Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

The Correlation Between Arts and Crafts and a Nobel Prize 73

Posted by Soulskill from the putting-together-that-transmog-set-in-wow-doesn't-count dept.
An anonymous reader writes: The stereotype of the scientist or engineer is that he prefers facts, reason, and objectivity over more artistic pursuits. But the Priceonomics blog points out an interesting correlation: "the more accomplished a scientist is, the more likely they are to have an artistic hobby." It continues, "The average scientist is not statistically more likely than a member of the general public to have an artistic or crafty hobby. But members of the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society — elite societies of scientists, membership in which is based on professional accomplishments and discoveries — are 1.7 and 1.9 times more likely to have an artistic or crafty hobby than the average scientist is. And Nobel prize winning scientists are 2.85 times more likely than the average scientist to have an artistic or crafty hobby." Is this more evidence that we in the science and tech fields undervalue art and pure creativity?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Correlation Between Arts and Crafts and a Nobel Prize More

The Correlation Between Arts and Crafts and a Nobel Prize

Comments Filter:

  • Time (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sqreater ( 895148 ) on Saturday September 12, 2015 @07:32AM (#50509113)
    They probably just have more time. The "average" scientist, I suggest, is working his ass off.

    • But what is "art"? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Having free time is probably part of it, but another thing we have to ask is, what is art?

      I know of one top-notch math researcher who has had quite a degree of success. He has a good position within a large institution, he has many publications, he is held in high esteem by his colleagues, and so on, and so forth. Yet in his spare time he has taken up sculpting. His preferred subject of these sculptures? Penises. He'll sculpt them out of clay, out of wood, out of plaster, out of styrofoam, and whatever othe

  • Cause and effect (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12, 2015 @07:38AM (#50509131)

    Just taking up an arty hobby probably won't make you a better scientist. Artsy hobbies might as well be a natural side-effect of being genetically better equipped for getting original ideas.

    • And then there is Philippe Kahn. The genius behind Sidekick, and Borland International. To me, other than his programming genius, the only other thing that stands out is how musical he was. Insert a thousand other examples. I mean, why exactly was Defender used as a hiring tool? To find out how left-brained you were? I don't think so. I lean to the left, or at least did so at that time -- engineer, etc. -- and I sucked at Defender. Probably mainly because I didn't invest the coinage in it. But I di

      • It has been remarked that one of the distinguishing characteristics between a genius and a nerd (aside from the higher IQ) is that a nerd is single-minded, devoting almost all time to the nerd's area of expertise.

        Einstein didn't just play the fiddle. He was a keen observer of things that "practical goal-oriented people" wouldn't even bother to notice. Which feeds back into new ways of seeing and thinking about his specialty that the people with tunnel vision could not.

        Plus he had a more varied sex life than

        • I would say a genius is good at turning their mind to a variety of tasks.

          Whereas a nerd is lopsided. Interested in starfish, or firewalls, but doesn't like potatoes, or clowns. Yes, he is good at something because he devotes a whack of time to it, but he can't help it -- it's Minecraft or nothing.

          Re: Einstein, which came first? I imagine him being schooled in music from an early age. His remarkable insights came later, with progressively older thoughts being more insightful.

  • No. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bhang ( 45228 ) on Saturday September 12, 2015 @07:39AM (#50509135) Homepage

    No, it doesn't mean that at all.

    I'm not surprised that higher level scientists and engineers are generally more well-rounded than people who are only scientists and engineers by trade. When I look around my peer group, I see a pretty clear correlation between being better at their field, and being more well-rounded in general. Specialization and focus has its place, but in my industry (tech) the people who are "moving the ball" (vs. the break/fix positions) are also more well-rounded, not less, and that isn't limited to tech-specific things at all.

    I think the real myth is that scientists and engineers don't appreciate/value/"get" art. The stereotype of the autistic super-scientist just doesn't hold up to real life for me at all, on average at least. Do you like music? Is it for the mathematical purity of the composition, or do you like the way it makes you feel? Congrats, if you picked the latter, you're into the arts.

    • I think all this philosophizing about being well-rounded is bogus. But, anyway, as a scientist who also plays the guitar, the study makes me feel better about myself at least, even though I know I will definitely never get the nobel prize.

    • I think the real myth is that scientists and engineers don't appreciate/value/"get" art.

      Yes. Even the summary clearly states that scientists appreciate arts/crafts as much as the general population. If someone states that we don't appreciate art as much as artists, or literature as much as writers, that is probably true.

  • Maybe more likely to have a hobby in general? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12, 2015 @07:39AM (#50509139)

    Most adults give up hobbies as they get older. Generally only my most driven and self motivated friends have maintained hobbies into adulthood, and those that have tend to have 3 or 4 hobbies. Just being driven enough to maintain a few hobbies into adulthood would likely make you 2 or 3 times as likely to have an artistic hobby as an average person, and Nobel laureates would certainly be driven individuals.

    • Most adults give up hobbies as they get older.

      If you see it as a "hobby" then you're probably not the ones they're talking about.

      The chair of the math department that my wife works in took up sculpture in his 50s. He's 72 now, and still working in math at a very high level, publishing constantly it seems. His work shows at galleries and exhibitions and he's getting known almost as much for his sculpture as for his math. There is a difference between a "hobby" and true amateurism.

      Don't take it from me, ta

    • good point - wish I had mod points today.

  • I call BS on this "study" (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This analysis, which comes from a paper out of Michigan State University, depends on data gathered from several sources. The data about the hobbies of members of the Royal Society, National Academy, and of Nobel Prize winners was gathered from biographies, memoirs, obituaries, and other research

    Hey guess what. Nobel prize winners tend to have a lot more biographical material out there to study, and for other biographers to pick up and incorporate, so these fun facts about Einstein playing the violin (poorly) come out.

    Nobody gives a shit whether an average scientist employed by Exxon Mobil plays the violin poorly, or even well. So it never gets noted.

    • Wrong, Einstein was said to play the violin very well, even by famous musicians, look up things before making up things.

      Nobel prize winners don't have any more than anyone else with a biography. you have no point

  • Wasn't this known for many years that in order to excel academically you need to satisfy and grow the entire brain, not just the hemisphere dedicated to logic and reason? I was under the impression this is why programs such as music were pushed in primary school.

    Come to think of it I never did look into if there was an actual correlation between studying an instrument and academic merit or if this was just an old wives tale.

    • Come to think of it I never did look into if there was an actual correlation between studying an instrument and academic merit or if this was just an old wives tale.

      There is definitely an actual correlation between studying an instrument and cognitive skills. Whether or not that translates to "academic merit" is another question, but it absolutely increases intelligence (independent of IQ when musical study is started).

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov]

      That's a study of young people, but a few weeks ago the

  • If I won a Nobel prize, I could probably afford to dine out on it for a few years without having to do any real work, too.

  • Brainpower shows (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CaptainOfSpray ( 1229754 ) on Saturday September 12, 2015 @07:58AM (#50509199)
    "Is this more evidence that we in the science and tech fields undervalue art and pure creativity?"

    No, it shows that the better your brain functions, the more attention span you have to pay attention to many fields. Those of us who have to work our brains hard for those occasional flashes of brilliance don't have enough ooomph left over for "frivolities".

  • more likely: simple bias (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NostalgiaForInfinity ( 4001831 ) on Saturday September 12, 2015 @07:59AM (#50509209)

    There are much simpler explanations than the one implied by the article, namely that "playing music causes scientific ability" or even "musical and high level scientific ability have a common cause". The Nobel Prize is not awarded based on objective scientific criteria, it is a judgment call by a bunch of primarily upper middle class European men steeped in European bourgeois values, which include that educated and smart people ought to play an instrument. And at that level, many of the scientists involved know each other personally, and music is a social activity that allows people to get to know each other more. It wouldn't be surprising if the Nobel Prize committee simply had a bias towards awarding prizes to scientists who they know to play music or who they actually play music with.

  • Who doesn't like to sing in the car or shower? Singing is great fun. Unfortunately I would have to pay people to listen to me. I also enjoy playing the piano which I'm terrible at. There are lots of things in arts and sports that are great fun as a hobby. But only the exceptionally skilled can make a profession out of it. It is irresponsible to go into massive debt to study these subjects if you aren't skilled enough.

    • It's also irresponsible to attend college and not even bother to try to become a well-rounded person.

      • College isn't the sole repository of well roundedness. We are talking about going into debt. It is irresponsible to go into debt when you have no way to pay it back. I'm all for being well rounded. But if you need to borrow money to go to college you need to pick something that will enable you to pay it back. After you are working and producing you can spend the rest of you life becoming well rounded.

    • It is irresponsible to go into massive debt to study these subjects if you aren't skilled enough.

      The list of autodidactic musicians is pretty long. And pretty impressive.

      Skill is learned. And practiced. The thing about practicing an instrument is that you get better whether you want to or not.

  • I think the real problem with the whole premise of this post is that it groups scientists and engineers into the same group. I've been a scientist for many years and have known quite a few engineers. They are actually quite different breeds. Engineering is about applying known stuff to new problems. Science is about discovering new known stuff. The Nobel prize is really a proxy for scientists and says not much about great engineers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Gim Tom ( 716904 )

      I think the real problem with the whole premise of this post is that it groups scientists and engineers into the same group. I've been a scientist for many years and have known quite a few engineers. They are actually quite different breeds. Engineering is about applying known stuff to new problems. Science is about discovering new known stuff. The Nobel prize is really a proxy for scientists and says not much about great engineers.

      There is a misconception that engineering is and has always been the application of scientific principles that are well known. This has not historically been true and is still not true today. The steam engine was invented and in common user before Sadi Carnot understood the science behind it, which is now known as Thermodynamics. Yes, once the science was known engineers were able to apply it to make BETTER steam engines, but the original engineering came before the science. The relationship is not th

  • You need both "in the box" and "out of the box" thinking. Most of the people who spend their time in research don't make any big breakthroughs, Nobel prize winners are the exceptions. Many people only produce the complicator's gloves [thedailywtf.com] when they try, or they suffer from NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome and wants to reinvent the wheel - poorly. The rest make the world go around, nothing wrong with an electrician wiring up a house just like he's wired up many other houses just like many electricians before him.

  • What is important here is that the most acknowledged scientists developed both their "logical brain" and their "intuitive brain".
    We could say that they are rational and intuitive at the same time.

    This also reminds me that the best scientists have several domains of knowledge, not once.
    The best engineers I have met have few interests outside of their domain, except the most brilliant ones.
    Scientists from long ago, like Euler or Newton, did not restrict themselves to one domain, and this made them stand above

  • Science IS creative. This idea that we're all logic and consensus is silly. You make the most progress by looking for overlooked issues and un-thought thoughts. Being good at public speaking doesn't hurt either. (Being able to do arithmetic in your head, or rattle off facts like a living encyclopedia... not so useful in science.)

    Every scientist I know would like to indulge in a crafty hobby. The key word is indulge. Whether you have time or not, you usually feel like you don't.

  • Arts and crafts transcend science as a recognition of the fact that you can do whatever the fuck that tickles you during your short period of awareness of immanent existence.

    Hobbies also give you:

    - confidence (mad G-chord skillz!!1)

    - a peaceful break from your current mindfuck

    - a diversification of perspectives

    - a sense of personal satisfaction security

    - an extra way to relate to other people

    - other stuff

    Why wouldn't they help you in science?

  • Did Leonardo Da Vinci ever produce any art that was irrational and subjective? No he didn't. Beauty is not subjective either because aesthetics is measured relative to a cultural frame of reference, it isn't completely subjective.
  • As someone whose primary thing is making art, I'm surprised that the overwhelming majority presumption here is that the practice has no "practical" (read: "marketable"?) value. Especially in a community populated by people trying to find "new" things--things previously undescribed--and create unthought-of solutions to problems of various sizes and severities, I would have guessed that the majority would be well engaged already with a route to such discovery and to such novel thinking.

    One thing art has ov

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close