Comment by chimeracoder | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chimeracoder | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Just goes to show that there is usually a huge difference between what we think of historical figures and how they actually were.

It shows that people are complicated and multifaceted. While we have a tendency to either laud or vilify figures (with nothing in between), in reality, historical figures can be both "good" and "bad" in different aspects of their lives... just like the rest of us.

My favorite example of this is Helen Keller[1]. Almost nobody these days knows anything about Helen Keller beyond the age of 18 - they know that learned to communicate despite being deaf and blind, but the nearly 70 years of her life after that are almost buried in history.

Which is a shame, because Helen Keller would have been a notable figure in her own right even if it weren't for her disability[2].

But because she was a member of the official Socialist party, we can't use her story as an inspirational lesson and mention that she held political beliefs that we may or may not agree with. Instead have to make a judgement call as to whether her "good" or her "bad[3]" side is more important to teach, and then forget about the rest.

Worse, this principle is applied in reverse to dehumanize people whom history has classified as villains. The result is that our history is filled with monochromatic caricatures, and we forget that, were we to see the complete picture, our modern-day "villains" may not look so different (for better or for worse!)

[1] I believe Loewen talks about this in his excellent book Lies My Teacher Told Me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me)

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller#Political_activiti...

[2] Naturally, this presumes that you either disagree with socialist politics or think that history lessons should be politically neutral, which is the predominant belief in the USA.

It is more complicated I think even in the case of Einstein. The period of strained relationship mentioned coincides with the period during which he was building up General Relativity (which he published in 1916). Given the intensity of work that would've been needed for that (all that gorgeous new math and physical insights!) with wrong turns to avoid in every move, it is well conceivable that his marriage was placed at risk. This list might even have been his way of expressing that his life priority is finding a unified theory of everything.

Now when I write that, does our welcoming of his great contributions need to make us guilty of also endorsing morals we perceive behind this "list of demands" he made of his wife?

I like to think of it backwards; If I knew that I had a contribution to make to humanity as great as Einstein's, would I willingly sacrifice my relationship with my family to make it?

I hope I would not. The future is irrelevant because unknown in the face of a single present person.

That's an extremely difficult moral problem. It's akin to asking yourself if you would rather rescue the child on the left or the 3 people on the right when given the choice.

And then with various permutations for the child being yours or a stranger and/or the people on the right being your parents and / or strangers.

We are not well equipped to make such decisions.

It is a tough moral problem, but one that societies of old have recognized and formalized. For example, most all religions have some formal structure where a person with a "higher calling" can take up a monkhood of some sort. Formal induction into monkhood made their severance from family ties public and contractual, much as the formal wedding ceremony publicizes a man-woman relationship.

We just don't have a socially accepted notion of "scientific monkhood" yet I suppose.

Well, the stereotype of the absent minded professor has existed for a long time now, as well as the hermit inventor/philosopher.

Perhaps not monkhood, but as an eccentric removing himself from society is a common occurrence. And for sufficiently levels of ability and talent, people are willing to forgo social convention.

I forget who it was, but one of the great ones long gone was extremely uncomfortable around people. To the extent that people were told that they should casually walk up to him, and without addressing him directly, talk to the air about the problem they were facing or had come up with.

For some, like Mendel, regular monkhood did the job.

Easy answer.

If it's my child or someone I know, save him/her.

If they are all strangers, save the greater number.

If I know both the child and one or more people among the set of 3, prioritize based on genetic or family proximity.

The point is, this can be solved algorithmically and/or game theoretically.

Ask a mother.

Save her child?

Add race/nationality/religion/culture and see if your algorithm changes.

Well, people probably skew toward people "like them", broadly speaking.

But it would be interesting to run the experiment in a psychology lab and see what kind of results arise.

I'm glad I searched before posting something similar. General Relatively is one of the greatest individual efforts in the history of science. I do think there is something noble about the self-isolation and dedication to his work that Einstein is reported to have had. While the list demonstrates somewhat anti-social behavior, espessially by today's standards, its unfortunate that the context is missing from the article.

Whether it is an individual effort or joint effort that Einstein took all the credits fro later, it is still not 100% sure. See the page[1] about Mileva Marić.

It wouldn't be the first time in the history of science that one man was recognized for something just because he was louder in self promotion (see Tesla vs Edison).

I don't claim that Mileva Marić is of Tesla caliber, but treating woman that is as educated as her husband, and who also participated and contributed highly in his early work as a mere home service says a lot about person doing it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87#Role_in_physi...

I agree that his Special Relativity work was probably worked on with some contribution of Marić, but I think his later work was more individual. Others may deserve credit for some of it though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute

History has a way of attributing contributions to the foremost scientist of the era. For example, "Newtonian" physics implies and is often taught to have all been first discribed by Newton, when in reality it was a joint effort of him, Galileo, Kepler, Descarte, Hooke, Leibniz, and others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com