The point is not to re-evaluate Fuller, but to become aware of our vulnerability to taking such persons at their own estimation of themselves. There have been a vast number of examples, down history, many with extremely harmful consequences. We should have learned by now to spot this category of error and train ourselves out of it. It is at least as important, as a universal baseline skill, as elementary mathematics.
In order for someone to gain enough notoriety for people to even get curious, that person has already snookered greater than 1 people. SBF, Madof, Holmes would all qualify to me
I'm more worried about the opposite- categorizing these type of manic visionaries as "charlatans" ignores the value of being able to advocate and try new ideas, and think radically outside of the box. I think this dissertation operates from the attitude that "nothing is possible, nothing is worth trying" and then extrapolates that taking risks and being innovative is charlatanism. It is what Nietzsche calls the philosophy of the "last man" - someone that takes no risks, is tired of life, and has goals of only comfort and security.
The very recent (and IMHO very good) "Inventor of the Future: The Visionary Life of Buckminster Fuller" by Alec Nevala-Lee more or less says the same thing.
> such comments surfaced once more following the publication of Fuller's latest biography, in 2022 – most intriguingly, considering its author's assertion that Fuller was, indeed, a genius
Strange, then, that the two should disagree. You say that this biography agrees with OP article, but OP article disagrees with the biography. Did I misunderstand?
Good question - if the biography was a scale, it seemed overall much more tilted towards dubiousness. I wasn't left with the impression that Fuller was a genius, other than at self-promotion.
Edit: I just searched an epub version of the biography for "genius" and they all seem to reference other people talking about Fuller rather than editorial judgment. I'd have to read the thesis to see the author's fuller (ha!) interpretation of the bio.
> In his working life, Fuller seems indeed to have been a charlatan whose career was mainly based on fabrication, misappropriation, pseudoscience, pretense, and imposture. The study suggests that his actions and behaviour are best understood via his fractured and grandiose personality [...]
While academics & scholars might (not an expert; didn't read the dissertation) be correct to call him a "charlatan", he sounds to me rather like modern CEO material.
Outlook II:
From a peek at his Wikipedia page -
> Buckminster Fuller was a Unitarian, and, [...] Unitarian minister. Fuller was also an early environmental activist, aware of Earth's finite resources, and promoted a principle he termed "ephemeralization", [...]
> Fuller was a pioneer in thinking globally, and explored energy and material efficiency [...]
> Though Fuller was concerned about sustainability and human survival under the existing socioeconomic system [...]
For those unfamiliar with Unitarianism - there's something of a "classic university town" Unitarian Minister stereotype here. At least historically, many highly educated and well-to-do Unitarian congregation members would expect their minister to be (or seem to be) a leading intellectual in many important-feeling fields. No mere mortal could actually do that...but if one was a fast-thinking, xenophilic, and workaholic polymath, one could keep faking it well enough to get by. More or less.
(No, this stereotype does not describe all Unitarian ministers. Especially not in the the modern era.)
I once hitchhiked almost 2000 miles with a truck driver who had invented perpetual motion. "non-traditional science" flourishes everywhere there are people.
I don't get it. Many things he said could have been fake but some of the things were real, right? That just means he was good at idea generation. Of course the full-text is not available to me so I can't see what it says.
I find it silly that this could be a topic of a doctoral thesis. You're a doctor of what, of knowing whether Fuller was a charlatan? Charlatanry is extremely subjective, as is genius. I guess I could see this being a Twitter rant or something, but the whole premise - that this could even be an object of academic study - is unnatural to me.
Historians of science would be interested in the topic as would those studying the sociology of scientific communities. In this day of rampant pseudoscience and distrust of scientists it is of interest to know if and how fellow scientists were snookered.
Intelligence agencies like to study and understand the propagation of false information.
A thesis is more a proof that you can handle a particular type of research or investigation. I myself haven't touched the particular specialised field of my thesis since I submitted it.
It also doesn't mean that the Author particularly enjoys or finds the topic that interesting. I've often heard that if you have a favourite topic, you should at best find a thesis topic that is adjacent or related, and I'd tend to agree.
I've read a bunch of his books and found both his engineering and philosophical ideas deeply inspiring and useful in my work as an engineer and scientist and in my hobby as a sailor- his deep understanding of geometry and tension, etc. has allowed me to build novel sail rigs and systems.
Fuller was awarded a huge number of patents on his inventions- and although mostly impractical, they are quite certainly new inventions of his own design.
I think it is quite likely that he was as narcissist, in that he worked hard to project an image of himself as a certain type of person, but I also think the type of creative out of the box thinker he actually was, tends to be labeled as a charlatan by people with authoritarian personalities.
Indeed something could be inspiring without being meaningful, but that isn't what I am talking about- I am talking about ideas that are specifically useful insights- inspiring because they pointed me to a useful solution to a real problem, or to navigate a technical problem in a different way that led to a solution.
For me his most functionally useful and inspiring ideas have been in the realm of philosophy of engineering- he has a process for thinking about problems that avoids a lot of pitfalls that cause people to reject new or weird ideas.
His ideas are concrete, specific, and very well thought out- he is a brilliant guy. If you've read his books and they seem like Chopra mixed with math jargon, and you can't see how they are useful for real world engineering problems, you are simply not understanding him.
While it's impossible to know without having actual access to the work, something that's sadly lacking, I've got to say that I'm looking a bit askance at a School of Architecture dissertation that conducts a psychological analysis of its subject with a clinical assessment of "grandiose narcissism." Likewise, I don't think I'd expect much from a PsyD's dissertation on architectural tensegrity.
However, the dissertation defense was held against Jonathan Woodham, who's a noted scholar of 20th-century architectural history, so there's likely something there, even though without the dissertation to read the abstract seems exceptionally combative and audacious.
Fuller was over the top in many ways, yet one cannot have witnessed a remnant of his works (Biosphere 2 "lungs") and deny his substance was genius. Whatever his essentricities the man delivered on vision.
He is cited commonly in a dozen ways to this day. I still say "trim tab".
A charlatan that everyone believes in IS a visionary. There is no other definition of a visionary. Powerful visionaries are able influence behavior and create a future that would not otherwise have existed.
As a teen I was quite taken by Fuller. Even back then I was smart enough to wonder why his ideas weren't incorporated in all the things around me (except the geodesic dome climbing structure in the schoolyard), and eventually put 2+2 together and figure that maybe his ideas weren't particularly great in practice. I think i was the "dymaxion car" that got me thinking.
It did help me develop some immunity to the conspiracy theorists who claimed that this or that invention was suppressed by "those forces" that wanted to thwart progress.
His ideas are incorporated into everything around you, you just aren't seeing or understanding it.
The dymaxion car redefined both aerodynamics and space efficiency in vehicles. It inspired the VW bus, and lives on today in cabover vans and buses around the world, which efficiently transport a lot of people by allowing nearly the entire footprint of the vehicle to be used for passengers.
It was in no way a practical vehicle itself, but it showcased a huge number of new ideas that were later incorporated into vehicles- it was a 'concept car' with a huge impact.
37 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 89.3 ms ] threadWhich is a bit sad. My thesis is available online. Which might be sadder.
But seriously, we all knew Bucky was a lovable kook.
> such comments surfaced once more following the publication of Fuller's latest biography, in 2022 – most intriguingly, considering its author's assertion that Fuller was, indeed, a genius
Strange, then, that the two should disagree. You say that this biography agrees with OP article, but OP article disagrees with the biography. Did I misunderstand?
Edit: I just searched an epub version of the biography for "genius" and they all seem to reference other people talking about Fuller rather than editorial judgment. I'd have to read the thesis to see the author's fuller (ha!) interpretation of the bio.
Actually a person can be both. I think Elon Musk is one such person.
> In his working life, Fuller seems indeed to have been a charlatan whose career was mainly based on fabrication, misappropriation, pseudoscience, pretense, and imposture. The study suggests that his actions and behaviour are best understood via his fractured and grandiose personality [...]
While academics & scholars might (not an expert; didn't read the dissertation) be correct to call him a "charlatan", he sounds to me rather like modern CEO material.
Outlook II:
From a peek at his Wikipedia page -
> Buckminster Fuller was a Unitarian, and, [...] Unitarian minister. Fuller was also an early environmental activist, aware of Earth's finite resources, and promoted a principle he termed "ephemeralization", [...]
> Fuller was a pioneer in thinking globally, and explored energy and material efficiency [...]
> Though Fuller was concerned about sustainability and human survival under the existing socioeconomic system [...]
For those unfamiliar with Unitarianism - there's something of a "classic university town" Unitarian Minister stereotype here. At least historically, many highly educated and well-to-do Unitarian congregation members would expect their minister to be (or seem to be) a leading intellectual in many important-feeling fields. No mere mortal could actually do that...but if one was a fast-thinking, xenophilic, and workaholic polymath, one could keep faking it well enough to get by. More or less.
(No, this stereotype does not describe all Unitarian ministers. Especially not in the the modern era.)
Intelligence agencies like to study and understand the propagation of false information.
Except that Fuller wasn't a scientist and did not contribute in any way to science.
> In this day of rampant pseudoscience and distrust of scientists
Time would be better spent figuring out how evolutionary psychology manages to seem real today. We already have works on the phrenology of yesteryear.
> Intelligence agencies like to study and understand the propagation of false information.
I had no idea the CIA had an introspection department. Good for them!
It also doesn't mean that the Author particularly enjoys or finds the topic that interesting. I've often heard that if you have a favourite topic, you should at best find a thesis topic that is adjacent or related, and I'd tend to agree.
Fuller was awarded a huge number of patents on his inventions- and although mostly impractical, they are quite certainly new inventions of his own design.
I think it is quite likely that he was as narcissist, in that he worked hard to project an image of himself as a certain type of person, but I also think the type of creative out of the box thinker he actually was, tends to be labeled as a charlatan by people with authoritarian personalities.
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com
Without context, that can be inspiring. But that doesn't make it meaningful.
For me his most functionally useful and inspiring ideas have been in the realm of philosophy of engineering- he has a process for thinking about problems that avoids a lot of pitfalls that cause people to reject new or weird ideas.
His ideas are concrete, specific, and very well thought out- he is a brilliant guy. If you've read his books and they seem like Chopra mixed with math jargon, and you can't see how they are useful for real world engineering problems, you are simply not understanding him.
However, the dissertation defense was held against Jonathan Woodham, who's a noted scholar of 20th-century architectural history, so there's likely something there, even though without the dissertation to read the abstract seems exceptionally combative and audacious.
These people are rewarded for publishing.
Fuller was over the top in many ways, yet one cannot have witnessed a remnant of his works (Biosphere 2 "lungs") and deny his substance was genius. Whatever his essentricities the man delivered on vision.
He is cited commonly in a dozen ways to this day. I still say "trim tab".
This so called intellectual is the jealous fraud.
It did help me develop some immunity to the conspiracy theorists who claimed that this or that invention was suppressed by "those forces" that wanted to thwart progress.
The dymaxion car redefined both aerodynamics and space efficiency in vehicles. It inspired the VW bus, and lives on today in cabover vans and buses around the world, which efficiently transport a lot of people by allowing nearly the entire footprint of the vehicle to be used for passengers.
It was in no way a practical vehicle itself, but it showcased a huge number of new ideas that were later incorporated into vehicles- it was a 'concept car' with a huge impact.