yet 95% of the prison inmates are male. There are obvious differences on the extreme ends of the spectrum between males and females and the nobel price only considers extremes to begin with.
Your [2] source only mentions statistics since 2012. It's disingenuous to think this could spread down to 1901 if you wish to use the 1.8% as a point to argue.
Society was very different a hundred years ago. Women's access to education amongst other things has improved severely over time, and we do have seen an increase in female Nobel laureates compared to the earlier days.
Sure, it doesn't spread down to 1901, but the uptick started around 1970s [1].
Anyway, my main rant was about the inefficiency of giving awards to "lone geniuses", at most three, of expecting said "lone wolves" to exist in the first place, and then comes the discussion if the wolves are male or not. Unfortunately it got derailed into talking about pseudoscientific scalars such as IQ and sex binaries.
Most Nobel winners get their prizes during their 60s-70s. It means that people who graduated in the 1970s are just starting to get their Nobels.
And the trend of aging winners continues as research become more complex and specialized and therefore requires more experience. The time between theory and the practical discovery (Nobel prizes are only for the latter) increase as experiments become more complex too. So much that it may become difficult for theorists to get a Nobel in their lifetime. That LK99 thing, if real, is more the exception than the rule.
True. That's why we probably need another mechanism for incentivizing high-risk/high-reward/multi-decennial research. Perhaps, even if LK99 is not real, something interesting will mutate out of it: some kind of platform merging arXiv, Twitch, Patreon, making the researchers to be more transparent, more willing to share partial results, failures, and even be rewarded to fail. Some time ago had this "fail database" in mind, where one would upload all the data of the experiments that didn't work. I see there is a "FailCon" [1].
The other replies to this are making terrible arguments. The actual strongest case is that the Nobel prize is only given to extremely old people, which means it reflects the gender ratio of the field a few decades ago and not the current one.
Of course, they did give Donna Strickland a prize for the first paper she published as a grad student.
Your arguments aren't unique by a long shot; you're simply witnessing two seperate people who have been discussing technical matters since pre-WWW Usenet days observing there are hackers who have been making those arguments for 40+ years.
I can't speak for Don but for my part they got dull 35+ years back.
I'm sure you can find a rebuttal or reinforcement, whichever you need, elsewhere.
All of a sudden it seems the commenters have started name-calling and stereotyping the poster (realjhol) without any evidence or links to dispute his statements. Maybe replying in good faith would be a more helpful discussion, with links to support/deny his arguments?
I've read his posting history. It's quite clear what kind of a person he is, especially from the patterns and subjects of all his heavily downvoted and flagged posts. As if that wasn't already obvious from his recent sexist posts. But go read them yourself and carry the water for his bigotry if you like, it'll just say a lot about yourself too. Like Elon Musk and his flashing "X", some people just desperately want you to know they're assholes.
