Legacy of a Curious Mind

Free Economics Radio is sponsored by LinkedIn ads. Ever invested in something that didn't live up to the hype? Marketers know that feeling. They optimize for the numbers that look great, like impressions, but then they don't see revenue. LinkedIn has a word for that. Bullspend. Instead, you can get the highest ROAS of major ad networks with LinkedIn. Cut the bullspend, advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com slash Freeconomics. Terms apply a com. Freeconomics radio is sponsored by Mint Mobile. Unlimited talk, text, and data and fast reliable coverage on the nation's largest 5G network. No catch. To get your new wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month, go to mintmobile.com slash freak. That's it. There's no catch. Forty-five dollars upfront payment required, equivalent to $15 a month, new customers on first three-month plan only speeds slower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees, and restrictions apply, see Mint Mobile for details. Hey there, it's Steven Dubner. We have been replaying our series on the physicist Richard Feynman. This is the third and final episode. I hope you've been enjoying it. We will be back next week with a brand new episode of Freakonomics Radio. As always, thanks for listening. The Auguries of Innocence by William Blake to see a world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wildflower hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour There's just times that I wish Feynman was here. Many, many times. I'm sorry, but this happens when I think of them and I can't predict when it's gonna happen. So give me a moment . Because I'm not good at you know controlling the upwelling . It does happen and I miss the man . Ralph Leighton is a retired school teacher who lives just north of Berkeley, California with his wife Phoebe. From their front porch, you can see the San Francisco skyline, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Pacific Ocean. When Leighton was a teenager, he started hanging out with a man who had become a lifetime friend and inspiration, Richard Feynman. Feynman and Ralph Leighton's father both taught physics at Caltech, the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California. But Ralph Leighton and Richard Feynman didn't bond over physics. They bonded over their love of playing the bongos we would drum often at his place but sometimes at my place and then after that you know then he just talked This talking is what Leighton helped turn into two books that made Feynman famous toward the end of his life. The first one was called Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman. Adventures of a curious character. If he would ever say, Oh, did I ever tell you about the time I blah blah blah? I would always say, Oh no, I never heard it because I wanted to hear the story again. The second book was called What Do You Care What Other People Think? Further Adventures of A Curious Character. So many crazy things really did happen to him that I think he prepared the ground for. See, most people wouldn't go to the lengths that Feynman did to make a story happen. He was aware that he would tell a story later about a certain experience that he was going through. There was, for instance, the time he was stopped by the police while standing in the middle of the road in the middle of the night thinking through a physics problem. There was the time he helped investigate the challenges Space shuttle disaster and angered the head of the commission, William Rogers by not going easy on NASA as President Reagan had asked. Also, the time he convinced Ralph Leighton that what the two of them really needed to do was to go visit a remote place in Central Asia called Tanutuva. It's a friendship like you know unique. Unique and what luck upon luck upon luck . I do feel strongly that I want to keep his memory or memory of him, so this is part of it and why I'm happy to spend as much time with you as you're willing to put up with me . Leighton calls himself the keeper of the flame of Richard Feynman's legacy. So he will be our main tour guide. We will get into Feynman's 11th hour adventure into a new state of mind. I said, have you ever tried soul sip and mushrooms? And he said no. And I asked, would you like to? We'll ask what sort of inspiration we should take from Feynman? You know, the great thing is to be endlessly curious and want to find out, but if you can't find out, we'll live with the doubt. And we'll hear whether he ever made it to Tanutuva. I was so emotional on this trip, like I couldn't get through anything without crying. The vanishing Mr. Feynman begins now . This is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything with your host, Stephen Dubner. Chapter seven The Three Gra ces The Eselin Institute is right on the edge of the country overlooking the Pacific Ocean. To get there, we drove south from the Monterey Peninsula, straight down Highway 1, winding high above the coast and into Big Sur. The natural beauty is absurd , waves crashing far below in the shimmering sunlight, the redwoods throwing off their shade and scent. Just off the road you find a cluster of cottages, some classroom buildings and meditation rooms, a big dining hall with organic food. Eselin was established in nineteen sixty two and it became the epicenter for the human potential movement, which blended psychology, philosophy, and spirituality from the West and the East. Plenty of people still visit Eselin today. They take workshops on tantric yoga or indigenous plant medicine. It's pricey. S luomexury cabins rent for thousands of dollars a night. It used to be cheaper and more raffish, full of seekers and hippies. Richard Feynman spent some time here in the nineteen seventies and eighties. Was Feynman a theoretical physicist and hardcore rationalist also a hippie? Ralph Leighton again. I would say a hippie sympathizer for sure. We'd take walks and he'd purposely walk barefoot because he wanted to keep his feet street worthy. He liked informality , so he was definitely hippie-esque, hippie sym pathizer, very much . So Eselin just has the combination of being on the edge of the continent and also being on the edge of consciousness and you know, open to infinities of other dimensions, you know, nature of reality, all these concepts. You open your mind and you see what's out there and what's possible, but trying to be careful not to fool yourself . There's something going on with Feynman and the edge of the continent. I mean, he grew up on far Rockaway, and he's got two beaches there. He's got the ocean side and he's got the lagoon s ide. And then you get to California, you know, you're staring into infinity. You know, you're at the edge. So I think Feynman liked being at the edge. Boundaries between land and water, the boundary between consciousness and unconsciousness, the boundary between understanding something and not quite understanding something. And I think he knew that you find out the most interesting things when you're poking around the edges . All that poking around had proved fruitful for Richard Feynman. In 1965, he won a Nobel Prize for his work in quantum electrodynamics, which helped deepen our foundational understanding of how light and matter interact. Earlier in his career, he'd helped create the first nuclear weapons as part of the Manhattan Project. He'd even made contributions to biology. His work intersected with the widespread embrace and application of scientific thinking over the the course of 20th century. But this also included a variety of practices that Feynman thought of as junk science, things like faith healing and mind reading, even some practices within psychology and psychiatry. But Feynman also believed in challenging assumptions, even his own, with data, if possible, or at least intense observation. First, I started out by investigating various ideas of mysticism and mystic experien ces, he wrote. I went into isolation tanks and got many hours of hallucin ations. Then I went to Eselin, which is a hotbed of this kind of thought. So Feynman began going to Esselin as something of a skeptic, but he had always been interested in just how flexible and versatile the human mind can be if you just let it. When he started going to Esselin, Feynman was already well known , and he was asked to give lectures, so it was a warm welcome, as he later wrote, It's a wonderful place, you should go visit there. Back then, Esselin was an eight hour drive up the coast from Pasadena. On one visit, Feynman got to know three young women who were frequent visitors of Esselin. This was in the early to mid 1980s. These three women had each been experimenting with administering psych edelic drugs for therapeutic purposes. Their names were Debbie Harlow, Cheryl Halley, and Barbara Berg . This is Debbie, and I'm counting down from 1098-765-433 And this is Cheryl 123456 7 8910. This is Barbara speaking to you from Antarctica, and uh the weather is fine here today. Actually, we are in a comfortable cabin set atop a cliff on the Esslin campus. The cabin is called Fritz, as it was built for the psychologist Fritz Pearl s, a major figure in the early days of Es lin. The cabin sits in the shade with a wall of windows overlooking the ocean. There's a big stone fireplace and redwood beams that are said to have come from old bridges nearby that were built by convicts during the Great Depression. For Debbie Harlow, Cheryl Haley, and Barbara Berg, today is a reunion. They haven't been back to Eslin in quite a while. Ralph Layton had arranged this whole thing. He had asked them to come down and tell us about Richard Feynman's adventures here, something they've never spoken about publicly until now. Well, I will tell you the first time that I had personal interaction with Richard was while dancing because after his lecture we always did dancing at Eselen and so it was kind of a free form, playful dance, and he was interacting with me, and he became very aggressive and dominant. And so I, in counterpart, played submissive and was subjugated and the victim, but then I had enough of that. So then I switched roles, and then I became the aggressive one, the dominant one, and I turned that energy on him, and true to his form , he followed suit and he became submissive. And he became very contrite and took the softer role. I came here and I met Dick and I spent about three hours walking around Eslin, getting to know him and sharing our personal stories. And then at the end of that time, I said, Have you ever tried sil sipen mushrooms? And he said, No. And I asked, Would you like to? And he said , yes. So that's the beginning of our story together. He had never done any drugs prior to that time because his mind was so precious to him and he didn't want to do anything to tamper with it. And so he did confide to me that the reason he was willing to do it at this time was because he had already had surgery for cancer. He was going to be undergoing his second surgery. I think he knew that his time was coming. And because he was so curious and he was such an adventurer, I think he really wanted to try it before he died. I wanted to say for the record that I you know I have a background as a psychotherapist, so I I know about confidentiality. So even in 1984 or whatever year we were very specific to ask him whether we did or did not have permission to reveal that he had taken psychedelics. And he gave carte blanche permission. And he trusted us that like I had asked him the same question early on, and he said it's kind of like a a need to know, you know , if it was to help you persuade maybe another scientist that this might be something worthwhile, I say, could that person call you? You know, sure. But it wasn't like he knew we weren't gonna publish it as this, you know, expose . Dick Feynman does drugs. You know, I mean he trusted us. What a physicist does is explore the nature of reality. And I think he was equally curious about his own nature of reality . And so anything that he could learn or experience that was new was welcome to him. In fact, he told me about how he used to experiment in his dreams. He would set up a task where he would have a nail on the wall and he would try to feel it in his dreams and see if he could actually sensorily feel the nail . And so he was curious about his mind in the same way that he was curious about all facets of reality. And so I think he was genuinely curious and he knew that he did not have too much time to live . Feynman came to call Harlow, Haley, and Berg the three graces after the Greek goddesses who were the daughters of Zeus. They became his spirit guides into a new version of something he'd been doing since he was a kid, finding the edge between conscious and unconscious, or maybe the subconscious, the edge between the mind's automatic functions and the tasks it could accomplish with a little direction or manipulation ? What else was the kind of thinking he did as a theoretical physicist if not setting the mind free to describe things that could not be seen, things that a lesser mind couldn't even imag ine. At Eselin, guided by the three graces, Feynman had at least two psychedelic experiences, one with mushrooms and one with LSD. What I remember that I thought was quite significant was when Richard was getting off on LSD for the first time, we were watching the water and the water was moving and he started saying , We've got to draw the line somewhere. We've got to draw the line somewhere. And I always remembered that because to me it meant that once one started entering that unitive state where everything becomes interactive and commingled, there's an arbitrary line that is drawn that is consensually agreed upon to be the nature of reality . And I thought it was a very significant thing for him to be saying at that time. You know, not everything that happened with him was about psychedelics. I mean we developed a much broader relationship with him. But I remember the LSD session. I thought it was so funny. He stared, he was lying on the same couch, staring at a banana for three hours. Quiet as could be. Debbie had trained him well. He would just s turn it once in a while. And afterwards I asked him what so what was happening? He said very sincerely said, I don't know. I was just looking at the banana . Sometimes a banana is just a banana . He talked a lot about Arlene. I think how it came up, I asked him, I said, I know a lot of scientists and I have to say you're one of the most well rounded I've ever met. And he said, Well, that may be true, but if it is, it's all due to Arlene. And he said that I would have been a very narrow, you know, computational kind of physics guy, but I knew her in high school and she introduced me to art, to philosophy, to all the humanity. She opened up my heart. She was bright as could be. She was my peer. But no He said he met her when she was sixteen. She was shortly diagnosed with T B. They got married anyway. And he said, We grew up together. He said, Now people have this idea that you have to grow up before you get married. But we got married and we grew up together. One thing that I will say about him is that he did not believe in an afterlife. And when Arlene died, and she would come to him in dreams, he would tell her, go away, go away . And another friend of ours who was there for the LSD time, she felt so sad that he felt that way. And he wrote me a letter, Richard wrote me a letter afterwards saying he's so sorry that he made my friend cry because she felt so sad that he did not believe in any kind of ongoing spirituality or any kind of ongoing life with Arlene, even though I think one reason that he enjoyed being with us is because we were psychological and I don't mean clinical or analytical, but because we were insight oriented. And I think that moved him, especially with regard to things like being able to talk about his grief with Arlene . It was simply that he wasn't feeling well, so we thought, you know, bring them out into Mohammed. In fact, we stopped along the way and we cut fronds from the palm trees growing along the highway for which the police stopped us, but we ended up being able to make off with the Fran z. And I remember standing in the elevator, just keeping a really straight face while we're on this elevator full of people. And so we were sitting on either side of his bed fanning him, and the nurse walked in and said, Oh my goodness, you look like a god with your goddesses . And he enjoyed that . We met his daughter Michelle and his wife, and they were interacting with him before he went into surgery. And it was interesting because there was a marked contrast between the way Barb and I were relating to him, which was very playful and very entertaining They seemed a little more reserved than we were. But I think they had known him for enough years. They just sort of took it in stride. They weren't horrified. They were worried about him. I think they were respectful that we had come and really cared. Then they knew there was a caring relationship. I really appreciate the sense of respect that he showed to me and to us. I mean he never came on to us sexually. And I really trusted his character, his intention, and his integrity. And I thought that was a really beautiful thing. Each of us had a personal relationship with him. He got me at very deep levels. I would say if anything, he maybe was a little bit paternal. He was quite protective. He cared about me as an individual. We talked about my career. We talked about what my goals were, what drove me. I would say that he he wasn't a taker. He was a person who gave deeply of himself, shared what wisdom he had, he shared his levity. I would have to agree. We were walking on the property and he was talking about his philosophy of art. I thought he w was rather self-indulgent. He said something about art and I said something about farce . And he shot me a very dirty look and I shot him a big hearted smile. And that's the moment that we bonded. And so I think we were not groupies. I think we gave him some emotional educational training I lived in California. I went to New York to visit a friend and I had just arrived. My friend was in the bathroom. Phone rang and I picked it up and it was Richard Feynman. He was going on this journey where they were going to investigate what happened to the challenger. He did share in great detail with me how step by step he investigated the process that came up with that little cheap O-ring that ended up not being replaced when it should have and was responsible for blowing up the challenger. He was calling to talk about what it was like and as everybody knows, I'm at this point, I mean, everyone on that commission for three months, they all said, we want to go home, sign off on our paper, and here he says, I won't leave until you all sign my report. And told a wonderful story, I don't know if it's a publicly told story or not, that Rogers really didn't like him and it was mutual. And that Rogers would send cars to pick him up to take him to meetings, but they'd send him to the wrong place. They'd give the limousine driver the wrong information. So he'd be late for meetings, miss meetings, and he was really , you know, sabotage and thrown under the bush. He was surprised that there was so much resistance. However, he was vindicated in the end because he did discover the reason and he even went before Congress and demonstrated why it was the case that that little O-ring was responsible for the whole explosion. It was also amazing that we got to watch on television together because I just happened to be down here at that time and everything was live on television when he dropped the O ring in front of Congress into the glass of water. I got a kick out of opening the New York Times all the time. There's Feynman on the front page again. We heard all about Feynman's work on that presidential commission in the first episode of this series. On live TV, Feynman demonstrated how the failure of those O-rings was the likely cause of the Challenger disas ter. To all those who watched, his testimony was an act of courage in the face of a government whitewash. To the government, his testimony was more like an act of sabotage. And to Feynman, he was just doing science, using every fold of his brain to try to find evidence for or against the proposition that X indeed caused Y, and if not, what did ? Looking back, this may have been a high point for the public opinion of science and scientists, which is a little bit weird since Feynman was using science to explain a scientific failure rather than to celebrate a triumph. Still, people believed this scientist on TV and they trusted him. And how about today? I think the question really isn't about trust in science, it's trust in the people who do science. That's coming up after the break. I'm Steven Dubner, and this is Freekonomics Radio. Free economics radio is sponsored by Southern Company. The world and its energy needs are always changing. Southern Company's commitment to meeting this demand stays the same. That's because Southern Company believes energy is more than a utility , it's what powers possibilities. So they are looking ahead and investing $80 billion in infrastructure upgrades and are committed to fueling growth in ways that benefit all customers so that reliable and affordable energy is accessible for generations to come. Go to SouthernCany.com to learn more. Southern Company, building the future of energy. Free econom ics radio is sponsored by Dell Technologies. When you're at work, you never know when you'll be interrupted. But with the Dell Pro powered by Intel Core Ultra with VPro, no matter what distracts you, your laptop won't. It's battery optimized for the way you work with built-in intelligence that quiets distractions when you need to focus. Your laptop will help keep you locked in even when it's bring your dog to work day. Built for those who stay in the flow , the Dell Pro. Built for you. Dell dot com slash Dell Dash Pro Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Amica. You know what they say. If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. So go with Amica and get coverage from a mutual insurer that's built for their customers. One that looks after what's important to you together. Auto, home, life, and more, coverage that fits your unique needs. Amika helps you protect what matters most. Visit Amika.com and get a quote today Chapter eight Do We Still Live in a scientific Culture . Stephen Wolfram, a computational scientist and entrepreneur, studied physics at Caltech and stayed friendly with Richard Feynman until Feynman's death. Near the end of his life, he was like , well now I'm gonna experiment with all kinds of drugs because I'm dying anyway, more or less. I think he was a little embarrassed about that. In the environment of the time, these were illegal drugs and so on, I think he viewed himself as a think for yourself, but nevertheless law abiding citizen. I don't think he felt that he was having brilliant insights rushing in because he was in some altered state. One of the things he said to me was: if you want to do creative science, peace of mind is an essential feature. Feynman visited Esselin several times toward the end of his life. People always wanted to know what he was working on, what he was thinking about. So sometimes he would give a talk, less formal than a classroom lecture, but scientific in nature. One of these talks he called Tiny Machines. I am talking about very small machines, okay? There wasn't a field called nanotechnology when Dick Feynman was thinking about nanotechnology. Nanotechnology was something nobody talked about. He just was thinking about it and he thought it was interesting and he tried to think through what the implications of that would be. It was very much the beginning of nanotechnology. That is John Preskill, the Richard Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics at Caltech. He gave a talk in 1959 at Caltech , which was called There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom. And what he meant by that is that there was an opportunity by making our technologies smaller and by making smaller devices to take advantage of the potential to put a lot more devices in a small volume of space, and he recognized that that would be important for computing. He even suggested that we should eventually be able to manipulate atoms one at a time, grab a hold of a single atom, do what we want with it. I think some of his best work was actually done in these corners where nobody else had gone and where he just said, Well, I wonder how that works . This idea of a scientist who looks for new corners, who follows his curiosity wherever it leads, who isn't afraid to spend time at a hippie retreat exploring the layers of consciousness. That is another aspect of the Feynman archetype that you don't see much of anymore, science has become more corporate and institution al. It's also an expensive enterprise and competitive. With so much at stake, it can be hard for a scientist to spend time on an intellectual query that might not bear fruit. Along with this decline in pure scientific inquiry, the last several years have also seen a decline in the public's opinion of science. I think there has been a surge in skepticism about science and about scientists and their motivation. I don't think scientists should expect people to just believe what they say on the basis of authority . But I think there is an unhealthy level of skepticism about the motiv es of scientists. A lot of people go into science, and it's not because it's the most lucrative career they could have. They go into it because they want to discover things and they want to share that knowledge with colleagues and with students and with the world. And I think that's a very admirable motivation. And if we were interested in our own glorification or in pursuing a task because it was lucrative I think what's interesting about that is that even the people who say they don't trust some science, they still want science on their side, right? They don't say here's my alternative system, they say, here's this other piece of science. I'm Dr. Helen Chersky and I'm a physicist at University College London . So it's interesting because the authority of science actually isn't questioned. There's no one who's well, as far as I know, there are not very many people who are saying actually the world is run by a load of wizards who just wave magic wands and things happen, right? There is a sort of a collective agreement that there is a form of reality that we can understand systematically. I think the question really isn't about trust in science, it's trust in the people who do science. I mean, I think we're doing everything we can to dismantle the structures that allow science. Lisa Randall and I'm a physicist professor at Harvard. You can't have these executive committees or congressional committees that really understand things. I mean, some things are difficult to understand and not everyone will understand them. And it's really important for scientists to be able to at least get the information out there and have that taken into account. There's also an idea that, you know, when people talk about science, they're being elitist. That's not what it''ss about about. It understanding the world. It's something that we want to share. I mean, there's a wonderful universe out there, yet we're so short-sighted and we really don't think about the long-term consequences of what we're doing and what it does Feynman would often say the number one rule is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool . If you expected science to give all the answers to the wonderful questions about what we are, where we're going, what the meaning of the universe is, and so on, then I think you could easily become the solution and then look for some mystic answer to these problems. In 1964, at the Galileo Symposium in Florence, Feynman gave a talk he called What Is and What Should Be the Role of Scientific Culture in Modern Science So he says, people, I mean the average person, the great majority of people, are woefully, pitifully, absolutely ignorant of the science of the world that they live in. And an interesting question of the relation of science to modern society is just that. Why is it possible for people to stay so woefully ignorant and yet reasonably happ y in modern society. And then he says I believe that science has remained irrelevant because we wait until somebody asks us questions or until we are invited to give a speech on Einstein 's theory to people who don't understand Newtonian mechanics. But we never are invited to give an attack on faith healing or on astrology. I suggest, maybe incorrectly and perhaps wrongly, that we are too polite . So Fyman was interested in the role of science and society for a number of years, especially after the war, when science was used to create the atomic bomb. And so he gave various lectures. One of them, it's called The Value of science. He says it's a duty of us scientists to create a philosophy of ignorance and doubt, meaning admit that you don't know something, don't just fake it and you know make it up. When you don't know something, say you don't know it . I know that some people Allen Alda comes to mind have set up like a center for the communication of science. And so Feynman, I'm sure, would happily give a guest talk at Alan Alda's Center for the Communication of Science, but he would start off by saying, now, you know, I don't know anything about really how to communicate science, so I'm just going to tell you something really interesting that I found out about the other day. And then by example, he would show you great communication of science My name is Alan Alda and I act I write you don't need to know more. Well let's say a little bit more. Alan Alda has played many roles on TV, film, and stage. He's probably still best known for starring as Hawkeye Pierce in the TV series MASH . When I was born, my father was in burlesque. So from the ear liest times I can remember when I was two or two and a half years old, I was standing in the wings watching burlesque shows, watching comics and straight men, chorus girls and strippers. And I learned a lot. And the thing that I identified with was the performing I guess you could say the performing instinct . Communicating with the audience without necessarily acknowledging that they were there. Feynman was a performer on his own. If you look at his lectures, you see the jokes he does that Ralph Leighton said were carefully constructed and paced, and he always was aware of where he wanted something funny to happen. The Allen Olda Center for Communicating Science was established at St onebrook University in 2009. About a decade earlier, Alda had fallen so in love with how Richard Feynman communicated science that Alda commissioned a play about him called QED. At once. But he let you know that there's more to know about it. So the first dose might be general and get you connected to the big idea. And then when you were ready, he'd get into more detail . But it's not a good idea to go into the weeds first. I think I learned a lot from that aspect of his teaching. Couple of reasons why I think science should be commun One is it's beautiful. If we said we're gonna eliminate music and poetry and you'll get by on the train schedule, that's all you really need. It'd be a big loss. We wouldn't stand for it. And yet we tolerate not learning more about science in a way that's meaningful to us. We read headlines, and the question is, is it a breakthrough that's going to end cancer or not? Don't bother me if you haven't got that. I think we're going through a period where there's less trust placed in people who are experts at anything, not just science. There are a lot of us who seem to feel if you claim to know so much, you're setting yourself up as better than me. Rather than saying , Let me hear what you have to say and see if I can learn from you it's don't tell me what to do. I'm free to believe anything I want . So, what would Richard Feynman make of how science is practiced and communicated today? Yeah, I think that he would have wanted to have scientists speak out about things that they actually know about. And, you know, his classic example , kind of an exemplar for so many people, was when he participated in the board that was investigating the Challenger disaster. That is Charles C. Mann, a science historian who interviewed and wrote about Feynman. And he did this publicly. That was pretty much it for the whole thing. And there's an example of a scientist really being helpful on an issue of public policy and understanding . And you find constantly pundits and political figures speaking in loud, confident voices about subjects which they know absolutely nothing about. And it kind of drives me crazy because I do have in my heart this example of Feynman who is this enormous I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong . I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things . By being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me . It's a strange feeling that nothing is fixed. I know that makes some people uncomfortable . It's like, no, you give me the answer now. I want to know the formula. Give me the formula. Well if you can get the attitude that it's okay that things are not fixed and it's fun to discover new material . The world's more interesting than you thought. Coming up after the break, the final adventure in the life of the curious, brilliant, vanishing Mr. Feynman. I'm Steven Dubner. This is Freak Economics Radio. Freak Economics Radio is sponsored by Granola. You are in back-to-back meetings all day. You're trying to stay present, but you're also worried you will forget the decision, the action item, the important next step. That's where granola comes in. Granola is an AI-powered notepad for meetings. You jot down rough notes like you always do, and in the background, granola transcrib es and turns them into clear useful notes when the meeting ends. No bots joining your calls, no distractions, just a clean notepad that helps you focus. During or after the call you can chat with your notes, ask Granola to pull out action items to help you negotiate, write a follow-up email, or even coach you using recipes, which are pre-made prompts. Head to granola.ai slash freeconomics and get three months free with the code freeconom ics. That's granola. ai slash freeconomics. Get three months free with code freakonomics. Free Economics Radio is sponsored by Everpure. Data is crucial to businesses, but managing it can create friction, risk, and manual work. Everpure transforms static data into a living system. Intelligent, instantly accessible, secure, energy efficient, and ready to perform. Plus, there is zero downtime for upgrades and maintenance. Whether your data is in the cloud, on premises, or at the edge, Everpure makes data management so simple it feels like second nature. Tame your data chaos with everpure. Visit everpuredata.com to learn more . Freekonomics Radio is sponsored by AdvanTech. No one likes a creaky floor, and builders know that the subfloor sets the tone, which is why Advantec subflooring is engineered for strength, stiffness, and moisture resistance. Advantec products are designed to stand up to the elements and give you a bond so strong it's backed by the industry's first squeak free guarantee. No squeaks, fewer callbacks, no problem. When the schedule is tight and performance matters, head to huberwood.com slash advantec to lay the foundation of a solid build . Chapter 9. Whatever Happened to Tanutuva ? Toward the end of his life, Richard Feynman was no longer on the cutting edge of physics research. The field was changing, as science does. Computer science was coming on strong, and Feynman did have a significant interest in that, but he wasn't a computer scientist. He was, however, perhaps the most famous living scientist at this time in the late 1950s. His book, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, a memoir-ish catalog of his adventures and misadventures, had been a bestseller. His participation in the Challenger Space Shuttle investigation a year later had shown the public how a scientist tries to solve a problem, and how very different that is from how politicians try to solve a problem. The scientist was all about inquiry, however, uncomfortable that may be. He asked direct questions, however uncomfortable they may be. He was all about truth-seeking, even while acknowledging that the full truth is often unknowable. He also believed that it was simply wrong to pretend to know more than you do. A lot of what we know about Feynman today comes from some documentary films made toward the end of his life. For many years Feyman would go over to England with his family in the summer because his wife, Gwyneth, was from Yorkshire. And one of those summers , a BBC documentary filmmaker named Christopher Sykes interviewed Feynman at length sitting in a living room with a beautiful garden outside and apparently violating all of the rules at the time of what you do for a documentary. Because here was a headshot of Feynman speaking and gesticulating, but no cutaways I have to say he was quite intimidating and he looked me in the eye, he didn't smile or anything, and he said Yes, sir. And I introduced myself and we went off to his office, and he sat down and said Well go ahead. So I tried to tell him a bit about you know, I could feel perspiration under my arms 'cause he just looked at me, didn't say a thing while I blathered on a bit about what we might try and do. And he said, Well, I just think this is a dumb idea. He said, But tell you what, do you want to come down to the greasy spoon and we'll have some lunch? So we went off and we ordered soup. And we talked about this and we talked about that. He asked me, you know, what I was in interested and I told him I'd studied literature and and he said rather impatiently, you know, well all this is just a complete waste of time. I mean, you know, the only way to look at things is science and that's the only thing that's interesting. And I I thought, well, I've got nothing to lose here. And I think rather rudely I said to him, Well, I just think you've got absolutely no business having such a blinkered view of things. It's just such a narrow way of looking. And then he looked at me and this was the great thing . He winked and he said, I'll tell you what, he said, I did read a novel once. It was called Madame Bovary and it was kinda nifty . Then he said, I'll tell you what, if you want to do something, you go away, think about what you want to do, and tell me what it is, and I'll say yes or no . So off I went and I thought, well, what's he really good at that I can get my mind round? Well he's really good at talking. So I suggested to him that what we should do is we'll start by doing a long interview. I would ask him questions about his life and work and we go through in a chronological way from childhood onwards, and then see what we got. And he said, okay, he'd do that . The film is gone on to become a bit of a cult film in a way, and I I think it's just because of his ability to make people feel that even if they don't understand science or it would be much too difficult for them to even if they tried, he makes everybody realize this must be a wonderful way to spend your time. You know, exploration of the world and trying to uncover the secrets of nature is just the most wonderful endeavor . I have to say, ever since I got involved with him, I realized I go through life thinking, I wonder what Feynman would say about that. What would Feynman think about this? It would have been fascinating. All this was before the Internet, effectively. You know, what would Feynman have made of the Internet and the World Wide web and things like that. He would very often say, I don't know. That would be very interesting to find out about. Because that's the other thing. He detested any pretense at knowledge. You know, he hated fakery. As he says it's much more interesting to live not knowing the answers to things than having answers that might be wrong. The great thing is to be endlessly curious and want to find out, but if you can't find out, well live with the doubt. In January of nineteen eighty eight, I told Sykes You better hurry up and get out here because I think Feynman is not doing well . And so Sykes came out in January of nineteen eighty-eight. And you can tell from how Feynman looks in that documentary versus the others , how much he had changed in his physical appearance from those surgeries . Ralph Leighton got in touch with me and said, look, he's really ill now. People think he's really not going to last much longer. By then, there'd also been conversations between Ralph and Feynman and me about this fascination they had with this country called Tanyu Tuva . He was interested in visiting a far-off land called Tuva . My name's Michelle Feynman. I'm Richard Feynman's daughter. He had collected stamps when he was a boy, and they had the most interesting shapes, you know, diamond and triangular, and the images on the stamps were like nothing he had seen, right? So this boy in New York he's seeing yaks or whatever else was on these stamps. And it just painted a picture of an entirely different world. So that sort of stuck in his head. And then many, many years later, he was at our dinner table with Ralph Leighton, and they were playing a geography game to sort of entertain and educate themselves or the children or something. But they let me teach a geography class, and so Feynman says, Oh yeah? What do you know about geography? And I said, Oh, I know every country in the world. I listen to the shortwave radio, I can tell you, oh yeah, you know every country in the world, whatever happened to Tanu Tuva ? Now, to me, Tanu Tuva sounded a little too made up, and I almost was tempted to say to him, surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman . I was very skeptical, but we went to his Encyclopdia Britannica, which he loved and could recite for you the jacket categories, almost like a wrapper. And in the back was an atlas, and there we saw the Tuva or Tuvinskaya Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Tuva ASS R , whose capital was Kazil K Y ZY L and that did it. As he said, any place that's got a capital spelled KY ZY L has just got And at the time, we had no idea how interesting it would be. The stamps were great. We wanted to know, can you still see scenes like on those stamps today and we had no idea about this throat singing that they did. Only when we got into our research driving around Southern California and going to university libraries, we came across a book that said that in Tuva they have a method of singing in which a single voice can produce two notes simultaneously. And we go, whoa . Little did we know that it was physics, it was harmonics. They wanted to find out absolutely everything they could about this remote country in the middle of Asia. They even found a phrase book that they could somehow write to get in touch with people in Tuva, and they did. Meanwhile, the whole problem was how could they get there? Typical of Feynman, he was offered the opportunity to go there. The Soviet Academy of Sciences said, look, we'll arrange for you to go to Tanutuva if you'll agree to come and give some lectures in Moscow, physics lectures, which everybody obviously would want to hear. And Feynman refused to do this for two reasons. One is he didn't want to, as he called it, cheat by using ways of getting to this place that ordinary people couldn't do. He didn't want to do it in what he saw as a cheating privileged way just because he was famous and so on. And also he felt so strongly about human rights issues in Russia that he declined this idea of doing the lectures. Anyway, they kept trying to find out a way to go. And the idea was we were all going to go together, and I think probably we would have made a film or something if we had. So it was when Ralph gave me the wake-up call and said, Look, if we're ever going to do anything about Tuva , we must do it soon because Feynman's not gonna live much longer. So I went to LA and my wife and I shot this long interview with Feynman about Tuva on a home video camera. He could only manage about an hour at a time . He got so tired . When my wife Lottie and I were doing the video recording, one morning we turned up at Richard's house and he was still in bed, Gwyneth, his wife , said, Yeah, Richard's still in bed, but he knows you're here and he's gonna get up and so on. And I'd said, you know, there's a thing here that we're gonna have to worry about, which is if Ein man really is dying, and it seemed pretty clear he was, the question is, should I ask him to talk about death and his impending death? And we decided, well, maybe the best thing is just to ask him. So I went upstairs and he was getting up and getting dressed. And I said, look, there's something I need to ask. He said, well, shoot, you know, he always said, shoot. I said, well, I wonder whether you think I should ask you what you think about the fact that you're dying. And he said , Mmm, he said, look, I'll tell you what, I'll just get back into bed and let's just think about this and talk it out aloud. And he started talking about the conversations that he had had with Arlene. I hadn't heard about Arlene until this point. For the first time I heard the story of this love affair with with Arlene when they were very, very young and and she had tuberculosis. She was going to die. They knew she was going to die , and they discussed this. In the course of Feynman talking about his discussions with Arlene about death and what it all means, he got to the end and then he said, you know, I realized talking about this about death it just makes me very depressed and very unhappy, so I think the answer is if you don't mind, don't ask me about it . It was really interesting the way he thought took it seriously, you know, you ask, and then he sets about working it out for himself and then coming to a conclusion and telling you what he thinks the correct answer is . You know, if you watch the film which we called The Quest for Tanya Tuva, it's amazing to think that this guy, just a few weeks before he died, was able to talk in such a completely mesmerizing and vivid and entertaining way about something he was passionate about. Now that's when he he and Ralph memorably played the bongos, and Feynman sang this song he liked singing about how I've got to have some orange juice . Feynman, two two or three weeks later, I think, went into hospital , didn't come back out again. As I later learned for him the journey was the destination, as the saying goes, I thought we were gonna try to plant the flag of uh you know some crazy Californians at the Center of Asia monument in Kazill, and that's what constituted success . But actually , along the way, trying to get there, we succeeded in bringing the largest archaeological and ethnographic exposition that ever came out of the Soviet Union to the United St ates, that's not bad, even if you don't get to Tuva . You know , trying to get to Tuva to this far-off magical land , and you got cancer eating away at ya You know It's a divers ion You know you're having fun with your friends, but I I now kinda wonder whether for him and Ralph Leighton finally received approval from the Soviet government to visit Tanutuva . My dad just ran out of ran out of runway, I guess. You know, he didn't have enough time to see that plan come to life . Eventually, Michelle Feynman and Ralph Layton did make the trip. So it was honestly, and maybe, maybe I'll put some of it on jet lag, but I was so emotional on this trip. Like, I couldn't get through anything without crying. The Feynman Contingent was warmly received in Tanutuva, and his legacy there lives on. Just a few years ago, on the 100th April Feynman's birth, the mayor of Kazil declared a Richard Feynman Day. The celebration included Tu ven throat singing, and a Feynman diagram was carved into a rock face near a sacred place known as the Valley of the Kings . If you are an admirer of Richard Feynman, as I am, plainly, and as you may be by now, there is, of course, a disappointment that Feynman never made it to Tanutuva himself. On the other hand, it's fitting. His curiosity outstripped even his achievement. I read something not long ago that made me think of Feynman. It was from a book by Carl Sagan, another great science communicator. Sagan was writing about what he called the dumbing down of Amer ica. I have a foreboding of an America, he wrote, when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues. When the people have lost the ability to knowledgeably question those in authority, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness . Have we slid back into an era of superstition and darkness? I'd like to think that we haven't, yet, at least not too much. And the human animal does continue to accomplish wonderful things, but we also routinely exercise stupidity and cruelty. When I look back at the life of Richard Feynman, what I most admire him for are simply the things he stood for and what he stood against. He stood for the indelible power of curiosity. He stood for the need to work very hard to distinguish between truth and hunch . And maybe because of what he learned from his father, the uniform salesman, he stood for ignoring the uniform, the epaulets, the titles. What mattered to him were first principles, not status . And what did Feynman stand against? He stood against people bowing to experts without reason. He stood against people positioning themselves as experts without justification. His biggest fear may have been authoritarianism. An authoritarian represents everything Feynman disdained and he has the power to stamp out everything Feynman loved. And what he loved most of all, I believe, is that every one of us is given the opportunity to try to understand the natural world and ourselves on a deep level, if we are so inclined