3 ms·
It is easy to look at this list and say gender and ethnicity played a role (which wouldn't be surprising particularly in that era). But five people on the list
by monster_group 6y ago
It is easy to look at this list and say gender and ethnicity played a role (which wouldn't be surprising particularly in that era). But five people on the list are white men. Physicists were more likely to be white men (at least in those times). So no matter what list you make of physicists, they will end up on that list. My point is, it is not possible to deduce any bias from such a list. For any coveted prize there are many well deserving people that don't get it simply because there's only one prize to be awarded per year and there's no sure and objective way to know if one who got it was indeed more deserving than the others who didn't.
- JKCalhoun 6y ago> My point is, it is not possible to deduce any bias from such a list. Is it? In at least two (three?) of those cases the male colleagues were recognized with the Nobel prize and their female colleagues were not.
- monster_group 6y agoThat's a good point.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- btilly 6y agoScientists in the 20th century were overwhelmingly white and male. Therefore if biases were not at work, you'd expect the list of people who didn't get a Nobel and arguably should have to likewise be overwhelmingly white and male. That it is only half white and male suggests that top quality research by non-whites and non-males was systemically not rewarded.