This is a classic Internet daisy chain of the worst sort.

The article linked above (http://explore.noodle.org/post/73954140444/the-appointees-wi...) acquired its content from MetaFilter (http://www.metafilter.com/116688/The-FBI-has-a-Do-Not-Contac...), which in turn acquired its content from MuckRock (https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2012/jun/06/feynman-f...), which acquired its content from an FOI request from the FBI (https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/fbi...) which produced an historical 361-page archive (https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/fbi...)

Surprising no one, the article linked above manages to locate the most tabloid-oriented part of the 361-page FBI archive, and omit the more interesting and politically educational parts.

Here's a link to a browsable version the source documents: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/fbi...

Here's a direct link to the PDF archive: https://muckrock.s3.amazonaws.com/foia_documents/Feynman_Mas...

Keep in mind that there was no such thing as a no-fault divorce in the U.S until 1969. So the listed reasons for divorce — which in this case included violence — are not reliable because they were often invented out of necessity.

Interesting. I can only imagine how this discusson would take place on Jezebel.

Know your audience, I guess. I, like many here, would not be happy to read negative things about Feynman who is a hero to many in this community.

*shrug.

Reading between the lines from the various writings he put out, I think the odds were good that he was an asshole to a lot of people.

He had a lot of privilege from being, on average, the smartest dick in a given room, and being the right age and in the right place to enjoy the Greatest Period of Prosperity We've Ever Known.

He was probably a blast at parties and exhilarating to work alongside and shoot the shit with, but also probably really flakey and insufferable if you needed something from him.

For me, the most telling moment in the Feynman comic (http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Jim-Ottaviani/dp/1596438274) was how little attention was paid to his kids.

You gotta take the good with the bad. Steve Jobs was a manipulative douchebag, but also conniving, ruthless and full of taste.

Wow, I can completely see that happening.

His anger could have been more healthily displaced, but being interrupted while you're thinking is actually the most frustrating thing ever. From my own experience the biggest problem is that sometimes when you're thinking you don't even realize it, and it's not till you're interrupted that you do. And once you're self-aware, the flow of thoughts required with the hardest kinds of thinking comes to a stop.

And if this guy is thinking about the kind of insanely hard stuff he thought about, man, I can't imagine how much that would've sucked.

"But I just had a quick question! It will only take two seconds of your time!"

To me, the real problem is that a lot of people don't understand that the duration of the interrupting event itself is often the lesser of the distractions. The fifteen minutes I have to spend getting my head back on-track afterward is the real pain-in-the-ass, and what are the chances that those fifteen minutes go uninterrupted?

That's why you go into another room and lock the door.

That doesn't solve every problem, but it helps.

Promises, promises. In my experience, women produce very few actual two-second interruptions.

EDIT: Hey downvoters -- I did say "in my experience". I'm not making a statement about all women.

True for men too. If someone has a "quick question" where I work, I might as well block off the next hour.

> True for men too.

Yes, absolutely, and notwithstanding the popular myth that men are more taciturn than women.

Are you seriously defending launching into a violent rage against your wife for being interrupted? Its a bit more than "his anger could have been more healthily displaced."

I think his intent was more to express empathy than to defend the behavior. You don't have to claim something is justifiable to recognize circumstances under which it might happen.

  "...the FBI set out to out him as a “communist sympathizer” in a witch hunt 
  characteristic of the Cold War era."

  "As for Feynman’s bongo drums, well, that’s true."

I'm not sure I understand the point of this article (if you can even call it that.) Is the author claiming that the wife's testimony is false, or perhaps that it was never even given and the entire paragraph is a fabrication of the FBI? I don't get it.

People fight, everyone has their own version, and nasty things come up in a divorce proceeding. I obviously have no idea if this account is 100% accurate, but it sounds like the author is claiming that it is not. Based upon what evidence I do not know.

I think the author is providing you some background information about why the files exist, and then saying that the story about the drums and calculus is probably true.

I don't see any claim in there that the wife was a lying tool of the FBI. These files would have been compiled after the divorce anyway.

The author certainly implies that those charges are false.

I think I've read that people who are very intelligent are also very passionate, which I guess is why Fenyman wrote a touching love letter to his (dead) first wife and (allegedly) beat his second wife. Also keep in mind the notion of "emotional intelligence" is relatively new, so given the time period and the person, this really isn't a surprise.

Neither of those activities are the exclusive domain of the "very intelligent".

Well, he was crazy smart, loved life, strip clubs, and interesting things. It is pretty fucked up that he thought she was okay with that behavior towards her.

http://www.openculture.com/2013/08/richard-feynmans-letter-t...

"he attacked her" - is this true?

Richard Feynman is a personal hero of mine, but if he became violent towards his wife I might view him in a different light.

Also, what's "bric-a-brac?"

> "he attacked her" - is this true?

We would first need to define "attacked". There are verbal attacks, chain-saw attacks, and much territory between them.

Also, during the divorce proceeding, his soon-to-be-ex-wife primarily complained about his tendency to be lost in thought, not his tendency to attack her if she interrupted him. My point is that if he actually physically attacked her, she would not have needed to mention his annoying preference for calculus.

That is what I initially thought as well, but since abuse was more socially/legally acceptable back then, I thought it was also possible that it wouldn't register as hugely important in the complaint.

On the flipside: http://www.openculture.com/2013/08/richard-feynmans-letter-t...

He was human, with all our failings and emotions.

I have read that before no fault divorces it was common to make up something that someone did in order to be granted a divorce. It's sad, but I think what he is described as doing was seen as more reasonable back then.

Hitting your wife was also more acceptable back then.

Thanks.

Interesting article. While the title of this submission hooked me and brought me here, it may need a little reworking as well.

Before we start flamewar, please keep on mind this happened in 50ies.

Spouses can be so sensitive.