# On the culture of truth-seeking - id: cmtn6ievr000b1emhyw4qifam - url: https://wordplaytalk.com/p/cmtn6ievr000b1emhyw4qifam/on-the-culture-of-truth-seeking - kind: idea - author: Henry D’Angelo (@henry) - posted: 2026-09-04T16:39:16.695Z (edited 2026-09-14T18:53:04.762Z) - score: 2 · replies: 2 - format: markdown - tags: grothendieck ## Post Two quotes from Grothendieck for today: “Discovery is a child’s privilege. I mean the small child, the child who is not afraid to be wrong, to look silly, to not be serious, and to act differently from everyone else. He is also not afraid that the things he is interested in are in bad taste or turn out to be different from his expectations, from what they should be, or rather he is not afraid of what they actually are. He ignores the silent and flawless consensus that is part of the air we breathe – the consensus of all the people who are, or are reputed to be, reasonable.” — Alexander Grothendieck “In fact, most of these comrades who I gauged to be more brilliant than I have gone on to become distinguished mathematicians. Still, from the perspective of thirty or thirty-five years, I can state that their imprint upon the mathematics of our time has not been very profound. They've all done things, often beautiful things, in a context that was already set out before them, which they had no inclination to disturb. Without being aware of it, they've remained prisoners of those invisible and despotic circles which delimit the universe of a certain milieu in a given era. To have broken these bounds they would have had to rediscover in themselves that capability which was their birthright, as it was mine: the capacity to be alone.” — Alexander Grothendieck I love these quotes. Now, criticism isn't really ever useful, but (primarily just for myself) I want to try and apply these quotes to our world today. They set an intuition ablaze within me, which I want to sharpen. Here goes: Roughly, I think these quotes capture something about how, in my view, the current climate of research limits thinking about the human mind. That is, I can think of many "invisible and despotic circles which delimit the universe of a certain milieu in a given era." What ideas are off-limits? Well firstly, anything not strictly materialist. This one is not surprising: I think people would rather believe science is “almost done” over the alternative: the universe is “not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine”. That said, this has always been true of human society, and it always will be. We will always overestimate our understanding, while the very conditions of that understanding go unnoticed. So the vastness and strangeness of our world is one part of the problem. When it comes to the human mind specifically, though, there is more to it than that. Namely: ideas about human intelligence are socially controversial. A few examples: the idea of a metric for intelligence, the practice of measuring intelligence, the notion of different people having different kinds of intelligence, the question of how to grant agency to people with, broadly speaking, "mental illness", etc.; these pursuits each have their own sociopolitical implications. In other words, description motivates prescription. Put simply, any one of these pursuits (though perhaps none of them) could be a piece of the puzzle. But they are each evaluated along a social or political dimension. And while this doesn't necessarily prohibit people from exploring them, it can disincentivize it. Of course, there are reasons why these efforts to make the study of intelligence """scientific""" face pushback. And they're not unreasonable; in fact, this very well may be the right approach for polite society to adopt. But I do have my gripe, which is simply this: when something is "off-limits", it teaches people to shut down their thinking. And while that might increase the efficiency of society, it does not serve our intellectual culture well. Imagine if we treated sports (physical pursuits) like we did intellectual pursuits. Instead of people arguing about the "genius myth", as they do today, people would argue about the "goat myth" (i.e. people would argue the distribution of athletic achievement is linear, not non-linear). People would steadfastly deny the role of genetics in determining athleticism. It wouldn’t be accepted to "measure" someone as being out of shape physically, either. Any differences in athletic ability would be ipso facto proof of, say, an athleticism-enhancing upbringing (whatever that means). And this in turn would mean athletic accomplishments are credited to society, not the individual. [What higher order effects could this have?] Ultimately, I think the study of the mind still has a long way to go. And then: putting it side by side with other social problems, or subjugating it within some institution that has multiplicity of purpose, can restrict the freedom of the individual. Here I am talking about the freedom to be intellectually honest. The freedom to pursue the truth, independent of other considerations. Now, the restriction (of freedom) may be only indirect - effected only through social pressure. But still, it can be erosive. Freedom is not just "in principle". Freedom is a feeling. It is a kind of internal confidence to strive, to question, and to transcend. A willingness to let one's mind wander. Without fear. This freedom must be protected. One historical analogy I can think of is this: in ancient Greece, there was a strong taboo against human dissection - for various reasons. Now this taboo was not unreasonable, I think. But it may have led to the Greeks not penetrating as deeply into the nature of the human body as they perhaps could have, with their intellectual culture being so vibrant (in e.g. mathematics or philosophy). **The process of truth-seeking within a culture is integrated; the parts are not independent of the whole.** Ultimately, the life of the mind is worth celebrating. I love learning about all the wonderful tricks humans have figured out for their intellectual pursuits. And I enjoy synthesis -- putting together the pieces. I think more steps should be taken to actively support the endeavor, even if it is hard. I believe it is not just giving individuals "in principle" rights, but supporting the culture of free inquiry. This is a different thing. People follow incentives. That will never change. What can change is: the specific incentives resultant from a society's organization. All of this is to say: culture matters. And culture can change. I hope it does. P.S. I don’t consider the above thoughts as being especially “useful”; generally criticisms aren’t. I am using this thread to organize my thoughts so I can then create my own solution, which I think is generally the best way to do things. ## Replies (2) - **Anton Paramonov** (@anton144) · score 2 · 2026-09-14T21:24:08.314Z · id: cmu1r39iy004t1oockmtug41s > There is this quote by [Anatole France](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatole_France) which goes "Les savants ne sont pas curieux", meaning "The scholars ain't curious". Being a PhD student and having insight into academia, I very much relate to what Mr. Grothendieck and Mr. France say. The science system is built for marginal improvements. I'm not sure, though, that any system can be built for creating unprecedented novelties, since the very formulation defies the notion of the system. The best one can do, it seems to me, is to gather smart people and give them absolute _security_ in terms of salary, legalization, career, etc., while imposing no requirements. Then you get intellectual freedom. But this freedom, perhaps the most pure among others, is also the most luxurious as of now. - **Henry D’Angelo** (@henry) · score 1 · 2026-09-15T16:16:56.397Z · id: cmu2vk219005r1omcqbdeeyf1 > You know, I imagine you are aware that the "gather brilliant people, then get out of the way" philosophy is something I believe deeply in. > > I've long worshipped the ideal of the Institute for Advanced Study, which is exactly as you describe: "gather smart people and give them absolute _security_ in terms of salary, legalization, career, etc., while imposing no requirements." I loved reading the [Usefulness of Useless Knowledge](https://www.ias.edu/sites/default/files/library/UsefulnessHarpers.pdf) by Abraham Flexner, and I would still recommend it to anyone. Freedom, curiosity, and doing something "for its own sake"; these are the ideals I devote my life to. > > That said, as I grow older I think it is more complicated. Why? I'll name drop some more and give a Feynman quote: > > When I was at Princeton in the 1940s I could see what happened to those great minds at the Institute for Advanced Study, who had been specially selected for their tremendous brains and were now given this opportunity to sit in this lovely house by the woods there, with no classes to teach, with no obligations whatsoever. These poor bastards could now sit and think clearly all by themselves, OK? So they don't get any ideas for a while: They have every opportunity to do something, and they're not getting any ideas. I believe that in a situation like this a kind of guilt or depression worms inside of you, and you begin to _worry_ about not getting any ideas. And nothing happens. Still no ideas come. Nothing happens because there's not enough _real_ activity and challenge: You're not in contact with the experimental guys. You don't have to think how to answer questions from the students. Nothing! > > — Richard Feynman > > I think this quote isn't completely wrong. Broadly, I think it is healthy to have some friction. People get ideas from the most inexplicable places. The feedbacks of human life can keep you grounded. And, when ideas don't come, having some practical, well-defined task can keep you from falling into a rut. I mean, when I have logistical tasks to do, I often feel better afterwards, even if it's not what I am really passionate about. It's often just healthy. > > Again, I say all this even as someone who worships the freedom ideal. I think there is an antinomy within freedom. For one thing, the more free you are, the more responsible you are. And, when you do have a constraint, transcending it *is* freedom. What I mean here is this: sometimes it's easier to have freedom defined out of something else, than freedom qua freedom. > > This train of thought is one reason why I want to start a company. Broadly, the financial constraint of a company is a good source of friction; this bolsters the value of freedom. > > What I imagine: give researchers freedom, with the exception of the friction from having to at times work on a very practical goal (providing a service people value). > > I think with a gym for the mind, this "practical goal" is complementary to the more basic goal of understanding how the human mind works. > > Whenever basic research is going slow, you have "guppy" problems to help you feel productive (which I think is important for people). > > I also think with a company, in exchange for working on these "dirtier" problems, researchers would have capital to aid their ideas. E.g., in the long run I think our "gym for the mind" might want to buy, say, functional MRI machines. > > But of course, researchers should be given time to focus on what they think is interesting, and in doing so, should not be policed in any capacity. (I wonder if that's easier in a private company than in a public-facing university that receives tax dollars?) > > Anyways, that's a high level overview of my position. Roughly, the ideal of absolute freedom is great, but it could also be true that the *journey* (moving towards absolute freedom) may be better than the *destination* (being "at" absolute freedom). > > Still, I am open for conversation on this point. I think it varies per person what the right level is. I myself want a lot of freedom!