
Nobel laureates are 22 times more likely to have hobbies compared to their peers - stewfortier
https://stewfortier.com/blog/2020/1/26/hobbies-are-not-distractions
======
boulos
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.

------
diego
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?

------
christophilus
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.

------
DoreenMichele
_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...

~~~
hola_mundo
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.

~~~
DoreenMichele
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.

~~~
tjr
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.] :-)

~~~
DoreenMichele
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.

------
ken
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](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_.

~~~
b215826
> 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.

~~~
ken
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?

------
jdkee
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]

------
mrkeen
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?

------
hindsightbias
What would Douglas Hofstadter say?

