Hacker News Reader

Comment by bishnu | Hacker News Reader

Wow, what a misleading article. The "she's dead, and how's the project?" quip wasn't to show the scientific, rational way Feynman dealt with death but rather the unhealthy manner in which he'd internalized his grief. The book goes on to describe, at great length, how Feynman would spontaneously break down in tears when he saw something that reminded him of her, and how he'd continue to have conversations with her after her death (which I believe led to his disqualification from military service). I suppose that doesn't fit in well with the narrative of "Feynman is the ideal all rational thinkers should strive for!!!" this guy seems to be pushing though.

View on HN

"but rather the unhealthy manner in which he'd internalized his grief."

I look at it differently. I just think he didn't want to be annoyed by a bunch of standard "sorry to hear about your loss" that many people receive when someone hears about their loss.

He said:

"I didn’t know how I was going to face all my friends at Los Alamos. I didn’t want people with long faces talking to me about the death of Arlene. "

To me "long faces" is the key. The long faces make him feel uncomfortable. Just like many people are comfortable singing in front of their parents and friends and showing emotions and others are not.

You're saying the same thing in a different way. He repressed his grief because he couldn't cope with it. It wasn't a healthy reaction.

It was an understandable and normal reaction, given his youth and the pressure he was under, but it wasn't likely good for his mental health.

actually he didn't repress his grief. he understood that grief for her doesn't change that she's dead, and other people bugging him about her death doesn't make it any better. So he decides he might as well just continue doing what he was doing, because how he deals with her death is not his colleagues concern

Have you read Genius by Gleick? His response to his wife's death was to frenziedly throw himself into work and systematically abuse women. The idea that his grief was not being repressed doesn't stand up.

Again, very understandable in an ambitious young man growing up in the shadow of war with all that responsibility on his shoulders. But not what you'd call a healthy grieving process.

>and systematically abuse women

Really?

it's the code word for "any interaction with women i do not approve of"

You can read the bios yourself. After Arline he went on his "debug how to sleep with women binge" and then slept with his students' wives. Most complained that none of them could live up to his dead wife, and the more ill-treated ones wrote to the others saying that the best way to get out of a Feynman relationship was to make a few dollars by claiming to have missed your period.

This is all passed over quite briefly in Genius, but you'll find more evidence elsewhere.

i would like to know what is a healthy grieving process.

Any correlation made by glieck with his way of living is purely his own interpretation of things, and not feynman's. So, you idea that the idea of grief not being repressed doesn't stand up doesn't stand up (yes, read that sentence carefully).

You are not his mind, nor a psychic (no, not psychotherapist) to tell why he did what he did.

If you ever read his "autobiographies" you'll see he's been very well received by women around him (since his princeton years), not after arlene's death.

What would be the point talking to people about this loss of a loved one, who merely ask you because social norm dictates it so?

What would he have gained?

He was obviously of sound mind and spirit, and did not require "grief counseling" from his analytical co-workers. So he ended that conversation.

"because social norm dictates it so"

Agree (as my comment indicates). This is an auto response that is triggered upon hearing certain news. While a person might also have an emotion many times you say it to someone you don't even know and care about. People hear something and they instinctively act a certain way. I'm not saying everybody is like this of course.

I'm the author of the OP and think you may have (understandably) missed the point. The headline is "Feynman's Clock" and how he thought through the stopped clock is the example of his always logical mind.

But considering I kind of went on at length about what he did immediately after, then I can see your interpretation. But to answer your point, I don't pass judgment or approval of Feynman, just showing how his "distant" persona does not capture the entirety of his emotion and thought.

That's fair. Yes, it seemed to me everything that came after what you wrote about the clock seemed to be there to support the overall point.

> (which I believe led to his disqualification from military service)

I read the book a while ago so I don't remember it enough to respond to the rest of your comment, but this part here I do remember.

He was disqualified from military service because he played games with them in the screening and said things like he "heard voices in his head" (because that's what thinking is). The section was all rather funny.

yes. he does say "he talks to her", but explains that he knows she's dead, and he only talks to the thought of her, rather than seeing her. that's one seriously funny section of his book.

> unhealthy manner

Evidence required.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com