Hacker News Reader

> He turned out right in the end of course, because Feynman, but there's lots of people who think they're Feynman and aren't and it's hard to tell the difference sometimes.

Well he had a Nobel prize in physics on his hands for starters, that's one way to tell the difference. Granted, noone's infallible, but it's a good predictor. Not that it would have spared him from fizzbuzz on the interview these days..

>Not that it would have spared him from fizzbuzz on the interview these days..

I'd hope an interviewer would view an applicant's fizzbuzz as a pleasant surprise if it came with a bit of casual mathematical proof.

>Well he had a Nobel prize in physics on his hands for starters, that's one way to tell the difference.

With the preface that I know that a higher calibre of comment is expected from me in this community, it's still the truth: I lol'd.

This is a great point. However, I would generalize a bit and say the problem is sometimes beyond ego; when someone's technical aptitude is greater than their ability to communicate. This is a more common problem than just the smartest guy in the room, and at some point you either trust each other, or agree to disagree.

That said there is an individual far worse than the brilliant teammate that's hard to understand. These are people whose ability to listen is worse than their technical aptitude. Just one of them in a meeting will destroy all progress, and disrupt any ideas that don't mesh with their preexisting thoughts.

On the flip side, it's also frustrating to know you're right about something, but because your co-workers don't have the same education as you they completely ignore you.

They are both real problems. Anecdotally, I've seen a lot more cases of specialists failing to communicate effectively than of non-specialists ignoring well-expressed advice. It's kind of endemic among techies, unfortunately.

Well actually in the next few paragraphs they do end up trusting Feynman's analysis and go with 5. And it worked.

I think you and the parent are agreeing. :) They didn't know what to make of Feynman's analysis, because it used techniques they weren't familiar with. It was clearly an approximation; were the error terms really ignorable?

They only used 5 when it turned out they couldn't manufacture 7 and had no other choice. So they only trusted his analysis out of desperation / wishful thinking, not out of objective reasoning.

But parent comment is using this as an example to complain about experts from different fields wasting people's time or whatever. But this is a terrible example to use. Feynman brought new insights that never would have occurred to computer scientists. And of course they were cautious at first. But they ended up trusting it enough to go through with manufacturing it. And he was right in the end.

Additionally parent comment complains about people like Feynman not being able to communicate. But there is nothing about that in the story. It goes on and on about how Feynman was a great communicator and explained his ideas clearly.

Lots of time is wasted trying to figure out how to get the rest of the company to communicate with the lone genius

Feynmann himself disdained this sort of lone genius puffery. He was critical of this in Murray Gell-Mann. I don't think Feynmann was a loner at all. He had people he liked and could relate to, and other people he didn't like and relate to, just like anyone.

I've been on the receiving end of these kinds of analysis and the result is that they seem to exist purely to showcase how smart the individual is and to provide no other meaningful input to the effort.

Bingo! Always look at the cost/benefit to the group. Everyone who seems like this on the surface tells themselves that they are striking a blow for the truth. But what is the overall effect? Did they primarily bring the group's perception of the truth closer to reality, or did they mostly establish themselves as the Alpha nerd? It's usually both, but what is the mix? Is the undertone one of kindness, or one of cruelty?

there's lots of people who think they're Feynman and aren't and it's hard to tell the difference sometimes

The same goes for Steve Jobs in the Bay Area.

You're making a big assumption that he could have achieved the same result using the techniques that failed for the rest of the team.