worked hard to deeply understand everything he was shown, but those inspiring traits are also lost in his mythos.
But this is the cornerstone of Feynman's mythos, and definitely does come across in the book, it's one of the strongest through lines in all the stories in the book, much more so than the...
Exemplary
Feynman had a genuine enthusiasm for new knowledge and worked hard to deeply understand everything he was shown, but those inspiring traits are also lost in his mythos.
But this is the cornerstone of Feynman's mythos, and definitely does come across in the book, it's one of the strongest through lines in all the stories in the book, much more so than the occasional "brilliant assholery" in my opinion.
My impression is that she came to this topic from a point of irritation at a certain specific type of Feynman worshiper (who I would argue are a small minority of people who admire Feynman) - but were the most annoyingly noticeable ones in her specific environment as a young female physics student. She then strawmanned a whole Feynman mythos and fanbase around this to take down, and went into the research part of her project with a strong confirmation bias and an axe to grind. I can imagine she was doing the typical academic speed read through the books (yes, I am speculating, but feel allowed to do so here by how often she does the same in the video, just putting thoughts and motivations in peoples heads without any support), just focusing on the thing she was trying to find, and completely missing out on much of the bigger picture and context, and the subtle self-deprecation that many of the Feynman stories are based around. I don't even necessarily think her aim was to distort, I feel she was trying to be objective, but just failed to not let her biases and premature conclusions take control of the direction.
For example, twice she brings up the story of Feynman being presented with complex blueprints, and immediately pointing to some specific obscure detail which turns out to be an error, because he is such genius, and how obviously false and self-aggrandizing this story is. Here is the actual story (it's identical to the version in Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman) - read it and tell me her description in any way actually captures the point and style of the story ? Does Feynman come away as a "brilliant asshole" in it ? It's such a great and humorous anecdote, and one of many in the book where Feynman shows how people sometimes came away from an interaction with him believing he is some genius, for completely random reasons that had nothing to do with his intellect.
He honestly comes across way more humble and self-aware in these books (which she is right, he didn't really write) than most physicists I know. Yes, some of his interactions with women, especially in his younger days are problematic. But reducing him all to a "brilliant asshole" I think goes too far, there is a far more interesting, unique and compelling person there behind the stories (and yes, certainly not some platonic ideal to be worshiped, but a real human being with warts and all), and there is a reason the book gained such popularity - I think that Dyson quote is much more accurate (Dyson described him once as half genius, half buffoon - later revising it to all genius, all buffoon)
100%. As someone who read Surely You're Joking and What Do You Care What Other People Think as a teen, my memories of these books are not at all "what an aspirationally brilliant asshole" and more...
100%. As someone who read Surely You're Joking and What Do You Care What Other People Think as a teen, my memories of these books are not at all "what an aspirationally brilliant asshole" and more "this guy tested human scent by smelling old books" and "this guy took apart old phones" and "this guy realized that internal counting is more consistent for people who visualized a counter in their head rather than heard a counter go up in their head". Also "this guy disparages the concept of doing things just for getting awards". This is me reflecting on them over a decade later.
It's possible I just forgot many stories where he's a "brilliant asshole", but my teenage takeaways from those books were "wow, I should really follow my interests and curiosities" and "science is more approachable and relatable than is often presented in school".
Edit: reading https://tildes.net/~science/1kda/the_sham_legacy_of_richard_feynman#comment-e8bl, it seems like I definitely forgot about some of the more problematic stories. It would be interesting to re-read as an adult and gain a more complete understanding of Feynman as a person. It's helpful to take people off of their pedestal sometimes.
I'd characterize choking your wife because she interrupted your bongos to be somewhat more than problematic. Incidentally, the standard response to this is that Feynman only pretended to have...
Yes, some of his interactions with women, especially in his younger days are problematic.
Incidentally, the standard response to this is that Feynman only pretended to have choked her, since he wanted to kindly give her an out, since there was a burden of evidence necessary to dissolve a marriage.
This incident is not in the book. It's also not part of Feynman's mythos - nobody praises and admires Feynman for allegedly choking his wife. The allegation came out as part of divorce proceedings...
This incident is not in the book. It's also not part of Feynman's mythos - nobody praises and admires Feynman for allegedly choking his wife. The allegation came out as part of divorce proceedings - they were reported in a newspaper article at the time in 1956, but not really brought up again until 2012 when his FBI file was declassified and released (it doesn't really contain any additional details, just confirms that several people mentioned the newspaper story, and FBI obtained the divorce records from the court and confirmed his wife claimed "extreme cruelty" as grounds, and was awarded share of property and alimony in final judgment.)
The problem is that without no-fault divorce, divorce proceedings can get ugly, and I have personal experience with divorce lawyers basically telling a client that any allegations of physical conflict in a marriage will go a long way in helping to strengthen the case. Does the spouse abuse you emotionally, yells at you, etc. ? Good, write it all down ! Has the spouse ever hit you or choked you ? Even better ! These claims are not usually expected to be made public, tempers often run hot in divorce, and lawyers can be slimy, things get taken too far, claims exaggerated, etc. Basically in states without no-fault divorce, one of the common avenues to seek divorce is on the grounds of "extreme cruelty" and your claim has to meet certain criteria to fall in this category, presence of physical abuse being one of the strongest ones.
And don't get me wrong - I wouldn't ever want to minimize any spousal abuse anyone has ever endured, and I think it should always be taken very seriously and never excused or trivialized, and if Feynman did ever choke his wife, it should be absolutely soundly condemned. I am just not sure there is sufficient evidence here to exceed the threshold.
Even Angela in the video goes through all the other public evidence of Feynman's relationships with other women in his life, his wives, daughter, colleagues, students, etc. that show that he wasn't really a misogynist. I am also not really aware of any other claims that he had a temper and was quick to anger and violence, beyond that one line in a divorce testimony mentioned in the FBI file.
Btw, there is a scathing 9 page letter written to Hoover in Feynman's FBI file, which although redacted some believe (there is some evidence for this) was written by Mary Louise Bell during the same period (immediately following their divorce) If she did indeed write it, she definitely hated his guts at that point (their marriage was very short lived) - it's a fascinating read.
She acknowledges his contributions to physics, though -- a large part of her argument is that the book itself (and the popular view of Feynman more broadly) is what reduces him to a "brilliant...
But reducing him all to a "brilliant asshole" I think goes too far, there is a far more interesting, unique and compelling person there behind the stories
She acknowledges his contributions to physics, though -- a large part of her argument is that the book itself (and the popular view of Feynman more broadly) is what reduces him to a "brilliant asshole", ignoring his actual contributions in favor of a false but appealing narrative.
This book is apparently often recommended to young people with an interest in physics. Can you not see how the book's impact may be somewhat different for a young woman with an interest in physics? It's not so easy to brush off the misogyny in the stories from that perspective.
I understand her point, but disagree with her characterization of both the book and the popular view of Feynman. I took something very different from the book than she did, and I don't think she...
a large part of her argument is that the book itself (and the popular view of Feynman more broadly) is what reduces him to a "brilliant asshole", ignoring his actual contributions in favor of a false but appealing narrative.
I understand her point, but disagree with her characterization of both the book and the popular view of Feynman. I took something very different from the book than she did, and I don't think she is portraying the book accurately or fairly in her video - have you read it ? It's not a book about Feynman's contributions to physics btw, and never claimed to be - it's a retelling of various humorous anecdotes from Feynman's life - a person who was a well known larger than life character in the physics world at the time - it's the compilation of the "legend of Feynman" that was hitherto mostly only known to people in his field, for the general public - told in Feynman's own very "unreliable narrator" voice - it's meant to be entertaining first, and perhaps provide a glimpse into his life and mind - not to serve as rigorous historical record.
Can you not see how the book's impact may be somewhat different for a young woman with an interest in physics?
Yes, this is absolutely a valid subject for discussion. I just don't think she did it justice.
I don't even think this is necessarily the book to recommend to someone based on their interest in physics, honestly, whether male or female - it's not a book about physics.
Not sure a summary could really do this justice, but she discusses the image of Feynman that seems to exist in the minds of many, in particular young males, and the consequences of this image's...
Not sure a summary could really do this justice, but she discusses the image of Feynman that seems to exist in the minds of many, in particular young males, and the consequences of this image's influence. She then examines the grounds on which that image is based and concludes, as the title indicates, that it's not valid.
Watched some highlights of the video; definitely going to avoid popular accounts of Feynman from here on out. I always thought it was fishy that there weren't any negative anecdotes about the man,...
Watched some highlights of the video; definitely going to avoid popular accounts of Feynman from here on out. I always thought it was fishy that there weren't any negative anecdotes about the man, as it was an exception to my rule that anyone who grew in popularity before ~1960 was extremely misogynistic, but I bought into the hype. I definitely recall reading parts of "Surely You're Joking", but all I remember from it was that he learned music, started sketching, and was an uncommonly charismatic speaker. Apparently my younger self didn't take note of the misogynistic bits, or at least, only registered them unconsciously.
That said, I think I took something different from Feynman's interview re. magnetic fields than the author did? I'd always thought of it as a comment on irreducible complexity. Not necessarily an intentionally thoughtful comment, but one borne from frustration with trying to predict follow-up questions from the interviewer. "Just give me an analogy" or "explain it more simply" works until the analogies become cyclic, or a simpler explanation necessarily skips nuance (often people will falsely quote Einstein at this point). If, as the explainer in such a conversation, you're OK with glossing over the details it's fine ... but I can understand that, to a certain mind, that is an insult to the listener, as it deprives them of a deeper understanding.
And more relevant to the example, it opens the door for a sufficiently antagonistic listener to "gotcha" you with a "clever" follow-up to "refute" you. I'm very, very, very tired of people doing that to me when genuinely attempting to engage in conversation. It's more frustrating when it's my boss, and I'd imagine it's just as bad when the reporter will slap it on the front page ...
Complete, and now ironic, tangent: I admire a lot about Angela Collier, and prefer her work to most Internet smart people. Equally, I understand that the video length is (probably) an intentional deterrent to filter out low value, drive-by commenters, and to grow a community that feels invested in the content (if nothing else, then invested in time). I truly despise watching these videos though because I feel like I'm consuming a barely edited, stream of consciousness "Just Chatting" livestream. Life is short, unlike all of her videos, and I tend to push anything longer than ~30 minutes through an AI summarizer so I can spend my time arguing with people on the Internet. Er, more productively. So I can spend time more productively.
It's hard to take a nearly 3 hour video seriously as an argument. It's fine as a background noise podcast sort of thing. But I can't imagine her points couldn't be made in a shorter video.
It's hard to take a nearly 3 hour video seriously as an argument. It's fine as a background noise podcast sort of thing. But I can't imagine her points couldn't be made in a shorter video.
I watched the whole thing. She concludes with this: "Feynman as a person, kind of sucks, but other people really liked him. Feynman as a physicist, 10 out of 10, he nailed it, end of video." You...
I watched the whole thing. She concludes with this:
"Feynman as a person, kind of sucks, but other people really liked him. Feynman as a physicist, 10 out of 10, he nailed it, end of video."
You can save the 3 hours watching it, there is not much more there beyond that. She might be a highly qualified physicist, but I don't think she is really up to the task of making a compelling and objective analysis of Feynman as a person.
Good summary, I skipped around instead of watching the whole thing. I think she picked the wrong guy from the get-go! And who says this is an authoritative list anyway? Kaku is probably the least...
Good summary, I skipped around instead of watching the whole thing. I think she picked the wrong guy from the get-go! And who says this is an authoritative list anyway?
Kaku is probably the least deserving physicist on that list. Some of the fields he contributed to may actually be shams. Okay, that is too harsh, he contributed to physics and probably got a lot of kids interested in science, which is extremely good for society. But string theory is a strange little club. If you study quantum mechanics, you are gaining insight into our universe, if you study string theory, you are gaining insight into string theory.
Feynman had a personality, but he worked on the Manhattan Project and expanded the field of quantum electrodynamics. There's a lot of good physics there. So what that people focus on him as a human being? Society does this this with royalty, actors, musicians and celebrities.
People interested in facts focus on science and everyone else wants more stories of Gilgamesh.
Personally, before I knew he was a personality, I found his lectures on YouTube. He was a good teacher. He had a good sense of humor. You can listen to them here: https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/
It's kinda shocking how okay Angela is with the creepy neckbeard behavior she encountered during her studies. Or maybe she's just not taking a strong stance on the matter (saying that 'banging on...
It's kinda shocking how okay Angela is with the creepy neckbeard behavior she encountered during her studies. Or maybe she's just not taking a strong stance on the matter (saying that 'banging on a woman's door for an hour was apparently okay while academic failings were not' gave a little taste of how she actually feels). Anyway just awful to hear.
And while this video could've been worked to be much shorter (I'm just 30 minutes in) all the anecdotes, insights and little stories are actually interesting and this (so far) isn't your typical stretch the video length type stuff. It's really more of an unscripted podcast than a video essay. (Also, I didn't watch those 30 minutes but listened.)
She's definitely not okay with it (she's made videos more directly criticizing sexism in the field before). I think women who aren't driven out of physics by sexism from peers and superiors tend...
It's kinda shocking how okay Angela is with the creepy neckbeard behavior she encountered during her studies.
She's definitely not okay with it (she's made videos more directly criticizing sexism in the field before). I think women who aren't driven out of physics by sexism from peers and superiors tend to develop a thick skin for it out of necessity more than anything.
I like Angela Collier and a bunch of her other videos where she takes the time to not just make an argument but make it in depth/detail. This one is kind of too much though. I think she could have...
I like Angela Collier and a bunch of her other videos where she takes the time to not just make an argument but make it in depth/detail.
This one is kind of too much though. I think she could have cut it in half.
She's one of my favourite content creators on Youtube nowadays, but I do think she could do with having someone edit her videos a bit as she does often end up repeating herself a lot. Some of it...
She's one of my favourite content creators on Youtube nowadays, but I do think she could do with having someone edit her videos a bit as she does often end up repeating herself a lot. Some of it is her style of presentation of course, repeating things for emphasis from slightly different angles (which I'd imagine works well in an academic lecture setting), but there were moments in this video where she sorta just said the same point over and over for five minutes where it could have been "here's the point I'm making, here's 3 examples of that thing" rather than "here's a thing from the book, therefore x, here's a thing from the book, therefore x, here's a thing from the book, therefore x, therefore x".
Plus I think her content sorta toes the line between long-form explanatory content and full on video essay; some of her videos are great for having on while playing a game but others (like this one) really require your full focus. The problem is that you can get away with minimal editing and a semi-improvised script for long-form background content, but a video essay requires a lot more structure. To use a contemporary video essay metaphor, she's trying to create a Jenny Nicholson video, but she's covering a HBomberguy topic. ROBLOX_OOF.mp3 wouldn't have worked if they'd just bullet pointed a bunch of things, sat in front of a camera, and just talked about each thing off the cuff.
Haha, I was thinking of ROBLOX_OOF.mp3 as I was writing this. I started that thinking that one would turn into background noise but NO, I paid attention for that whole thing. I can't see Angela...
Haha, I was thinking of ROBLOX_OOF.mp3 as I was writing this. I started that thinking that one would turn into background noise but NO, I paid attention for that whole thing.
I can't see Angela changing her process much, but thats ok. I'll just watch videos like this one in multiple sittings. Changing to a production like HBomberguy would either ruin her magic or would be waaay too much of a time investment for someone who seems to have a life outside of youtube.
Apologies, I couldn't find your second source. It looks like it's quoting a -- now extremely hard to find -- letter to "Caltech Letters"? Viewpoint: Feynman, Harassment, and the Culture of Science
I will not watch 3 hours long video, sorry. But I do not think that it makes sense to cancel Feynman (it looks like public opinion going in this way, this is not a first article/video about...
I will not watch 3 hours long video, sorry. But I do not think that it makes sense to cancel Feynman (it looks like public opinion going in this way, this is not a first article/video about Feynman "controversy").
Of course it will be better if every popular person will be the best one in all aspects of the life, without any sinful deeds, but... I still think that Feynmans books and lectures is super interesting, inspiring and definitely worth reading/watching/listening.
From Gizmodo article:
While his calculus obsession is amusing, his temper comes as something of a shock. It’s a nice—if chilling—reminder that behind every revered individual lies a normal, fallible person.
From someone who did watch the video, my summary of its thesis statements:
Feynman never wrote a book. All of the books that we have "by Richard Feynman," those books that create the legacy of Feynman as a person in popular consciousness, were written or assembled by others who had their own interests. Feynman's legacy is chiefly the result of Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman, which is the assembly of a bunch of stories told by a then-50s Feynman to a then-20s Richard Leighton. Other books came later as everything Feynman touched became gold.
The stories in Surely You're Joking are not true. Most are completely unverifiable, happening in anonymous places to anonymous people, but when we do have extrinsic evidence it contradicts the story as told. That doesn't mean that Feynman completely made them up, but he did 'workshop' them to retell them for maximal impact. They're closer to tall tales about the fish that got away than an authentic recounting of his life.
Feynman deliberately projected this image; the tales that showed up in Surely were indeed told by him on recording. By all accounts, he was an asshole. However, at least for much of his life he was nicer to people than these stories would suggest, and in later life he recognized that the casual misogyny of his earlier stories was at least inappropriate if not wrong. This reflection is missing from his legacy, presumably since 'brilliant asshole' sells better.
Despite being a genuinely brilliant physicist, there's no physics in Feynman's legacy as a person and media figure. This does a disservice to Feynman fans (including just about every teenager who is pointed towards Surely You're Joking after expressing an interest in science), who are implicitly told that the important part of 'brilliant asshole' is 'asshole'. Feynman had a genuine enthusiasm for new knowledge and worked hard to deeply understand everything he was shown, but those inspiring traits are also lost in his mythos.
But this is the cornerstone of Feynman's mythos, and definitely does come across in the book, it's one of the strongest through lines in all the stories in the book, much more so than the occasional "brilliant assholery" in my opinion.
My impression is that she came to this topic from a point of irritation at a certain specific type of Feynman worshiper (who I would argue are a small minority of people who admire Feynman) - but were the most annoyingly noticeable ones in her specific environment as a young female physics student. She then strawmanned a whole Feynman mythos and fanbase around this to take down, and went into the research part of her project with a strong confirmation bias and an axe to grind. I can imagine she was doing the typical academic speed read through the books (yes, I am speculating, but feel allowed to do so here by how often she does the same in the video, just putting thoughts and motivations in peoples heads without any support), just focusing on the thing she was trying to find, and completely missing out on much of the bigger picture and context, and the subtle self-deprecation that many of the Feynman stories are based around. I don't even necessarily think her aim was to distort, I feel she was trying to be objective, but just failed to not let her biases and premature conclusions take control of the direction.
For example, twice she brings up the story of Feynman being presented with complex blueprints, and immediately pointing to some specific obscure detail which turns out to be an error, because he is such genius, and how obviously false and self-aggrandizing this story is. Here is the actual story (it's identical to the version in Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman) - read it and tell me her description in any way actually captures the point and style of the story ? Does Feynman come away as a "brilliant asshole" in it ? It's such a great and humorous anecdote, and one of many in the book where Feynman shows how people sometimes came away from an interaction with him believing he is some genius, for completely random reasons that had nothing to do with his intellect.
He honestly comes across way more humble and self-aware in these books (which she is right, he didn't really write) than most physicists I know. Yes, some of his interactions with women, especially in his younger days are problematic. But reducing him all to a "brilliant asshole" I think goes too far, there is a far more interesting, unique and compelling person there behind the stories (and yes, certainly not some platonic ideal to be worshiped, but a real human being with warts and all), and there is a reason the book gained such popularity - I think that Dyson quote is much more accurate (Dyson described him once as half genius, half buffoon - later revising it to all genius, all buffoon)
100%. As someone who read Surely You're Joking and What Do You Care What Other People Think as a teen, my memories of these books are not at all "what an aspirationally brilliant asshole" and more "this guy tested human scent by smelling old books" and "this guy took apart old phones" and "this guy realized that internal counting is more consistent for people who visualized a counter in their head rather than heard a counter go up in their head". Also "this guy disparages the concept of doing things just for getting awards". This is me reflecting on them over a decade later.
It's possible I just forgot many stories where he's a "brilliant asshole", but my teenage takeaways from those books were "wow, I should really follow my interests and curiosities" and "science is more approachable and relatable than is often presented in school".
Edit: reading https://tildes.net/~science/1kda/the_sham_legacy_of_richard_feynman#comment-e8bl, it seems like I definitely forgot about some of the more problematic stories. It would be interesting to re-read as an adult and gain a more complete understanding of Feynman as a person. It's helpful to take people off of their pedestal sometimes.
I'd characterize choking your wife because she interrupted your bongos to be somewhat more than problematic.
Incidentally, the standard response to this is that Feynman only pretended to have choked her, since he wanted to kindly give her an out, since there was a burden of evidence necessary to dissolve a marriage.
This incident is not in the book. It's also not part of Feynman's mythos - nobody praises and admires Feynman for allegedly choking his wife. The allegation came out as part of divorce proceedings - they were reported in a newspaper article at the time in 1956, but not really brought up again until 2012 when his FBI file was declassified and released (it doesn't really contain any additional details, just confirms that several people mentioned the newspaper story, and FBI obtained the divorce records from the court and confirmed his wife claimed "extreme cruelty" as grounds, and was awarded share of property and alimony in final judgment.)
The problem is that without no-fault divorce, divorce proceedings can get ugly, and I have personal experience with divorce lawyers basically telling a client that any allegations of physical conflict in a marriage will go a long way in helping to strengthen the case. Does the spouse abuse you emotionally, yells at you, etc. ? Good, write it all down ! Has the spouse ever hit you or choked you ? Even better ! These claims are not usually expected to be made public, tempers often run hot in divorce, and lawyers can be slimy, things get taken too far, claims exaggerated, etc. Basically in states without no-fault divorce, one of the common avenues to seek divorce is on the grounds of "extreme cruelty" and your claim has to meet certain criteria to fall in this category, presence of physical abuse being one of the strongest ones.
And don't get me wrong - I wouldn't ever want to minimize any spousal abuse anyone has ever endured, and I think it should always be taken very seriously and never excused or trivialized, and if Feynman did ever choke his wife, it should be absolutely soundly condemned. I am just not sure there is sufficient evidence here to exceed the threshold.
Even Angela in the video goes through all the other public evidence of Feynman's relationships with other women in his life, his wives, daughter, colleagues, students, etc. that show that he wasn't really a misogynist. I am also not really aware of any other claims that he had a temper and was quick to anger and violence, beyond that one line in a divorce testimony mentioned in the FBI file.
Btw, there is a scathing 9 page letter written to Hoover in Feynman's FBI file, which although redacted some believe (there is some evidence for this) was written by Mary Louise Bell during the same period (immediately following their divorce) If she did indeed write it, she definitely hated his guts at that point (their marriage was very short lived) - it's a fascinating read.
She acknowledges his contributions to physics, though -- a large part of her argument is that the book itself (and the popular view of Feynman more broadly) is what reduces him to a "brilliant asshole", ignoring his actual contributions in favor of a false but appealing narrative.
This book is apparently often recommended to young people with an interest in physics. Can you not see how the book's impact may be somewhat different for a young woman with an interest in physics? It's not so easy to brush off the misogyny in the stories from that perspective.
I understand her point, but disagree with her characterization of both the book and the popular view of Feynman. I took something very different from the book than she did, and I don't think she is portraying the book accurately or fairly in her video - have you read it ? It's not a book about Feynman's contributions to physics btw, and never claimed to be - it's a retelling of various humorous anecdotes from Feynman's life - a person who was a well known larger than life character in the physics world at the time - it's the compilation of the "legend of Feynman" that was hitherto mostly only known to people in his field, for the general public - told in Feynman's own very "unreliable narrator" voice - it's meant to be entertaining first, and perhaps provide a glimpse into his life and mind - not to serve as rigorous historical record.
Yes, this is absolutely a valid subject for discussion. I just don't think she did it justice.
I don't even think this is necessarily the book to recommend to someone based on their interest in physics, honestly, whether male or female - it's not a book about physics.
Not sure a summary could really do this justice, but she discusses the image of Feynman that seems to exist in the minds of many, in particular young males, and the consequences of this image's influence. She then examines the grounds on which that image is based and concludes, as the title indicates, that it's not valid.
Watched some highlights of the video; definitely going to avoid popular accounts of Feynman from here on out. I always thought it was fishy that there weren't any negative anecdotes about the man, as it was an exception to my rule that anyone who grew in popularity before ~1960 was extremely misogynistic, but I bought into the hype. I definitely recall reading parts of "Surely You're Joking", but all I remember from it was that he learned music, started sketching, and was an uncommonly charismatic speaker. Apparently my younger self didn't take note of the misogynistic bits, or at least, only registered them unconsciously.
That said, I think I took something different from Feynman's interview re. magnetic fields than the author did? I'd always thought of it as a comment on irreducible complexity. Not necessarily an intentionally thoughtful comment, but one borne from frustration with trying to predict follow-up questions from the interviewer. "Just give me an analogy" or "explain it more simply" works until the analogies become cyclic, or a simpler explanation necessarily skips nuance (often people will falsely quote Einstein at this point). If, as the explainer in such a conversation, you're OK with glossing over the details it's fine ... but I can understand that, to a certain mind, that is an insult to the listener, as it deprives them of a deeper understanding.
And more relevant to the example, it opens the door for a sufficiently antagonistic listener to "gotcha" you with a "clever" follow-up to "refute" you. I'm very, very, very tired of people doing that to me when genuinely attempting to engage in conversation. It's more frustrating when it's my boss, and I'd imagine it's just as bad when the reporter will slap it on the front page ...
Complete, and now ironic, tangent: I admire a lot about Angela Collier, and prefer her work to most Internet smart people. Equally, I understand that the video length is (probably) an intentional deterrent to filter out low value, drive-by commenters, and to grow a community that feels invested in the content (if nothing else, then invested in time). I truly despise watching these videos though because I feel like I'm consuming a barely edited, stream of consciousness "Just Chatting" livestream. Life is short, unlike all of her videos, and I tend to push anything longer than ~30 minutes through an AI summarizer so I can spend my time arguing with people on the Internet. Er, more productively. So I can spend time more productively.
It's hard to take a nearly 3 hour video seriously as an argument. It's fine as a background noise podcast sort of thing. But I can't imagine her points couldn't be made in a shorter video.
I watched the whole thing. She concludes with this:
"Feynman as a person, kind of sucks, but other people really liked him. Feynman as a physicist, 10 out of 10, he nailed it, end of video."
You can save the 3 hours watching it, there is not much more there beyond that. She might be a highly qualified physicist, but I don't think she is really up to the task of making a compelling and objective analysis of Feynman as a person.
Good summary, I skipped around instead of watching the whole thing. I think she picked the wrong guy from the get-go! And who says this is an authoritative list anyway?
Kaku is probably the least deserving physicist on that list. Some of the fields he contributed to may actually be shams. Okay, that is too harsh, he contributed to physics and probably got a lot of kids interested in science, which is extremely good for society. But string theory is a strange little club. If you study quantum mechanics, you are gaining insight into our universe, if you study string theory, you are gaining insight into string theory.
Feynman had a personality, but he worked on the Manhattan Project and expanded the field of quantum electrodynamics. There's a lot of good physics there. So what that people focus on him as a human being? Society does this this with royalty, actors, musicians and celebrities.
People interested in facts focus on science and everyone else wants more stories of Gilgamesh.
Personally, before I knew he was a personality, I found his lectures on YouTube. He was a good teacher. He had a good sense of humor. You can listen to them here: https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/
As she explained in the video, focusing on him as a human being leads to young men imitating the most problematic aspects of his personality.
it's not just an argument. it's a story—all arguments are stories; and some stories take 3 hours to tell
It's kinda shocking how okay Angela is with the creepy neckbeard behavior she encountered during her studies. Or maybe she's just not taking a strong stance on the matter (saying that 'banging on a woman's door for an hour was apparently okay while academic failings were not' gave a little taste of how she actually feels). Anyway just awful to hear.
And while this video could've been worked to be much shorter (I'm just 30 minutes in) all the anecdotes, insights and little stories are actually interesting and this (so far) isn't your typical stretch the video length type stuff. It's really more of an unscripted podcast than a video essay. (Also, I didn't watch those 30 minutes but listened.)
re your first point: The first video on her channel is entitled "Sexual harassment and assault in Astronomy and Physics." It is 2 hours long.
She's definitely not okay with it (she's made videos more directly criticizing sexism in the field before). I think women who aren't driven out of physics by sexism from peers and superiors tend to develop a thick skin for it out of necessity more than anything.
I like Angela Collier and a bunch of her other videos where she takes the time to not just make an argument but make it in depth/detail.
This one is kind of too much though. I think she could have cut it in half.
She's one of my favourite content creators on Youtube nowadays, but I do think she could do with having someone edit her videos a bit as she does often end up repeating herself a lot. Some of it is her style of presentation of course, repeating things for emphasis from slightly different angles (which I'd imagine works well in an academic lecture setting), but there were moments in this video where she sorta just said the same point over and over for five minutes where it could have been "here's the point I'm making, here's 3 examples of that thing" rather than "here's a thing from the book, therefore x, here's a thing from the book, therefore x, here's a thing from the book, therefore x, therefore x".
Plus I think her content sorta toes the line between long-form explanatory content and full on video essay; some of her videos are great for having on while playing a game but others (like this one) really require your full focus. The problem is that you can get away with minimal editing and a semi-improvised script for long-form background content, but a video essay requires a lot more structure. To use a contemporary video essay metaphor, she's trying to create a Jenny Nicholson video, but she's covering a HBomberguy topic. ROBLOX_OOF.mp3 wouldn't have worked if they'd just bullet pointed a bunch of things, sat in front of a camera, and just talked about each thing off the cuff.
Haha, I was thinking of ROBLOX_OOF.mp3 as I was writing this. I started that thinking that one would turn into background noise but NO, I paid attention for that whole thing.
I can't see Angela changing her process much, but thats ok. I'll just watch videos like this one in multiple sittings. Changing to a production like HBomberguy would either ruin her magic or would be waaay too much of a time investment for someone who seems to have a life outside of youtube.
Apologies, I couldn't find your second source. It looks like it's quoting a -- now extremely hard to find -- letter to "Caltech Letters"? Viewpoint: Feynman, Harassment, and the Culture of Science
I will not watch 3 hours long video, sorry. But I do not think that it makes sense to cancel Feynman (it looks like public opinion going in this way, this is not a first article/video about Feynman "controversy").
Of course it will be better if every popular person will be the best one in all aspects of the life, without any sinful deeds, but... I still think that Feynmans books and lectures is super interesting, inspiring and definitely worth reading/watching/listening.
From Gizmodo article:
Had you watched the video you would have seen that she has no interest in "cancelling" Feynman.
I'll have to add this to the long, long list of different definitions for the word "cancelled". I wasn't aware someone could be cancelled while dead.