It’s not only the skills a Nobel laureate imparts to his pupils that makes them future winners, but the quality of those pupils that win the competition for such an apprenticeship, and the political advantage gained by the high-prestige association—notwithstanding Nobel prizes being often awarded after most of the mentoring has already been done.
That said, 30% (or 50%) is enough to support your argument. I doubt that most Nobel winners are genius talent evaluators, and I doubt that winning a Nobel is all politics.
This is my thought too. And I actually think you’re underestimating the role that selection plays. Higher level academia is actually very good and finding talent and the talented students and the talented professors all flock to the same institutions both for independent reasons (funding) and because they prefer the company of one another. You do not do grad work under a Nobel prize winner unless everyone in your field has already notices you and thinks it somewhat possible that you could one day win a Nobel prize. I’m actually astonished the number of Nobel prize winners who worked under other prize winners is as LOW as Eliezer says.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t some method to genius that could be taught but I haven’t see evidence that there is anything that can be taught.
You do not do grad work under a Nobel prize winner unless everyone in your field has already notices you and thinks it somewhat possible that you could one day win a Nobel prize.
Read literally, this sounds completely unrealistic.
Yes. It is not literally true. Nonetheless, I’d bet students of Nobel winners almost always show significant promise. Moreover, they’re likely working in areas where Nobel prizers are likely to be won- what I mean is, there are some areas in any given field where work is likelier to yield a Nobel, even controlling for the quality of the work. In Physics, for example, Nobel’s are rarely awarded for the more theoretical work on less established subjects. So since the students of Nobel winners are usually in the same fields it makes sense that they would have a high then average likelihood of winning one as well.
It’s not only the skills a Nobel laureate imparts to his pupils that makes them future winners, but the quality of those pupils that win the competition for such an apprenticeship, and the political advantage gained by the high-prestige association—notwithstanding Nobel prizes being often awarded after most of the mentoring has already been done.
That said, 30% (or 50%) is enough to support your argument. I doubt that most Nobel winners are genius talent evaluators, and I doubt that winning a Nobel is all politics.
This is my thought too. And I actually think you’re underestimating the role that selection plays. Higher level academia is actually very good and finding talent and the talented students and the talented professors all flock to the same institutions both for independent reasons (funding) and because they prefer the company of one another. You do not do grad work under a Nobel prize winner unless everyone in your field has already notices you and thinks it somewhat possible that you could one day win a Nobel prize. I’m actually astonished the number of Nobel prize winners who worked under other prize winners is as LOW as Eliezer says.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t some method to genius that could be taught but I haven’t see evidence that there is anything that can be taught.
Read literally, this sounds completely unrealistic.
Yes. It is not literally true. Nonetheless, I’d bet students of Nobel winners almost always show significant promise. Moreover, they’re likely working in areas where Nobel prizers are likely to be won- what I mean is, there are some areas in any given field where work is likelier to yield a Nobel, even controlling for the quality of the work. In Physics, for example, Nobel’s are rarely awarded for the more theoretical work on less established subjects. So since the students of Nobel winners are usually in the same fields it makes sense that they would have a high then average likelihood of winning one as well.