Hmm. OP, you sort of editorialized a key bit of the source quote:<p>> 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.<p>> 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.<p>Nobel Laureates are 22x more likely to be <i>performers</i> 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.<p>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.
<i>Hobbies</i> 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.<p>Women tend to be expected to have <i>interests</i> 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.<p>(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.)<p>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."<p>You don't say...
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:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617547" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617547</a><p>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 <i>one</i>.
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.<p>— 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.<p>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?