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?

Comments

Time

[Sqreater]

They probably just have more time. The "average" scientist, I suggest, is working his ass off.

Cause and effect

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Makes sense

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Yes, Nobel Prize winners are well-known for being a bunch of lazy bastards.