Chapter 36 True Wisdom in Laughter Part 5-6

After World War II, physicists were often invited to Washington, the capital, to provide advice to various government agencies; the military especially valued our advice.I guess that's because they figured that if these scientists were able to create a weapon as important as the atomic bomb, it might be useful for other things. I was asked to sit on a committee evaluating weapons for the Army, and I wrote back that I was only a theoretical physicist and didn't really know anything about those weapons. The Army actually wrote back that, based on past experience, theoretical physicists have done a lot to help them make decisions; so may I please reconsider?

I wrote back again, saying that I really didn't understand anything, and wondered if I could be of any help. In the end I got a letter from the Secretary of the Army suggesting a compromise: invite me to the first meeting and listen first before considering whether I can assist them or continue to participate in other activities.Of course I said yes, otherwise what else? When I arrived in Washington, the first thing I did was to attend a cocktail party and meet everyone.There were many generals and military figures at the meeting, and everyone was chatting, and the scene was very pleasant.

A guy in a uniform came up to me and told me that the military is happy to have physicists in the room because they have a lot of problems.One of the problems was that their tanks were running out of gas and couldn't go very far, so the problem was how to refuel while walking.This man thought of an idea, since physicists have a way to get energy from uranium, can I think of a way to use silicon dioxide—that is, silt—as fuel?If it can be done, then the tank vehicle only needs to install a small shovel on the bottom of the vehicle, and get up the mud and sand as fuel while walking!He thought it was a great idea, and all I had to do was work out the details.So I thought that this is the kind of issue we're going to talk about when we meet the next day.

When I got to the venue, I noticed that the guy who had introduced me to a bunch of people at the reception the day before was sitting next to me.It seems that he was sent by the military to keep an eye on me at all times. The person sitting on the other side of me is a general I have heard of before. In the first session, they discussed some technical issues, and I also expressed some opinions.But toward the end of the meeting, they started discussing logistics-related issues, which I really didn't understand at all.The point of this question is to decide how much to store in each stronghold at different times.Although I tried my best not to speak, when you sit around with these "important people" and discuss these "important issues", even if you really don't understand anything, you still have to talk.So in this part of the discussion, I also made some comments.

During a coffee break, the guy who followed me said, "I admire what you just said in the meeting. That was a really important contribution." I paused to think about my "contribution" to the logistical problems, and felt that even the clerk at Macy's who did the Christmas shopping knew better than I did what to do with them.So I came to the conclusion that (1) if I contributed anything, it was purely coincidental; (2) anyone could contribute, but most would be better than me; (3) these sweet words should be enough to wake me up Come here and see clearly the fact that you are incapable of contributing anything.

It was then decided at the meeting that instead of discussing specific technical matters, it would be better to discuss how scientific research should be organized (for example, should scientific research fall under the Corps of Engineers, or the Quartermaster Division?).I felt, however, that if I hoped to make any real contributions, it would be in discussing certain technical matters, not Army organizational studies. Until then, I hadn't let the chairman of the meeting—the bigwig who had insisted on me in the first place—be aware of how I felt about these conditions.When we each packed our briefcases and prepared to leave, he said to me with a smile on his face:

"So, you'll be at our next meeting..." "No, I won't." His face suddenly changed, he was surprised that I said no after "contributing" so much. By the early 1960s, many of my friends were still working as consultants to the government, and I felt absolutely no social responsibility in that regard.I tried my best to resist the invitation from the Washington government. It really took a little courage to do so at the time! At the time, I was teaching a first-year college physics class.After class one time, my assistant, Harvey, said, "You should see what your elementary school math textbook looks like! The things and ideas my daughter brings home are ridiculous!"

I didn't take his words to heart. But the next day, I got a call from Mr. Norris, a well-known lawyer in Pasadena.At that time, he was a member of the California State Curriculum Committee; the committee tasked with selecting new elementary and middle school textbooks for the state.Due to California law, all textbooks used in public schools must be selected by the California Department of Education; so they set up a committee to help read the books and provide advice so that they can decide which books to choose. Right around that time, many textbooks were using a new method of teaching arithmetic, which they called "New Math".Since teachers or administrators usually help with reading books, they felt that this time they should find people who usually apply mathematics to science and know what mathematics can do to help evaluate textbooks.

I'm probably guilty of my long refusal to cooperate with the government - I actually agreed to sit on their committee! Immediately, I had letters from publishers and phone calls from them.All they said was "It's good to know you're on the committee, we do want real scientists on the committee..." and "It's great to have real scientists on the committee because our company's books are very scientific……".But they also say, "We'd like to explain to you what our textbooks are about..." and "We'd like to do anything to help you review our textbooks..." - I think that's kind of crazy.I'm an objective scientist, and since at the end of the day, all the students in the school get are the textbooks (the teachers get the teacher's handbook, which I review as well), any clarification from the publishers is just confusing.So I don't want to talk to any publisher, but I always say, "You don't need to explain, I believe your textbook will explain everything."

In fact, I represent an area that includes most of the Los Angeles area, but not the city of Los Angeles itself.The City of Los Angeles was represented by a very kind and friendly lady named Mrs. Whitehouse, who came from the Los Angeles school system.Mr. Norris asked me to meet with her to find out what the committee does and how it works. Mrs. Whitehouse first told me what was going to be discussed at their next meeting (they had already had one and I was elected to the committee later). "They're going to talk about counting numbers." I didn't know what it was until I found out it was what I called whole numbers.They had unique names for everything, and from the beginning I had trouble.

She told me how other committee members usually evaluate new textbooks.They took a lot of samples of each book, sent them to teachers and administrators in their area, and then collected everyone's opinions on these books.Since I didn't know any primary or secondary school teachers or administrators, and because I thought I could judge whether a textbook was good or not, I decided to read all the books myself.On the other hand, in my district, some people are expected to be invited to participate in storytelling work and provide opinions.Mrs. Whitehouse proposed to send the comments of these people up with her report, so that they would feel more comfortable, and I would not have to worry about their displeasure and complaints.They were really happy with it, and I didn't get into any trouble. A few days later, the textbook clerk called me and said, "Mr. Feynman, we're ready to send you the books. They're 300 pounds." I was taken aback. "It's okay, Mr. Feynman, we will find someone to read the book for you." I don't understand how you can do that: either you read it yourself, or you don't read it, how can you get someone to read it for you?I set up a bookcase in the basement study to store these textbooks (the books are stacked 17 feet high), and read them one by one for the next meeting.We'll start our discussion with primary school textbooks. It was a massive project, and I was in the basement 24/7, giving it my all.Later my wife said that during this time she seemed to be living on top of a volcano.After being quiet for a while, suddenly "Rumble Rumble!!!"—the "volcano" in the basement erupted again. The volcano erupted because those books were so bad.They are all in the mess, and they were printed out in a hurry.Sometimes they try to be more rigorous, but use some "almost" correct examples (such as using a car on the road to introduce "set" idea), but actually that involves a lot of pretty subtle ideas.Also, the definitions are not precise enough, everything is kind of vague and ambiguous - they are not smart enough at all and don't know what "rigor" is.They're all lying, and they're all teaching things that they don't understand; things that, in fact, aren't really useful to the kids. I am well aware of their intentions.At that time, since the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik artificial satellite, many people felt that our technology was backward, so they asked mathematicians to provide advice on how to use some interesting and modern mathematical concepts to teach mathematics.The original purpose was to increase the interest of students who find mathematics boring. Let me give you an example: They discuss the different bases for numbers - base 5, base 6, etc. - and introduce the possibilities.If the student already understands bases, it makes sense to discuss other bases, which gives him some peace of mind.But in these textbooks, they turn this into the rounding method that every child should learn!So this kind of daunting exercise appeared: "Rewrite these numbers based on 7 as numbers based on 5".Converting numbers from one base system to another is completely useless.If you can switch, maybe it's fun; if not, it's okay, because that doesn't mean much at all. Anyway, I'm reading these books—all these books, and not one mentions the application of arithmetic to science.If they do mention any application of arithmetic, the examples they cite are buying stamps and the like.Most of the time, they're talking about abstract new math nonsense. Finally I saw a book that said: "Mathematics can be used in many ways in science. Let's take the example of astronomy, which is the science of the planets." Turned a page and it said: "The temperature of the red planet is 4,000 degrees, the temperature of the yellow planet is 5,000 degrees..." - so far, so good.Read on: "The temperature of the green planet is 7,000 degrees, the temperature of the blue planet is 10,000 degrees, and the temperature of the purple planet is ... (a large number)." In fact, there is no green or purple planet at all. planet, but the data about other planets is generally correct.This is the correct way to pass the ambiguity, but the trouble has appeared!The trouble with everything is the same: it's all written by people who don't know what bullshit they're talking about, so there's always going to be little mistakes in there, there's always going to be mistakes!I really don't understand, how can it be possible to teach children well with these books?I don't know what the problem is, but these books suck, suck! But having said that, I am quite satisfied with this book, because it is the first book that illustrates the application of arithmetic to science.When I read the part on planetary temperatures, I was a little upset; but not terribly upset, because at least it's roughly right—the author just gave the wrong example. But then comes the exercise part.It says: "John and his father were outside looking at the stars. John saw two blue planets and a red planet. His father saw a green planet, a purple planet, and two yellow planets. Then John and What is the total temperature of the planets that his father saw?" ——It was so terrifying, I was so furious! The temperature of a planet is but one example.In fact, similar situations keep happening, and many unbearable absurdities keep appearing.It makes no sense to add up the temperatures of the two planets!No one has ever done this, except perhaps to calculate the average temperature of the planets, but definitely not the total temperature of all planets!This is outrageous!The whole point of the whole thing is to get students to practice addition without knowing what they're talking about.This situation is like when you are reading a book, occasionally there will be a few mistakes in the sentence, but suddenly a whole sentence is printed backwards.That's the way those math textbooks are, hopeless! Then, I go to the first meeting.Other committee members rated certain books, and they also wanted to see my rating; and the scores I scored were often very different from theirs.They asked, "Why did you give that book such a low score?" I replied that the problem with the book was this and that on such and such a page—I took notes of it all.They immediately saw that I was a goldmine: I could tell them in detail the strengths and weaknesses of each book, and my scores were all backed up. I also ask them back why they rated the book so high, and they say, "Let's first hear what you think of X and X." I can't always ask why they rated it that way.Instead, they kept asking me what I thought. When it came to one of the books, they asked me again what I thought.This book is one of a set of 3 as supplementary textbooks, published by the same company. I said, "The send and receive department didn't send me this book, but the other two are pretty good." Another person asked the same question: "What did you think of this book?" "As I said, they didn't send me the book, so I haven't much to say yet." The mail guy was there, and he said, "I'm sorry, but I can explain that. The reason I didn't send you the book is because it hasn't been edited yet. According to the rules, they have to be in so-and-so The book was sent to us 2 days ago, and the publisher's book was several days late, so they sent the cover first, with blank paper inside. They attached a letter of apology and hoped that 3 books All can be considered, although the third book will be published later." In the end, I found out that there were still some committee members who gave this blank fake book a score!And since the book was graded, they couldn't believe it was going to be a blank book.In fact, the non-existent book got a slightly higher score than the other two. I believe the reason why all this happens is that there are problems in the system and operation process: when you send the book to these people, because they are all busy or careless, "anyway, many people will read this book." Look, I’m one of them.” Then give it random points—at least some people, not everyone.When you receive the reports from the various committee members, you will not know why this book received fewer reports than other books-in other words, maybe a certain book received 10 reports, but this book received fewer reports than other books. There are only 6 people in this book who wrote reports - so you average the scores for those that did, disregarding the ones that didn't come back, and still get a reasonable number.This average of everything ignores the fact that some books have only a cover and nothing inside! My theory came to me when I saw what happened to the curriculum committee.Taking that blank book as an example, 6 out of 10 people turned in the report, while in other books, 8 or 9 out of 10 people turned in the report.When they averaged 6 numbers, it was no different than any other average from 8 or 9 numbers.Of course, they were all embarrassed to find themselves grading that book, but it gave me a slight boost of confidence.It turned out that other committee members spent a lot of time on submitting books for review and recalling reports, and participated in the briefing sessions held by booksellers—listening to the contents of the book before they read the book themselves; in the entire committee, probably I am the only one who has read all the books and is the one who has not listened to any information other than what the books themselves provide. Evaluating textbooks as carefully as I do is two extremes of collecting an average of many casual reports.This reminds me of a well-known old riddle: the emperor of China is so high that the common people are out of sight. Well, the question now is, how long is the emperor's nose?So someone traveled all over China and asked thousands of people: Everyone thinks how long the emperor's nose is, and then take the average; and because he averaged the numbers of so many people, everyone believes that the answer is "accurate" up.But what a crappy approach, when you're gathering the opinions of a lot of people who never looked at the sample carefully, even the best averages don't provide more or better information. In the beginning, we couldn't talk about the price of textbooks.They only told us how many books we could pick, so many of the textbooks we picked were supplementary because every new textbook had shortcomings.The most serious failures are those "new mathematics" textbooks: they don't mention the usefulness of learning things, and there are not enough exercises.Yes, none of these books use the example of selling stamps. Instead, they talk too much about abstract digital concepts and too little real-world application.What should students learn?Add, subtract, multiply or divide?We recommend some related books as extracurricular readings—one or two per class.After many discussions, the textbooks we have selected can complement each other and complement each other. However, when we submitted these hard-earned recommended books to the Education Bureau, they said: the available funds are not as much as expected, and we must re-examine, taking the price of the books into consideration, and make cuts.As a result, the originally stable curriculum was completely destroyed.The focus of our original design is that teachers can find various examples from it.But now we can no longer arrange a good course.After being reviewed by the California Senate Budget Committee, these courses were removed even worse, which is terrible!Later, when they discussed the matter, I was asked to sit before the state legislature, but I declined; by that time, I was tired of arguing too much with people about these things. I think we have submitted the results to the Education Bureau, and they should handle the next work, such as reporting to the state government.However, although this is completely correct in terms of jurisprudence, it is completely wrong in terms of political operation. Maybe I shouldn't have given up so quickly, but it's very frustrating to have a decent curriculum after so much work and discussion, only to have it cut out!If you do the work process in reverse, that is, start from the price of the book, and then buy the book you can afford, then the whole thing may change, and you don't have to waste so much effort. However, what made me decide to quit my committee job was the experience of discussing science textbooks in my second year.At first I thought maybe the science books would be different, so I read a few carefully. History repeats itself: some things look good at first glance, but are actually outrageous.For example, there is a book that lists 4 pictures: the first picture is a wind-up toy, the second picture is a car, the third picture is a child riding a bicycle, and so on.Beneath each image, it asks, "What makes it work?" I thought, "I see what they mean, they want to talk about mechanics, how springs work; talk about chemistry, how the mechanics of a car work; and biology, how muscles work." This is the kind of topic my dad would talk to me about: "What makes it move? Everything moves because the sun is shining. "And then comes the fun part, we'll keep talking: "No, the reason the toy moves is because the clockwork winds up," I'd say. "Why does the clockwork wind up?" he would ask again. "I turned it tight." "Why can you move?" "Because I eat." "When the sun shines, the food grows. Therefore, because of the sun, these things move." Then I will understand that the motion of the objects is nothing but the conversion of the sun's energy. Turn to the next page, and the answer from the textbook is—for the wind-up toy—"The energy makes it move." As for the child on the bicycle, "The energy makes it move." The answer for each picture is " Energy makes it move." That makes no sense at all.By the way, replace the place of energy with "Vakaris".Then "Vakaris makes it move" is our new law, and this sentence contains no knowledge at all.Students don't learn anything, it's just a word! What they should do is let the students look inside the toy, look at the clockwork inside, learn the gears, and forget about the "energy".Later, when the child understands how the toy works, they can discuss the more general laws of energy. In fact, not even the phrase "energy makes it move" is true.Because if it stops, you can also say "energy makes it stop." What the book says is that the energy in the "concentrated state" is transformed into a "diluted state", which is a very deep question.In these examples, energy doesn't increase or decrease, it just shifts from one form to another.When the object stops, the energy turns into heat, returning to chaos. But every book is the same, they all say useless, confused, ambiguous, confused, specious things.I can't imagine anyone learning any science from these textbooks - because they don't teach science at all! My volcano erupted again after seeing these science books have the same faults as the math books.After reading so many math textbooks and only feeling powerless, I just couldn't take another year of pain and quit my job. Then I heard that the book "Energy Makes It Move" had been selected by the committee to be presented to the Education Bureau, so I decided to give it a final try.Every time the committee meets, the public can participate in the comments, so I also stood up at the meeting and said why I thought the book was not good. The person who replaced me as a committee member said: "All 65 engineers of such-and-such aircraft company voted for it!" I have no doubt that there are some very good engineers in that company, but the opinion of 65 engineers is a wide range of opinions - there must be some uneducated fellows among them!So once again, it comes down to averaging the emperor's nose or scoring blank books.If the company first decides which engineers are more outstanding, and let them judge the book, the effect will definitely be better.I dare not say that I am smarter than 65 people, but compared with the average 65 people, of course I will win! He couldn't understand my argument, and the Board of Education later adopted that book. When I was on the committee, I was going to San Francisco for several meetings. Back in Los Angeles after the first meeting, I ran to the committee to get my car bill back. "How much is the total, Mr. Feynman?" "Well, it's the air tickets to and from Los Angeles and San Francisco, plus the parking fee for the car parked at the airport when I'm not around." "Did you keep the ticket?" I just kept my plane ticket. "Where's the receipt for the parking fee?" "No, but it cost me two dollars and thirty-five." "But we have to see the receipt." "I just told you how much that was. If you didn't believe me, why did you ask me to tell you whether those textbooks were good books or bad books?" The result is an argument.Unfortunately, I'm too used to speaking and lecturing to the average normal person in a private company or university.What I'm too used to is: "How much is the total cost?" "How much." "Please charge me, Mr. Feynman." I decided at the moment that I would never give them any receipts again. After the second meeting, they asked me to get the ticket and receipt. "I didn't stay." "You can't stay like this, Mr. Feynman." "When I accepted the commission, you told me I would cover all costs." "But we expect you to provide a receipt to prove that you spent the money." "I don't have anything to prove it, but you know I live in Los Angeles and I go to these places for meetings. What the hell do you think I get to these places?" They refuse to show weakness, and neither do I.I think when you are in that situation and you choose not to retreat, you will be benevolent if you don’t succeed.Therefore, I was very reconciled and never got my car and horse fare back. This is one of the games I play a lot.They want a receipt?I don't even give them a receipt.Then you won't get the money.OK, then I won't take the money.They don't believe me?To hell with him, they don't have to pay me. Of course this is ridiculous!I also know this is the government style, so go to his government!I think people should treat people as people.And until I'm treated like a human being, I don't want anything to do with them!Do they feel bad?I also feel uncomfortable!Let it be.I know they are "protecting the taxpayer", but see how the taxpayer is actually protected in the example below. After lengthy discussions, two books remained inconclusive, both of which received very close votes; so we left the decision to the Board of Education.Now they have taken the price into consideration, and since the two books are about the same, the Education Bureau decided to call for tenders, and the one with the lowest price will win.Someone asked the question: "Will the school receive the books at the usual time, or can it be received earlier before the school starts?" A representative of the winning publisher stood up and said, "We are delighted that you have accepted our bid; we will be able to deliver books to schools before school starts." The losing publisher, who was also represented, stood up and said, "Since we bid on the later deadline, I feel we should have another chance to bid again on the earlier deadline, so we can Publish the book before school starts." Mr. Norris asked the person from the second publishing house: "If your book comes earlier, how much will it cost?" The man said a number: it was actually cheaper! The first family stood up and said, "If he changes their mark, I have the right to change our mark too!"——his is even cheaper! Norris asked, "Well, how could that be? It's cheaper to get the book earlier?" "That's right," said one, "we can take advantage of a printing method that we don't usually use..."—explaining why the result will be cheaper. Another agreed: "It's cheaper when you produce faster!" That was shocking.That turned out to be two million dollars cheaper!Norris was furious at the sudden change. The actual situation, of course, is that the delivery deadline was brought forward, giving these people an excuse to re-bid.In general, they don't have to lower prices when price is not a consideration, publishers can set their prices wherever they want, lowering prices is not good for competition.Their knack for competing is simply to impress the people on the curriculum committee. Oh, by the way, every time the committee meets, there is always a publisher who entertains people from the committee, takes the committee members to lunch, and presents their books.I've never been in it. It all seems obvious now, but at the time I couldn't figure out the situation. One day I received a package from "Western Union" containing some dried fruit or something, and a letter saying, "Happy Thanksgiving—Bamirio and family." It's from a family in Long Island, but I've never heard their names. Looks like someone sent something to a friend and got the name and address wrong, I have to clear things up.I called Western Union and found out who sent the package. "Hello, my name is Feynman. I got a package..." "Oh, hello, Mr. Feynman, I'm Pamirio." He was so friendly, I thought I should know him!And I do often forget who a lot of people are. So I said, "I'm sorry, Mr. Pamirio, but I don't quite remember who you are..." It turned out he was a representative of one of the publishers whose book was on my review list. "I see. But it's easy to misunderstand." "This is purely a small gift from our family to your family." "True, but I'm reviewing your book, and many people may misunderstand your kindness!" I knew what was going on then, but I was pretending to be a 100% fool. Another time, a publisher sent me a leather briefcase with my name engraved in gold foil.So I said: "I can't accept it, I'm reviewing your book, you don't seem to understand this!" Said one longtime member of the committee: "I never accepted those gifts; it pissed me off, but it kept happening." I missed a great opportunity.It would have been fun if I had been thinking fast enough at the time.When I arrived at the hotel in San Francisco that evening, and the meeting was held the next day, I decided to go downtown and have something to eat.Just out of the elevator, two guys sitting in the hotel parlor jumped up and said, "Good night, Mr. Feynman. Where are you going? Shall we show you San Francisco?" They were sent by a publisher, and I I don't want to mess with them at all. "I'm going out to eat something." "We can take you to dinner." "No, I want to go alone." "Well, no matter what you want, we can help." I couldn't help teasing them, saying, "Well, I want to go out and get in trouble." "Then we can help too." "No, I'll figure it out myself." And then I thought, "Wrong! I should just let them do it and document everything so the California state government knows how bad these publishers are!" But wait for me God only knows what human pressure is after seeing the two million dollar difference!