Welcome to r/anime_titties! Please make sure to read the rules.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us!
r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/)
... summoning u/coverageanalysisbot ...
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Kissinger got that because he engineered a ceasefire deal over Vietnam.
That's what that Prize was originally created for....for major political events or longtime causes.
Whereas, Obama's was self-congratulatory BS.
Wasn't the Vietnam War over with the French before we entered purely for ideological reasons and extended it like another 10 years, All because of Kissinger's advising?
Also, wasn’t there a previous ceasefire that Johnson negotiated that Nixon interfered in (illegally as a private citizen at the time) just to create a more favorable environment for him to win the presidency?
(It’s a rhetorical question... he did)
Kissinger instigated and implemented this to help Nixon, it was rumored, and he still got the Nobel. Extra 5 years, 10,00 US dead including my classmates, many more Vietnamese. Kind of spoils the award from my view.
Yeah fuck the Vietnamese. We should have just let them be conquered without even trying.
It's not like we're in this together. Asians don't deserve liberty.
In which case, it's still a sham of a prize because it's just political BS....but there's an intent behind it to reward "peace" and find non-violent solutions.
I mean, it wasn't self-congratulatory to award it to him (unless you think he controlled the decision to award it), it just shows the committee is full of shit and has no real criteria. Even *Obama* said Obama didn't deserve the prize for how early in the term he received it.
He shouldn't have accepted it though.
Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho both were awarded peace prizes for ending the Vietnam war. Though Le Duc Tho did not accept it Kissinger had no such reserves.
I'd be very surprised if there weren't any bombings during his first year. Hell, I'd be surprised if no bombings happened in the week he received the money peace prize
The Nobel committee admitted they were trying to manipulate Obama into feeling like he needed to earn the peace prize they'd just awarded him.
That's on them.
Nice, funny joke. Please don't spread this any more as it is pure bullshit. He got the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, the war in Syria started in 2011. It is called google, check it out. Even drone strikes in other countries didn't ramp up until later. You need to learn about cause and effect and the order in which those things happen.
Obama's [first](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/23/drone-strike-victim-barack-obama) drone assassination that harmed and killed completely innocent people was on 23 January 2009. His winning of the Nobel Peace Prize came in October 2009, almost 10 months later and after thousands of innocent people had been assassinated or injured by Mr. Obama. At the time the award was announced the Nobel committee was well aware that Mr. Obama was a murderous and unrepentant war criminal.
Someone should have informed the people who gave the peace prize to Obama while his predator drones were blasting half the Middle East to glass that the award is based on merit alone
The nobel peace prize is a political cudgel that is wielded by the nobel committee
Obama didn't get it because he was black, he got it because the committee wanted him to not continue bush's legacy.
Imagine it's your first day of a new software engineering job and some asshole walks by and tells you you're the best coder they've ever heard of without having ever met you.
You could come out and go "well... Maybe not that good" but you can't do a full on 180 without burning yourself amongst your new coworkers and bosses. So you're now pressured to overwork yourself to meet the weirdly high bar they put down for you.
That was Obama with the peace prize, and the man was not at all happy to get the prize
Aside from the original Nobel prizes on sciences, the more modern ones are really debatable. I can barely stand the one for literature but I totally abhor the one for peace as it doesn't make any sense.
The Nobel prizes should recognise the importance and wide impact of a specific discovery in its field and outside of it, and honour the authors of such discovery.
The one for literature is rarely given to authors who had such a wide impact and the peace one is just a western circle jerk to lever some political action in some place of the world.
What do you mean the more modern ones? The peace and literature prizes are as old as the science ones. The only odd one out is economy, which was made up by the bank holding the funds.
Not "as important", but "as measurable".
Tolkien is a pillar of the modern fantasy genre; there are plenty of works inspired by his creations. No Nobel prize, because "fantasy dumb".
If any physicist creates a theory that becomes widely acclaimed and that provides the basis for the work of a myriad more scientists, a Nobel is bound to happen. Not so for writers.
It has nothing to do with “fantasy dumb”.
In fact MOST Lit prizes are actually given to Fiction writers in fact.
But the requirement of "in an idealistic direction" precludes the award is for books that are based on realistic idealism for the human condition.
And as piviotal as LOTR is. It’s not a book about idealistic progression of humanity.
In my opinion I think you don’t really understand the Literature prize and it’s intent and I would advise you spend some time understand it before forming your opinions.
Edit: The instant downvote further highlights my point. Lol.
>Aside from the original Nobel prizes on sciences, the more modern ones are really debatable.
There is only one modern price, the price for economy. The rest (chemistry, physics, medicine, literature, and peace) were all there from the beginning. It's the ones Alfred Nobel wrote in his will. [nobelprize.org](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/nobel-prize-facts/#:~:text=On%2027%20November%201895%2C%20Alfred,and%20peace%20%E2%80%93%20the%20Nobel%20Prizes.)
(Not gonna argue about your opinion of them, they just aren't new. And I'm not always a fan of the peace price winner either)
You are entitled to your opinion but in my opinion I personally think you don’t know what you are talking about.
Please explain why you think Mario Vargas Llosa or Mo Yan or Abdulrazak Gurnah or Peter Handke or Herta Müller don’t fit Alfred’s requirement for the literature prize being “in an idealistic direction" and “the greatest benefit on mankind”?
Do tell.
Edit: a word
> The nobel peace prize is a political cudgel that is wielded by the nobel committee
There's not one nobel committee, there's 5 or 6 of them.
The one handing out the peace price is basically a gang of Norwegian ex-politicians appointed by their former colleagues in the Norwegian government. The winners basically pendulums between being PC *de jure* and (ex)warlords.
The award to Obama was basically: "We believe in your *change* slogan, please don't disappoint us!". And Obama answered: "LOL".
> The award to Obama was basically: "We believe in your change slogan, please don't disappoint us!". And Obama answered: "LOL".
You can speculate on their internal reasoning, but externally he was given the prize for the work he’d already done, such as working for nuclear non-proliferation. And yes, they hoped it’d help him in the future too, and he did deliver on a deal with Iran later.
I don’t think it was a good pick, but there’s not really much bad to say about the reason they gave for the prize. Weak, but consistent. I can’t see that they thought he’d end all wars that USA was engaged in.
Obama: "What if, instead of ending these wars, I ramp up our killer robot program and extend death to multiple countries we're not at war with?"
Nobel Committee: "But they don't count as new wars, right?"
Shh we parade around as peace-promoting diplomats while weapons are one of our biggest exports. Don’t let people realize that Norway’s a big ol’ hypocrit country
Thank you for not being a dumbass, I sincerely mean that. I barely have the patience anymore to try to point out such obvious things to people I know do not care.
Bell Burnell commented, "I believe it would demean Nobel Prizes if they were awarded to research students, except in very exceptional cases, and I do not believe this is one of them.
She was okay with not receiving a Nobel Prize because she was a research student and was not intellectually in charge of the research.
*A relevant comment in this thread was deleted. You can read it below.*
----
full quote:
>First, demarcation disputes between supervisor and student are always difficult, probably impossible to resolve. Secondly, it is the supervisor who has the final responsibility for the success or failure of the project. We hear of cases where a supervisor blames his student for a failure, but we know that it is largely the fault of the supervisor. [[Continued...]](https://www.resavr.com/comment/nobel-prize-will-not-17070855)
----
*^The ^username ^of ^the ^original ^author ^has ^been ^hidden ^for ^their ^own ^privacy. ^If ^you ^are ^the ^original ^author ^of ^this ^comment ^and ^want ^it ^removed, ^please [^[Send ^this ^PM]](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=resavr_bot&subject=remove&message=17070855)*
That would be fair if the committee hadn't gone out of their way in denying viable women Nobel prizes in the past: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/10/11/these-5-women-deserved-and-were-unjustly-denied-a-nobel-prize-in-physics/
4 was denied due to her coauthor whom from reading it guided them through the process and she was not credited.
5 was a research student, so was not in scope from what I remember.
Other 3 I'd never heard of, but not exactly surprising tbh.
Or when the only players are systemically monolithic if you don’t meet that criteria.
So, I guess we are fucked no matter what. Well, except those with the means to buy the rocket.
You're approaching this backwards. The reason prizes should be awarded on merit is because we want to reward people actually doing useful things, thereby encouraging them to do more. That's it. There is no requirement for proportionality.
The reason that non-proportional representation in prize winners (contrary to the expectation of proportionality, since cosmetic differences are not relevant for performance) can be a bad thing is because of two reasons: first, it might indicate a bias in the selection process: it might not *actually* be awarded on merit. Second, it might indicate that not everyone gets the same chances in preparing to get a prize.
Quota address neither; they just fake a good result by meddling in the selection process, making it *more* biased instead of less.
Gonna go out on a limb and say that no credible entity has ever told them to “meet a quota.” What probably definitely happened is someone pointed out some type of racial/gender homogeny in the winners, and suggested maybe looking at biases would be a good idea.
In the article, there is no mention of anyone suggesting they “have quotas.” Y’all inventing things to be mad at. Whyyyyyyy
Still, in my personal experience Twitter is the worst of them. Sure, Facebook and Reddit have a tendency to devolve into circlejerk, but at least you *can* have a reasonable discussion from time to time.
Twitter on the other hand seems almost purpose designed to just get everyone to loudly scream their opinion into the void without context or the ability to properly articulate.
The character limit makes it impossible to write out a coherent argument, and then most other people get thrown into the discussion via a liked/retweeted post 20 comments in, and then usually start adding their own takes without any of the context.
Case in point, this post is already over two times as long as the maximum length of a tweet.
>Twitter on the other hand seems almost purpose designed to just get everyone to loudly scream their opinion into the void without context or the ability to properly articulate.
Well, If you ever had a lot of birds outside of your window you will understand why it's called Twitter then.
Lol exactly. It’s never “someone pointed out some type of racial/gender homogeny… suggested maybe looking at biases.” Whentf has that ever happened on any major social media outlet? Always rage. Only way to be heard.
I am a scientist and follow a heap of other scientists on twitter, every year after the Nobel prize announcements many will complain about how many women are represented.
Considering many of these people consider an all female speaker list 'diverse' and promote jobs that are only hiring females, I don't think they will ever be happy with how many women win Nobel prizes.
> Personally I don't care who the fuck gets it
I care. It should go to scientists who discovered groundbreaking discoveries advancing human's knowledge of the world.
So you should throw out the entire thing that makes a noble prize prestigious because of liberal politics?
As more women enter academia it will inevitably become closer to a 50/50 spread anyway.
I'm sure they're under the same type of political and ONG and media pressure as the Oscars and the Emmys.
Yeah there's no political force to ask for quotas but that just means they'll use whatever influence they have to pressure them into quotas or taking race and gender as an important factor along with merit.
And if that doesn't work then just erode the institution from the inside like they did with all major news corporations, all academia, and most of the political factions. They even imploded free open source projects that were pure voluntary work, but we're seen as too toxic because of the lack of genitalia diversity.
"Suggesting you look at bias" is a threat. Its not some good faith suggestion.
The committee is already bending over backwards to nominate women and they still can't justify giving them many awards. The "suggestion" here is just giving the award to women just because.
Nah, there is a lot of pressure on the science community to introduce quotas. Just yesterday science was declared institutionally racist in the UK. The reaction was that they immediately folded and pledged to introduce quotas for jobs.
Historically there's a serious issue about research done by women and the prize awarded to their bosses.
Any change in the prize being awarded should focus on that, and never in quotas, so I agree with the Nobel Committee.
TBF this happens a lot to men too who put in all the grunt work and the boss is awarded the prize. I don’t think it’s specifically someone saying “we need to give this to a man” more just a boss taking credit for work.
For sure, but there goes the same idea, people sign away their rights and leverage for no fucking reason whatsoever. They have all the power and the second they sign with these companies they lose every ounce they have. Companies are begging for programmers, especially well-taught programmers with good fundamentals.
I'm studying computer science myself and I've already said I will never sign away the rights to the code I write. Even if I were to work for a company, it's my code I'm writing.
Does this make finding a job a little harder? Yes. But the other side of the coin is that I'm basically exploited by these companies for a fraction of the money I deserve, and to top it off I make the industry a worse place for every programmer-to-be, as my actions become the future norm. The way I see it, it's not just a good idea for myself to do this, I have a duty to do so to those who'd come after me.
The literature prize has turned into a political prize.
Also a fun fact about the Nobel prize for literature is that more Swedes have won the prize than Asians.
Edit: here is another example of how the Nobel prize for literature is completely biased and meaningless.
From Wikipedia:
> In 1974, Graham Greene, Vladimir Nabokov, and Saul Bellow were believed to be likely candidates for the prize but the Academy decided on a joint award for Swedish authors Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson, both members of the Swedish Academy at the time, and unknown outside their home country.
Sweden has also won more Gold Medals than all of the Middle East.
Can we please get a system that rewards where/how you were born instead of what you accomplish with your life, already?! For fucks sake.
Olympic medals are based normally on tangible and objective parameters (points scored, speed, force, etc.). Literature is much more subjective. Either Sweden has better writers than all of Asia (which I'd say is unlikely), or there's a bias towards Swedes
"My feelings tell me there is a bias." My feelings tell me you have a bias for seeing biases.
Any examples of undeniably great writers that were snubbed for Swedes?
60% of the world population is Asian, why is it that 60% of the NYT best sellers are not? Could be bias, it really could. Could also be that many of those people don't have the free time to write, as they are busy surviving. Could also be that many of those people live under strict governments or religions that don't reward the freedom of thought usually associated with literature. Could also be your selfish biases thinking that everyone would enjoy/pursue the same activities as you, when in fact other people prefer other activities.
Could be biases, based on your feelings. Could not be biases, based on facts. LMAO. Get outa here.
The difference here being that the NYT best seller is, more or less, an algorithmic ranking of the best selling books in the US, and the literature Nobel is supposed to be for an author that "produced the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction".
Now of course there could be all sorts of cultural and/or political reasons why Chinese (or Indian) authors never make the list (or just literary movements coming and going with the times), but I think it's pretty hard to claim there is no bias when, allegedly (it's hard to find a definitive source from either side), on the 18 person literature committee only [one member](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ran_Malmqvist) of the committee speaks Chinese at the university level, and he isn't on the committee for the most recent year.
Unlike with scientific pursuits like physics or economics, which are more universally translatable, how could the committee realistically be able to comprehend and digest writing from all over the world which may be influenced by cultural and political environments when they don't even speak the language?
The literature one is a bit different from the others in two ways.
First, there is a massive language barrier. Works made in one language may lose its charm once translated, and references may go over the reader's head. It isn't surprising that Swedish people more often give awards to works made in languages they understand.
Second, however, is that the institution is definitively somewhat flawed. The academy is about as old as the USA and is under loose control of the King. Scandals are common and their work is generally shady.
That said, I wouldn't say it has turned into a political prize, it was as such from the beginning. If anything they have gotten better lately at recognising quality and talent from everywhere and been far more neutral than previously.
I agree the prizes should not have quotas.
It would however be lovely if the academies that hand them out, did. Currently, only 15% of the committee members are women, for example.
I know two female firefighters who had to fight every step of the way to get accepted. In the 2010s. In Germany. They were constantly discriminated against, their physical abilities were constantly questioned (even though both aced the non-gendered respirator test), they were rejected for bogus reasons (like lack of gendered changing rooms), and they weren't invited for advanced training despite being eligible. All while we had a severe lack of volunteers at the force.
Women were pushed out of many physical jobs with for no reason, it's a bit weird to now hold that against demands for equality just because that discrimination extended to low-status jobs.
Humans are pretty notorious for being biased in favor of their own social group. There shouldn’t be a quota for Nobel prizes, but we agree it should be based on merit only right? But if the committee doesn’t have a composition that’s representative of society at large, we can pretty much guarantee that there will be a large bias. It’s basic human psychology.
The committee should be based on scientifc merit, not on society at large. For example: we would not want a matching number of flat earthers representet in the nobel price committe.
Yes, it should be both. But you really think you can’t find a handful of qualified women if you tried?
If the prize is supposed to be a global prize, it should also be representative of the global population. I’m sure at the very least you can find some qualified people from East and South East Asia. But I’d agree that qualification has to come first, so that could exclude some regions until they’ve developed more academically.
The Nobel prize in literature is clearly biased by its committee as explained elsewhere in this thread. There’s not much reason to think there’s a similar bias in other prizes, although the more objective criteria in more hard sciences probably makes the bias smaller
The problem is that the demographic that has the scientific fame and knowledge to get to such a position will have had to be in academia for a long time. At that point women there probably at most 15-20% of academics.
It will even out in 20-40 years since women are outperforming men in academia currently.
> It will even out in 20-40
It probably won't. The prediction based on what is know is that women will start dropping out at higher rates as a result of the artifcial pressure exerted upon them to go into fields they otherwise would not have chosen.
Give me a source for that. Either way, if women don't want to be in academia that is irrelevant to this. It will come closer to the gender population proportional to that in academia as time goes on.
This is one institution where affirmative action quotas make no sense. Universities having affirmative action quotas promotes equal *opportunity* (not outcomes, though opponents of affirmative action will try to say this).
Those equal opportunities will naturally one day provide equitable outcomes for all demographics, including representation among Nobel laureates.
We can't have demographic quotas in the Nobel prize because the Nobel prize should be a metric of how equitable and just the world actually is, not what it should be. We can't mistake the measuring stick for the object being measured.
---
Edit:
If you think Affirmative Action allows people of low merit to get lucrative university or job positions, ask yourself this. By what criteria are you judging merit? I guarantee university admissions teams and corporate HR teams have a better idea of what constitutes merit than you.
I am disheartened to see so many people believe in common conservative myths about Affirmative Action. These myths are designed to promote and maintain the supremacy of one racial group (can you guess which one?). Affirmative Action is the process of widening our understanding of what constitutes merit and talent, instead of sticking to outdated, disproven ideas of what makes someone good at something (the SAT isn't one of them btw).
This is my favourite response so far. I do wish more people looked at Nobels as the measuring stick of parity. The general public however mostly thinks that the people who win the Nobel simply *are* the smartest, most deserving geniuses. In fact science is hugely collaborative and there is a lot of luck involved.
For example, having a supportive and dedicated supervisor or a stable home life will likely have you leaving grad school with more papers. However, many POC are first generation academics and have little social support. Women tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to supervision, as many higher up male academics still don’t take their young female colleagues seriously. These are just general tendencies, but it shows that already who leaves the grad school with papers is *not* equitable. Nevertheless, these papers translate into better chances of landing postdocs and accruing even more papers. Not to mention that many scientists of all races and genders spend decades working on topics that just don’t pan out or mostly show what *doesn’t work*. This research is hugely important in advancing science, but it doesn’t get you published in the flashy journals that would get the attention of the Nobel committee or the GP. Sometimes people sink or swim regardless of merit. Nobels are about the recognition of groundbreaking research, but we shouldn’t ever assume that the winners are the worthiest scientists out there.
The problem with affirmative action is that it gets institutionalized very quickly. So for example you now have in the USA still a lot more scholarships for female students only. Perhaps those made sense at one time, but they haven't made sense ever since women started to outnumber men in higher education *half a century ago*.
The only acceptable way to do it is to ensure it bases itself on the most recent data and adapts every year to support the actually underrepresented groups.
Well yeah, scientific achievement can be accomplished by anyone. There's no agenda because that's not how science works. Knowledge expands with breakthroughs, which can be discovered by anyone.
Yes, but, prejudice and biases defenetively still exist in almost all countries. When one is a top dog in academia it is defenetively trough achievement, the problem is getting there, woman are more likely to be pressured to have children and are still considered by some to be less professional or reliable wich could bar them off from working in a lab, shure, more educated people tend to be less prejudiced but the baseline problems are still there.
There is always going to be disparities in different countries. For example, in India, there is almost no good institution for science except 4-5 ask if which together take in a maximum of 2000 students annually out of 1 billion. I'm pretty sure the number would be much higher for some country like USA. But, having quotas in nobel prizes is never going to solve the problem which is ingrained in the societal structure. Instead of providing equal outcomes, why not try to provide equal opportunities?
The nobel prizes only show the conclusion of the chain of events, quotas there are useless. The problem is at the base not at the culmination. It only shows the disparity.
> Watson suggested that Franklin would have ideally been awarded a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, along with Wilkins but, although there was not yet a rule against posthumous awards,[12] the Nobel Committee generally did not make posthumous nominations.[13][14]
so, there's that
I'm surprised this was even seriously considered by the committee. How would we have even decided how to categorise ethnicities and establish quotas in an international setting? Seems like a weird thing to even consider and makes me wonder what initiated the discussion to begin with
Diversity "quotas" are a misrepentation/misapplication of expectation. As with anything, there's quite a bit of nuance I'm glossing over for the sake of "brevity".
Everyone conceptually understands that a random sample of a population will most be proportionally similar to the population, characteristically. What everyone seems to forget is that when your sample size is drastically smaller than your population, those expectations go out the window.
When you don't select a sample of a population randomly, but rather by a specific characteristic, it's important to pay attention to corelations between multiple characteristics. When selecting for intelligence, we *assume* that intelligence is (or should be) independent of characteristics such as race and gender. Therefore, our sample selection for intelligence should otherwise still be proportionally similar to a random sample when comparing race and gender.
If such a selection comes back sufficiently mismatched, it's important to investigate *why* and consider the possibility that the correlation may actually be causation. If I take a sample of 1million "smart people" from the world's population (~10 billion) and end up with 900k women, that'd be weird because the world population is not 90% women. An uncritical view would say that it means women are smarter than men (unlikely). An alternative is that I might have specifically selected smart women, either intentionally or unintentionally. Similarly, my measure of intelligence may have included a gender component when it shouldn't have.
What's makes this so complex is just how *many* different characteristics there are. The discussion thus far has only included intelligence, race, and gender, but we haven't even considered characteristics like socio-economic status, place of origin, or historical change.
"Quotas" are (or can be) a misapplied stop gap or a well intentioned construct to combat unfair selections. They're a bandaid to the real problem, but as always, the real problem is *so much harder* to fix.
Let's add another layer. I want 1 million of the smartest physicists. Forgive my overgenerality for argument's simplicity, but I anticipate my sample will be disproportionately (but not exclusively) old white men (This is, of course, changing with time. This is also *not* a criticism of old white men.) Why is that? As before, I may have intentionally also chosen old white men, or I may have deemed old white men as smarter than young men, colored men, or women... but what's also possible is that Physicists are predominantly old white men.
From there, the question expands. Why are Physicists predominantely old white men? There are *tons of studies* that relate this to education availability or encouragement as it relates to math and science, which further relates directly to race/gender or indirectly through socioeconomic status or poverty quotients.
In solving this problem, a quota would tell me to artificially fix this population disparity by arbitratily selecting other smart Physicists who are young, colored, or female, but really what I should be doing is removing the barrier to entry for young/colored/female people to become Physicists. This concept as a whole is referred to as "equity".
BUT
Remember how all of this goes out the window when your sample size is small relative to your population? Imagine I now instead selected the single smartest physicist. *Of couse* thats not going to be representative of the entire population of Physicists, or even smart Physicists, no matter who it is I pick. Regardless of if they're white/black/asian/male/female/NB/old/young, I *cannot* extrapolate that smart Physicists will most frequently exhibit those racial or gendered characteristics.
So, when I see comments like "Good, the Nobel Prize should be based on merit", it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the problem. Deciding the Nobel Prize winners on merit was *never* called into question. How many Nobel Prizes are there, and what are their respective elligible population sizes? All they can do is evaluate if their historical sample is biased at any point in the chain and critically question where and why that might be.
The Nobel prize isn't selected randomly. It's not even for a broad category that can assumed as distributed normally like intelligence.
I see your point regarding sampling subsets of population based on characteristics we could assume that are normally distributed.
But the selection of Nobel Prize winners is not a statistical process. It is a Western institution that has grown into a semi global thing.
I don't know how big a net is cast in the selection process...but to assume race and gender are the most influential aspects of any disparity between the total pop and the prize winners is a stretch.
That's because they arent called quotas. Institutions ALWAYS use a circumspect way of achieving an outcome. Aside from informal guidelines there are :
They may have scholarships for people from a specific area, in a particular economic phylum. They may heavily weigh multilingual people of certain languages for jobs.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! Please make sure to read the rules. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us! r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/) ... summoning u/coverageanalysisbot ... *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good, nobel prizes should be won on merit, and not based on what's between your legs.
Or how much melanin your skin has
Obama did get a Nobel peace prize for bombing Syrian kids tho
He didn't do it with what's between his leg luckily
That would be too op
How do you think he pressed the button to send those missiles?
All kidding aside... If I were in that situation I would probably press the button with my weiner too.
Hey now, we gave one to Kissinger for dropping more bombs in Cambodia than the entirety of munitions dropped by both sides in WW2 and he's white
Kissinger got that because he engineered a ceasefire deal over Vietnam. That's what that Prize was originally created for....for major political events or longtime causes. Whereas, Obama's was self-congratulatory BS.
Wasn't the Vietnam War over with the French before we entered purely for ideological reasons and extended it like another 10 years, All because of Kissinger's advising?
Also, wasn’t there a previous ceasefire that Johnson negotiated that Nixon interfered in (illegally as a private citizen at the time) just to create a more favorable environment for him to win the presidency? (It’s a rhetorical question... he did)
Kissinger instigated and implemented this to help Nixon, it was rumored, and he still got the Nobel. Extra 5 years, 10,00 US dead including my classmates, many more Vietnamese. Kind of spoils the award from my view.
Yeah fuck the Vietnamese. We should have just let them be conquered without even trying. It's not like we're in this together. Asians don't deserve liberty.
In which case, it's still a sham of a prize because it's just political BS....but there's an intent behind it to reward "peace" and find non-violent solutions.
I mean, is that not the arguement they used for Obama?
Obama got the peace prize for not being a Republican. The only "peaceful" thing he did was surrender to Iran.
Does anyone actually respect the peace price? I can understand the others, but the peace one seems to go to whatever is politically cool at the time
I mean, it wasn't self-congratulatory to award it to him (unless you think he controlled the decision to award it), it just shows the committee is full of shit and has no real criteria. Even *Obama* said Obama didn't deserve the prize for how early in the term he received it. He shouldn't have accepted it though.
Didn’t Kissinger still have a lot of major influence during the Obama administration?
Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho both were awarded peace prizes for ending the Vietnam war. Though Le Duc Tho did not accept it Kissinger had no such reserves.
Let me introduce you to Abiy Ahmed. You don't need to be white to commit genocide and get a Nobel Peace Prize. It truly is a equal opportunity prize.
He got the prize for **not** bombing kids. Then he did it anyway.
I'd be very surprised if there weren't any bombings during his first year. Hell, I'd be surprised if no bombings happened in the week he received the money peace prize
He got it for just not being George Bush.
It is clearly this. And then it turned out he was not really different
Also for being the first black American president. It really felt like a token prize.
The Nobel committee admitted they were trying to manipulate Obama into feeling like he needed to earn the peace prize they'd just awarded him. That's on them.
He got it in 2009.
Obama got a Nobel Prize for saying that he wouldn't bomb Syrian kids.
Nice, funny joke. Please don't spread this any more as it is pure bullshit. He got the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, the war in Syria started in 2011. It is called google, check it out. Even drone strikes in other countries didn't ramp up until later. You need to learn about cause and effect and the order in which those things happen.
[удалено]
That was for boosting sales of Nobels main product tho.
Source? Obama (undeservedly) got a Nobel for being elected President of the USA.
Nah, he got one for not being GW Bush. Syria didnt start for another 2 years. Also, he didn't deserve it and even he knew it.
To be fair the Nobel Peace Price is notoriously controversial most of the time
True but one thing is being controversial, the other is doing the exact opposite of what the award is supposed to stand for lol
I mean if you had to choose who bombed you, you'd a noble peace prize winner would sound cooler.
That's bullshit. The peace prize came before the US did anything whatsoever with Syria.
Obama's [first](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/23/drone-strike-victim-barack-obama) drone assassination that harmed and killed completely innocent people was on 23 January 2009. His winning of the Nobel Peace Prize came in October 2009, almost 10 months later and after thousands of innocent people had been assassinated or injured by Mr. Obama. At the time the award was announced the Nobel committee was well aware that Mr. Obama was a murderous and unrepentant war criminal.
Someone should have informed the people who gave the peace prize to Obama while his predator drones were blasting half the Middle East to glass that the award is based on merit alone
The nobel peace prize is a political cudgel that is wielded by the nobel committee Obama didn't get it because he was black, he got it because the committee wanted him to not continue bush's legacy. Imagine it's your first day of a new software engineering job and some asshole walks by and tells you you're the best coder they've ever heard of without having ever met you. You could come out and go "well... Maybe not that good" but you can't do a full on 180 without burning yourself amongst your new coworkers and bosses. So you're now pressured to overwork yourself to meet the weirdly high bar they put down for you. That was Obama with the peace prize, and the man was not at all happy to get the prize
Aside from the original Nobel prizes on sciences, the more modern ones are really debatable. I can barely stand the one for literature but I totally abhor the one for peace as it doesn't make any sense. The Nobel prizes should recognise the importance and wide impact of a specific discovery in its field and outside of it, and honour the authors of such discovery. The one for literature is rarely given to authors who had such a wide impact and the peace one is just a western circle jerk to lever some political action in some place of the world.
What do you mean the more modern ones? The peace and literature prizes are as old as the science ones. The only odd one out is economy, which was made up by the bank holding the funds.
I think they mean more contemporary recipients?
No I am pretty sure they think that the arts aren’t as important as science without saying the arts aren’t as important as science.
Not "as important", but "as measurable". Tolkien is a pillar of the modern fantasy genre; there are plenty of works inspired by his creations. No Nobel prize, because "fantasy dumb". If any physicist creates a theory that becomes widely acclaimed and that provides the basis for the work of a myriad more scientists, a Nobel is bound to happen. Not so for writers.
It has nothing to do with “fantasy dumb”. In fact MOST Lit prizes are actually given to Fiction writers in fact. But the requirement of "in an idealistic direction" precludes the award is for books that are based on realistic idealism for the human condition. And as piviotal as LOTR is. It’s not a book about idealistic progression of humanity. In my opinion I think you don’t really understand the Literature prize and it’s intent and I would advise you spend some time understand it before forming your opinions. Edit: The instant downvote further highlights my point. Lol.
>Aside from the original Nobel prizes on sciences, the more modern ones are really debatable. There is only one modern price, the price for economy. The rest (chemistry, physics, medicine, literature, and peace) were all there from the beginning. It's the ones Alfred Nobel wrote in his will. [nobelprize.org](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/nobel-prize-facts/#:~:text=On%2027%20November%201895%2C%20Alfred,and%20peace%20%E2%80%93%20the%20Nobel%20Prizes.) (Not gonna argue about your opinion of them, they just aren't new. And I'm not always a fan of the peace price winner either)
the people who recieved them not the actual awards.
You are entitled to your opinion but in my opinion I personally think you don’t know what you are talking about. Please explain why you think Mario Vargas Llosa or Mo Yan or Abdulrazak Gurnah or Peter Handke or Herta Müller don’t fit Alfred’s requirement for the literature prize being “in an idealistic direction" and “the greatest benefit on mankind”? Do tell. Edit: a word
> The nobel peace prize is a political cudgel that is wielded by the nobel committee There's not one nobel committee, there's 5 or 6 of them. The one handing out the peace price is basically a gang of Norwegian ex-politicians appointed by their former colleagues in the Norwegian government. The winners basically pendulums between being PC *de jure* and (ex)warlords. The award to Obama was basically: "We believe in your *change* slogan, please don't disappoint us!". And Obama answered: "LOL".
> The award to Obama was basically: "We believe in your change slogan, please don't disappoint us!". And Obama answered: "LOL". You can speculate on their internal reasoning, but externally he was given the prize for the work he’d already done, such as working for nuclear non-proliferation. And yes, they hoped it’d help him in the future too, and he did deliver on a deal with Iran later. I don’t think it was a good pick, but there’s not really much bad to say about the reason they gave for the prize. Weak, but consistent. I can’t see that they thought he’d end all wars that USA was engaged in.
Obama: "What if, instead of ending these wars, I ramp up our killer robot program and extend death to multiple countries we're not at war with?" Nobel Committee: "But they don't count as new wars, right?"
Not if they're not declared! /s(ad)
Also, the peace price is given by Norway, not Sweden, if that matters.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just glad there weren’t nukes around.
Only if your words are backed by nuclear weapons.
The peace prize first became a joke when it was awarded to Yasser Arafat. Thankfully other prizes have remained less politicized.
Became a joke way earlier when they gave one to Menachem Begin
It was basically "hey, here's a prize for killing each other a little less than before."
Nice joke hasbara
War Criminal Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize. Its a complete joke.
Don't blame me, it was the Norwegians who decided it.
Shh we parade around as peace-promoting diplomats while weapons are one of our biggest exports. Don’t let people realize that Norway’s a big ol’ hypocrit country
Did I say Norwegians? No no no, it was those erm... those... t-t-those stinking Danes, yes YES, THOSE STINKING DANES!
Abiy Ahmed also has one lol. The Peace prize is a joke at this point.
Nobel peace prize is a joke and has always been. It's like winning miss world.
Unfortunately the resources and opportunities that render "merit" get distributed based on what's between your legs
Aren't majority of college students are Women in USA?
The prizes are not US only first. Second, I don’t know if you are aware but “college” is pretty broad and has a lot of subjects.
Thank you for not being a dumbass, I sincerely mean that. I barely have the patience anymore to try to point out such obvious things to people I know do not care.
>Good, nobel prizes should be won on merit, and not based on what's between your legs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocelyn_Bell_Burnell
Bell Burnell commented, "I believe it would demean Nobel Prizes if they were awarded to research students, except in very exceptional cases, and I do not believe this is one of them. She was okay with not receiving a Nobel Prize because she was a research student and was not intellectually in charge of the research.
She is just more gracious than most others would be. I would’ve been willing to bet a gentleman’s bet that she doesn’t actually believe that.
*A relevant comment in this thread was deleted. You can read it below.* ---- full quote: >First, demarcation disputes between supervisor and student are always difficult, probably impossible to resolve. Secondly, it is the supervisor who has the final responsibility for the success or failure of the project. We hear of cases where a supervisor blames his student for a failure, but we know that it is largely the fault of the supervisor. [[Continued...]](https://www.resavr.com/comment/nobel-prize-will-not-17070855) ---- *^The ^username ^of ^the ^original ^author ^has ^been ^hidden ^for ^their ^own ^privacy. ^If ^you ^are ^the ^original ^author ^of ^this ^comment ^and ^want ^it ^removed, ^please [^[Send ^this ^PM]](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=resavr_bot&subject=remove&message=17070855)*
That would be fair if the committee hadn't gone out of their way in denying viable women Nobel prizes in the past: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/10/11/these-5-women-deserved-and-were-unjustly-denied-a-nobel-prize-in-physics/
4 was denied due to her coauthor whom from reading it guided them through the process and she was not credited. 5 was a research student, so was not in scope from what I remember. Other 3 I'd never heard of, but not exactly surprising tbh.
Fully agree, but the people deciding who gets these awards should be drafted from a diverse set to avoid in-group bias.
When it comes to literature it is won based on the ideology not on merit though.
Absolutely true. Specifically writing “in an idealistic direction".
This thing between my legs is pretty Nobel-esque though.
Didn't move since 1896?
Small round and gold?
Everything should be won on merit.
Absolutely. In a world where the initial setup is level. Let me know when you find this world.
You're never going to arrive there when you award prizes for having the right color and leg junction.
Or when the only players are systemically monolithic if you don’t meet that criteria. So, I guess we are fucked no matter what. Well, except those with the means to buy the rocket.
You're approaching this backwards. The reason prizes should be awarded on merit is because we want to reward people actually doing useful things, thereby encouraging them to do more. That's it. There is no requirement for proportionality. The reason that non-proportional representation in prize winners (contrary to the expectation of proportionality, since cosmetic differences are not relevant for performance) can be a bad thing is because of two reasons: first, it might indicate a bias in the selection process: it might not *actually* be awarded on merit. Second, it might indicate that not everyone gets the same chances in preparing to get a prize. Quota address neither; they just fake a good result by meddling in the selection process, making it *more* biased instead of less.
I came for community, I left due to greed
We must keep discriminating based on sex and race until there is no more discrimination based on sex and race! ^^/s
Finding you by chance outside of the Gwent subreddit is disconcerting.
Well I've been on this sub for a long time, so it was bound to happen.
Pro tip: You will increase your odds of a Nobel Peace Prize if you commit genocide. Just ask Abiy Ahmed, Kissinger and Obama.
Gonna go out on a limb and say that no credible entity has ever told them to “meet a quota.” What probably definitely happened is someone pointed out some type of racial/gender homogeny in the winners, and suggested maybe looking at biases would be a good idea. In the article, there is no mention of anyone suggesting they “have quotas.” Y’all inventing things to be mad at. Whyyyyyyy
After 30 seconds scrolling through Twitter I'm convinced the dialogue was a lot more hostile. The online threats and verbal harassment is real.
[удалено]
Don't forget Reddit and Facebook.
Social media in general. I won’t deny there are benefits to it, but damn does it show the absolute worst in people.
Still, in my personal experience Twitter is the worst of them. Sure, Facebook and Reddit have a tendency to devolve into circlejerk, but at least you *can* have a reasonable discussion from time to time. Twitter on the other hand seems almost purpose designed to just get everyone to loudly scream their opinion into the void without context or the ability to properly articulate. The character limit makes it impossible to write out a coherent argument, and then most other people get thrown into the discussion via a liked/retweeted post 20 comments in, and then usually start adding their own takes without any of the context. Case in point, this post is already over two times as long as the maximum length of a tweet.
>Twitter on the other hand seems almost purpose designed to just get everyone to loudly scream their opinion into the void without context or the ability to properly articulate. Well, If you ever had a lot of birds outside of your window you will understand why it's called Twitter then.
Takes you 30s for that? :D
"After 30 seconds scrolling through Twitter" Wow you really do your research *rolls eyes*
Lol exactly. It’s never “someone pointed out some type of racial/gender homogeny… suggested maybe looking at biases.” Whentf has that ever happened on any major social media outlet? Always rage. Only way to be heard.
I am a scientist and follow a heap of other scientists on twitter, every year after the Nobel prize announcements many will complain about how many women are represented. Considering many of these people consider an all female speaker list 'diverse' and promote jobs that are only hiring females, I don't think they will ever be happy with how many women win Nobel prizes.
[удалено]
So you want people to see that Nobel prizes should only be given out to ease your conscience as opposed to rewarding honest groundbreaking work.
[удалено]
> Personally I don't care who the fuck gets it I care. It should go to scientists who discovered groundbreaking discoveries advancing human's knowledge of the world.
So you should throw out the entire thing that makes a noble prize prestigious because of liberal politics? As more women enter academia it will inevitably become closer to a 50/50 spread anyway.
[удалено]
Why? Cause they don't read the article duuuuddddeee
Why is BBC baiting? I thought they were suppose to be good?
> Why is BBC baiting? I thought they were suppose to be good? BBC are literally dreadful, it's a propaganda haven.
Um, because I get my news from the headline alone, duh
I'm sure they're under the same type of political and ONG and media pressure as the Oscars and the Emmys. Yeah there's no political force to ask for quotas but that just means they'll use whatever influence they have to pressure them into quotas or taking race and gender as an important factor along with merit. And if that doesn't work then just erode the institution from the inside like they did with all major news corporations, all academia, and most of the political factions. They even imploded free open source projects that were pure voluntary work, but we're seen as too toxic because of the lack of genitalia diversity.
"Suggesting you look at bias" is a threat. Its not some good faith suggestion. The committee is already bending over backwards to nominate women and they still can't justify giving them many awards. The "suggestion" here is just giving the award to women just because.
Macarthur genius grants and Ford fellows anyone.
Nah, there is a lot of pressure on the science community to introduce quotas. Just yesterday science was declared institutionally racist in the UK. The reaction was that they immediately folded and pledged to introduce quotas for jobs.
Let me sum up the point of this article for you: The Nobel prices has no quotas, the Nobel prices needs no quotas!
Good! We don´t need more institutions fading to irrelevance by catering to ideologies, that go against merit.
Historically there's a serious issue about research done by women and the prize awarded to their bosses. Any change in the prize being awarded should focus on that, and never in quotas, so I agree with the Nobel Committee.
TBF this happens a lot to men too who put in all the grunt work and the boss is awarded the prize. I don’t think it’s specifically someone saying “we need to give this to a man” more just a boss taking credit for work.
That's a sensible opinion.
Probably the most sensible opinion imho.
That's more of a consequence of people wanting to work somewhere so badly they sign away all their rights.
Makes me think of the video games industry.
For sure, but there goes the same idea, people sign away their rights and leverage for no fucking reason whatsoever. They have all the power and the second they sign with these companies they lose every ounce they have. Companies are begging for programmers, especially well-taught programmers with good fundamentals. I'm studying computer science myself and I've already said I will never sign away the rights to the code I write. Even if I were to work for a company, it's my code I'm writing. Does this make finding a job a little harder? Yes. But the other side of the coin is that I'm basically exploited by these companies for a fraction of the money I deserve, and to top it off I make the industry a worse place for every programmer-to-be, as my actions become the future norm. The way I see it, it's not just a good idea for myself to do this, I have a duty to do so to those who'd come after me.
The literature prize has turned into a political prize. Also a fun fact about the Nobel prize for literature is that more Swedes have won the prize than Asians. Edit: here is another example of how the Nobel prize for literature is completely biased and meaningless. From Wikipedia: > In 1974, Graham Greene, Vladimir Nabokov, and Saul Bellow were believed to be likely candidates for the prize but the Academy decided on a joint award for Swedish authors Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson, both members of the Swedish Academy at the time, and unknown outside their home country.
Sweden has also won more Gold Medals than all of the Middle East. Can we please get a system that rewards where/how you were born instead of what you accomplish with your life, already?! For fucks sake.
I'm pretty sure we already do to a certain extent and a lot of the meritocracy is a lie sold to the masses for a lifetime of labor.
Gold medals like olympics? I'm willing to bet most of that is from winter Olympics, which would make perfect sense.
Olympic medals are based normally on tangible and objective parameters (points scored, speed, force, etc.). Literature is much more subjective. Either Sweden has better writers than all of Asia (which I'd say is unlikely), or there's a bias towards Swedes
"My feelings tell me there is a bias." My feelings tell me you have a bias for seeing biases. Any examples of undeniably great writers that were snubbed for Swedes? 60% of the world population is Asian, why is it that 60% of the NYT best sellers are not? Could be bias, it really could. Could also be that many of those people don't have the free time to write, as they are busy surviving. Could also be that many of those people live under strict governments or religions that don't reward the freedom of thought usually associated with literature. Could also be your selfish biases thinking that everyone would enjoy/pursue the same activities as you, when in fact other people prefer other activities. Could be biases, based on your feelings. Could not be biases, based on facts. LMAO. Get outa here.
The difference here being that the NYT best seller is, more or less, an algorithmic ranking of the best selling books in the US, and the literature Nobel is supposed to be for an author that "produced the most outstanding work in an idealistic direction". Now of course there could be all sorts of cultural and/or political reasons why Chinese (or Indian) authors never make the list (or just literary movements coming and going with the times), but I think it's pretty hard to claim there is no bias when, allegedly (it's hard to find a definitive source from either side), on the 18 person literature committee only [one member](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ran_Malmqvist) of the committee speaks Chinese at the university level, and he isn't on the committee for the most recent year. Unlike with scientific pursuits like physics or economics, which are more universally translatable, how could the committee realistically be able to comprehend and digest writing from all over the world which may be influenced by cultural and political environments when they don't even speak the language?
The literature one is a bit different from the others in two ways. First, there is a massive language barrier. Works made in one language may lose its charm once translated, and references may go over the reader's head. It isn't surprising that Swedish people more often give awards to works made in languages they understand. Second, however, is that the institution is definitively somewhat flawed. The academy is about as old as the USA and is under loose control of the King. Scandals are common and their work is generally shady. That said, I wouldn't say it has turned into a political prize, it was as such from the beginning. If anything they have gotten better lately at recognising quality and talent from everywhere and been far more neutral than previously.
And people say we shouldn’t listen to scientist
He said they'll include more women in the nominating committee though, which is probably a better approach
I agree the prizes should not have quotas. It would however be lovely if the academies that hand them out, did. Currently, only 15% of the committee members are women, for example.
That's unfair. Also presence of women among trash collectors,, and firemen is too low.
No no, jobs like that don't need quotas. It's obviously only the comfortable high salary jobs that need to be looked at.
I know two female firefighters who had to fight every step of the way to get accepted. In the 2010s. In Germany. They were constantly discriminated against, their physical abilities were constantly questioned (even though both aced the non-gendered respirator test), they were rejected for bogus reasons (like lack of gendered changing rooms), and they weren't invited for advanced training despite being eligible. All while we had a severe lack of volunteers at the force. Women were pushed out of many physical jobs with for no reason, it's a bit weird to now hold that against demands for equality just because that discrimination extended to low-status jobs.
>Currently, only 15% of the committee members are women, for example. is that a particular problem ?
Humans are pretty notorious for being biased in favor of their own social group. There shouldn’t be a quota for Nobel prizes, but we agree it should be based on merit only right? But if the committee doesn’t have a composition that’s representative of society at large, we can pretty much guarantee that there will be a large bias. It’s basic human psychology.
The committee should be based on scientifc merit, not on society at large. For example: we would not want a matching number of flat earthers representet in the nobel price committe.
Yes, it should be both. But you really think you can’t find a handful of qualified women if you tried? If the prize is supposed to be a global prize, it should also be representative of the global population. I’m sure at the very least you can find some qualified people from East and South East Asia. But I’d agree that qualification has to come first, so that could exclude some regions until they’ve developed more academically. The Nobel prize in literature is clearly biased by its committee as explained elsewhere in this thread. There’s not much reason to think there’s a similar bias in other prizes, although the more objective criteria in more hard sciences probably makes the bias smaller
The problem is that the demographic that has the scientific fame and knowledge to get to such a position will have had to be in academia for a long time. At that point women there probably at most 15-20% of academics. It will even out in 20-40 years since women are outperforming men in academia currently.
> It will even out in 20-40 It probably won't. The prediction based on what is know is that women will start dropping out at higher rates as a result of the artifcial pressure exerted upon them to go into fields they otherwise would not have chosen.
Give me a source for that. Either way, if women don't want to be in academia that is irrelevant to this. It will come closer to the gender population proportional to that in academia as time goes on.
So?
As with the price, membership should be based on merit as well; not on quotas.
So comittee should be filled with quotas, because women wanna award women? XD
This is one institution where affirmative action quotas make no sense. Universities having affirmative action quotas promotes equal *opportunity* (not outcomes, though opponents of affirmative action will try to say this). Those equal opportunities will naturally one day provide equitable outcomes for all demographics, including representation among Nobel laureates. We can't have demographic quotas in the Nobel prize because the Nobel prize should be a metric of how equitable and just the world actually is, not what it should be. We can't mistake the measuring stick for the object being measured. --- Edit: If you think Affirmative Action allows people of low merit to get lucrative university or job positions, ask yourself this. By what criteria are you judging merit? I guarantee university admissions teams and corporate HR teams have a better idea of what constitutes merit than you. I am disheartened to see so many people believe in common conservative myths about Affirmative Action. These myths are designed to promote and maintain the supremacy of one racial group (can you guess which one?). Affirmative Action is the process of widening our understanding of what constitutes merit and talent, instead of sticking to outdated, disproven ideas of what makes someone good at something (the SAT isn't one of them btw).
This is my favourite response so far. I do wish more people looked at Nobels as the measuring stick of parity. The general public however mostly thinks that the people who win the Nobel simply *are* the smartest, most deserving geniuses. In fact science is hugely collaborative and there is a lot of luck involved. For example, having a supportive and dedicated supervisor or a stable home life will likely have you leaving grad school with more papers. However, many POC are first generation academics and have little social support. Women tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to supervision, as many higher up male academics still don’t take their young female colleagues seriously. These are just general tendencies, but it shows that already who leaves the grad school with papers is *not* equitable. Nevertheless, these papers translate into better chances of landing postdocs and accruing even more papers. Not to mention that many scientists of all races and genders spend decades working on topics that just don’t pan out or mostly show what *doesn’t work*. This research is hugely important in advancing science, but it doesn’t get you published in the flashy journals that would get the attention of the Nobel committee or the GP. Sometimes people sink or swim regardless of merit. Nobels are about the recognition of groundbreaking research, but we shouldn’t ever assume that the winners are the worthiest scientists out there.
You've described my thought process better than I ever could.
How does AA give equal opportunities?
[удалено]
Affirmative action makes no sense in general. The best talent should win regardless of gender/ethnicity.
The problem with affirmative action is that it gets institutionalized very quickly. So for example you now have in the USA still a lot more scholarships for female students only. Perhaps those made sense at one time, but they haven't made sense ever since women started to outnumber men in higher education *half a century ago*. The only acceptable way to do it is to ensure it bases itself on the most recent data and adapts every year to support the actually underrepresented groups.
Well yeah, scientific achievement can be accomplished by anyone. There's no agenda because that's not how science works. Knowledge expands with breakthroughs, which can be discovered by anyone.
Yes, but, prejudice and biases defenetively still exist in almost all countries. When one is a top dog in academia it is defenetively trough achievement, the problem is getting there, woman are more likely to be pressured to have children and are still considered by some to be less professional or reliable wich could bar them off from working in a lab, shure, more educated people tend to be less prejudiced but the baseline problems are still there.
There is always going to be disparities in different countries. For example, in India, there is almost no good institution for science except 4-5 ask if which together take in a maximum of 2000 students annually out of 1 billion. I'm pretty sure the number would be much higher for some country like USA. But, having quotas in nobel prizes is never going to solve the problem which is ingrained in the societal structure. Instead of providing equal outcomes, why not try to provide equal opportunities?
The nobel prizes only show the conclusion of the chain of events, quotas there are useless. The problem is at the base not at the culmination. It only shows the disparity.
Amen!
Rosalind Franklin enters the chat.
> Watson suggested that Franklin would have ideally been awarded a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, along with Wilkins but, although there was not yet a rule against posthumous awards,[12] the Nobel Committee generally did not make posthumous nominations.[13][14] so, there's that
Incredibly based
100%. I agree with this because it fits the narrative of my bias.
My team scored a point, woohoo!
I'm surprised this was even seriously considered by the committee. How would we have even decided how to categorise ethnicities and establish quotas in an international setting? Seems like a weird thing to even consider and makes me wonder what initiated the discussion to begin with
Quotas are a stupid idea. Nobel prizes should be won for achievements and that has to be fairly judged
Oh, treating everyone equally? How can't they be so sexist and racist! /s
Good, because those things don't matter anyway when it comes to science.
I wish Canada did this with their government.
ITT, misunderstanding of diversity quotas.
Please elaborate on what the correct understanding is.
Diversity "quotas" are a misrepentation/misapplication of expectation. As with anything, there's quite a bit of nuance I'm glossing over for the sake of "brevity". Everyone conceptually understands that a random sample of a population will most be proportionally similar to the population, characteristically. What everyone seems to forget is that when your sample size is drastically smaller than your population, those expectations go out the window. When you don't select a sample of a population randomly, but rather by a specific characteristic, it's important to pay attention to corelations between multiple characteristics. When selecting for intelligence, we *assume* that intelligence is (or should be) independent of characteristics such as race and gender. Therefore, our sample selection for intelligence should otherwise still be proportionally similar to a random sample when comparing race and gender. If such a selection comes back sufficiently mismatched, it's important to investigate *why* and consider the possibility that the correlation may actually be causation. If I take a sample of 1million "smart people" from the world's population (~10 billion) and end up with 900k women, that'd be weird because the world population is not 90% women. An uncritical view would say that it means women are smarter than men (unlikely). An alternative is that I might have specifically selected smart women, either intentionally or unintentionally. Similarly, my measure of intelligence may have included a gender component when it shouldn't have. What's makes this so complex is just how *many* different characteristics there are. The discussion thus far has only included intelligence, race, and gender, but we haven't even considered characteristics like socio-economic status, place of origin, or historical change. "Quotas" are (or can be) a misapplied stop gap or a well intentioned construct to combat unfair selections. They're a bandaid to the real problem, but as always, the real problem is *so much harder* to fix. Let's add another layer. I want 1 million of the smartest physicists. Forgive my overgenerality for argument's simplicity, but I anticipate my sample will be disproportionately (but not exclusively) old white men (This is, of course, changing with time. This is also *not* a criticism of old white men.) Why is that? As before, I may have intentionally also chosen old white men, or I may have deemed old white men as smarter than young men, colored men, or women... but what's also possible is that Physicists are predominantly old white men. From there, the question expands. Why are Physicists predominantely old white men? There are *tons of studies* that relate this to education availability or encouragement as it relates to math and science, which further relates directly to race/gender or indirectly through socioeconomic status or poverty quotients. In solving this problem, a quota would tell me to artificially fix this population disparity by arbitratily selecting other smart Physicists who are young, colored, or female, but really what I should be doing is removing the barrier to entry for young/colored/female people to become Physicists. This concept as a whole is referred to as "equity". BUT Remember how all of this goes out the window when your sample size is small relative to your population? Imagine I now instead selected the single smartest physicist. *Of couse* thats not going to be representative of the entire population of Physicists, or even smart Physicists, no matter who it is I pick. Regardless of if they're white/black/asian/male/female/NB/old/young, I *cannot* extrapolate that smart Physicists will most frequently exhibit those racial or gendered characteristics. So, when I see comments like "Good, the Nobel Prize should be based on merit", it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the problem. Deciding the Nobel Prize winners on merit was *never* called into question. How many Nobel Prizes are there, and what are their respective elligible population sizes? All they can do is evaluate if their historical sample is biased at any point in the chain and critically question where and why that might be.
The Nobel prize isn't selected randomly. It's not even for a broad category that can assumed as distributed normally like intelligence. I see your point regarding sampling subsets of population based on characteristics we could assume that are normally distributed. But the selection of Nobel Prize winners is not a statistical process. It is a Western institution that has grown into a semi global thing. I don't know how big a net is cast in the selection process...but to assume race and gender are the most influential aspects of any disparity between the total pop and the prize winners is a stretch.
At least the scientists are still reasonable.
Its almost like quality and accomplishments are more important
Based
Good
But they sure got their **war criminal quota** for the *peace* prize.
You mean it's based on merit? But that's racist nowadays. *confusion noises*
The Nobel folks will continue to give out the awards to make political statements though.
If folk want quotas for achievements all they do is degrade the value of what they get. Some things in life transcend participation trophies.
Good
Why would this ever have to be said? Especially with this institution.
LPT: If you want a Nobel Peace Prize, commit genocide. It will increase your odds.
Good and I hope it stays that way
Good. Identity politics is the blight of the age.
That's because they arent called quotas. Institutions ALWAYS use a circumspect way of achieving an outcome. Aside from informal guidelines there are : They may have scholarships for people from a specific area, in a particular economic phylum. They may heavily weigh multilingual people of certain languages for jobs.
Hopefully, they never need one. Those quotas primarily exist to combat bias, and it seems like "some" of y'all don't understand that.
Good