Slashdot Mirror
The Correlation Between Arts and Crafts and a Nobel Prize
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?
They probably just have more time. The "average" scientist, I suggest, is working his ass off.
E Proelio Veritas.
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.
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.
Sig
Chasing girls, noting the way they dress and do their hair, as a good example
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.
The average CEO probably doesn't play golf. The probability that an "elite" CEO plays golf is probably a lot higher. The art and crafts link might be real or it just might be a by-product of some social class thing. Usually the elite scientist enjoy the highest salaries, the best funding etc.
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.
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.
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.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
"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".
"Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
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 other material he can find. He doesn't do it for a profit; his garage is littered with sculpted penises of various shapes and sizes. I was last in there maybe a year ago, and he had over at least 2,000 different sculptures he had made over the years.
While I know him from a sport we both play casually, I doubt that his colleagues from the math world know about his sculpting. Even if they did, I don't know if they would consider it "art". They would probably consider it a form of degeneracy. I know his wife is unsure about it all. She doesn't like the fact that there are literally cocks taking over her garage. She doesn't like having to move styrofoam penises off of the dryer before drying laundry.
So is this fellow's academic and research success due to his artistic hobby? I don't know. To be honest, I'm not even sure if it should be considered art. He's not even very good at it. Some of his creations have a penile shaft that's one color, and the scrotum is a different color. Some of them are bent and misshapen. Is something still "art" even if it's done very poorly? Which brings us back to our original question, "What is art?"
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.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
> Is this more evidence that we in the science and tech fields undervalue art and pure creativity?
WHAT??? obviously the poster IS NOT a scientist. It isn't worth even bothering to unwrap their distorted logic.
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.
It's also irresponsible to attend college and not even bother to try to become a well-rounded person.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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 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. Solid craftsmanship should not be underrated and that's what many engineers do, it might not be so glamorous to create yet another business system with workflows and reports but it's like building condo buildings, they're not exactly revolutionary but we need them. Not everything can be the Sydney Opera.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Then everyone would win Nobel prizes.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The old order was that mathematicians thought they were a step above physicists. Now that physics and math have merged into one field with string theory, they've combined to dump on the engineers.
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.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
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 their contemporaries.
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.
Long-time reader (since around 2003), but have never made an account. I'm enjoying reading the reactionary comments to research that doesn't agree with slashdotters' world views. It honestly looks like this:
Research shows that great scientists pursue the arts. I don't value the arts. Therefore, the researchers' conclusions must be flawed.
Come on, people. While the causality chain hasn't been demonstrated, you could at least recognize the possibility that your world views are imperfect and can be refined. And that perhaps those domains that you don't personally value (arts, humanities) actually do have value.
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?
I did not see it mentioned explicitly, science and engineering work can be mentally exhausting. There is a point you can push yourself to where the ideas stop coming, this is VERY bad if your living depends on your ability to have these ideas.
I stress relieve via kayaking, woodworking, painting (terribly), guitar (average at best). It doesn't matter if you are good, what matters is that you allow your mind to rest. I strongly recommend this to the naysayers, I used to be one and I honestly don't know how I didn't completly burn out before.
For what it is worth, I attribute those hobbies to my ability to push myself in my technical field.
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 over, say, particle physics is that observing new phenomena is not only physically available to every single person (in their own aesthetic, emotional, and intellectual experience of the world) and the signposts toward discovery are made plain by simply checking in with one's self regularly--essentially, cultivating a rewarding relationship with oneself. How better understanding the instrument one uses to measure the world would be of any use to, oh, say, someone involved with science should not be baffling.