As of 2019, Nobel Prizes have been awarded to 866 men, 53 women (Marie Curie won it twice), and 24 unique organizations — Wikipedia
Marie Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, the first person and the only woman to win the Nobel Prize twice, and the only person to win the Nobel Prize in two different scientific fields — Wikipedia
If receiving a Nobel prize is the highest recognition for a scientist, being awarded twice by the Swedish Academy of Sciences is an extraordinary fact of which, until now, only four people can boast: Frederick Sanger, Linus Pauling, John Bardeen and Marie Curie. — Google
A. Women account for 53/(866 + 53) = 6% of ALL Nobel Laureates.
B. Women (Marie Curie) form 1/4 = 25% of two-time Nobel Prize winners
C. Women (Marie Curie) make up 100% of Nobels won in two different fields. In other words no man has achieved a Nobel in more than one discipline.
It appears that
D. In general, men are smarter than women
E. Women are more versatile — TheMadFool
What do you mean it appears? D and E don't follow from A, B and C. — zookeeper
The common explanation is that there's more variability among men than there is among women. In other words, that the smartest and dumbest are more likely to be found among men. The evolutionary basis for that would be the asymmetrical biology of reproduction which made risk-taking a more favorable strategy for men than women. — zookeeper
"Asymmetrical biology of reproduction"?
Please explain; to my knowledge 50% of genetic material is sourced from both parents in homo sapiens. — Key
The common explanation is that there's more variability among men than there is among women. In other words, that the smartest and dumbest are more likely to be found among men. The evolutionary basis for that would be the asymmetrical biology of reproduction which made risk-taking a more favorable strategy for men than women. — zookeeper
I don't follow how being limited to reproducing at one rate or another makes it "[...]more important [...] to be more selective regarding their mating partners[...]" — Key
Is there a literary work done by an evolutionary biologist you can source? — Key
Because reproduction is free for a male, and costly and dangerous (and in the worst case, fatal) for a female? From the point of view of spreading their genes, a male has no reason not to reproduce with every female they possibly can. A female can't do that, because pregnancy is taxing, dangerous and you can't do it as often, so you have to give more consideration to who you actually reproduce with; whether they have good genes, whether they're a good parent, and so on. — zookeeper
You seem to be approaching this from a organism-centric model of evolution which has been outdated since at least the mid-70s when Dawkins published his work known as "The Selfish Gene" and established gene-centric evolution as the dominant hypothesis. — Key
Due to the pressures of natural selection, genes that enable their "gene machines" to reproduce with fated partners do not propagate through the gene pool. — Key
Due to the pressures of natural selection, genes that enable their "gene machines" to reproduce with fated partners do not propagate through the gene pool. — Key
This is quite dumb, actually. But very typical for today.1. Is there a theory of intelligence that explains these statistics? — TheMadFool
In general, men are smarter than women — TheMadFool
1. Is there a theory of intelligence that explains these statistics? — TheMadFool
Actually solo Nobel-prizes have become more rare. What usually happens is that some specific field gets a Nobel and there simply isn't a Newton or an Einstein that hasn't got the peers that "on whose shoulders they stood". So very likely it's more than one. Besides, seldom people publish scientific breakthrough articles just by their name, but have others that have participated in it.What's shameful looking at that is that no woman has won the Nobel prize for physics solo, which means that even when women are doing great research, they're not doing their own great research. It's unlikely to change because science is ever more collaborative and still male-dominated. — Kenosha Kid
I would argue that even larger issue is simply what fields men and women choose to study.Not theory, but experiment. Helen Fisher studied extremes of intelligence and found that there were more male geniuses. And more male idiots. — Kenosha Kid
Actually solo Nobel-prizes have become more rare. What usually happens is that some specific field gets a Nobel and there simply isn't a Newton or an Einstein that hasn't got the peers that "on whose shoulders they stood". So very likely it's more than one. Besides, seldom people publish scientific breakthrough articles just by their name, but have others that have participated in it. — ssu
1. Is there a theory of intelligence that explains these statistics?
No.
2. Are the statistics a reflection of systemic bias against women? — TheMadFool
It’s not that genes that allow for some doomed offspring get eliminated, it’s that genes that don’t allow for some non-doomed offspring get eliminated. Males can just make lots of offspring at no cost and let some of them be doomed so long as some others survive. Females can’t make lots of offspring at no cost, so have to be careful that their few offspring do survive. — Pfhorrest
You know you can edit your posts? — Pfhorrest
Under the assumption that an increasing population produces no cost to the surviving genes, yes. — Key
Because reproduction is free for a male, and costly and dangerous (and in the worst case, fatal) for a female? From the point of view of spreading their genes, a male has no reason not to reproduce with every female they possibly can. — zookeeper
No, it appears far more men are in science than women, which is already known. — Kenosha Kid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.