He actually did. He talked to me when I was a toddler at a physics conference in Greece and i remember it well. However, at the time I thought my father (another physicist) was smarter than him:)
Richard actually forgot why magnets repulse, so he came up with the most elaborate distraction of an explanation to make you forget that you'd even asked.
the very moment when Feynman says "when you explain a why, you have to be in a framework where you allow something to be true, otherwise you're perpetually asking why", i believe it makes it very clear that his soul purpose in life is to EDUCATE in the form of changing peoples viewpoints to always consider the "Scientific Method", even if you're a simple person such as this interviewer who Feynman likely knows very well will have no interest in actually studying magnets to actually understand them. i believe he is basically saying, unless you really take the effort the understand the fundamentals of literally every single aspect of the question you're asking via experiment or experimental data, then your knowledge of that question is entirely based on what you read/see/ or are told. this may be because i just finished watching his Scientific Method video as well, but to me it seems he basically found it very reasonable to apply the Scientific Method to any aspect of life as lets you take into account all possible biases in the situation which can be incredibly helpful for solving problems, and literally every single thing you do in life could be considered a problem you can solve.
Even after speaking on so many topics and fields in a single breath, he came back to original topic. That's an art. Many people tend to forget where they started.
@@schmetterling4477 i think he did answered the questions in last few seconds. Iron atoms spinning in same direction magnifying the force which u generally dont feel in other materials.
@@GAURAV-hm4xd No, he didn't. The question at 0:10 was not about magnets. It was about the nature of the magnetic field. Do you know why he was being asked that? Because he wasn't a solid state physicist but a quantum field theorist. He got the Physics Nobel for developing the correct theory of the quantized electromagnetic field. He really didn't know much about magnetism and you can clearly tell by his struggling attempt to explain what he hadn't been asked to begin with.
"Why is Aunt Minnie in the hospital?" "Because water expands when it freezes, and because of gravity, which involves the planets and everything else. Frankly, it's impossible to really understand why she's there." "You are a bad cousin, Richard."
Yes. Yessss.....is this being clever? That’s exactly what he’s saying. Aunt Minnie is in the hospital because of electromagnetic forces holding molecules together in Aunt Minnie-shaped clumps, and gravitational forces attracting those clumps to larger clumps like planets. So, yes. You’re restating what he said. Is there a joke I’m missing? (AND BEFORE I CATCH ANY FLACK- yes I know smaller masses also tug on larger ones; but because electromagnetism is so vastly stronger, it takes a much larger body for gravity to overcome it and be noticed)
What do you mean by would I "like" fries with that? What do think it means to like? Let me explain weather we are even able to like in the way you think you like things. We can't. Do I want fries? Yes please.
@@Jayhhardy But why does he (or she) ask the question; What do you mean by would I "like" fries with that? Probably because the McDonald's drive through assistant DIDN'T ask; DO you WANT fries with that?, Because he (or she) has probably been instructed to use the word, "like" when a customer orders, because it is a positive sales reinforcement technique.
@vladimir putin is andrei panin jfk is jimmy carter How do you know that you're not hallucinating right now and just responding to things you've imagined? Ultimately we can be certain of very little, but if something has been verified by enough other people, it's worth trusting them. If we try to verify every detail of every piece of information in our life we won't have time for stuff like ice cream or youtube.
I have watched this so many times over te years that I almost know it off by heart; and yet, when I bump into it again I cannot resist istening to it yet again.
I just had an epiphany. This is why young kids ask "why?" over and over. They don't have the framework with which to understand the answer that those with more experience understand intuitively.
@@MovementLiquid When Feynman has a meltdown because, like you, he didn't listen carefully at 0:10? No, I didn't miss that, but that's Feynman's shame and yours. :-)
This is why I LOVE the "Explained In 5 Levels" Series on TH-cam, covering all sorts of different subjects. You get to see the cut off in your own understanding, and the deepening of the explanations as they get more technical, but also the beauty in how complex things arise from simple concepts in a progression of stacking and intertwining knowledge.
That's true - but the point is, you can start with the simple... and become more complex/nuanced. This video is the example of someone saying, it's ok you don't understand, you are dumb and don't need to. Learning should be focused (and this is a modern view) on the rising-lifts-all-boats. We need to encourage that the answers are easy, but the understanding is hard. If we can get more people past the first hurdle, the later ones become incrementally easier.
2 lessons I perceive: 1. Asking "why" allows to start on the journey of discovery 2. Discovery ends only when the observer decides that they are done searching
The sad thing is that he would have been able to explain the answer to the actual question quite well. He just didn't hear it. Watch the video carefully. You will notice that he was very tired. His eyes were glazing over when the interviewer asked the actual question at the ten second mark. He didn't get it and he misunderstood what he was being asked to explain. The whole thing went down from there because what he thought he was being asked is not a physics question that can be answered in anything less than a whole semester course called "Magnetism", which is so awful that I hope that you will never be required to take it. I was. ;-)
no. you ask him "what is today" Feynman: "Well, first you have to know what day it is NOT. Me: "Just answer the damn question! What is the truth!?" Feyman: You can't handle the truth!
A 6 year old likely has a high curiosity and would therefore keep asking why up until the most basic concepts. I'm sure a teacher could make a 6 year old understand something but that would require them to teach a huge subset of the field in the process. This is super time consuming, so no wonder people can't teach a 6 year old, even if they understand it.
I bet at first the interviewer felt ashamed for asking the question, but after few minutes of Feynman giving this EPIC speech, he couldn't have felt any better about asking it :D
The interviewer had nothing to feel ashamed about. It is Feynman who doesn't hear one of the finest science questions that one can possibly ask. Neither is Feynman in a good situation here because in an interview the man with the camera always has the upper hand. If he decides to show one of your weakest performances as a human being, then you are toast. And, yes, that is what the interviewer did here.
yes, yes! I totally agree! And as a father of a 7 year old child I hope that every time I tend to be anoyed by the billion questions a day I will remember this clip and very calmy explain the things, just the way they are and how "I"! understand them to my boy - in HIS language :-)
What this shows is that you are capable of many levels of understanding as a kid. The educational system in public and some private schools today wants to keep your stupid, so they provide stupid answers, the same stupid answers that Feyman is unwilling to use. Kids want to and understand the need to get it completely right. Adults don't want to take the time to indulge them.
Yes , he expands your methods of thinking about anything , it makes you more analytical about everything and gives you wisdom in dealing with the world around you at a safer level than just the simple mthd of not exploring he “why” deeper , it’s a survival skill multiplier , so to speak , if you choose to use the informationsafely
•aunt minnie is in the hospital •ice is slippery •some husband aren't interested in their wife's welfare and are drunks •grease is wet and slimy •ordinary people don't know anything •if you put your hand on the chair it pushes you back •i can't explain it revise for test
When my daughter was about 2 years old, she went through a phase of asking "why" constantly. I would answer each question as best as I could, then she would ask another "why?", often to statements that were self-evident for me and everyone else. Seeing that video helped understand that she has a totally different framework than mine - she knows nothing about the world so everything needs to be explained to the most basic level. It would go on until she would have an answer that she understands in her framework or until she would not understand the words I was saying: "The car is white" - why? "hmm Because someone painted it white" - why? "Because I asked them to paint it white when I bought it" - why? "Because I like the color white, just like you like purple!" -oh... ok...
Umm yeah? I don't even have children and I knew this... this is something everyone already knows, you didn't need to spend the effort writing a whole novel about it.
Best advice to keep trying to answer the whys. She will stop asking about the specifics after she feels to understand the deepest basics of it. Its something like the natural "first priciple".
I use this method with my children they are the hyper active type and they naturally don't think much but they enjoy the mental aerobics of these types of questions I think your nephew will also enjoy this type of game
You should rather listen to your 5 yo nephew's questions and wonder why yourself. That's actually the point Feynman makes: if you're curious enough you'll end up questioning why until you find the fundamental "why" that actually gives you fundamental and true understanding. We took more than 2 thousand years do find the "atom", that literally means uncuttable or indivisible, just to find out it wasn't the fundamental, smallest constituent unit of ordinary matter that the philosophers of old thought it was... so we asked "why" until we were satisfied just to discover 2 millenia after we didn't fully comprehend reality, we had an incomplete answer to our "why", and yet again we were asking "why", a new "why". I started out in Physics... I'll be asking why till the day I die. Your nephew is trying to understand the world, it's good that his curiosity still wasn't hampered and he still digs deeper on those why's, for as long as he does his understanding will deepen more than of those who stopped asking it earlier.
He *actually answered* the question ( electrical forces ) but he stated "I can not answer your question..." because in a truly genius way he limited the scope of the answer to the understanding capacity of the receiver. There is nothing bad here. He is not meaning the receiver can not understand, it is the old paradigm of the kid that is trying to fill up the hole in the beach with the ocean. No matter how many buckets of sea water the ocean will be in his position and the hole empty... Still the kid will keep trying and truly remarkable teachers like Feynman will point out *why* the whole is still empty...
Actually, if you look closely he half-answered the question: he answered about repulsive forces but then he said he couldn't answer about attractive, because there was nothing else he could compare it to.
@@KostasAlbanidis Oh it wasn't a criticism. I think this was brilliant; it's just interesting how there's a wide diversity of ways of summarizing what Feynman was and was not saying. It's almost like "The Dress".
@@KostasAlbanidis Math, optics and the Standard Model are human constructs to make sense of qualia, including but not limited to color. Ego, perceived color is more fundamental (less of a construct) than any rigorous method one has of describing it.
@@irshviralvideo Rolling on the laughing floor. My floor also laughs at me sometimes. I stopped rolling on it since that time it tried swallowing me though. Don't piss off your floor. It's friendlier when it's laughing. Much friendlier. Oh god.. so much friendlier...
@@MarsLonsen Well, first you ask how did he detect it and I might tell you that he perceived it with his senses, but then you might ask how do senses tell us things. Then I might say that our sensory system consists of sensory organs that perceive outside stimuli and deliver it through a neural network to our brains. Then you might ask ''how come we have such sensory organs'' and so on... That's interesting.
@@21.parthjoshi20 he DID go straight to the point by saying "magnets repel each other" however he predicted the interviewer would ask 'why' again and had to tell him that he could not explain anything deeper than this. It seems like very few people listened to him speak.
I could listen to this man for hours. The way he sees and describes the world is just so incredibly unique. I guess this is how a super intelligent alien would have answered that question. Never take anything for granted, always stay curious. 😊
3rd grade Teacher to Feynman on an English test: "What color was the balloon?" "What do you mean by what color? Color is a refractive index of light. Color is an illusion. You might as well ask me why sugar is sweet and salt is salty. That's a great question, let me explain. But first, tell you where taste actually comes from. It's an electro-neurological stimulus...." *5 pages later* "Anyway, I can't tell you what color it was because you don't know anything."
This is why scientists need to be truly educated, meaning actually having the ability to think. And again, meaning that they become well versed in philosophy or at least epistemology. The nihilistic and amateurish conclusion that we know nothing is laughable at best.
@@cristianmartinez9091 You're spouting sweet nothings. You claim that every scientist needs a background in philosophy because of... What? A physicist's long-winded response to an inane question? The fact he hurt your feelings by saying that you know nothing? Feynman wasn't perfect, but he was definitely not an ivory tower academic.
"Do try to understand that I haven't called you fat at any point leading up to this interaction. I clearly haven't shown that I think you're fat. I might notice it if I really look. But at this point I know I don't care. So to me, I have to say no, not at first glance. But now that you've put me in the mindset that you might be fat, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say yes, it does. Not necessarily the dress alone, unfortunately. It definitely exasperates some visual features that people see more in someone they would call fat. I'm not calling you fat. But someone else might. So if someone else seeing you as fat is the issue you care about, then yes, the dress absolutely makes you look fat. I would go as far as to say some people would call you a heckin chonker. But that's not me. I didn't want to be here in the first place. I just wanna touch your butt and watch south park with you."
If you actually keep answering their questions they soon lose interest (normally when you mention doing some research) 🙄 hopefully well before you're completely out of your depth.
@@midnattsol6207 Yes. This is also true. But with small chlidren, when they get stuck in the why loop, they're rarely listening to what you're actually saying, they're playing a game. You play the game by answering the questions, but you're just playing the part of the person delivering a set-up line for the child. You can tell when a child is genuinely inerested in obtaining information to answer questions, and I think the best way to help educate children these days is to demonstrate to them that they can educate themselves using the resources directly at hand. I tried to explain how lightening worked to my nephew when he was about 5 and quickly realized I _didn't know_ how lightening worked and we spent a good 20 minutes learning about it together on the computer. Job done! 👍
@@wavydavy9816 noooo, when I was a kid I would ask my das questions for HOURS, and I was lucky enough to have a dad who was well educated and could answer a lot of them. But it always bugged me when we reached the "that's just how the universe works" point.
I did my undergraduate science degree at Oxford the unique system there is based on weekly tutorials with your tutor and a relatively few lectures and laboratory practical. Every week you are asked to write an essay on a topic you have not studied before and the tutor marks it and you discuss for an hour. I say 'discuss but your tutor is quite possibly someone like Richard Feynman and after three or four years of being exposed to that EVERY week all I can say is what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Academic people like Richard Feynman can go from asking the most annoyingly and intensely frustratingly simple question to blowing your mind in 3 minutes. Ask a question so simple a mere mortal (or undergraduate) can't understand why its even being asked and then suddenly reveal to them that everything they thought they understood has been torn apart along with their essay. Its a level of intelligence and thinking which is extraordinary as this clip shows.
Hi, I’m in my first year, and I would like to get a better understanding of what you were talking about, would it be possible to somehow give an example of the essay you wrote about?
@@CycleEnder Typically you will just be given an essay title to write about. Mostly you will never have had a lecture on it. Then you will be expected to go away, research the topic by reading original academic research and authoritative books. Your tutor will probably give you a reading list of papers to get you started but you will be expected to read more than that. Then you write your essay. Then you hand it in. Then you go to your tutorial (usually with a few other students) and discuss your essay. Its that simple. During the tutorial you will be asked to defend and discuss and consider everything you have written or ever thought about the topic. Your tutor is trying to teach you to think. The tutor is there to train you be an academic thinker. Your tutor doesn't teach you facts but will correct any obvious errors in your essay with written comments. I was a biochemist - so an essay title might be 'Ribosomes and their role in protein synthesis: what we know and don't know'. 1500 words
Feynman's ability to instantly delve deeply into the topic of "Why' with so many examples that are immediately relatable is really quite remarkable. He takes what seems to be on the surface a simple question and expounds on it to an extraordinarly deep level. He really was quite a fascinating person to listen to.
@@walter4180 I'm with you Walter; in a sense, Feyman sort of gives a good reason as to why he didn't need to go into any of that. It's called "reading the room." It's pretty obvious to most people watching this video (or that film) that the dude asking wanted to know some of the inner workings of the physical universe that aren't so apparent on the surface as regards magnetism. If you go to my channel and watch my recent Vlog on magnetism, you will get a much clearer understanding of this magical force (that was a joke - I generally make an ass of myself - purposely :-) In any event, the basic principles of magnetism and why it seems like magic but the explanation of why it isn't maybe given in about one or two minutes would have sufficed.
@@voicetube That's complete nonsense. Feynman simply messed up here. There was no need to start a rant about why questions. The initial question was "What is that feeling (force) between two magnets?". That is a perfectly fine physics question that has a straight forward answer. Why Feynman couldn't give it is a mystery to me.
@@schmetterling4477 because almost every question of magnetism doesn't have simple answers. He tried to say that on the beginning but the man wasnt satisfied. So Feynman just explained how his question will turn in another ten questions and will take hours to explain
@@schmetterling4477 - It's simply because he is such a smart-arse dickhead that he didn't know HOW to answer it. So smug and arrogant in his own self-righteousness, yet totally unable to answer the most simple question. There are various technical terms, including "fuckwit", "knob-jockey", "bell-end" and "tool".... mostly related to penises, however it's notable that a penis is a useful object.
i don't think Feynman draws the difference here. I don't think he thinks the interviewers was mistaking motive or an agency behind natural phenomena. I think he sees the interviewers curiosity to ask such an interesting question about physics to be the start of an inquiry that if the interviewers is being scientific, would lead to a series of questions that would eventually bring him to the most fundamental question--a question about the fundamental forces. and so he's answering the question that would be asked in the future and pointing out that at the end of the would-be series of inquiry, the questioner would have to be contend with not knowing further because that's as far as one could explain. this fundamental premise is known as axiom. a valid axiom can be demonstrated by its alignment with reality--and hence verified with the senses.
@@GrammeStudio Well, there is also no known answer for why magnets work. I think he could have answered honestly, but had the wherewithal to explain his reasoning. The answer is that no one knows why.
@clayfame I used to think the same. But if I carefully analyze answers that I am satisfied with, they are merely descriptions as well. More importantly, we can differentiate actual descriptions from false ones by being able to correctly predict outcomes of yet unknown scenarios. Then i ask why am i satisfied with some descriptions while a few others leave a bad taste (or a certain kind of uneasiness in accepting). The only answer I can come up with is randomness of my mental state of acceptance.. Given an alternate universe, I might have been satisfied and dissatisfied with completely different sets of descriptions.
@@garysutherland7004 That's simply not true. There are varying levels to what 'understanding' is. As eloquently explained by Feynman in this video, there are varying depths of understanding how magnets work, that varies among different people. Eg. a university student will know more about how magnets work than say a child. Sure, we may not know how magnets work to the deepest level of quantum physics, but just because we do not, does not mean the answer is "no one knows".
This is actually an incredibly useful exercise in limiting the scope of a question. "How" and "why" questions have answers that are entirely defined by the expected knowledge of the *questioner,* just as much as that of the answerer. Notice how Feynman _did_ answer the question to various levels of satisfaction as a component of his overall criticism of asking unbounded questions.
Schmetter Ling is right. The point is not that one has to limit the scope of a question, but that every question contains numerous, almost infinite implications and frameworks. Communication between two people always depends on these implications and frameworks, and part of Prof. Feynman's pleasure is that he WANTS you to ask deeper, deeper, deeper until you go with him to truly understand the marvels of the universe.
@@schmetterling4477 do you really think the interviewer would have been satisfied with, "the magnetic force" in response to a question about what is it that he's feeling when he feels two magnets repel? The interviewer already knows that the magnetic force exists, but he's not clear about what is going on-he doesn't even have a framework to articulate why it seems mysterious to him that magnets repel each other. He wants a deeper answer than just, "they do" and yet ultimately, as Feynman points out, there is no deeper answer. It's a feature of the universe. You're the kid who is so convinced he's smarter than everyone else that he doesn't even need to listen to the full video before setting himself up as superior to Feynman. We get it, you think you're a genius, and so insecure you have to point out flaws in people with reputations for being brilliant. Christopher Sykes was the interviewer, and had immense respect for Feynman. Maybe you should consider that he got a lot more out of the answer than you think he did.
The singularly most important reason as to why it would be a poor choice to ask Richard Feynman what day it is today is because the guy is fucking dead. Resultantly, it would be extraordinarily difficult for him to respond to you, let alone provide you with an accurate answer. Retrospectively, it would have been just as easy (or perhaps significantly easier) to have conveyed that exact same message with just 5 words rather than 50
"Resultantly, it would be extraordinarily difficult for him to respond to you, let alone provide you with an accurate answer." And yet would there be an answer, it would last four minutes and make you feel like an idiot for not wording the question better.
Basically what he's saying is that he can't answer "why" magnets repel each other because giving you a definitive answer would not be truthful. There are so many things you need to understand and theories you need to accept as true to understand "why" magnets repel each other. And that's literally what scientists spend their whole lives doing. So unless you want to be a scientist and study physics, you just need to accept the known nature of magnetism. And this is why I love this guy so much. He purposely went on all those tangents and drew out the "answer" so long to demonstrate the fact that such a simple question only begets more and more questions, some of which we can't answer truthfully yet. It's not meant to insult the interviewer or anyone else, but only to illustrate how amazing science is and how much more we still have to learn. People who are fascinated by everything he said here may be encouraged to further their study of science. Everyone else will just go, "oh...okay..." and quickly accept that magnets repel each other because it's cool and sciency.
@TomG Gabin If you don't want to learn the science yourself (which takes a lot longer than a 10 minute TH-cam video can accomplish) then yes, you just need to trust the people who've dedicated their entire lives to it. If you chose to be both ignorant and skeptical, then that's on you and no one is under any obligation to cater to you.
"You have to be in some framework that you allow something to be true. Otherwise you're perpetually asking why". What a great great neuron connections.
morbikdon nothing is true everything is permitted as self imposed limits dictate and as ones own internal harmony harmonizes with the harmony of others or dis harmony so to speak Mr Anderson
An ordinary man is eager to tell you what he knows. An extraordinary man goes to great lengths to tell you what he doesn't know. By the time he is done, you know 10x more than what you asked for.
@@johnjonjhonjonathanjohnson3559 I do understand what you mean, but maybe the person is, not the question. According to Sagan, questions are not stupid because it's a 'method' to get information. If you tell the person (a child maybe), 'Earth is a sphere because of (proof)' and he/she goes 'ok', then it was not very stupid...
Why is not a stupid question, and when Feynman says it is a good question he isn't patronizing, he's genuine in his response that it is difficult for him to answer it in a way that can be considered satisfactory to the interviewer. I'd have to transcribe what he says because I don't have a better way to explain it, it all depends on the reason for asking it is, whether your trying to understand forces, the way materials behave under certain circunstances, if you're interested in metallurgy, applications, curious about science, and so on. Sagan was talking about how as we grow up we start to take into account how we are perceived by our classmates, so the more pressure we feel the more we try to avoid questions that are considered 'stupid', and social animals that we are, we tend to ask 'safely', to supress the questions that would reveal our ignorance even if it's a perfectly good question and, as seems to be happening in the video, ask a question that we don't know if it's good or not, and not be really prepared for its answer.
Wikipedia does not replace the science library. People who already know the subject and can tell the quality from the bullshit articles can get something out of it, but if you think that it will do you any good as a naive user, think again.
@@schmetterling4477 Wikipedia is a good starting point and general summary. You should always check the cited sources (that's why Wikipedia puts up big red banners warning of articles which have insufficient or low quality citations), but Wikipedia is a useful resource. A scientific library is more powerful _but more specialized_ , and requires an existing working understanding of the topic to be of use. Most papers on mathematics are impenetrable for anyone without a university level education.
Wow! I mean, it's not just his explanation that is impressive, it's his ability to understand a question better than the person asking the question. He sees the inner workings of the mind of the interviewer, understands his motivation, notices a flaw or weakness in that mind and then sets out to repair or awaken that mind in that very precise and almost ruthless way of his!
I'm a Mechanical Engineering student. You learn about guys like this that were geniuses and changed mankind's understanding. But what makes me smile is that he sounds just like MY professors, the good ones anyway. He's angry that I asked a good question in a stupid way and he wants me to understand what's proper and try again. I've always wondered what it would be like to be taught by professors Like Feynman but I've realized that he was human like the rest of us and that my professors were amazing like the greats before them.
@@zigravos Only because it was a teaching on the matter of asking questions.. the guy wasnt answering the question (he was indirectly), he was making a point about knowledge
@@gon_trek2481 Which has nothing to do with the quality of the question, because said question is not complicated at all (altough it could have been ). So it disproves the initial statement indeed.
@@Fundracar74 mmmm right but that explanation didnt emerge because the question hinted at it, only because the speaker felt like dropping knowledge bombs... so most of the time if the speaker isnt really oriented to teaching you just answering your question, the less contextualized the question the more general (worse) the answer will likely be.. it seems obvious really
Why do say 'little' kid? Isn't a kid by definition little? And what is little? How do you measure it? Is there a general length for a person to be qualified as little? If so, who and how and why did they come up with that requirement?
@@jusalbanicae184 clearly because one (meter) is a low number although there's infinite amount of decimal numbers, but we define the unit so really we could also say the density is low for example a body except for the head would stay afloat in water. What was the question again? Lol
Well, except how did Feynman know what exactly is familiar to that person asking questions. So he himself made some /pretty unjustified/ presumption about someone's knowledge or mental abilities... And he implied that he doesn't like that question, actually insulting his interlocutor.
@@fidziek The thing is, Electromagnetism is notoriously for being a very difficult topic to most people in the STEM disciplines and requires substantial prerequisite knowledge. If you go further than that (to describe the nature of forces within particles), you would be tackling Quantum Mechanics, which kills all. So, unless Feynam happened to know that the interviewer had a background in engineering or physics, I think it's pretty fair that Feynman can make that claim.
@@fidziek It's not about knowledge. The fact that he asked that question should make it clear that electromagnetism cannot be explained in terms of anything that interviewer knows. Otherwise he wouldn't have asked the question.
@@studiousboy644 only he's not asking for his own benefits, but on behalf of the viewers/listeners, and I pressume he's not one of Feynmann apprentices/students... i.m.H.o.
@@philipfry9436 it's not about someone's feelings, but so called personal culture (including empathy, EQ, IQ) of Great Master Feynmann - he should not humiliate anyone, simple as that.
The problem is that Mr Feynman knew that the ''why'' question could only be answered to the interviewer's satisfaction by making a parallel to that person's understanding of science or to his intuition of how he experiences the world. In that case, the only possible parallel would be physical contact between objects at a macroscopic level. This was heading straight towards circular reasoning. Pushing & pulling of physical objects feel familiar to all, yet involve the electromagnetic force at a microscopic level. He mentioned it in his answer. The interviewer should have known he had his answer. If he wanted to know more, he had to get back to school and push further by getting a degree in physics. Yes, Feynman was kind of rude, but my feeling is that he's been there many times before and was tired of it.
@@entrancemperium5506 I agree with you, except with him being rude. As a scientist, you are required to give the most scientific answer. But when talking to someone unrelated to the field, you should dumb it down to the interlocutor but at the same time you would feel that the oversimplification won't really give the right answer. The interviewer must really understand the point Feynman is trying to convey.
Now I know why my toddler has so many WHY questions as the resulting answer helps him understand much more about the world around him.. Many of these facts are fascinating to him while grownups are so used to it, they really don't care..
"Richard what time will you be home for dinner?" "You see the problem with your question is that time is relative, so in order for me to give you an answer we first need to talk about the theory of relativity"
No? He literally explains how he CANNOT explain it in terms of anything the guy is more familiar with because he doesn’t understand the electromagnetic force in any way that is familiar to the interviewer. There might not even be a way to explain the electromagnetic force in terms of something else like gravity, it could just be a completely fundamental force of nature.
Not really. He's saying the why question can't be answered at any level of depth, either to a layman or a scientist. Even if he explains magnetism at the deepest level possible, there is always scope for another follow-up 'why' question. Always. And that's because science is only observational. It observes the existing universe and the laws that govern it, but can't explain why the laws exist, no matter how deep you go. There is no end to the 'why' question. You might as well ask why anything exists. And the answer would be, it just does. Science might one fine day explain all the phenomena with one unified law, but you will still be able to ask why that law exists. Never ending.
Both philosophy and science need to be put into play if the human race wants to "know" more and more about the nature of the universe from its -obviously, human- perspective. Even religion is vital to that, sadly (for me). You could even reach to saying that pilosophy is a field of science, in some way.
@@fL0p Very true. Just like there is a search for a unified theory that can explain all of the universe that principle, those rules of nature govern our existence and therefore our perception. Humans evolved from a world following rules, equations, principles, whatever terminology, and so really the physics and the philosophy are just interpretations of existence.
I'm actually very frustrated by the way he answered this. I understand the praise people give him for the way he answered, but he could also answer it from another perspective: he could try to understand what the person asking meant and give as detailed of an answer that covers the breadth of the topic while still being understandable to the person asking. That would be true art, to understand people and communication enough to deliver a depth of knowledge in the context he was given. Instead he gave a speech about how different people are smarter and dumber, and to tell him how dumb you are so that he can simplify things for you. I'm being harsh but that is how I feel it.
Watch the first few seconds. The man was very tired. And, yes, he probably had rather low EQ despite being brilliant on the left brain department. Who is the winner? The man with the camera. He got a slice of Feynman here that absolutely destroys the myth of the man.
Everyone who has ridden the Why Train long enough knows the last two stops are "I don't know" and "shut up" People don't like these stops so they get off way earlier. Why? Because they don't want to risk feeling dumb. Why? Feelsbadman. Why? Chemical body stuff. Why? Evolution? Why? Survival. Why? I don't know. Why? Shut up!
No you are absolutely wrong. All these things have been proven and defended to death(What the fuck are chemical bodies), a layperson just doesn't give a damn why they exist to even try reading the theories and finding the answers.
The why has no end guppy. Even when you keep going deeper there will always be another. You get to unanswerable questions eventually. Nothing but speculation goes beyond and even there the why's keep on coming.
Feynman is really giving the interviewer a gift. A lazy person who didn't care would just give a canned answer that has already been given countless times. He could have given a razzle dazzle answer that would have just been another trope. Feynman grabs you and says "NO" I'm not going to let you off easy - I'm going to show you how a scientist thinks - buckle your seatbelt buddy!
One needs to be able to turn it off. Not every moment needs to be a teaching moment. For most folks - even many of us neuro-atypicals, the brains needs to be able to rest between learning periods. Feynman simply didn't give a damn that he was "supposed to be giving an interview", he didn't give a damn about interviews at all.
@@railgap I think you missed the point. Listen to Feynman's very last sentence. It's because he actually DOES care about the interview that he answered in this way. I do agree that every moment doesn't need to be a "teaching" moment. But the context is an interview with a world renowned physics professor, where the interviewer asks him to explain a phenomenon in physics. So the context IS a teaching moment.
Nonsense. Feynman simply shows that scientists don't know anything truly, especially when it comes to the kernel of things, which is magnetism. He gives an ignorant answer that doesn't answer anything, and people are fooled and think he is a genius.
@@crhkrebs I was not talking to you. I don't know what imaginary point you are talking about. Feynman didn't understand Magnetism, that's why he couldn't answer properly, but was let astray into nonsensical anecdotes by his confusion. I used to idolize him too, but realistically it is just like this: neither Feynman nor any other scientist, knows what Magnetism is. That's why all of physics is basically wrong and not going anywhere for 100 years and counting. To try to argue this away is self-delusion and keeps the one not admitting this stuck in ignorance. But maybe you meant something else? Talking down to somebody is not a sign of confidence.
@@MJ123and5 I didn't mean to say that. Of course, the interviewer's question was by no means a childish one. But listening to Dr Feinman astonishing ability for answering it I can see that he must have been capable to answer satisfactorily to children questions, which are very often much more complex than most people believe. Remember that children are used to make not only a single question, but a series of questions depending on what their parents answer to them, and in many cases adults end giving up because they have no idea about what to answer to them.
Feyman gets most of his (well deserved) credit for physics, but he really was a teaching pioneer. He understood that children learn differently and that a one-size-fits-all approach was a bad idea for the classroom because you'd always leave some kids out.
no he didn't. if he followed up his 7 minute tirade about the nature of the word 'why' with an acceptable answer (for the interviewer) then it would've been fine. but as this video shows anyway, he just leaves the interviewer with the same question, still unanswered.
@@zzthedon4k I know it's been years since your comment, but how is from 5:00 to 6:00 minutes not an answer to the question? I feel like that's an acceptable answer, but maybe I don't understand what you mean
The storage capacity of my balls has been exceeded, and are causing pressure to be exerted on the walls of my ballsack, sending nerve impulses to my brain, giving me the urge to go to the bathroom (although a bathroom is not strictly necessary to relieve this pressure). This is all because pee is stored in the balls, however, the balls only have a limited capacity for pee.
Rather long but very entertaining and educational way of saying "I cant explain this in terms you are more familiar with, because I dont understand it in terms you are more familiar with.
So, if it isn't explainable in 144 characters you think it's long... There is so much beauty in his build-up to explain WHY this is a difficult question to answer. Not many people understand exactly what your question implies and bridge that to a core answer. RF was one of the few who were capable of doing just that.
@@SWIFTzTrigger You just gotta know Feynman. He was a pretty unique dude. I don't think he was being condescending here at all, though I do see where you're coming from. He was just the kind of guy who knew when he was the smartest man in the room and saw no reason to hide it. And that can easily come across as condescending but is it really if that was not his intention? Dude just loved science and thinking and didn't see a reason to treat people with kid gloves unless he was trying to get laid.
My learnings The importance of curiosity: Richard Feynman emphasizes the value of curiosity and questioning the world around us. He believes that asking why is essential to understanding how things work. The need for a framework: Feynman suggests that to explain why something happens, we need to have a framework that allows us to accept certain things as true. Without this framework, we can fall into an infinite loop of questioning. Understanding complexity: Feynman acknowledges that the world is a complex place, and explaining why something happens is not always straightforward. It may require digging deeper and exploring various directions. Question everything: Don't accept things at face value. Always ask questions and seek to understand how things work. Have a framework: To explain why something happens, develop a framework that allows you to accept certain things as true. Go deeper: When you get an answer to a why question, don't stop there. Ask why again, and keep digging deeper to gain a more profound understanding. Imagine yourself as an explorer in a vast jungle. You come across a beautiful waterfall and wonder how it was created. To understand the waterfall's origin, you must first develop a framework that allows you to accept certain things as true. You understand that water flows downhill, and it takes a long time for a river to erode rock and create a waterfall. You then start asking why questions. Why does water flow downhill? Why does it take a long time for a river to erode rock? As you delve deeper, you begin to discover the complexity of the natural world. You learn about gravity, erosion, and the forces that shape our planet. start by cultivating your curiosity. Ask questions and seek to understand how things work. Develop a framework that allows you to accept certain things as true. When you get an answer to a why question, don't stop there. Keep digging deeper to gain a more profound understanding. For example, if you're learning about a new subject, don't just memorize facts. Try to understand why things work the way they do. Ask questions and explore different angles. By doing so, you'll gain a deeper understanding and be able to apply that knowledge in new and creative ways. Everything in the universe is governed by fundamental forces, including electrical, magnetic, and gravitational forces. These forces are intertwined and intimately related to each other. The behavior of these forces can be explained and predicted using scientific principles and laws. Tactics: Study and understand the principles and laws governing the forces. Observe and experiment to test and validate these principles and laws. Apply the principles and laws to solve real-world problems and create new technologies. Metaphoric Map: Think of the principles and laws governing the forces as a map that guides us through the complexities of the universe. Just as a map helps us navigate and understand a physical landscape, the principles and laws help us navigate and understand the invisible forces that govern the behavior of matter and energy. Learn the basic principles and laws governing the forces through studying physics and other related fields. Practice observing and experimenting to test and validate these principles and laws. Apply these principles and laws to solve real-world problems, such as developing new technologies that use magnetic or electrical forces, or designing structures that can withstand gravitational forces.
Feynman gets stopped by a cop.
Cop : why were you speeding ?
Feynman : what do you mean why ?
Half hour later
Cop : please just leave me alone
Freedom Works many people will respond with a simple Lol. I actually laughed hard at your post. Excellent. Thank you for the laugh. Kudos
lolol
I died🤣🤣
Maybe because read your comment exactly at the time when feynman asked such a question
Freedom Works I laughed so hard when I read your comment. Thank you!
😂🤣🤣
'Some husbands arent interested in their wives' - Richard Feynman explaining magnetism.
Opposites attract on the macro scale just as frequently as on the micro and quantum scale
If feels like he is projecting raw that. He is a thought train conductor
Good catch Abhishek! 👏
In fact the dude was apparently very attracted and interested to his wife... therefore, its elsewhere he lacked...
😆
If this man ever talks to toddlers, the conversation will be infinite
Lol because they always ask why
I still do
Why will it be infinite?
Richard goes straight into an infinite loop discussing the infinite.
He actually did. He talked to me when I was a toddler at a physics conference in Greece and i remember it well. However, at the time I thought my father (another physicist) was smarter than him:)
@@thisismonitor4099 Really? That's really cool! What did you talk to him about? :D
Richard actually forgot why magnets repulse, so he came up with the most elaborate distraction of an explanation to make you forget that you'd even asked.
😉😅😀😃😃😄😆😆😅😅😅🤣🤣🤣
@@SkepticMaestro he did answered though
Actually, explaining repulsion is easy ..explaining attraction..like gravity.. is very very hard
He should have been a politician.
Hah 🤣
Your mind doesn't have the packages installed required to run this explanation.
Hahahah
npm i -g physics
Hahahaha
Hahaha 😂
smh what???
come here to learn about magnets. left with an anxiety attack and an existential crisis.
That's why there's a certain advantage in being dumb.
How does an existential crises feel?
@@Declan_Lyons I would say it feels with the force of rubber bands but I would be cheating...
I WONT take all day to explain to you "why" you made me laugh. Just accept that it was fucking funny.
This particular thread has made my day. Cackling. Thank-you!
Interviewer: Why do magnets repel each other?
Feynman: You wouldn‘t get it...
perfect paraphrase
the very moment when Feynman says "when you explain a why, you have to be in a framework where you allow something to be true, otherwise you're perpetually asking why", i believe it makes it very clear that his soul purpose in life is to EDUCATE in the form of changing peoples viewpoints to always consider the "Scientific Method", even if you're a simple person such as this interviewer who Feynman likely knows very well will have no interest in actually studying magnets to actually understand them.
i believe he is basically saying, unless you really take the effort the understand the fundamentals of literally every single aspect of the question you're asking via experiment or experimental data, then your knowledge of that question is entirely based on what you read/see/ or are told.
this may be because i just finished watching his Scientific Method video as well, but to me it seems he basically found it very reasonable to apply the Scientific Method to any aspect of life as lets you take into account all possible biases in the situation which can be incredibly helpful for solving problems, and literally every single thing you do in life could be considered a problem you can solve.
Simple answer
@@ImHeadshotSniper May I have the link for the Scientific Method video please.
@@ImHeadshotSniper Thanks!
Even after speaking on so many topics and fields in a single breath, he came back to original topic. That's an art. Many people tend to forget where they started.
Yes, he took seven minutes and still didn't answer the question at 0:10. He did talk a lot of nonsense, though. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 i think he did answered the questions in last few seconds. Iron atoms spinning in same direction magnifying the force which u generally dont feel in other materials.
@@GAURAV-hm4xd No, he didn't. The question at 0:10 was not about magnets. It was about the nature of the magnetic field. Do you know why he was being asked that? Because he wasn't a solid state physicist but a quantum field theorist. He got the Physics Nobel for developing the correct theory of the quantized electromagnetic field. He really didn't know much about magnetism and you can clearly tell by his struggling attempt to explain what he hadn't been asked to begin with.
@@schmetterling4477 oh. U may be right. Thanks for telling me this.
@@schmetterling4477 He answered the question at 0:10 at 0:32. The interviewer asked "why" at 0:37.
interviewer: "so why is aunt minnie in the hospital?"
feynman: "ok so magnets..."
😂😂😂😂😂
"Why is Aunt Minnie in the hospital?"
"Because water expands when it freezes, and because of gravity, which involves the planets and everything else. Frankly, it's impossible to really understand why she's there."
"You are a bad cousin, Richard."
Yes. Yessss.....is this being clever? That’s exactly what he’s saying. Aunt Minnie is in the hospital because of electromagnetic forces holding molecules together in Aunt Minnie-shaped clumps, and gravitational forces attracting those clumps to larger clumps like planets. So, yes. You’re restating what he said. Is there a joke I’m missing?
(AND BEFORE I CATCH ANY FLACK- yes I know smaller masses also tug on larger ones; but because electromagnetism is so vastly stronger, it takes a much larger body for gravity to overcome it and be noticed)
that's incredibly funny hahaha
Brilliant
This is how you give your job interviewer an existential crisis.
I actually suggest anyone having an existential crisis to watch these videos. Perhaps that's how we all got here.
That is the intended effect
You're joking. He barely gave a high school teacher answer of BASICS, and mostly just avoids the question.
@@KibyNykraft Splish splash your opinion is trash
@@AppleOfThineEye Why did I find your comment funny?
"Sir, this is a McDonald's drive-thru...."
What do you mean by would I "like" fries with that? What do think it means to like? Let me explain weather we are even able to like in the way you think you like things. We can't. Do I want fries? Yes please.
You win
@@Jayhhardy But why does he (or she) ask the question; What do you mean by would I "like" fries with that? Probably because the McDonald's drive through assistant DIDN'T ask; DO you WANT fries with that?, Because he (or she) has probably been instructed to use the word, "like" when a customer orders, because it is a positive sales reinforcement technique.
he'd make an excellent McDonald's manager. "sir, why are my fries cold?"
LOL 🤣
Feynman's wife: why is there lipstick on you neck?
Feynman:
Ahahaha
"what lipstick"
6:41 this would be the actual answer
Severely underrated
@@jonijarkko123 lol
Interviewer: "Magnets? How do they work?"
Feynman: "Listen...hospitals..."
deserves more likes
Lol
Real juggalos don't wanna talk to a scientist...
@@elietheprof5678 Real scientists prefer zero association with Juggalos, real or fake, let alone conversation...
Ya I'm a scientist and I don't want anything to do with juggalos
Teacher: Why did you forget homework!?
Me: See, when you ask why something happens....
You are the real genius here. Thank you.
@vladimir putin is andrei panin jfk is jimmy carter How do you know that you're not hallucinating right now and just responding to things you've imagined? Ultimately we can be certain of very little, but if something has been verified by enough other people, it's worth trusting them. If we try to verify every detail of every piece of information in our life we won't have time for stuff like ice cream or youtube.
😂🤣
Thats an excellent question.
You are a fing genius you
Interviewer: Why?
Feynman: I'm boutta end this whole man's career
No, you were bout to leave the most original comment on TH-cam.
I made is this far down the comments before pretty much pissing my pants with laughter
And his sanity.
Thank you very much brother. This one made my day
Nobody ever says that bone head! Such an unoriginal cretinous comment.
I have watched this so many times over te years that I almost know it off by heart; and yet, when I bump into it again I cannot resist istening to it yet again.
Yes, there is something magic about Feynman making a fool of himself, isn't it?
Same here. I've also watched his famous lecture series several times. Never fails to draw me in.
Why?
Bacause you do not understand why.
@@alexstrings comes after x and b4 z. Lol
If he had only asked him why ice is slippery, he might have found out more about how magnets work.
Makes sense
You must be all doing this for your exams and you are just expecting to get quick answers:))
Loooooooool
but he explained why ice is slippery
LOL
Imagine him at a job interview.
Bill Paxton lmao
Why do you want this job?
Bill paxton
Boss : 'Why' should we hire you?
Feynman : listen , because the ice slippery and so...
Great comment!
This was the funniest comment
I just had an epiphany. This is why young kids ask "why?" over and over. They don't have the framework with which to understand the answer that those with more experience understand intuitively.
That's cool, but just like every other little kid in this comment section you missed the question at 0:10. :-)
Epiphany? You mean you used to think they asked why to annoy you?
@@schmetterling4477 I think you missed the rest of the video between 0:00 and 7:32 :-)
@@MovementLiquid When Feynman has a meltdown because, like you, he didn't listen carefully at 0:10? No, I didn't miss that, but that's Feynman's shame and yours. :-)
I have a 3 year old asking why all the time and i actually just had the exact same thought. I think there is definitely some truth in that.
This is why I LOVE the "Explained In 5 Levels" Series on TH-cam, covering all sorts of different subjects. You get to see the cut off in your own understanding, and the deepening of the explanations as they get more technical, but also the beauty in how complex things arise from simple concepts in a progression of stacking and intertwining knowledge.
well worded
That's true - but the point is, you can start with the simple... and become more complex/nuanced. This video is the example of someone saying, it's ok you don't understand, you are dumb and don't need to. Learning should be focused (and this is a modern view) on the rising-lifts-all-boats. We need to encourage that the answers are easy, but the understanding is hard. If we can get more people past the first hurdle, the later ones become incrementally easier.
Thanks. Just looked it up!
Exactly what i thought of when he started talking about the different kind of levels of his hospital analogy
Imagine him answering the question: "Why do you want to work for our company?"
Recruiter: He talks a lot of stuff i dont understand.. HIERED!
😂😂😂this comment is underestimated.
'I don't want to work for you. I just need the money'
@@jamesdoolan8040 This answer always gets you the job guaranteed.
😂🤣😂
2 lessons I perceive:
1. Asking "why" allows to start on the journey of discovery
2. Discovery ends only when the observer decides that they are done searching
Genius!
or invokes a God was responsible.
@@bushcraftadventure5215 or your fucking ass keeps picking on religious people
Or when they die
@@pinjaannoying1942 triggered
Interviewer: So why did Aunt Minnie go to the hospital?
Feynman: Ok so magnets...
Underrated
why?
Billy Herrington: Ok maggots...
genius
@Berta Maria Mota It's a joke, chill
This is the greatest version of: "I can explain it, but I'm not sure how much of it you would understand" that anyone has ever said.
The sad thing is that he would have been able to explain the answer to the actual question quite well. He just didn't hear it. Watch the video carefully. You will notice that he was very tired. His eyes were glazing over when the interviewer asked the actual question at the ten second mark. He didn't get it and he misunderstood what he was being asked to explain. The whole thing went down from there because what he thought he was being asked is not a physics question that can be answered in anything less than a whole semester course called "Magnetism", which is so awful that I hope that you will never be required to take it. I was. ;-)
Not really, it’s more of a “we don’t f*ckn know so what do you want me to tell you?”
@@johnjordan6032 he clearly knows. He just explained it quite clearly.
That is exactly it! A very long polite way to say" You wouldn't understand" Beautiful!
Me: Hey Richard, what day is it?
Him: Well, first you have to understand what a day is.
Here is a better analogy: Why today is Monday?
no. you ask him "what is today"
Feynman: "Well, first you have to know what day it is NOT.
Me: "Just answer the damn question! What is the truth!?"
Feyman: You can't handle the truth!
"Why"
HIm: "And I took that personally."
u dont understand
u don't understand
You won’t reply to me 😭 but how are you doing 😊
u don't understand
u dont understand
His last question to himself: "WHY did I ask him this?!!"
Lol
🤣🤣🤣
lol underrated
You see when you ask why you did something...
goes insane
“If you can’t explain it to a 6 year old you don’t understand it yourself” - Albert Einstein
This kind of gives the lie to Einstein's comment. Try explaining why ice is slippery and why ice expands etc going deeper as he did to a six year old.
A 6 year old likely has a high curiosity and would therefore keep asking why up until the most basic concepts. I'm sure a teacher could make a 6 year old understand something but that would require them to teach a huge subset of the field in the process. This is super time consuming, so no wonder people can't teach a 6 year old, even if they understand it.
@@Parasmunt magnify the surface of rock you will see groovs and trufts that hold you magnify the surface of ice it has less groovs to hold you
Nevermind bro, I will just google it
LazerC4 So, tell me when you have found a satisfying answer using google.
Legend says LazerC4 is still searching for an answer on google could not find a satisfying one except one of the results which is this video itself
Dheeraj V.S. LOL
Snowflake
He's not really a "bro", you know...
me : why didn't you recommend this video sooner!?
youtube: ok, so semiconductors.. . .
😂😂👌👌
Why semiconductor?
@@chandramouli3106 err.. Semiconductor materials are at the core of a computer processor.. Feynman is sure to go into that level of detail! 🤣
Why are they used in computer core?
@@kairostimeYT what do you mean why are they used in the computer core? 😂
I can’t explain that magnetic attraction in terms of anything that’s familiar to you
That's a good one.
And with that thousands decided to study physics.
At any level besides a gross practically useful one.
because I don't understand in terms of anything else that's you are more familiar with.
Man I love your content.
I bet at first the interviewer felt ashamed for asking the question, but after few minutes of Feynman giving this EPIC speech, he couldn't have felt any better about asking it :D
That would be Christopher Sykes, who, when asked once what he did for a living, replied, "I make films about Richard Feynman".
The interviewer had nothing to feel ashamed about. It is Feynman who doesn't hear one of the finest science questions that one can possibly ask. Neither is Feynman in a good situation here because in an interview the man with the camera always has the upper hand. If he decides to show one of your weakest performances as a human being, then you are toast. And, yes, that is what the interviewer did here.
A good interviewer.
this is exactly the kind of depth I wanted to hear as a kid ^^
yes, yes! I totally agree! And as a father of a 7 year old child I hope that every time I tend to be anoyed by the billion questions a day I will remember this clip and very calmy explain the things, just the way they are and how "I"! understand them to my boy - in HIS language :-)
Well said
Just means you (and all of us) need to learn enough to provide this level of knowledge and intrigue for kids today.
What this shows is that you are capable of many levels of understanding as a kid. The educational system in public and some private schools today wants to keep your stupid, so they provide stupid answers, the same stupid answers that Feyman is unwilling to use. Kids want to and understand the need to get it completely right. Adults don't want to take the time to indulge them.
Why?
Imagine a world with more teachers like this man. I wish I had teachers like him.
Yes , he expands your methods of thinking about anything , it makes you more analytical about everything and gives you wisdom in dealing with the world around you at a safer level than just the simple mthd of not exploring he “why” deeper , it’s a survival skill multiplier , so to speak , if you choose to use the informationsafely
He exists across dimensions and space you will meet him again when you finally confront your own suffering on your terms
that would be awful. they're all boring now.
This man is an amazing philosopher but would make a horrendous teacher. A teacher teaches, they don't question why, they teach you why.
@@Oscar_Armstrong you do realize that he did, in fact, teach, and produce some of the best known lectures on physics?
"Your aunt Minnie is in the hospital." - Feynman on magnetism
Why? - Aunt Minnie on broke hip
this is the most relevant summary
•aunt minnie is in the hospital
•ice is slippery
•some husband aren't interested in their wife's welfare and are drunks
•grease is wet and slimy
•ordinary people don't know anything
•if you put your hand on the chair it pushes you back
•i can't explain it
revise for test
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
If you know why she slipped it’s because of quantum gravity
The first half of this video was a long way of saying 'I dont know how to explain it to you becauss you are not educated in the areas I am educated in
Interviewer: Why...
Feynman: First of all, that's incorrect.
Hollering LOL!!!!!! comment of the year
This... is... not at all what happened.....
When my daughter was about 2 years old, she went through a phase of asking "why" constantly. I would answer each question as best as I could, then she would ask another "why?", often to statements that were self-evident for me and everyone else. Seeing that video helped understand that she has a totally different framework than mine - she knows nothing about the world so everything needs to be explained to the most basic level.
It would go on until she would have an answer that she understands in her framework or until she would not understand the words I was saying: "The car is white" - why? "hmm Because someone painted it white" - why? "Because I asked them to paint it white when I bought it" - why? "Because I like the color white, just like you like purple!" -oh... ok...
Umm yeah? I don't even have children and I knew this... this is something everyone already knows, you didn't need to spend the effort writing a whole novel about it.
Eric Yoon absolutely ; piss off @ Cousin Kyle .👎🏾
Lol I have a cousin who, when she says the why word, people just reply z and she just doesn't know how to come back from that
Best advice to keep trying to answer the whys. She will stop asking about the specifics after she feels to understand the deepest basics of it. Its something like the natural "first priciple".
@@PartiallyAgonized how old are you?your words looks so childish
Brilliant. I will use this approach to answer my 5 year-old nephews' 'why' questions going forward.
Why?
try asking your nephew about his own opinion to the "why" question. That worked for me.
I use this method with my children they are the hyper active type and they naturally don't think much but they enjoy the mental aerobics of these types of questions I think your nephew will also enjoy this type of game
You should rather listen to your 5 yo nephew's questions and wonder why yourself. That's actually the point Feynman makes: if you're curious enough you'll end up questioning why until you find the fundamental "why" that actually gives you fundamental and true understanding. We took more than 2 thousand years do find the "atom", that literally means uncuttable or indivisible, just to find out it wasn't the fundamental, smallest constituent unit of ordinary matter that the philosophers of old thought it was... so we asked "why" until we were satisfied just to discover 2 millenia after we didn't fully comprehend reality, we had an incomplete answer to our "why", and yet again we were asking "why", a new "why".
I started out in Physics... I'll be asking why till the day I die. Your nephew is trying to understand the world, it's good that his curiosity still wasn't hampered and he still digs deeper on those why's, for as long as he does his understanding will deepen more than of those who stopped asking it earlier.
When you're done with so many "Why's" go "What's the next to last letter of the alphabet?" ... "Why"... "Correct, well done!" :)
He *actually answered* the question ( electrical forces ) but he stated "I can not answer your question..." because in a truly genius way he limited the scope of the answer to the understanding capacity of the receiver. There is nothing bad here. He is not meaning the receiver can not understand, it is the old paradigm of the kid that is trying to fill up the hole in the beach with the ocean. No matter how many buckets of sea water the ocean will be in his position and the hole empty... Still the kid will keep trying and truly remarkable teachers like Feynman will point out *why* the whole is still empty...
Actually, if you look closely he half-answered the question: he answered about repulsive forces but then he said he couldn't answer about attractive, because there was nothing else he could compare it to.
@@vigilante8374 "The best teachers are those who show you where to look, but don't tell you what to see." [ Alexandra K. Trenfor ] 🙂
@@KostasAlbanidis Oh it wasn't a criticism. I think this was brilliant; it's just interesting how there's a wide diversity of ways of summarizing what Feynman was and was not saying. It's almost like "The Dress".
@@vigilante8374 "The Dress" is a lie. There is no color. Color is a human construct. ;-)
@@KostasAlbanidis Math, optics and the Standard Model are human constructs to make sense of qualia, including but not limited to color.
Ego, perceived color is more fundamental (less of a construct) than any rigorous method one has of describing it.
My mom : Why are you home this late?
I can't explain why in any terms familiar to you.
*shoe thrown at me*
rolf !!!
The last thing I remember was a shoe flying towards me 😂
Primitive mom
@@irshviralvideo Rolling on the laughing floor. My floor also laughs at me sometimes. I stopped rolling on it since that time it tried swallowing me though. Don't piss off your floor. It's friendlier when it's laughing. Much friendlier. Oh god.. so much friendlier...
It's so neat how he detected the interviewer getting defensive and calmed him by saying "No, it's an excellent question!"
How? It's very human to detect the feelings of other humans and other living beings.
@@MarsLonsen Watch the clip again LOL
@@vikitheviki eh no LOL
@@vikitheviki tell me why its neat or stop wasting my time.
@@MarsLonsen Well, first you ask how did he detect it and I might tell you that he perceived it with his senses, but then you might ask how do senses tell us things. Then I might say that our sensory system consists of sensory organs that perceive outside stimuli and deliver it through a neural network to our brains. Then you might ask ''how come we have such sensory organs'' and so on... That's interesting.
Finally someone who gets straight to the point!
Pelosi could learn so much...
The whole point of the video is he didn't go straight to the point
@@21.parthjoshi20 he DID go straight to the point by saying "magnets repel each other" however he predicted the interviewer would ask 'why' again and had to tell him that he could not explain anything deeper than this. It seems like very few people listened to him speak.
This was quite clear to me.
@@goodisnipr Touch grass.
I could listen to this man for hours. The way he sees and describes the world is just so incredibly unique. I guess this is how a super intelligent alien would have answered that question. Never take anything for granted, always stay curious. 😊
Interviewer: "Why must you give a long lecture on why?"
Feynman: "So you have chosen death."
I would've liked this comment, but it was on 69 likes and i didn't wanted to be that guy who stops another person from smiling.
The question was indeed stupid, and he has foreseen it and he replied in a way that would completely psychologically surprise interviewer
@@odyseuszkoskiniotis6266 what? No. I will ask the same thing.
AHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA
3rd grade Teacher to Feynman on an English test: "What color was the balloon?"
"What do you mean by what color? Color is a refractive index of light. Color is an illusion. You might as well ask me why sugar is sweet and salt is salty. That's a great question, let me explain. But first, tell you where taste actually comes from. It's an electro-neurological stimulus...."
*5 pages later*
"Anyway, I can't tell you what color it was because you don't know anything."
Probably the best comment in this whole comment section
Brilliant, rofl.
This is why scientists need to be truly educated, meaning actually having the ability to think. And again, meaning that they become well versed in philosophy or at least epistemology. The nihilistic and amateurish conclusion that we know nothing is laughable at best.
indead. 😂
@@cristianmartinez9091 You're spouting sweet nothings. You claim that every scientist needs a background in philosophy because of... What? A physicist's long-winded response to an inane question? The fact he hurt your feelings by saying that you know nothing? Feynman wasn't perfect, but he was definitely not an ivory tower academic.
*Gives Richard a snicker bar*
Feynman: "I see, it turns out I was just hungry."
😂😂😂😂😂
I laughed hard
best comment LOL XDDDDDDDDD
But why?
God. A fire comment
I've heard of him, but I had no idea I would be such huge fan of him from one video. The title of the video is perfect.
Imagine being his son and asking him where do babies come from.
He'll have you sit there for hours while he explains the entire history of life on earth and the details of child birth on a cellular level.
@@deidara_8598 I bet he won't if the son stops asking why.
why are babies made.
hilarious!
@@Exosfear13 Hormones and stupidity.
Wife to Husband: "Does this dress make me look fat?"
Richard Feynman: "Don't worry I got this bro."
Know when you say "make"...
"it's not the dress that makes you look fat."
If we consider the wife to have a negative charge. The charge of the husband closely depends on his answer.
He was too smart to answer with anything but a "no".
"Do try to understand that I haven't called you fat at any point leading up to this interaction. I clearly haven't shown that I think you're fat. I might notice it if I really look. But at this point I know I don't care. So to me, I have to say no, not at first glance. But now that you've put me in the mindset that you might be fat, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say yes, it does. Not necessarily the dress alone, unfortunately. It definitely exasperates some visual features that people see more in someone they would call fat. I'm not calling you fat. But someone else might. So if someone else seeing you as fat is the issue you care about, then yes, the dress absolutely makes you look fat. I would go as far as to say some people would call you a heckin chonker. But that's not me. I didn't want to be here in the first place. I just wanna touch your butt and watch south park with you."
This is why children get stuck in the "why" loop. It's the question that can't be answered.
If you actually keep answering their questions they soon lose interest (normally when you mention doing some research) 🙄 hopefully well before you're completely out of your depth.
@@wavydavy9816 it's very healthy for children to learn that their parents knowledge has limits and to present them these limits
@@midnattsol6207 Yes. This is also true. But with small chlidren, when they get stuck in the why loop, they're rarely listening to what you're actually saying, they're playing a game. You play the game by answering the questions, but you're just playing the part of the person delivering a set-up line for the child. You can tell when a child is genuinely inerested in obtaining information to answer questions, and I think the best way to help educate children these days is to demonstrate to them that they can educate themselves using the resources directly at hand. I tried to explain how lightening worked to my nephew when he was about 5 and quickly realized I _didn't know_ how lightening worked and we spent a good 20 minutes learning about it together on the computer. Job done! 👍
@@wavydavy9816 Yeah, that's true also. Well done! :)
@@wavydavy9816 noooo, when I was a kid I would ask my das questions for HOURS, and I was lucky enough to have a dad who was well educated and could answer a lot of them. But it always bugged me when we reached the "that's just how the universe works" point.
I did my undergraduate science degree at Oxford the unique system there is based on weekly tutorials with your tutor and a relatively few lectures and laboratory practical. Every week you are asked to write an essay on a topic you have not studied before and the tutor marks it and you discuss for an hour. I say 'discuss but your tutor is quite possibly someone like Richard Feynman and after three or four years of being exposed to that EVERY week all I can say is what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Academic people like Richard Feynman can go from asking the most annoyingly and intensely frustratingly simple question to blowing your mind in 3 minutes. Ask a question so simple a mere mortal (or undergraduate) can't understand why its even being asked and then suddenly reveal to them that everything they thought they understood has been torn apart along with their essay. Its a level of intelligence and thinking which is extraordinary as this clip shows.
Well, they certainly didn't teach you how to write essays. ;-)
Sadly, not many people grasp this as evidenced by many of the comments.
Hi, I’m in my first year, and I would like to get a better understanding of what you were talking about, would it be possible to somehow give an example of the essay you wrote about?
@@CycleEnder Typically you will just be given an essay title to write about. Mostly you will never have had a lecture on it. Then you will be expected to go away, research the topic by reading original academic research and authoritative books. Your tutor will probably give you a reading list of papers to get you started but you will be expected to read more than that. Then you write your essay. Then you hand it in. Then you go to your tutorial (usually with a few other students) and discuss your essay. Its that simple. During the tutorial you will be asked to defend and discuss and consider everything you have written or ever thought about the topic. Your tutor is trying to teach you to think. The tutor is there to train you be an academic thinker. Your tutor doesn't teach you facts but will correct any obvious errors in your essay with written comments.
I was a biochemist - so an essay title might be 'Ribosomes and their role in protein synthesis: what we know and don't know'. 1500 words
Feynman's ability to instantly delve deeply into the topic of "Why' with so many examples that are immediately relatable is really quite remarkable. He takes what seems to be on the surface a simple question and expounds on it to an extraordinarly deep level. He really was quite a fascinating person to listen to.
Sure but the dude just wanted an answer to how magnets work.
@@walter4180 I'm with you Walter; in a sense, Feyman sort of gives a good reason as to why he didn't need to go into any of that. It's called "reading the room." It's pretty obvious to most people watching this video (or that film) that the dude asking wanted to know some of the inner workings of the physical universe that aren't so apparent on the surface as regards magnetism. If you go to my channel and watch my recent Vlog on magnetism, you will get a much clearer understanding of this magical force (that was a joke - I generally make an ass of myself - purposely :-)
In any event, the basic principles of magnetism and why it seems like magic but the explanation of why it isn't maybe given in about one or two minutes would have sufficed.
@@voicetube That's complete nonsense. Feynman simply messed up here. There was no need to start a rant about why questions. The initial question was "What is that feeling (force) between two magnets?". That is a perfectly fine physics question that has a straight forward answer. Why Feynman couldn't give it is a mystery to me.
@@schmetterling4477 because almost every question of magnetism doesn't have simple answers. He tried to say that on the beginning but the man wasnt satisfied. So Feynman just explained how his question will turn in another ten questions and will take hours to explain
@@schmetterling4477 - It's simply because he is such a smart-arse dickhead that he didn't know HOW to answer it. So smug and arrogant in his own self-righteousness, yet totally unable to answer the most simple question.
There are various technical terms, including "fuckwit", "knob-jockey", "bell-end" and "tool".... mostly related to penises, however it's notable that a penis is a useful object.
I agree. When most people answer "why" questions, they are actually answering "how" at a superficial level.
i don't think Feynman draws the difference here. I don't think he thinks the interviewers was mistaking motive or an agency behind natural phenomena. I think he sees the interviewers curiosity to ask such an interesting question about physics to be the start of an inquiry that if the interviewers is being scientific, would lead to a series of questions that would eventually bring him to the most fundamental question--a question about the fundamental forces. and so he's answering the question that would be asked in the future and pointing out that at the end of the would-be series of inquiry, the questioner would have to be contend with not knowing further because that's as far as one could explain. this fundamental premise is known as axiom. a valid axiom can be demonstrated by its alignment with reality--and hence verified with the senses.
@@GrammeStudio Well, there is also no known answer for why magnets work. I think he could have answered honestly, but had the wherewithal to explain his reasoning. The answer is that no one knows why.
How?
@clayfame I used to think the same. But if I carefully analyze answers that I am satisfied with, they are merely descriptions as well. More importantly, we can differentiate actual descriptions from false ones by being able to correctly predict outcomes of yet unknown scenarios. Then i ask why am i satisfied with some descriptions while a few others leave a bad taste (or a certain kind of uneasiness in accepting). The only answer I can come up with is randomness of my mental state of acceptance.. Given an alternate universe, I might have been satisfied and dissatisfied with completely different sets of descriptions.
@@garysutherland7004 That's simply not true. There are varying levels to what 'understanding' is. As eloquently explained by Feynman in this video, there are varying depths of understanding how magnets work, that varies among different people. Eg. a university student will know more about how magnets work than say a child. Sure, we may not know how magnets work to the deepest level of quantum physics, but just because we do not, does not mean the answer is "no one knows".
This is actually an incredibly useful exercise in limiting the scope of a question. "How" and "why" questions have answers that are entirely defined by the expected knowledge of the *questioner,* just as much as that of the answerer. Notice how Feynman _did_ answer the question to various levels of satisfaction as a component of his overall criticism of asking unbounded questions.
Ah, there is the kid who didn't pay attention to the question at 0:10. :-)
Schmetter Ling is right. The point is not that one has to limit the scope of a question, but that every question contains numerous, almost infinite implications and frameworks. Communication between two people always depends on these implications and frameworks, and part of Prof. Feynman's pleasure is that he WANTS you to ask deeper, deeper, deeper until you go with him to truly understand the marvels of the universe.
@@jloost-gamer Ah, more bullshit. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 do you really think the interviewer would have been satisfied with, "the magnetic force" in response to a question about what is it that he's feeling when he feels two magnets repel? The interviewer already knows that the magnetic force exists, but he's not clear about what is going on-he doesn't even have a framework to articulate why it seems mysterious to him that magnets repel each other. He wants a deeper answer than just, "they do" and yet ultimately, as Feynman points out, there is no deeper answer. It's a feature of the universe. You're the kid who is so convinced he's smarter than everyone else that he doesn't even need to listen to the full video before setting himself up as superior to Feynman. We get it, you think you're a genius, and so insecure you have to point out flaws in people with reputations for being brilliant.
Christopher Sykes was the interviewer, and had immense respect for Feynman. Maybe you should consider that he got a lot more out of the answer than you think he did.
@@dhawkins1234 I mostly think that you just wrote a large amount of bullshit. ;-)
i could literally listen to this guy speak for hours and never get bored.
I don’t think he would either
@@deanthemachine96 The funniest comment I've read so far. Spot on.
It would be a very bad idea to ask him what day is today.
+Vatsek.
True.
Necromancy is a Bad Idea.
Vatsek why? You will get knowledge from a intellectual man
it would actually be a very good idea :)
The singularly most important reason as to why it would be a poor choice to ask Richard Feynman what day it is today is because the guy is fucking dead. Resultantly, it would be extraordinarily difficult for him to respond to you, let alone provide you with an accurate answer.
Retrospectively, it would have been just as easy (or perhaps significantly easier) to have conveyed that exact same message with just 5 words rather than 50
"Resultantly, it would be extraordinarily difficult for him to respond to you, let alone provide you with an accurate answer."
And yet would there be an answer, it would last four minutes and make you feel like an idiot for not wording the question better.
Basically what he's saying is that he can't answer "why" magnets repel each other because giving you a definitive answer would not be truthful. There are so many things you need to understand and theories you need to accept as true to understand "why" magnets repel each other. And that's literally what scientists spend their whole lives doing. So unless you want to be a scientist and study physics, you just need to accept the known nature of magnetism.
And this is why I love this guy so much. He purposely went on all those tangents and drew out the "answer" so long to demonstrate the fact that such a simple question only begets more and more questions, some of which we can't answer truthfully yet. It's not meant to insult the interviewer or anyone else, but only to illustrate how amazing science is and how much more we still have to learn. People who are fascinated by everything he said here may be encouraged to further their study of science. Everyone else will just go, "oh...okay..." and quickly accept that magnets repel each other because it's cool and sciency.
@Hearing.Chanting Remembering.Krsna Go fuck yourself.
Beautifully said.
@Hearing.Chanting Remembering.Krsna Again, go fuck yourself.
@TomG Gabin If you don't want to learn the science yourself (which takes a lot longer than a 10 minute TH-cam video can accomplish) then yes, you just need to trust the people who've dedicated their entire lives to it. If you chose to be both ignorant and skeptical, then that's on you and no one is under any obligation to cater to you.
@Hearing.Chanting Remembering.Krsna Go fuck yourself.
"You have to be in some framework that you allow something to be true. Otherwise you're perpetually asking why". What a great great neuron connections.
morbikdon nothing is true everything is permitted as self imposed limits dictate and as ones own internal harmony harmonizes with the harmony of others or dis harmony so to speak Mr Anderson
The beauty of mathematics encapsulated in a single sentence
@@joshuarohantitchener7395 Nothing is true?
Then mobile phones must not work.
Or anything.
@@joshuarohantitchener7395 If nothing is true then the statement "nothing is true" is also false, so it shall be disregarded
An ordinary man is eager to tell you what he knows. An extraordinary man goes to great lengths to tell you what he doesn't know.
By the time he is done, you know 10x more than what you asked for.
But you didn't get your question answered, though. You just got bullshit about rubber. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477how would you answer that question?
I envy people who can maintain a train of thought. Ooh a squirrel 🐿
i love squirrels...and quantum physics 😂
ADD, my friend.
Shrödinger's squirrel
Lol!!
Brilliant, Lemonade!! 🤣
The interviewer is feeling how I felt as a kid when I asked the teacher, "can I go to the bathroom"....
I don't know, CAN you?
@@raisin4406 Fuck you that's EXACTLY what I wanted to comment.
Sagan: There are no stupid questions.
Feynman: Why?
stupid question: why is the earth flat
@@johnjonjhonjonathanjohnson3559
I do understand what you mean, but maybe the person is, not the question.
According to Sagan, questions are not stupid because it's a 'method' to get information.
If you tell the person (a child maybe), 'Earth is a sphere because of (proof)' and he/she goes 'ok', then it was not very stupid...
but that doesnt answer the question, why is earth flat?
an incorrect fact has been forced into the question thats why its stupid.
Why is not a stupid question, and when Feynman says it is a good question he isn't patronizing, he's genuine in his response that it is difficult for him to answer it in a way that can be considered satisfactory to the interviewer. I'd have to transcribe what he says because I don't have a better way to explain it, it all depends on the reason for asking it is, whether your trying to understand forces, the way materials behave under certain circunstances, if you're interested in metallurgy, applications, curious about science, and so on.
Sagan was talking about how as we grow up we start to take into account how we are perceived by our classmates, so the more pressure we feel the more we try to avoid questions that are considered 'stupid', and social animals that we are, we tend to ask 'safely', to supress the questions that would reveal our ignorance even if it's a perfectly good question and, as seems to be happening in the video, ask a question that we don't know if it's good or not, and not be really prepared for its answer.
in my opinion Feynman is way more badass than Sagan👌
This man just verbally described every experience I've ever had with wikipedia over the last 15 years.
Wikipedia does not replace the science library. People who already know the subject and can tell the quality from the bullshit articles can get something out of it, but if you think that it will do you any good as a naive user, think again.
@@schmetterling4477 Wikipedia is a good starting point and general summary. You should always check the cited sources (that's why Wikipedia puts up big red banners warning of articles which have insufficient or low quality citations), but Wikipedia is a useful resource. A scientific library is more powerful _but more specialized_ , and requires an existing working understanding of the topic to be of use. Most papers on mathematics are impenetrable for anyone without a university level education.
Wow! I mean, it's not just his explanation that is impressive, it's his ability to understand a question better than the person asking the question. He sees the inner workings of the mind of the interviewer, understands his motivation, notices a flaw or weakness in that mind and then sets out to repair or awaken that mind in that very precise and almost ruthless way of his!
Lol, he's a professional bullshitter.
TheKwod IS that what he won the Nobel for?
I suspect so, the committee does like to award prolific bullshitters at times.
TheKwod it was not the peace prize :) It was quantum physics :P
Not everyone believes in some of the mumbo jumbo of quantum physics.
He truly was a fine man.
Shortcut
I feel like I'm the only one that sees what you did there. LMAO
We have a winner
Shortcut poke poke smart joke.
gayyyy!!
that pun was a given
Me: Good morning, Professor Feynman, how are you today?
R.F.: Well...
I'd be like i just wanted to know about electromagnetism and not get a metaphysical analysis on the question of why
I'm a Mechanical Engineering student. You learn about guys like this that were geniuses and changed mankind's understanding. But what makes me smile is that he sounds just like MY professors, the good ones anyway. He's angry that I asked a good question in a stupid way and he wants me to understand what's proper and try again. I've always wondered what it would be like to be taught by professors Like Feynman but I've realized that he was human like the rest of us and that my professors were amazing like the greats before them.
I can tell that you never asked a good question, not even in a stupid way.
a very interesting yet so commonly miss out by the majority, me included
This is me in oral exam when I don't know the answers
I doubt it. Or you don't get his words.
😂
Bruh!
Yup longest way to say 'I don't fucking know'
Are you implying that this man doesn't know the reason magnets repulse each other? lol
The quality of your questions determine the quality of your answers
this exchange sort of disproves that does it not ?
@@zigravos Only because it was a teaching on the matter of asking questions.. the guy wasnt answering the question (he was indirectly), he was making a point about knowledge
@@gon_trek2481 Which has nothing to do with the quality of the question, because said question is not complicated at all (altough it could have been ). So it disproves the initial statement indeed.
@@Fundracar74 mmmm right but that explanation didnt emerge because the question hinted at it, only because the speaker felt like dropping knowledge bombs... so most of the time if the speaker isnt really oriented to teaching you just answering your question, the less contextualized the question the more general (worse) the answer will likely be.. it seems obvious really
garbage in, garbage out
In the recent movie Oppenheimer, this guy was played by Hughie from The Boys.
Imagine a little kid asking “why” questions to this guy
The kid would suffer schizophrenic paranoia even at the thought of this scientist. xD
In fact those little kids grew up to be one a computer engineer and another a photographer.
Why do say 'little' kid? Isn't a kid by definition little? And what is little? How do you measure it? Is there a general length for a person to be qualified as little? If so, who and how and why did they come up with that requirement?
@@jusalbanicae184 clearly because one (meter) is a low number although there's infinite amount of decimal numbers, but we define the unit so really we could also say the density is low for example a body except for the head would stay afloat in water. What was the question again?
Lol
That would be the luckiest kid in the world, who has Richard Feynman to answer his questions.
"I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you."
That sums it up well.
Well, except how did Feynman know what exactly is familiar to that person asking questions. So he himself made some /pretty unjustified/ presumption about someone's knowledge or mental abilities...
And he implied that he doesn't like that question, actually insulting his interlocutor.
@@fidziek The thing is, Electromagnetism is notoriously for being a very difficult topic to most people in the STEM disciplines and requires substantial prerequisite knowledge. If you go further than that (to describe the nature of forces within particles), you would be tackling Quantum Mechanics, which kills all.
So, unless Feynam happened to know that the interviewer had a background in engineering or physics, I think it's pretty fair that Feynman can make that claim.
@@fidziek
It's not about knowledge. The fact that he asked that question should make it clear that electromagnetism cannot be explained in terms of anything that interviewer knows. Otherwise he wouldn't have asked the question.
@@studiousboy644 only he's not asking for his own benefits, but on behalf of the viewers/listeners, and I pressume he's not one of Feynmann apprentices/students...
i.m.H.o.
@@philipfry9436 it's not about someone's feelings, but so called personal culture (including empathy, EQ, IQ) of Great Master Feynmann - he should not humiliate anyone,
simple as that.
''why''
Richard: *goes on long lecture rant*
''c'mon Richard you knew what I meant. How does it do the thing''
Exactly that 😂
It's trolling perfection
LMAOOO
The problem is that Mr Feynman knew that the ''why'' question could only be answered to the interviewer's satisfaction by making a parallel to that person's understanding of science or to his intuition of how he experiences the world. In that case, the only possible parallel would be physical contact between objects at a macroscopic level. This was heading straight towards circular reasoning. Pushing & pulling of physical objects feel familiar to all, yet involve the electromagnetic force at a microscopic level. He mentioned it in his answer. The interviewer should have known he had his answer. If he wanted to know more, he had to get back to school and push further by getting a degree in physics. Yes, Feynman was kind of rude, but my feeling is that he's been there many times before and was tired of it.
@@entrancemperium5506 I agree with you, except with him being rude. As a scientist, you are required to give the most scientific answer. But when talking to someone unrelated to the field, you should dumb it down to the interlocutor but at the same time you would feel that the oversimplification won't really give the right answer. The interviewer must really understand the point Feynman is trying to convey.
Now I know why my toddler has so many WHY questions as the resulting answer helps him understand much more about the world around him.. Many of these facts are fascinating to him while grownups are so used to it, they really don't care..
Fucking brilliant.
+Nautilus1972 yep, I couldn't play dumb as convincing as that...
***** IF HIS LIPS MOVED, HE LIED, HE'S A ZIONIST TWAT...
ZIONIST WANT A NWO FILLED WITH DUMBED DOWN DUMMIES WHO DON'T QUESTION AUTHORITY.
I need to start answering my kids’ questions in this manner
Yeah
Unless you want future morons, yes, this is the bare minimum.
I betcha they’ll regulate their rate of questioning. That’s for sure. Brilliant.
"Richard what time will you be home for dinner?"
"You see the problem with your question is that time is relative, so in order for me to give you an answer we first need to talk about the theory of relativity"
lol ..
"No Aunt Minnie were harmed in the making of this video."
They cut out the ending where the interviewer asks "ok but why do magnets attract each other?"
Dude rlly lol
I would love to live in a world where this is true.
Why you say that?
I think the problem is that the question is how not why. Maybe.
So, are ya Chinese or Japanese?
He's telling the interviewer "I could explain it but you wouldn't understand"
Bill Wilson Because Feynman was a narcissistic know-it-all.
No? He literally explains how he CANNOT explain it in terms of anything the guy is more familiar with because he doesn’t understand the electromagnetic force in any way that is familiar to the interviewer.
There might not even be a way to explain the electromagnetic force in terms of something else like gravity, it could just be a completely fundamental force of nature.
He's probably right tho.
Not really. He's saying the why question can't be answered at any level of depth, either to a layman or a scientist. Even if he explains magnetism at the deepest level possible, there is always scope for another follow-up 'why' question. Always. And that's because science is only observational. It observes the existing universe and the laws that govern it, but can't explain why the laws exist, no matter how deep you go. There is no end to the 'why' question. You might as well ask why anything exists. And the answer would be, it just does. Science might one fine day explain all the phenomena with one unified law, but you will still be able to ask why that law exists. Never ending.
But Richard Feynman is also saying that HE doesn't understand either.
Feynman was just as much an outstanding philosopher as he was a scientist.
Both philosophy and science need to be put into play if the human race wants to "know" more and more about the nature of the universe from its -obviously, human- perspective. Even religion is vital to that, sadly (for me). You could even reach to saying that pilosophy is a field of science, in some way.
@@fL0p Philosophy is a science of thought and existence, but not really about nature.
@@42ZaphodB42 that's called mathematics
@@pAO29Ex maefs?
@@fL0p Very true. Just like there is a search for a unified theory that can explain all of the universe that principle, those rules of nature govern our existence and therefore our perception.
Humans evolved from a world following rules, equations, principles, whatever terminology, and so really the physics and the philosophy are just interpretations of existence.
I'm actually very frustrated by the way he answered this. I understand the praise people give him for the way he answered, but he could also answer it from another perspective: he could try to understand what the person asking meant and give as detailed of an answer that covers the breadth of the topic while still being understandable to the person asking. That would be true art, to understand people and communication enough to deliver a depth of knowledge in the context he was given. Instead he gave a speech about how different people are smarter and dumber, and to tell him how dumb you are so that he can simplify things for you. I'm being harsh but that is how I feel it.
Watch the first few seconds. The man was very tired. And, yes, he probably had rather low EQ despite being brilliant on the left brain department. Who is the winner? The man with the camera. He got a slice of Feynman here that absolutely destroys the myth of the man.
Everyone who has ridden the Why Train long enough knows the last two stops are "I don't know" and "shut up"
People don't like these stops so they get off way earlier. Why? Because they don't want to risk feeling dumb. Why? Feelsbadman. Why? Chemical body stuff. Why? Evolution? Why? Survival. Why? I don't know. Why? Shut up!
No you are absolutely wrong. All these things have been proven and defended to death(What the fuck are chemical bodies), a layperson just doesn't give a damn why they exist to even try reading the theories and finding the answers.
The why has no end guppy. Even when you keep going deeper there will always be another. You get to unanswerable questions eventually. Nothing but speculation goes beyond and even there the why's keep on coming.
Or you show them this video.
It's pretty simple if you're religious you just say because god
Why... not?
Feynman is really giving the interviewer a gift. A lazy person who didn't care would just give a canned answer that has already been given countless times. He could have given a razzle dazzle answer that would have just been another trope. Feynman grabs you and says "NO" I'm not going to let you off easy - I'm going to show you how a scientist thinks - buckle your seatbelt buddy!
One needs to be able to turn it off. Not every moment needs to be a teaching moment. For most folks - even many of us neuro-atypicals, the brains needs to be able to rest between learning periods. Feynman simply didn't give a damn that he was "supposed to be giving an interview", he didn't give a damn about interviews at all.
@@railgap I think you missed the point. Listen to Feynman's very last sentence. It's because he actually DOES care about the interview that he answered in this way. I do agree that every moment doesn't need to be a "teaching" moment. But the context is an interview with a world renowned physics professor, where the interviewer asks him to explain a phenomenon in physics. So the context IS a teaching moment.
Nonsense. Feynman simply shows that scientists don't know anything truly, especially when it comes to the kernel of things, which is magnetism. He gives an ignorant answer that doesn't answer anything, and people are fooled and think he is a genius.
@@VennThuria but I’m not fooled by you. The point sailed over your head.
@@crhkrebs I was not talking to you. I don't know what imaginary point you are talking about. Feynman didn't understand Magnetism, that's why he couldn't answer properly, but was let astray into nonsensical anecdotes by his confusion. I used to idolize him too, but realistically it is just like this: neither Feynman nor any other scientist, knows what Magnetism is. That's why all of physics is basically wrong and not going anywhere for 100 years and counting. To try to argue this away is self-delusion and keeps the one not admitting this stuck in ignorance. But maybe you meant something else? Talking down to somebody is not a sign of confidence.
This is a WONDERFUL insight into Feynman's integrity and thought
@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?
Interviewer: “So why are you interested in this job ?”
Me, trying to sound smart:
lol
Me: Why was this video recommended to me?
Feynman: "Some husbands aren't interested in their wives...."
r/cursedcomments
I think Dr Feinman was the only person on human history capable of answering satisfactorily to children's questions.
I dont understand how this is a childish question, that is if you are referring to this question
@@MJ123and5 I didn't mean to say that. Of course, the interviewer's question was by no means a childish one. But listening to Dr Feinman astonishing ability for answering it I can see that he must have been capable to answer satisfactorily to children questions, which are very often much more complex than most people believe. Remember that children are used to make not only a single question, but a series of questions depending on what their parents answer to them, and in many cases adults end giving up because they have no idea about what to answer to them.
Yeah I agree
@@ernestomora9955 "Why is the sky blue?"
That is a fun one.
Feyman gets most of his (well deserved) credit for physics, but he really was a teaching pioneer. He understood that children learn differently and that a one-size-fits-all approach was a bad idea for the classroom because you'd always leave some kids out.
I wasn't "feeling so good", but this put a big smile on my face. :)
Mine too ✨🌸
After watching full interview of 1 hr 6 minutes
Why?
Me: 'Why do I have no friends at school?'
Feymann: 'Well the problem with your question is that we first have to talk about repulsive forces-'
😂🤷🏼♀️
🙁
Fucking magnets! How do they work?!!
Magi-nati-c
+computerchi revolutionary
He somehow answered his question better than anyone else by explaining why he can't answer the question
no he didn't. if he followed up his 7 minute tirade about the nature of the word 'why' with an acceptable answer (for the interviewer) then it would've been fine. but as this video shows anyway, he just leaves the interviewer with the same question, still unanswered.
@@zzthedon4k I know it's been years since your comment, but how is from 5:00 to 6:00 minutes not an answer to the question? I feel like that's an acceptable answer, but maybe I don't understand what you mean
Hey buddy.. If you dont know….. just say that
😂
"the deeper the thing is, the more interesting it is" Well Mr. Feynman, you do have a point there
I see what you did there. Lol
thats what she said
@@greatgooglymoogly3153 fucking awesome 😂😂 just think how would Dwight respond to this😂😂
Him: “I need to go to the bathroom”
Teacher: “Why”
Him:
Taking a wee in the general direction of said teacher would also be a scientifically viable answer.
The storage capacity of my balls has been exceeded, and are causing pressure to be exerted on the walls of my ballsack, sending nerve impulses to my brain, giving me the urge to go to the bathroom (although a bathroom is not strictly necessary to relieve this pressure). This is all because pee is stored in the balls, however, the balls only have a limited capacity for pee.
Rather long but very entertaining and educational way of saying "I cant explain this in terms you are more familiar with, because I dont understand it in terms you are more familiar with.
that is a really great way of explaining this itself lol
Much better answer, his seemed rather condescending
So, if it isn't explainable in 144 characters you think it's long...
There is so much beauty in his build-up to explain WHY this is a difficult question to answer. Not many people understand exactly what your question implies and bridge that to a core answer. RF was one of the few who were capable of doing just that.
@@SWIFTzTrigger You just gotta know Feynman. He was a pretty unique dude. I don't think he was being condescending here at all, though I do see where you're coming from. He was just the kind of guy who knew when he was the smartest man in the room and saw no reason to hide it. And that can easily come across as condescending but is it really if that was not his intention? Dude just loved science and thinking and didn't see a reason to treat people with kid gloves unless he was trying to get laid.
Great comment, and exactly right..!!
My learnings
The importance of curiosity: Richard Feynman emphasizes the value of curiosity and questioning the world around us. He believes that asking why is essential to understanding how things work.
The need for a framework: Feynman suggests that to explain why something happens, we need to have a framework that allows us to accept certain things as true. Without this framework, we can fall into an infinite loop of questioning.
Understanding complexity: Feynman acknowledges that the world is a complex place, and explaining why something happens is not always straightforward. It may require digging deeper and exploring various directions.
Question everything: Don't accept things at face value. Always ask questions and seek to understand how things work.
Have a framework: To explain why something happens, develop a framework that allows you to accept certain things as true.
Go deeper: When you get an answer to a why question, don't stop there. Ask why again, and keep digging deeper to gain a more profound understanding.
Imagine yourself as an explorer in a vast jungle. You come across a beautiful waterfall and wonder how it was created. To understand the waterfall's origin, you must first develop a framework that allows you to accept certain things as true. You understand that water flows downhill, and it takes a long time for a river to erode rock and create a waterfall.
You then start asking why questions. Why does water flow downhill? Why does it take a long time for a river to erode rock? As you delve deeper, you begin to discover the complexity of the natural world. You learn about gravity, erosion, and the forces that shape our planet.
start by cultivating your curiosity. Ask questions and seek to understand how things work. Develop a framework that allows you to accept certain things as true. When you get an answer to a why question, don't stop there. Keep digging deeper to gain a more profound understanding.
For example, if you're learning about a new subject, don't just memorize facts. Try to understand why things work the way they do. Ask questions and explore different angles. By doing so, you'll gain a deeper understanding and be able to apply that knowledge in new and creative ways.
Everything in the universe is governed by fundamental forces, including electrical, magnetic, and gravitational forces.
These forces are intertwined and intimately related to each other.
The behavior of these forces can be explained and predicted using scientific principles and laws.
Tactics:
Study and understand the principles and laws governing the forces.
Observe and experiment to test and validate these principles and laws.
Apply the principles and laws to solve real-world problems and create new technologies.
Metaphoric Map: Think of the principles and laws governing the forces as a map that guides us through the complexities of the universe. Just as a map helps us navigate and understand a physical landscape, the principles and laws help us navigate and understand the invisible forces that govern the behavior of matter and energy.
Learn the basic principles and laws governing the forces through studying physics and other related fields.
Practice observing and experimenting to test and validate these principles and laws.
Apply these principles and laws to solve real-world problems, such as developing new technologies that use magnetic or electrical forces, or designing structures that can withstand gravitational forces.
Now you can publish a book
Great 👍
And yet he goes "WHADDYA MEAN WHY?" lol
Interviewer goes home to his wife very angry and drunk. Wife asks, "Sweetheart, what's wrong?" "I interviewed Feynman today now leave me alone!!"