Nobel laureates are 22 times more likely to have hobbies compared to their peers | Hacker News Reader

Nobel laureates are 22 times more likely to have hobbies compared to their peers

stewfortier.com

27 pointsstewfortier24 comments

Hmm. OP, you sort of editorialized a key bit of the source quote:

> Compared to other scientists, Nobel laureates are at least twenty-two times more likely to partake as an amateur actor, dancer, magician, or other type of performer.

> Nationally recognized scientists are much more likely than other scientists to be musicians, sculptors, painters, printmakers, woodworkers, mechanics, electronics tinkerers, glassblowers, poets, or writers, of both fiction and nonfiction.

Nobel Laureates are 22x more likely to be performers of some sort than their peers. Being “just” a nationally recognized scientist is associated with being “much more likely” to have a music/sculpture/art/tinkering pursuit than other scientists.

I don’t think this implies “have hobbies”. But the argument for breadth definitely holds.

The 22x figure is dubious. I had seen articles citing a more believable 2.85x number. What is not clear to me is what is considered a "scientist" and why is the Nobel Prize used as a metric. For example, what happens if you compare Nobel Prize winners from top universities with the rest of the scientists at those top universities?

This is a much better article than the title would suggest. If you're the type that just reads the comments here on HN-- and I'm guilty of this-- I recommend this article.

Hobbies tend to be pursued by upper class men because they have both the time and money to do so. People eking out a living or doing blue collar work tend to watch TV or similar, too exhausted or too poor to pursue a hobby in their off hours.

Women tend to be expected to have interests like cooking. Studies show that people think an expensive Christmas gift for a man should be stuff like a good stereo system while expensive gifts for a woman should be stuff like a refrigerator.

(Please, please, do not tell me I have to explain to anyone how a refrigerator is not a personal gift in support of a hobby.)

So while the article appears to be written out of a genuine desire to say "Okay. I was wrong. Hobbies are not simply time wasters." the title used on HN could be roughly translated as "Newsflash: Upper class men still rule the world."

You don't say...

Really strange how this is painted as a gender issue, and the strict definition of "hobby" is strange too. What's the difference between a "hobby" and an "interest"? I know plenty of people who refer to cooking as their main hobby, and they seek out new recipes, buy new equipment because they want it, and experiment with new food all the time.

I also know far more dads who were gifted a tool set "so they can be handy around the house" than I know people gifted fridges. It's not something I know of people complain about, and it's not something I ever thought as being strange until I saw some people on the internet being enraged about giving women cooking equipment. As a person who never asks for anything in particular for Christmas or birthdays, a sharper new kitchen knife, a new pan, or a new (non-smart) fridge would be absolutely perfect. If I'd want anything, it's something I'll use daily, and if I'm sharing it with family, that's fine.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with loving to cook, regardless of gender. But women are often expected to cook, whether they like it or not, and women are often gifted things that help them take care of the house and family rather than things that are actually personal interests for them.

A big part of the difference in my mind is whether this is an expectation hung on them by other people and/or forced on them by circumstances versus something they genuinely want to do out of interest and enjoyment.

I'm a former homemaker. I did a lot of cooking while I was a military wife and homeschooling mom, but I don't actually like cooking. My oldest son took over the cooking when I got divorced and got a corporate job.

I've done a lot of reading to try to figure out how to make my life work. I was one of the top three students of my graduating high school class, a National Merit Scholarship winner, etc. No one expected me to be a homemaker for two decades, least of all me.

The ways in which sexism exclude women from some things and force other things upon them are often fairly subtle, which helps make the problem intractable.

There’s little question that having the freedom to pursue a hobby is a privilege reserved for a few, broadly speaking.

I think what’s interesting is that the study was comparing Nobel laureates to other scientists, which I’d imagine would somewhat correct for this bias.

Reading. A hobby available to anyone who can read.

Playing music. So many ways to do this now — people all over the world play music without lessons.

Listening to music, live or recorded. Being a lover of music.

Dancing.

Drawing.

Poetry, although less popular, is easily accessible.

I get what you mean, and undoubtedly there are hobbies that require both a surfeit or leisure and material wealth to pursue, but with respect I think you may be underestimating the degree to which people of all economic classes have access to the various cultural activities (of which the above are some examples) of their own, well, culture.

Which is not indicated in the title. The title is the thing I'm critiquing. I'm a writer. Titles are hard. I get that.

This one basically sucks -- IMO, of course.

It appears that the actual title of the article is "Hobbies are not distractions", with the HN submission title being... I'm not sure it's really a subtitle, maybe a pull-out point from the quoted reference in the article?

[Edit: though, since it looks like the author wrote both the article and the HN submission, this point might be somewhat irrelevant.] :-)

Thanks. I have sucktastic eyesight and only skimmed a bit.

So this is also a pointless violation of HN guidelines, which indicate you should use the original title unless it's clickbait or a few other provisos.

Of course, "the first rule of downvotes is don't talk about the downvotes", but I've been genuinely puzzled by why this particular comment has so many downvotes. And I think it's because the title was changed at some point, apparently without a note being left anywhere indicating that. It didn't originally have the part about "compared to their peers".

Ah, got it. Can’t argue with that!

Broad statements which seem designed to yet again paint women as victims.

Nobel winners are nothing like the average rich or poor man or woman in how much time they have. They are obsessive in how much of their time they put into their work.

I am surrounded by rich people (I live in Silicon Valley). The women dedicate at least as much time on hobbies as the men. When I go skiing, the women are easily 50%, possibly more. Travel to a nice destination? Maybe 70%. Scuba diving? 25% maybe. None of these hobbies is cheap. None has cost me less than several thousand dollars, some over 10k, one over 60k.

A lot of hobbies are close to free. Watching TV is more of a reflection of the values you were raised with. You don’t need to be rich to know how to read. Books are a lot closer to free than TV is. This is how I spent most of my childhood. I would say it’s similar for the hard core researchers I know, men or women.

I’m a guy and cooking was a major hobby of mine. Gifts in support of this hobby included knives, woks, wok burners, grills, nice cookware, expensive induction cooktops, expensive ingredients, etc. I guess it didn’t count as a hobby because others benefited? That’s news to me. I should scold my wife for ruining it for me, since she benefited.

I gotta say, that fridge thing, no. That’s not cool. That’s just a damn appliance that’s not interactive in a way that you can demonstrate skill with.

A current hobby of mine is working out. I go to the gym, do my thing, come home. My wife has the same hobby. I’m sure someone will say it’s a hobby for me, but not for her. She must not have any agency? Lucky for her she can always divorce me.

Super achieving people are very different from the tens of millions of rich you are referring to. Upper class is dime a dozen. Top prize winners are so rare you can actually memorize their names. Take a look at the demographics of who wins Nobel Prizes. Look at their common traits as well. Crazy talent, tenacity, broad curiosity, and appetite for risk are almost universally at the top. Aside from tenacity, I don’t see these traits as common in the upper class. Yes, they exist, but not anywhere near as common as in the Nobel class of people.

> "Newsflash: Upper class men still rule the world."

Do you have to really bring class and gender into this debate? Examples of not-so-upper-class people who went on do great things in life -- Srinivasa Ramanujan, Michael Faraday, Linus Pauling.

Given how sparse these data points are, then aren't these examples of exceptions that prove the rule?

In this case though, it’s a comparison across just scientists. Since so many are in academia, I wouldn’t ascribe a huge variation of artistic/creative pursuits within that population as to whether or not they are upper class. Instead, I think it’s about whether or not they choose to spend their “off hours” doing more research-ey stuff or say playing guitar. But I haven’t read the original book referenced!

A very similar claim appeared in a BBC article 2 months ago, and it seemed bogus. After a brief bit of online research, it seems even more bogus to me:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617547

Please, anyone who wishes to make this claim: give me the name of some Nobel laureate who is also a performing "actor, dancer, [or] magician". Even one.

> Even one.

From Feynman's 1964 Messenger Lecture (later transcribed into The Character of Physical Law):

> "On the infrequent occasions when I have been called upon in a formal place to play the bongo drums, the introducer never seems to find it necessary to mention that I also do theoretical physics. I believe that is probably because we respect the arts more than the sciences."

Feynman was also an amateur artist, and he claims to have sold some of his drawings to a Pasadena strip club in Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman!. I too am skeptical of the claim that Nobel laureates are 22-times more likely to be engaged in an artistic hobby, but it is also not unheard of them to have nonacademic pursuits.

Sure, Einstein and Feynman are the classic examples, but they were both musicians. This article specifically called out "actor, dancer, magician". Who do these refer to?

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love[1][2]

Cool! If I want to get into hobbies, then I should first get a Nobel prize. This should make it 22 times as likely that I'll get a hobby.

Is there a statistic for someone hoping to go in 'the other direction', i.e. what proportion of hobbyists (vs. non-hobbyists) go on to win a Nobel prize?

What would Douglas Hofstadter say?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com