What an awfully written article. Here I was hoping it to be about folklore surrounding the Nobel prize (like the rumor many logicians suffered from madness) but nope, they just are boringly...
What an awfully written article. Here I was hoping it to be about folklore surrounding the Nobel prize (like the rumor many logicians suffered from madness) but nope, they just are boringly bashing some ten or so dead people out of some thousand or so Nobel laureates.
Yep, this is a perfect example of internal biases. A certain number of people in the world are crazy, and they are fairly evenly distributed. So is it really surprising that any group, even Nobel...
Yep, this is a perfect example of internal biases. A certain number of people in the world are crazy, and they are fairly evenly distributed. So is it really surprising that any group, even Nobel laureates, has crazies? But we are biased to think that these scientists are supposed to be paragons of sanity when there is no reason to believe this.
A different angle is that it is quite common for people who are brilliant in one field to believe that they are expert in areas where they are not. I see this among lawyers. If society treats...
A different angle is that it is quite common for people who are brilliant in one field to believe that they are expert in areas where they are not. I see this among lawyers. If society treats nobel prize winners like gurus or oracles, some of these scientists will attempt to assume the role.
See the thing is I'd argue that this approach is misleading. There is no reason to take the fact that these people are experts unaware of their expertise in other fields, as a driving factor...
See the thing is I'd argue that this approach is misleading. There is no reason to take the fact that these people are experts unaware of their expertise in other fields, as a driving factor behind their odd behavior. In fact, I'd suggest that by pointing to their brilliance as a driver, it propagates the poor reasoning in the article. Why is their expertise important, after all?
The main thing I want to point out is that, as a group, Nobel laureates show no greater inclination towards oddness or unscientificness than the general population. It is more obvious, due to their public stature, and more striking due to the expectation of thoughtfulness among such a group, but it is actually not more common. So I disagree with the sentiment that their treatment as "gurus or oracles" is likely to be a driving factor behind this behavior. Instead I attribute it to the qualities of the general population, of which Nobel laureates are a subset.
That's why this article isn't accurate: Nobel disease doesn't exist. Nobel laureates are not predisposed to oddness at a higher rate than the general population.
That is a very fair criticism. I was about to respond that scientists deep into research tend to be perceived as odd. I have a physicist close contact who is from the generation who fought in...
That is a very fair criticism.
I was about to respond that scientists deep into research tend to be perceived as odd. I have a physicist close contact who is from the generation who fought in Korea and he is in my opinion likely undiagnosed autistic, but regardless he is quite eccentric although humble and friendly. But thinking twice, the proposed Nobel disease is attempting to distinguish scientists from other scientists and oddness of scientists as a class or group is not pertinent to the discussion.
I do think the article points to, clumsily, the tendency for acknowledged experts to get over their skis and pontificate and presume knowledge in fields not their own. In the case of nobel prize winners, society can encourage this and it is not healthy for the expert or for society.
I agree, we tend to put people on pedestals, and then assume that because they are up there they are insulated from being incorrect on anything. So I guess my question then is why we do that? Why...
I agree, we tend to put people on pedestals, and then assume that because they are up there they are insulated from being incorrect on anything.
So I guess my question then is why we do that? Why do we assume individuals who have been recognized for achievements of intelligence are guaranteed to speak the truth on every matter, irregardless of their expertise? I'm not immune to this at all either. But I guess we should aim to celebrate their accomplishment in vacuo and not the person as a whole.
You'll have to pardon me for going into this area, but it brings Ben Carson to mind. By all accounts he's a BRILLIANT neurosurgeon. However, there are certain personality traits that also come...
You'll have to pardon me for going into this area, but it brings Ben Carson to mind. By all accounts he's a BRILLIANT neurosurgeon. However, there are certain personality traits that also come with that territory (often sociopathy), and as we saw, politics is NOT an area where you would say he excels.
I agree with others that this particular article does seem to cherry pick examples, but it's nevertheless the case that productive scientists occasionally turn to crackpottery. I think these might...
Exemplary
I agree with others that this particular article does seem to cherry pick examples, but it's nevertheless the case that productive scientists occasionally turn to crackpottery.
I think these might serve as a better launching point for a discussion:
There is literally a book about this. It's called "The Intelligence Trap: Why Smart People Make Dumb Mistakes" and doesn't just talk about the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's foreword is unironically...
There is literally a book about this. It's called "The Intelligence Trap: Why Smart People Make Dumb Mistakes" and doesn't just talk about the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's foreword is unironically about Nobel Laureates.
The author writes "Nobel winner Richard Hamming described it this way: "Now he [another winner] could only work on great problems."" Richard Hamming never won a Nobel Prize. See...
The author writes "Nobel winner Richard Hamming described it this way: "Now he [another winner] could only work on great problems."" Richard Hamming never won a Nobel Prize. See https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nobel-Prize-Winners-by-Year-1856946 for a complete list by year of prize winners.
What an awfully written article. Here I was hoping it to be about folklore surrounding the Nobel prize (like the rumor many logicians suffered from madness) but nope, they just are boringly bashing some ten or so dead people out of some thousand or so Nobel laureates.
Yep, this is a perfect example of internal biases. A certain number of people in the world are crazy, and they are fairly evenly distributed. So is it really surprising that any group, even Nobel laureates, has crazies? But we are biased to think that these scientists are supposed to be paragons of sanity when there is no reason to believe this.
A different angle is that it is quite common for people who are brilliant in one field to believe that they are expert in areas where they are not. I see this among lawyers. If society treats nobel prize winners like gurus or oracles, some of these scientists will attempt to assume the role.
This is the gist of it. Some egos can't accept they're incompetent in other areas.
See the thing is I'd argue that this approach is misleading. There is no reason to take the fact that these people are experts unaware of their expertise in other fields, as a driving factor behind their odd behavior. In fact, I'd suggest that by pointing to their brilliance as a driver, it propagates the poor reasoning in the article. Why is their expertise important, after all?
The main thing I want to point out is that, as a group, Nobel laureates show no greater inclination towards oddness or unscientificness than the general population. It is more obvious, due to their public stature, and more striking due to the expectation of thoughtfulness among such a group, but it is actually not more common. So I disagree with the sentiment that their treatment as "gurus or oracles" is likely to be a driving factor behind this behavior. Instead I attribute it to the qualities of the general population, of which Nobel laureates are a subset.
That's why this article isn't accurate: Nobel disease doesn't exist. Nobel laureates are not predisposed to oddness at a higher rate than the general population.
That is a very fair criticism.
I was about to respond that scientists deep into research tend to be perceived as odd. I have a physicist close contact who is from the generation who fought in Korea and he is in my opinion likely undiagnosed autistic, but regardless he is quite eccentric although humble and friendly. But thinking twice, the proposed Nobel disease is attempting to distinguish scientists from other scientists and oddness of scientists as a class or group is not pertinent to the discussion.
I do think the article points to, clumsily, the tendency for acknowledged experts to get over their skis and pontificate and presume knowledge in fields not their own. In the case of nobel prize winners, society can encourage this and it is not healthy for the expert or for society.
I agree, we tend to put people on pedestals, and then assume that because they are up there they are insulated from being incorrect on anything.
So I guess my question then is why we do that? Why do we assume individuals who have been recognized for achievements of intelligence are guaranteed to speak the truth on every matter, irregardless of their expertise? I'm not immune to this at all either. But I guess we should aim to celebrate their accomplishment in vacuo and not the person as a whole.
You'll have to pardon me for going into this area, but it brings Ben Carson to mind. By all accounts he's a BRILLIANT neurosurgeon. However, there are certain personality traits that also come with that territory (often sociopathy), and as we saw, politics is NOT an area where you would say he excels.
I mean, the site linked is Big Think, which is kind of an ironic name considering their average output.
I agree with others that this particular article does seem to cherry pick examples, but it's nevertheless the case that productive scientists occasionally turn to crackpottery.
I think these might serve as a better launching point for a discussion:
"My Grandfather Thought He Solved a Cosmic Mystery." The Atlantic. A staff scientist at a national lab becomes obsessed with his own idiosyncratic interpretation of quantum mechanics. (I think this is the rejected theory referenced in the article.)
"harvard & aliens & crackpots: a disambiguation of Avi Loeb." acollierastro [YouTube]. Discusses the aforementioned article a bit, but mostly focused on the Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb. Probably more succinctly titled: Can physicists be crackpots?
There is literally a book about this. It's called "The Intelligence Trap: Why Smart People Make Dumb Mistakes" and doesn't just talk about the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's foreword is unironically about Nobel Laureates.
The author writes "Nobel winner Richard Hamming described it this way: "Now he [another winner] could only work on great problems."" Richard Hamming never won a Nobel Prize. See
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nobel-Prize-Winners-by-Year-1856946 for a complete list by year of prize winners.
Ugh! Good catch. that is bad.
Thanks for the feedback on the quality of the article