[happytoexplain]

This is a good summary example of something I find distinctly dangerous about the way people think of figures they don't personally know (i.e. how people on the social web treat public figures, or even just any stranger they see on the web). We see snapshots and assemble a person in our head. We can barely do that with any degree of fidelity regarding people we personally know, much less public figures.

People do good and evil things. But a person, in virtually all cases, is not "good" or "evil". Even if Feynman was engaging in the two behaviors you are thinking of at the same time (whatever those behaviors are - I'm not commenting), it still doesn't make him some kind of paradox. It does so much damage to think like this. This false dichotomy is especially prevalent for sexual topics, because they trigger stronger emotions and push us towards our "that guy good, that guy bad" instincts.

[the_af]

In addition to your comment, what I find mind-boggling is how easily people swing between the two extremes of opinion: it seems every public figure must either be adored and admired, or reviled and ostracized. People (myself included, I don't exclude myself from being human!) do not want to contemplate public figures as complex individuals with dark and bright aspects. It's always all or nothing.

So Woody Allen went from being an adored auteur to someone who not only was declared guilty of a horrible crime in public opinion, but also people felt entitled to declare his cinema was never good to begin with (where were these people before Allen fell in disgrace? Nowhere. They only declared his movies trash once he fell in disgrace).

Same with Feynman. Same with Asimov. Same with Picasso. And the list goes on forever.

People cannot bear the thought that artists, scientists and public figures in general are real people, with flaws and all.

[andyjohnson0]

> People cannot bear the thought that artists, scientists and public figures in general are real people, with flaws and all.

Possibly related to the Fundamental Attribution Error in psychology:

"The fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or over-attribution effect) is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional or personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations."

https://www.simplypsychology.org/fundamental-attribution.htm...

[sanp]

Yup. We judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions (Just keeping this mind helps me stay calm in traffic)

[nuancebydefault]

I wonder if this deterministic labeling of persons as good/evil as a whole is what Nietsche meant with "slave morality"?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> So Woody Allen went from being an adored auteur to someone who not only was declared guilty of a horrible crime in public opinion, but also people felt entitled to declare his cinema was never good to begin with

To enjoy entertainment of anyone not a saint makes you a bad person. And I want to state emphatically for the record I am a good person. I believe in all the right things, and disbelieve all the wrong ones. When those things change next year or tomorrow, I too will change and forget that I ever believed otherwise.

[nuancebydefault]

If I understand what you wrote correctly, you only enjoy entertainment of saints? Also, when you find out later they are not, you will change your opinion?

It feels a bit off to me. People are not good or bad. First of all what is good or bad depends on culture/geography. Second, every person has many good and bad treats according to any culture.

[the_af]

You are in agreement with the comment you're replying to.

The commenter is using irony to make a point.

[nuancebydefault]

Somehow I felt it was too off to be serious, but it appears I still got fooled. :)

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> Also, when you find out later they are not, you will change your opinion?

Hardly. I always knew they weren't saints, and always disliked them for being Nazis.

Bad people can't be talented or skilled. If they were, it would be as if the universe was condoning their behavior.

[giraffe_lady]

I think something you're failing to account for in peoples' reactions these figures is that the relationship between their moral transgressions and their work is not spurious.

Feynman was a notable scientist but he was also one of the most famous scientists, he was a great populizer of science especially later in life. Finding out he was a sex pest or womanizer or worse has tangible consequences to that role. Was he a good mentor in general, or only to women he wanted to fuck? Or only ones he didn't? Were there any women pushed out of science because of his inappropriate attention or advances? We now have to ask these questions, and their answers can retroactively change how we evaluate his later life's work as an advocate of science.

Similarly woody allen makes movies that are compelling because of their portrayal of human connection and vulnerability. As you said, what woody allen is accused of is a great crime, far far beyond routine human flaws. It does change the context and the meaning of the movie to know that this is what its creator thinks of human connection as well. You can decide not to believe the allegations, but for people who do believe them I don't think it's an error or transgression for them to evaluate his movies in light of them.

And it is certainly not true that no one criticized these figures before their "faults" were known. Orson Welles famously with woody allen, Picasso was not always revered, and I disliked feynman from reading his own memoirs. It's just these criticisms are not generally welcomed or amplified for figures in the prime of their accolades. Which is an interesting subject itself, I think.

[the_af]

> It's just these criticisms are not generally welcomed or amplified for figures in the prime of their accolades. Which is an interesting subject itself, I think.

Yes, this is a fair assessment. The criticisms are given voice and spread once the person falls in disgrace. They are sometimes declared "unpersons", which I find deeply irritating. I suppose this happens to artists or scientists nearer in time; nobody cares to censor/cancel a Greek philosopher if he abused boys, it's just a footnote in their biography.

[monknomo]

It might be different if you could go talk to the boys - with these modern folks you can often literally interview the victim(s) and I think that makes a difference for the reaction

[the_af]

Yes, this is a good point. Talking to victims or aggrieved parties is something ancient history denies us.

On the other hand, what if we could -- would we cancel all those Greek philosophers, or artists and scientists of antiquity? Strike them from the classroom, or focus the lesson entirely on how bad they were as people? Would mankind be better if that were the case?

[watwut]

Then again, plenty of times they are not declared unpersons nor treated horribly. Oftentimes just mentioning that this or that person did something bad at some points is enough for everyone to get outrage over "how dare you to say that".

As in, criticism is silenced until it breaks.

[the_af]

> It's just these criticisms are not generally welcomed or amplified for figures in the prime of their accolades. Which is an interesting subject itself, I think.

I want to make clear that when someone commits a horrible crime (not a minor transgression) they should be held accountable. So rape/abuse/murder is horrible, being a bad husband/wife or an uncaring parent is bad but not "horrible", etc. Also, people are flawed, and everyone engages in bad behavior that wouldn't stand up to public criticism. Your mileage may vary, of course.

What I object to is canceling a person's work because of alleged crimes. People confuse "I don't like what it's alleged this person did in their personal life" with "this is not relevant art/science, I wish cinemas/schools/museums didn't mention this person anymore".

[watwut]

Saying he did X is not the same as cancelation. Also, if actual art piece is related to the real world acts, it is entirely fair to talk about it. Just like when we talk about political purposes of art.

There is also difference between "not mentioning person existed" and refusal to celebrate that person as hero or moral founder. Or just, putting contemporary complains about historical character into context. The "do not mention this person" is quite rare, actually. What people object about regarding cancelation is adding shade of grade to the person story or refusal to celebrate them.

[jimbob45]

Same with Asimov.

What did Asimov ever do?

[fractallyte]

https://lithub.com/what-to-make-of-isaac-asimov-sci-fi-giant...

https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2020/01/08/isaac-asimov-p...

https://daily.jstor.org/asimovs-empire-asimovs-wall/

...and those are just the first few that came up on Google. I'm too sad to look for more... :-(

[the_af]

I wouldn't be too sad though; that was my point.

Asimov made many women uncomfortable with his behavior, yes. He was also an all-around friendly and approachable guy, a bright mind, one of the giants of sci-fi, and also a great science communicator.

He had this flaw. It's on us to deal with it, and not let it mar his otherwise great memory. (It's not like he raped women either, however bad his behavior was. Not all sins are equal).

[avani]

To the majority of humans (women), he was distinctly not all around friendly and approachable. That is the point.

[the_af]

I'm not condoning his behavior, I'm saying it didn't define him or his impact on literature, science or science fiction; therefore it's not particularly sad.

The majority of humans -- or even the subset of most of his readers, women or men -- never even met him personally and so this personality flaw never affected them. I acknowledge it was however a very uncomfortable experience for young women who got to meet him face to face (or hand to butt, I suppose), which is unfortunate. I also see how his behavior would have discouraged women who wanted to write and would have sought his mentorship; that is truly unfortunate.

I wish he hadn't behaved like this, but this doesn't define Asimov. His contributions far exceed this personality flaw, and therefore I don't feel particularly sad.

[the_af]

He was reportedly very "gropey": https://the-orbit.net/almostdiamonds/2012/09/09/we-dont-do-t...

Excerpt:

> "It is in this correspondence that we can find how the conrunners of the time treated Asimov’s harassing behavior. To be explicit, Asimov was well known for pinching the asses of women who were unlucky–or unwarned–enough to get on an elevator with him alone."

[KMag]

"But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being." -- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

[noobface]

The topic here specifically is his love life. If a person I personally knew was accused of half of what Feynman has been, I'd have second thoughts about inviting them over for dinner.

If you're going to argue for a gradient of perspective while assessing the character of a person there are better examples than Feynman.

[happytoexplain]

My response would be the same one I gave here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37916016

The degree of the subject's immorality has no bearing on my point. In fact, it's arguably better to use a "worse" example, by your definition, since it actually challenges the reader to consider the point more carefully. If the subject's crimes are petty, the reader might accidentally ignore my point, instead just jumping to the easy and fallacious thought, "yeah I agree, that person didn't do anything terrible", and moving on.

That said, to be clear, I don't have an opinion on where Feynman's indiscretions fall on the spectrum. I don't know the details beyond womanizing/objectifying/going after women in relationships. Again, I'd make the same comment regardless of the answer.

[happytoexplain]

Just a correction: I am not making a gradient argument. The word brings to mind a one-dimensional scale. That is a measly one-step-up from black-and-white. The implication of a "gradient" is that there is "good" on one side and "evil" on the other, and everybody falls somewhere on the gradient. This is not strictly false in all senses, but it is almost always a gross oversimplification and, effectively, a useless measure. A core part of my point is multi-dimensionality.

[_yb2s]

What is he accused of?

[avgcorrection]

How about we do away with speculating on the personal lives of public figures unless it is pertinent to some issue? So much judgement and pedestal-making.

But people will keep lopsidedly downvoting when someone veers towards the judgement-side. As if putting people on pedestals is any better.

[sonicanatidae]

When you take their actions and consider them as a whole, it clearly paints some as good or evil. Sure, no one is movie villain evil or saint-level good, but when a preponderance of their actions have outcomes that are bad for others, then I think it's pretty clear who they are.

[happytoexplain]

Fine, but I explicitly refrained from defending Feynman. The point I made is that it is a sign of a horrible social sickness that we can be confused that it's possible for a person to commit some sexual sin and also for that same person to love somebody.

To further clarify, note this sentence in my comment:

>it still doesn't make him some kind of paradox

I did not say, e.g.

>it still doesn't make him, on par, more bad than good

[zingababba]

I find the best antidote for this unfortunate way of thinking is imagining the individual passing gas. It's impossible to not see someone as human when they are farting.