When i was a little kid (which was this morning, i think), i always wanted to be an Evil Genius. Being a Genius was never in doubt. But to be truely Evil, i’d have to give up sainthood.

I can match people in a variety of fields - computers, astronomy, engineering. And, i promise to sink lower than anyone! Since i don’t have to be anyone’s full time archnemesis, there’s alot of me to go around!

Maybe some understood Feynman’s approach and devotion to his wife during that time, while some would be demonstrating the flirtatiousness of his behaviour? Ask the secretary;)

Do we now disregard the history and philosophical approach adopted by the current leaders of science now?

Why not make fun of eastern approaches and the “eightfold path.” Feel in accord with Gell-Mann? Tribal societies all have their leaders, and then someone different with Happyfeet comes into the fold, and while not the singer of the heart songs of Feynman, he may have tapped to a different view.

I am thinking about Schwartz here.:)

For that matter, there were undergrads who I considered brighter stars than I. I went to high school with Stephen Koonin, who started at Caltech the same year as I. Koonin rose to be Provost/Vice President of Caltech. Also, a couple of years ahead of me, was Paul Studenski, who in 4 years earned 2 B.S. and one M.S. degree (Physics, Electrical Engineering, and Biology).

Since my wife is a Physics professor, and my son started university ate age thirteen (13), I’m not even the brightest in my family. Fortuntaely, we have a dog. I know that I’m smarter than the dog, because I beat her 2 out of 3 at Chess.

To find my Yahoo email address, as I would be delighted to hear from you offline, go to the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences and use their search engine on my full name: “Jonathan Vos Post.” My edress is given at each of the 1,500+ hits. Which, by the way, does not mean that I’m bright, merely prolific on short easy Math…

I do remember you from those days. My vague impressions were that you were one of the brighter stars along (no small feat at CIT) and into science fiction.
Perhaps we can catch up off-line.

Elliot

(1) Good examples in #23.

(2) I was at Caltech 1968-1973 (and socially since then, as I’ve lived in Altadena for 19 years). The Feynman-Gell-Mann dipole is significant, but has large quadrupole and octupole moments. That is, the relationship between the two was incredibly formalized and nuanced and emotional. To a first order, the were each others’archnemises. Yet the full flavor of the connection (”Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman) vs. “Damnit, You’re Right Again, Murray” as retirled “The Quark and the Jaguar”) would take yet another Feynman feature film to clarify. Or a stage play starring Alan Alda and — who for Gell-Mann? I’m biased, of course, as a Feynman coauthor who has stayed in touch with his family.

(3) Newton as ultimate archnemisis: see Glashow’s talk transcript at

http://www.iecat.net/butlleti/pdf/90_butlleti_sheldon.pdf

However, it is not and should be part of accepted scientific conduct. There are a few people out there who think that the work they are doing is so central that they can treat people badly; they are wrong. Science is just another human endeavor; it isn’t so important that it should be used to excuse ethical or moral shortcomings.

That said, I don’t think Julianne’s original point was just about people who present themselves in a rude fashion. Following Klosterman, a nemesis can be somebody whose conduct is more or less reasonable but for whatever reason, your work and theirs are always colliding. To rise to the level of archenemy some iniquitous behavior is required. It could be public rudeness, but it could be sloppy research, misrepresenting results, deliberately failing to cite your work, blackballing your proposals, saying bad things about your work behind your back. All of this stuff happens. There isn’t much you can do about it except rise above it. I think a little private enjoyment of the taste of revenge is allowable, but not in public. One has to be careful not to go over to the dark side.

But after all personal style does not matter, discussions about shaven vs. unshaven, smelly vs. non-smelly, suit/tie vs. T-shirt, “simpleton f*cktars” vs. “ladies and gentlemen” is not a discussion about scientific conduct.

These are not at all analogous cases. If someone is slovenly, it’s an impersonal action on their part. Not necessarily pleasant to be around, and most people are not going to want to be near them in conferences, but it’s not a personal attack. However, if someone is in the habit of calling me names, then they are choosing to attack me personally and professionally. I don’t care if they do this to everyone, because it’s no excuse. You wouldn’t excuse a mugger on the grounds that it wasn’t personal, and they do it to everyone. You wouldn’t excuse the mugger because he was raised that way, and who’s to say what’s right.

Egregiously insulting your scientific colleagues is wrong, unprofessional, and unproductive. It is not a “matter of style”. You don’t get a free pass just because you’re a scientist.

I just don’t get it. I think the criterion for meeting scientific norms should be judged purely on scientific grounds. Personal issues should not matter. For instance there are people who think that shaving every day is a pain so they don’t do it, only every 5th day. There are other people who think that using a deodorant is unnecessary and they smell pretty bad. There are other people who couldn’t care less about the language they use because that was the way they were raised for some unknown reason and their mother did not ever tell them to use different language.

On the other hand there are people who think that an unshaved man is disgusting, smelly persons are disgusting or people who use obscene language are disgusting. However, all of this is a question of personal style which has nothing to do with science. And a smelly person might even interfere with other people’s ability to get work done simply because they are disgusted by the smell.

In fact, both point of views are a matter of style, I don’t see any objective criterion to decide whether an unshaven or shaven, smelly or non-smelly person is “better”. Similarly, I don’t see any objective criterion to decide whether a softly speaking person or a non-softly speaking person is “better”. One person is raised like this, the other one like that. Just as it is evident for you that using a language like “simpleton f*cktard” is not appropriate, for the other person it might be appropriate in some situation. I don’t think any one of the two of you has better grounds to claim he is “right”.

You might not like the guy for using offensive language and he/she might become your archenemy but I don’t think he/she should become a scientific archenemy. If it were so, scientific archenemies could be picked just because we don’t like the style of a guy.

To claim that people who use offensive language are doing so because they are unsure of themselves, insecure in their position, probably wrong, etc, is pure speculation. Of course this might be the case many times, but not always. Would you agree that if someone wears a suit and tie on a conference then this shows how insecure he/she is because he/she wants to make a “professional” appearance instaed of focusing on the content? I don’t think so, although some people might interpret it that way and argue based on their preferences in the field of clothing.

But after all personal style does not matter, discussions about shaven vs. unshaven, smelly vs. non-smelly, suit/tie vs. T-shirt, “simpleton f*cktars” vs. “ladies and gentlemen” is not a discussion about scientific conduct.

Best,
bhabha