7 ms·
Nobel Disease
- jdw64 2mo agoThere's a statistic similar to this showing that socially successful people tend to think they're above the law. I think that once people achieve a certain level of success, they start to think, 'I can get away with this much.' That's why I'm not successful. I'm trying not to lose my critical perspective. I consider that critical perspective my treasure.
- datakan 2mo ago> There's a statistic similar to this showing that socially successful people tend to think they're above the law. That's actually the premise of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. If you actually read the book there is no Mr. Hyde, it was Jekyll all along. It was a commentary on the times it was written in where the rich elite would behave horribly in "private" while maintaining a social standing in public suited to their supposed stature. They believed they were above the law.
- ImHereToVote 2mo agoMost people are scared of voicing their heterodox views. It really is as simple as that. Once you are not dependent on an income they can be more truthful.
- SanjayMehta 2mo agoSome of these symptoms are also exhibited by Nobel Prize Whiners like a certain gentleman who has been hankering for a Nobel Peace Prize.
- PaulRobinson 2mo agoIndeed. The FIFA Peace Prize winners espousing views they don't seem to have any qualification to comment on (and may express factually incorrect views, unsupported by data), seems to be running at a rate of ~100% at the moment. The Bayesian in me wants to see more data before calling it a disease, but early signs are not promising.
- moralestapia 2mo agoWhat I've (noticed) is that many of their beliefs overlap. Nobel prize winners are the smartest people on the planet, people go out of their way to extend them a carpet everywhere they go, we are supposed to do that, but then are we also supposed not supposed to believe what they say? I'm truly confused, this part of the training definitely needs a review.
- PaulRobinson 2mo agoI think I would trust a Nobel laureate on their topic of expertise, as indicated by their Nobel prize. The problem seems to be that they are asked - and often answer - questions on topics unrelated to that topic, in the belief they're just, y'know, really smart. I think the economics prize must be the worst banana skin for the recipients - popular economics science books like Freakonomics have cemented in the public's (and journalists'), minds, that economics has applicability to a number of different parts of life. And it does! However that does not mean they have any authority to speak on anything outside of their published work.
- ImHereToVote 2mo agoThere isn't simply any awards given for heterodox views alone.
- dguest 2mo ago> Nobel prize winners are the smartest people on the planet I wouldn't go that far. They are not dumb and they like to promote their ideas. They can probably give an above-average take on most things. There are millions of other not-dumb people who will give their opinions on anything. If you ask them their opinions on everything a lot of them will say crazy stuff, but a Nobel laureate says it it makes more headlines.
- sajithdilshan 2mo agoYou’re not supposed to believe anything anyone says or because it’s written in a book or because that’s how it always has been. You have a brain and use it to think critically and analytically. Only after that you decide if you agree or not.
- ciropantera 2mo agoA lot of these aren't "strange or scientifically unsound ideas" but downright racism. Whether Nobel prize recipients are less or more racist than their contemporaries is debatable but I'm not sure they fit the same category as "believed in ghosts" or "claims to have talked to a fluorescent racoon".
- epolanski 2mo agoThat still belongs to strange or scientifically unsound.
- aswegs8 2mo ago[flagged]
- cestith 2mo agoIt is ethically unsound.
- lmf4lol 2mo agoare ethics man-made or „given“ to us by god, the watchmaker or the universe?
- SiempreViernes 2mo agoI think that in this context it's more useful to pose the question in there other direction: which moral systems declare that the slave trade and the disenfranchisement of persons on the basis of skin colour is not ok?
- amanaplanacanal 2mo agoFor the most part they come out of emotions that evolution found useful for procreation (love, fear, anger), then extrapolated to people living in small groups, then to larger societies after the invention of agriculture via the "iterated prisoners dilemma".
- cyclopeanutopia 2mo agoFrom the examples given in this article it is absolutely impossible to tell whether the "incorrect beliefs" (be it racism, mushroom aliens, vitamins curing cancer, whatever) are in any way connected to the Nobel prize. For all I know, they all could have been racists, psylocibe users, etc. long before they received any prizes and the associated attention. In fact, it could even be possible that they had much worse and radical beliefs earlier in life which were tempered by the burden of being a thought leader. I'd go as far as to say that this is a good example of an article that should be removed from Wikipedia.
- ragazzina 2mo ago>it is absolutely impossible to tell whether It's literally the second sentence of the article.
- cyclopeanutopia 2mo agoYes, that's my point. Take any other award, list people who got it and had "incorrect beliefs", add an article about it and preamble it with "it is unclear whether it is an effect of the award". What purpose does it serve? Do you think there should be articles for all of those "diseases"? Nebula award disease Crossword Book award disease Turing award disease Pulitzer award disease Fields medalist disease et cetera?
- leni536 2mo agoThe difference is notability, which is the criteria used whether a distinct Wikipedia article is warranted. There are multiple cited sources that use the "Noble disease" term, there are possibly much fewer similar publications with "Fields medalist disease". That is not to say that the theory holds water. Flat Earth theory is also notable and has a wiki page, even if blatantly wrong. There is no hyperboloid Earth theory wiki page.
- cyclopeanutopia 2mo agoOk, notability is a good argument for having such an article (although I'm not too sure about it really being notable), but the current shape is absolutely misleading.
- hmokiguess 2mo agoI think all ideas can be entertained without an association with how it manifested, we should be able to have any level of discussion (be it dismissive, reductive, or enriching and productive) about anything. “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself.” - Richard Feynman
- typeofhuman 2mo agoWell I'll guess they'll need to make an edit to post on Luc Montagnier.
- OtherShrezzing 2mo agoMilton Friedman being the main quoted figure in the article, and that he attempts to link it back to his own field, is a huge irony. He’s certainly one of the most “wild ideas beyond his domain” public intellectuals of his century.
- yreg 2mo ago> Luc Montagnier co-discovered HIV in 1983 […] > During the COVID-19 pandemic, Montagnier promoted the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately created and escaped from a laboratory My understanding is that quite some researchers think that the lab leak hypothesis is possible, but unprovable at this point. I know Wikipedia treats it as some fringe hoax, but to me it seems almost religious. In the sense that the idea has been marked as a conspiracy theory at the very beginning and nothing can change that stance anymore. When a scientist supports it, it discredits the scientist instead of supporting the theory. (For transparency, my personal opinion on covid origin is that I find it difficult to believe either side of the debate when it claims it is 100% sure.)
- jpizagno 2mo agoCame here to note this as well. I think the lab leak theory is becoming more acceptable.
- ciropantera 2mo agoLab leak is one thing, "deliberately created and escaped" is a different story.
- ginko 2mo ago"deliberately (created and escaped)" is very implausible yes. "(deliberately created) and escaped" not so much though.
- ciropantera 2mo agoAgreed, and I think conflating these two is one of the reasons for the resistance towards the lab leak theory that gp mentioned.
- Denote6737 2mo agoIt depends on personal interpretations of "deliberately created". To wit, virology labs will deliberately breed up more virulent strains of viruses in order to study their effects.
- perilunar 2mo agoThis article linked at the bottom is interesting too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ne_supra_crepidam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ne_supra_crepidam "Let the cobbler not judge beyond the shoe"
- kiliantics 2mo agonice, "ultracrepidarian" is going to be getting some use from me, looks like I'm late to the game though: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=ultracrepidarian&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=ultracrepidari...
- TrackerFF 2mo agoI’d argue it is even more common among successful startup founders.
- epolanski 2mo agoPeople that enjoyed success in any field tend to think they can replicate in others. See Musk, whom believes that if he's done A or B right, makes him an expert on the entire alphabet.
- bmitc 2mo agoMusk hasn't ever been intellectually successful in anything. He's a grifter.
- epolanski 2mo agoHe's definitely been successful as an entrepeneur. That doesn't make him an expert in physics, computing, politics, economy, etc, etc.
- bmitc 2mo ago> He's definitely been successful as an entrepeneur. Has he had anything to do with the "success" of his companies other than as a fundraiser, i.e., grifter? Have people forgot about his tunnel company, his solar company, the fact that he was kicked out of PayPal, someone else actually runs SpaceX, his ridiculous $40+ billion dollar purchase of Twitter, and his recent grifts to basically rid himself of the massive debt and risk of his Twitter purchase by forming pyramid companies? The dude is a joke of an entrepreneur. He is a grifter and nothing more. Grifters can be "successful", unfortunately. Further, this post is discussing intellectuals and not entrepreneurs.
- aswegs8 2mo agoNobel laureates are just normal humans and sometimes believe in garbage ideas. Surprise.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago> an informal term for the embrace of strange or scientifically unsound ideas by some Nobel Prize winners, usually later in life. It has been argued that the effect results, in part, from a tendency for Nobel winners to feel empowered by the award to speak on topics outside their specific area of expertise Sounds pretty much like every founder out there who strike gold once in the past now believing their genius now clearly applies to everything everywhere, including country governance, economics and sociology. It probably doesn't help that others around them are affected in similar ways and become more sycophantic because of the "award" these two types of people win.
- amanaplanacanal 2mo agoAngela Collier has a terrific video about this : billionaires want you to know they could have done physics.
- burnerzzzzz 2mo agoseconded
- hammock 2mo agoFunny I just saw a video of Jeff Bezos saying this exact thing: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/g3_WSzLNTAw https://m.youtube.com/shorts/g3_WSzLNTAw
- ProllyInfamous 2mo agoIf anybody else wants to sip on this: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmJI6qIqURA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmJI6qIqURA> Thanks for some coffeetime thoughts. ---- Something I have in common with Ms. Collier is that we both interpreted Atlas Shrugged as satirical, when in fact Author Rand was dead serious on her "objectivist" theories within her book. ---- My Twin and I approach life almost entirely different, akin to his opposite enjoyment of Shrugged as "aspirational utopia." Even with identical DNA, our brains differ on such fundamental outlook of the elites' motivations (vs *almost everybody elses').
- 1-more 2mo ago
- Oarch 2mo agoHowever Noble Rot is delightful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_rot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_rot
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- isoprophlex 2mo ago> In his autobiography, Mullis professed a belief in astrology and wrote about an encounter with a fluorescent, talking raccoon that he suggested might have been an extraterrestrial alien. Absolutely wild shit whoa
- sph 2mo agoYou don’t need a Nobel prize to see talking raccoon aliens. Just take a heroic dose of hallucinogens.
- dr_dshiv 2mo agoIsn't that how Kary Mullis got his nobel prize to begin with?
- isoprophlex 2mo agoMine was a penguin dropping down from the spinning fractaled infinite hexagonal beehive grid that took over the ceiling but... yeah
- ectoloph 2mo agoIn the article, Milton Friedman sums it up well I think by describing the attention is 'corrupting'. It cannot be good for you for everyone to assume that you are somehow omniscient all of a sudden. At either extreme, it isn't good. You start believing it and overestimating yourself more and ore, or you are buried under an ever increasing sense of impostor syndrome.
- FinnLobsien 2mo agoI think there are two things at work here: -An expectation that because a scientist is incredibly good at one thing, they must be good at another, entirely different type of thing. This seems to uniquely apply to scientists. We don't judge a phenomenal football player for not being an incredible archer, but then we do judge a Nobel prize-winning physicist for believing in astrology. -I think this can sometimes be two sides of the same coin: The same divergent thinking that helps you make revolutionary discoveries (you're unwilling to take the status quo for granted) also makes you explore "strange" ideas.
- ledauphin 2mo agoI'm surprised the article doesn't address the Occam's Razor probability that... _most people_ hold ideas that the (a?) majority does not... and that increased media attention is likely to "discover" these beliefs. Or rather, I see no attempt to make an argument that Nobel laureates are statistically _more_ likely than other "well-known" non-politicians to hold non-majoritarian ideas... nor any attempt to argue that the ideas followed rather than preceded the award.
- tim333 2mo agoMy thought too - lots of people have cranky ideas. But they only get taken seriously if they get a Nobel or something like that.
- kkoncevicius 2mo agoThe first entries are a bit weird to me. They are mostly about eugenics for people who got their Nobel prices in the early 1900s. The thing is that in those days even the state of California promoted eugenics [1]. And according to Wikipedia, so much so that they might have even played a role in influencing Germany [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_California [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics
- anonymousiam 2mo agoYou've touched on the whole problem with the "cancel culture" of today. Scientific and political beliefs often do not stand the test of time, but is it fair to blame the people of past eras for their misjudgements using the values of today? How do we know for sure when we're right about something? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8V8rtdXnLA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8V8rtdXnLA
- krige 2mo ago> Scientific and political beliefs often do not stand the test of time, but is it fair to blame the people of past eras for their misjudgements using the values of today? the problem with this reasoning is that it assumes or tries to imply that people "back then" all held such backwards beliefs, which far too often is not the case. For instance, see how Morse's diatribes on slavery and racism are presented - but the state he was born and operated in already abolished slavery about a decade before his birth.
- dr_dshiv 2mo agoIt then rips on scientists who believed that COVID19 was the result of a lab leak. The whole page is poor.
- paxys 2mo agoThis has always felt like such a weird quirk in human behavior. Imagine a 5 year old who is good at basketball. His parents notice it and enroll him in a class. Coaches recognize his talent and dedicate special time to him. He trains every morning, every night and entire weekends through primary, middle and high school. Gets barely any time for classes, but he anyways just needs a passing grade (which teachers are happy to help him with). He joins advanced youth academies, travels for tournaments across the country. No time for distractions. No TV, no parties, barely any social time at all. He gets a sports scholarship in college. Finally goes pro. Continues training hard for every waking minute. Plays hard for years and is considered one of the best players in the world. Absolute peak of achievement in his field. Then the night he wins a championship a reporter shoves a microphone in his face and asks "what are your thoughts on the geopolitical crisis developing in the East China sea?" And whatever he says will make the front page, generate countless social media clips and will undoubtedly influence the opinions of millions. And this applies to every field. Look at all the VCs who make a lucky bet and then sit on a hundred podcasts proclaiming "world peace is easy, actually".
- embedding-shape 2mo ago> will undoubtedly influence the opinions of millions. Is this actually true, based on just one statement? Usually the ones who change their minds so easily, are following a person like a cult almost, and go with whatever they say, whenever they say. There aren't huge masses of millions of people idly watching TV, coming across an interview with some random baseball star and trusts his opinion on stuff. Personally, I think in generally the problem is "celebrity worship", and all the related things, rather than just about the specific person who said something, or even about the platform. People are so quick to just go "Well, I like that person, so whatever they say, is what I think more or less" which is absolutely bananas to me.
- johnsmith1840 2mo agolol true, actors are probally the most visible as well on this. I think it's partly because fame also brings a large number of "yes man" around people. If you let your ego get to you you'll believe it. Kinda a common and real problem amoung the ruling classes of history forever now. It's also why some of the best rules have lower egos because it's less effective.
- spicymaki 2mo agoBillionaires are also susceptible to extreme forms this disease. It was also known as hubris to the ancient Greeks.
- aeve890 2mo agoReminds of this https://youtu.be/GmJI6qIqURA?si=81MoR3UCUiQyqlwk https://youtu.be/GmJI6qIqURA?si=81MoR3UCUiQyqlwk
- bastawhiz 2mo agoWhile he didn't win a Nobel prize, I'm reminded of Dr Henry Heimlich (inventor of the Heimlich maneuver), who went on to become a proponent of malariotherapy: the deliberate infection of people suffering from HIV, Lyme disease, and other ailments with malaria as a treatment. It goes without saying that malariotherapy is not a scientifically well-supported procedure.
- i-blis 2mo agoI am convinced that a similar proportion of non-prize winner scientists across all fields of natural sciences share "scientifically unsound ideas" or "scientifically unsupported or discredited beliefs", or however else we want to call them. I am not even confident that age may be a decisive factor. As an (almost retired) anthropologist with background in genetics, I do certainly nurture yet unverified and pretty unorthodox convictions, if only as a matter of hypothesis. Looking around me among colleagues who have a wealth of experience, cultivating strange ideas seems to be very common and indeed part of the discovery process. How can one find new insight without erring ?
- qurren 2mo agoI think the logic here is backwards. Nobel Prize winners won the prize because they had unorthodox ways of thinking that led them to an actual discovery. I'd think that it's quite normal that 1 out of 10000 unorthodox beliefs ends up being a scientific reality of high impact. i.e. ~1 out of 10000 unorthodox thinkers will win the Nobel Prize, 9999/10000 of those thinkers you will never hear about. For the one who won, it's likely they will have continued unorthodox ideas, 9999/10000 of which will not lead to a second Nobel Prize.
- i-blis 2mo agoThe article lists an order some 10 of Nobel prize-winners later seen as "unsound" mostly in a field other than their main area of expertise. Making them 1 in 100. I won't be surprised that 1 in 100 senior scientist expresses unorthodox or even unsound ideas when foraging far away from their field, particularly on the kind of topics listed. I agree that the share of unorthodox thinkers should all in all be higher among those winners. This is indeed what made them advanced in their field. But the main bias remains: looking at those whose voice reaches even when they venture out of their field rather than the full pull of (good) scientists.
- qurren 2mo agoVenturing outside your field is also part of what drives discovery itself, not a post-Nobel symptom, because you see the new field with a fresh set of eyes rather than textbook-brainwashed eyes. A lot of discoveries are made by someone who "imported" insights from one field to another.
- yeah879846 2mo ago[dead]
- Empact 2mo agoWhile this list certainly includes a mix of ideas, the fact that some of them are not in vogue in the current orthodoxy does not make them wrong. https://www.paulgraham.com/say.html https://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- rufasterisco 2mo agoEgas Moniz, cited in the list, got a Nobel for inventing lobotomy to cure mental illness. He did not really embrace some weird idea once he got a Nobel: the weird itself was the reason for the Nobel prize. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1949/summary/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1949/summary/
- cbare 2mo agoOne of the beautiful things about coding is the immediacy of the feedback. Screw up and your program crashes. Get it right and the machine does what you want. Tests turn green - that's nice. Subtle bugs can be deceptive, you might be thinking. True, but lots of bugs are not at all subtle. When you get good at coding, you get a lot of positive reinforcement coming from a machine rather than other people. What that does to our psychology seems worth considering. Might we also have the same feeling of "I'm usually right!" and might that feeling transfer to domains where it's not backed up by any real learning?
- alehlopeh 2mo agoI’d argue that video games do something similar.
- epgui 2mo ago*ahem* roger penrose and his microtubules *ahem*
- minifridge 2mo agoI am probably in the minority here, but I believe that scientists and researchers are allowed to hold unorthodox and even unscientific beliefs outside their domain expertise. The deeper issue here I think is that they are being treated as gods after they are awarded this prize. And that's mostly a media/journalism problem and their values.