I have had this great book for 10+ years, and still find it fascinating it's called "Prisoner's Dilemma: John von Neumann, Game Theory, and the Puzzle of the Bomb". I try to re-read it on occasion. It's half John von Neumann biography and half subject matter history.
Call him an unhinged lunatic if you want photochemsyn; but I consider him a super genius.
He was a super genius. Just a super genius who repeatedly called for genocide and nuclear first strikes. He was removed from the target selection committee for the Japan bombings because he kept advocating for high civilian targets with no military value and even the generals at the table viewed him as crazy. The ability to be a genius and a lunatic aren't mutually exclusive and the recent efforts to build a hagiography around him are concerning.
A little pedantic but I want to fix something. I noticed in the first sentence that he states Von Nuemann died of bone cancer. This is incorrect. His cancer was first found in his collarbone, and it was a metastatic lesion. They biopsied it and various sources I've read have stated the primary cancer was pancreatic or prostate. This means that it would have been an undifferentiated adenocarcinoma. This means the cancer has evolved to the point where you can recognize some aspects of it, but it has shed a lot of the characteristics of its cell of origin. It could also have been a cholangiocarcinoma or possible gastric cancer, hepatic, etc...
The term bone cancer refers to things like osteosarcomas, these usually occur in children.
Not trying to say the rest of the article is bad, but when I see something like this I want to point it out.
Previous biographies I've read have always reported pancreatic cancer, which is what I was going to originally type, but according to wikipedia there are some different sources listed.
I can never escape von Neumann. Everywhere I look, there is his influence. Even just as an engineer I see this. Physics, mathematics, computing (!), economics.. I am dumbfounded whenever I come across yet another monumental von Neumann idea that I use every day without knowing. Imagine how much further down the track we would be if we got another decade out of this incredible man…
I think this article is mischaracterizing him as an applied mathematician with contributions to economics, game theory, computing etc — it gives almost no weight to his real mathematical work. I wonder why - it seems inconceivable that the biography being reviewed makes the same mistake.
>He was not an economist, but he developed the use of fixed-point theorems in economics in a paper which the historian Roy Weintraub calls “the single most important article in mathematical economics”, and which inspired “half a dozen” Nobel laureates.
"It’s fashionable to say that intelligence isn’t real, or that we can’t define it, or that it’s a Western colonial construct. But the word points to a real thing: there is some quality which rocks don’t have, and which mice have a bit of, and which chimpanzees have more of, and humans have a lot of; and which is something like problem-solving ability or ability to achieve goals."
We have IQ for measuring problem-solving ability, but it doesn't correlate well with the ability to achieve goals. That would be another very useful measure though, of something like intelligence * grit. Call it IGQ. An IGQ test would somehow set goals in a realistic, complex, chaotic environment, with social and physical as well as intellectual obstacles. So, a GPA is a sort of IGQ.
The quote sounds like either a strawman or a misunderstanding. I don't think many people would claim intelligence "isn't real", but obviously IQ tests are created by humans which certain culturally-influenced ideas about what constitute intelligence.
You could write another article entitled 'the lunacy of John von Neumann' over his endless pushes for destroying every major city in the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons, too.
A brilliant scientist, yes, but also an unhinged lunatic. Not an unusual situation, see Cantor etc. What's curious is how many hagiographies have been written about this individual - some people seem bent on rehabilitating this figure by erasing uncomfortable history.
In any case, hero-worship of scientists is very silly. The Nobel Prize bears a lot of the blame for this - but in reality, the vast majority of fundamental scientific discoveries are the result of dozens if not hundreds of researchers working over decades. The invention of the electronic computer is a good example of this, as is the invention of the nuclear bomb, as is the discovery and characterization of DNA's role in the cell.
> In any case, hero-worship of scientists is very silly. The Nobel Prize bears a lot of the blame for this
I think it's more that it gets indoctrinated in the process of learning math and science, where every historic formula, theory, hypotheses, and law, is named after someone. It's easy to overlook that all those someones were complex, flawed human beings. And as you allude to, many great discoveries are the work of many. But when learning science, I feel like the history often gets glossed over and tends to overlook the less famous contributors to great ideas.
An intellectual-yet-idiot who placed too much hope and emphasis on game theory, despite the fact that it only works when agents are perfectly rational.
He's much more than a brilliant scientist! Some people think he's the greatest mathematicians of the 20th Century, in addition to his seminal applied contributions to game theory, computing, economics etc.
So it's not about "rehabilitating" or "hagiography". The discussion isn't about his political views or his personality or any of that. This person is an, perhaps the, outstanding genius of human history.
In mathematics and theoretical science, the major breakthroughs have often been the work of one person. I'm sure you know this. In general your comment is going wrong by discussing Von Neumann as if he were an applied scientist: he was a theoretician.
Imagine if every time a story came up about a once-in-a-generation brilliant innovator, the top comments were all about highlighting their flaws and mistakes and minimizing their accomplishments. What a depressing way to live.
About what they should think when developing a weapon of ultimate mass destruction? Rainbow unicorns?
You can't be a pacifist and simultaneously fight for "peace", that's nonsense. You can only fight for your survival, and for your people, your culture, your principles and values.
> A brilliant scientist, yes, but also an unhinged lunatic. Not an unusual situation, see Cantor etc.
What made Cantor unhinged? I skimmed his Wikipedia page (assuming you mean Georg) and the worst seemed to be a couple of sanatorium stays for depression.
I hate this. We are trying to look at the worst of someone that did so much for the world.
People on HN are trying to cancel Feynman as well. I have nothing but feelings of disdain for you.
Even if they did something wrong, I’d rather focus on their positive sides. Please stop this onslaught of taking down the history for some axe to grind.
I fail to see how pushing for a strategy that, from a game theory point of view, was sound makes him a lunatic.
Plenty of people don't view the preservation of life as the be all end all and if that strategy had been followed and it had led to a world where only the United States had ever been allowed to develop nuclear weapons I see a very easy argument for it being the more long-term humane option.
Edit: who's more of a lunatic: the man who presses a button that kills a million people and saves a billion or the man that doesn't? I'd argue the latter.
Bizarre that the second to top comment (on the linked page) immediately turned the conversation into one about the commenter's view on racial/sexual supremacy and goes on to say "correspondingly, there are also ethnicities that are less intelligent" (I'm assuming they are implying supremacy of their own group.) It's quite jarring the frequency one comes across white supremacist/misogynist talking points when one tries to engage with programming/computer science communities online.
It makes me appreciate the largely positive and safe experience HN provides, despite the occasional user that insists the opposite.
Edit: some of the comments appear to have been removed/deleted or otherwise fallen off, though the comment about "ethnicities that are less intelligent" is still up near the top.
The unfortunate reality is that group level differences in characteristics associated with intelligence are measurable. It is pretty much an open secret in genomics.
Additionally, given how regression to the mean works, a small enough endogamous minority will display larger deviations from the mean (positive or negative) than larger ethnic groups that usually constitute the majority.
I agree that it is a really tricky line to walk. The brazen pursuit of truth or tabooing of prospectively society uprooting revelations. Both are a result of the same observation, just different moral systems.
I'm sure many grapple with this struggle in their own way. However, ostrasizing those who find themselves on the other side of that fence by shouting various 'X-isms', is neither productive nor effective.
People complain about the target selection and first-mover advantage of Von Neumann, in the same thread which seems to be taken over by collateral damage of polarizing identity politics propaganda, set to target social cohesion of American civilians (which leaks into Western culture) done by the very same adversaries targeted decades back by Von Neumann.
[+] [-] jgmmo|4 years ago|reply
Call him an unhinged lunatic if you want photochemsyn; but I consider him a super genius.
Link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29506.Prisoner_s_Dilemma
[+] [-] triclops200|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Herodotus38|4 years ago|reply
The term bone cancer refers to things like osteosarcomas, these usually occur in children.
Not trying to say the rest of the article is bad, but when I see something like this I want to point it out.
Previous biographies I've read have always reported pancreatic cancer, which is what I was going to originally type, but according to wikipedia there are some different sources listed.
[+] [-] paulpauper|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joeman1000|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Myrmornis|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulpauper|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer_fixed-point_theorem
no mention of him. I don't think he conceived of the idea.
[+] [-] dash2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hirundo|4 years ago|reply
We have IQ for measuring problem-solving ability, but it doesn't correlate well with the ability to achieve goals. That would be another very useful measure though, of something like intelligence * grit. Call it IGQ. An IGQ test would somehow set goals in a realistic, complex, chaotic environment, with social and physical as well as intellectual obstacles. So, a GPA is a sort of IGQ.
[+] [-] goto11|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] photochemsyn|4 years ago|reply
A brilliant scientist, yes, but also an unhinged lunatic. Not an unusual situation, see Cantor etc. What's curious is how many hagiographies have been written about this individual - some people seem bent on rehabilitating this figure by erasing uncomfortable history.
In any case, hero-worship of scientists is very silly. The Nobel Prize bears a lot of the blame for this - but in reality, the vast majority of fundamental scientific discoveries are the result of dozens if not hundreds of researchers working over decades. The invention of the electronic computer is a good example of this, as is the invention of the nuclear bomb, as is the discovery and characterization of DNA's role in the cell.
[+] [-] hyperbovine|4 years ago|reply
Compared to, say, people who use sticks to roll balls into holes? [https://www.theonion.com/man-who-used-stick-to-roll-ball-int...] I'll take scientist worship any day compared to all the other idiots and charlatans our culture chooses to worship.
[+] [-] glitcher|4 years ago|reply
I think it's more that it gets indoctrinated in the process of learning math and science, where every historic formula, theory, hypotheses, and law, is named after someone. It's easy to overlook that all those someones were complex, flawed human beings. And as you allude to, many great discoveries are the work of many. But when learning science, I feel like the history often gets glossed over and tends to overlook the less famous contributors to great ideas.
[+] [-] DantesKite|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] da39a3ee|4 years ago|reply
So it's not about "rehabilitating" or "hagiography". The discussion isn't about his political views or his personality or any of that. This person is an, perhaps the, outstanding genius of human history.
In mathematics and theoretical science, the major breakthroughs have often been the work of one person. I'm sure you know this. In general your comment is going wrong by discussing Von Neumann as if he were an applied scientist: he was a theoretician.
[+] [-] bryan0|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leesec|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dandanua|4 years ago|reply
About what they should think when developing a weapon of ultimate mass destruction? Rainbow unicorns?
You can't be a pacifist and simultaneously fight for "peace", that's nonsense. You can only fight for your survival, and for your people, your culture, your principles and values.
[+] [-] user982|4 years ago|reply
What made Cantor unhinged? I skimmed his Wikipedia page (assuming you mean Georg) and the worst seemed to be a couple of sanatorium stays for depression.
[+] [-] systemvoltage|4 years ago|reply
People on HN are trying to cancel Feynman as well. I have nothing but feelings of disdain for you.
Even if they did something wrong, I’d rather focus on their positive sides. Please stop this onslaught of taking down the history for some axe to grind.
[+] [-] paulpauper|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sugarpile|4 years ago|reply
Plenty of people don't view the preservation of life as the be all end all and if that strategy had been followed and it had led to a world where only the United States had ever been allowed to develop nuclear weapons I see a very easy argument for it being the more long-term humane option.
Edit: who's more of a lunatic: the man who presses a button that kills a million people and saves a billion or the man that doesn't? I'd argue the latter.
[+] [-] dhanna|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bavent|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mixmastamyk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathieubordere|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] badRNG|4 years ago|reply
It makes me appreciate the largely positive and safe experience HN provides, despite the occasional user that insists the opposite.
Edit: some of the comments appear to have been removed/deleted or otherwise fallen off, though the comment about "ethnicities that are less intelligent" is still up near the top.
[+] [-] screye|4 years ago|reply
Additionally, given how regression to the mean works, a small enough endogamous minority will display larger deviations from the mean (positive or negative) than larger ethnic groups that usually constitute the majority.
I agree that it is a really tricky line to walk. The brazen pursuit of truth or tabooing of prospectively society uprooting revelations. Both are a result of the same observation, just different moral systems.
I'm sure many grapple with this struggle in their own way. However, ostrasizing those who find themselves on the other side of that fence by shouting various 'X-isms', is neither productive nor effective.
[+] [-] vishho|4 years ago|reply
People complain about the target selection and first-mover advantage of Von Neumann, in the same thread which seems to be taken over by collateral damage of polarizing identity politics propaganda, set to target social cohesion of American civilians (which leaks into Western culture) done by the very same adversaries targeted decades back by Von Neumann.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tuesdayrain|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]