>>12855642Go with Pi. I'm pretty much done with all the 'humanist' films about nerds written by English majors (most of the them). There's something ironic about the fact that the supposedly most empathic people can't seem to wrap their heads around a certain mindset: interest in things vs numbers.
What the Brits did to Turing was horrendous yes, but you have to realize homosexuality was never a defining part of his life. Math and computation were. He even wrote about the lucidity that came with having no sexual distractions as a boon.
It's the same with a film like Good Will Hunting. I loved this film when I first saw it in high school and still do. But Will's character is a physical contradiction. He's a libarts major's self-insert, only with the IQ turned up to 200. He's interested in all the arts and social sciences like a 19th century renaissance man. Math is just a minor hobby to him that he happens to be good at. No it's even less than that. You can feel the writers' disdain for math geeks when Will talks about solving hard problems for the NSA or MIT as being a 'pencil pusher'. When you're as mathematically gifted as a von Neumann or a Ramanujan, the analytical becomes your life. Hell, even a mere 130 IQ physicist or mathematician seeks higher meaning in the world of numbers. But the libarts guys can't or refuse to get it. "No no no he's wrong there's more to life than numbers you need to go out and find a girl that's the highest meaning."
Wolfram wrote in Murray Gell-Mann's obituary that both Gell-mann and Feynman advised him to find an English wife because "they know how to cope". The idea being that American women, so changed by the sexual revolution, would not stand for a man who's career is more important than they are. And Feyman was supposed to be the most sociable of the nerds. Oppenheimer wrote in his Manhattan Project letter of recommendation that Feynman was "extremely normal in all respects", ie not on the spectrum like every other physicist.
