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.
Keeping one's eyes open to contradictory/heretic/... evidence seems to be a common trait among the giants.
If you pay attention to what the others are doing, you are working inside what is socially acceptable in your group and usually you are not going to go against the stablished truth. Hence you will not be able to add any breakthrough to your area of expertise.
Feynman as the post says, experienced this social anxiety once he had the fame. He was able to recognice that you can not truly advance in new topics if you don't ignore social preasure, even if it's self inflicted.
Of course that means that you risk being called a crank, or not getting tenure, or grants for your proyects.
There is huge value in incremental knowledge, but to be Einstein, Watson or Feynman you first need to publish something new that most people will not recognice as valuable at first, if ever...
Edit typos.
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) say; the talents become famous, the much larger group that are not so talented (or, unfortunately, for other reasons) are never read.
If you're interested in how evolution works, check out The Selfish Gene.
I don't think I would dare to introduce radically new stuf (I'm no scientist so it's easy for me to make this statement), at least in the area that puts food on the table, and this is what most people do. It's natural.
You need to be antisocial or obsessed or have no need to public suport due to a special situation(rich, political suport, personal inconditional suport from the boss, being an outsider).
Most of them will be wrong just the same and considered cranks, made fun off and forgotten.
We still need this kind of people even if we wont be like them.
The exactly same suggestion from "our friend" is treated differently then suggestion from "that suspicious dude/girl". It may be difference between mild criticism and "it is ultimate proof he is dumbo". It makes big difference in practical results. It may be difference between "jesus, did you had to say that" and "you are not gonna get responsible position ever again or at least you are not gonna go to that meeting again".
By following curiosity however, knowledge in a specific direction as set by your heart compounds. You can become superhuman at being you. (there is some luck involved in whether those skills can transfer into money/power/etc for the given time period)
This is why early success can kill genius because a false God is created, the regard of others. By desiring and aiming, the target is missed. Because genius isn't about hitting targets or any sort of finite game with a goal. It's about the continuous burning of compounding interest, discovering and expanding our knowledge of the universe and life.
Willpower is powerful but myopic, like the electromagnetic force. Curiosity or self driven passion is like gravity, much weaker in small amounts but continuously compounding at all scales.
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!
Your point about working/collaborating/trusting in others is a twofold thing. Environments where everyone thrives to their max are very rare and hard to protect. Centrally here, being aware of what you need and how you can work with (or without) others is the crucial thing, and yes, reverse Dunning-Kruger happens to the best of us.
UPDATE: A bit of humility keeps every scientist's personality on the way towards self-improvement and breakthrough.
1. Write down the problem.
2. Think real hard.
3. Write down the solution.
"The Feynman algorithm was facetiously suggested by Murray Gell-Mann, a colleague of Feynman, in a New York Times interview."
"Guidance: Think".
The same math teacher also had at least one exam where all the correct answers except one happened to be exactly 3.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/13/donald-tru...
"“In conditions of uncertainty and risk,” the researchers explained, “some instances of optimism lead people to make better decisions by helping avoid more costly mistakes and contribute to survival and flourishing.” Even so, it’s true only to a point. “Excessive optimism,” they concluded, “can become problematic and lead to poor strategic planning, disillusionment and disappointment, and risky behaviours""
Trump also wrote, according to the article:
"“Someone asked me if I thought I was a genius,” he wrote in 2009 in Think Like a Champion. “I decided to say yes. Why not? Try it out. Tell yourself that you are a genius.”"
The researcher's thoughts:
"“For most people,” said Norem, who specializes in optimism, pessimism and personality psychology, “there’s a point at which, if that’s all they bring to the table, it breaks down.”
The question is where that point is for Trump. He is so clearly not most people. In the words of Mitch Horowitz: “He is a kind of Frankenstein monster of the philosophy” of positive thought.""
The whole article is really worth reading.
"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."
My response post is answering to that part of the question by referring to the article, which is worth reading exactly because it discusses that problem: when and where can it be said that somebody is just delusional, even if he gets to be a president of the only remaining "superpower".
More globally, the attitude described in the article is a broad phenomenon, which is also worth considering. In short, please read the article linked, don't react based only on your initial emotion. I guess you'll understand the post differently. I thought my quotes were a good selection, still I think you really missed the point if you complain that I compare them as equal.
As you see in the article and my quotes, Trump operates under the assumption that he's a "genius." Reading the other news, even when somebody (to be precise, a Secretary of State!) calls him a "moron" he responds with the IQ challenge (sounds like a joke but it's not):
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/10/donald-trump...
The previous article, here again for clarity,
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/13/donald-tru...
is however clear about the eventual problems of being delusional. Much bigger problem for everybody else than for the person himself.