Would it be fair to say that any historical data on successful scientists/mathematicians will be over represented by firstborns due to primogeniture inheritance laws and customs? Historically those involved in the sciences mainly had to be independently wealthy and being a first born would tend to help with that with those born after more likely to have to work for a living. Maybe famous historical lawyers would tend to be under represented by firstborns?
I’d expect this to be a fairly large selection effect similar in size to the Less Wrong survey but presumably caused by a different mechanism.
Possibly a data set which would have more bearing on the question of birth order effects in modern times would be Fields medal, Abel prize, Turing award, Nobel prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine and Economics in the last 30 years or so—I don’t have a great feel for how long ago the primogeniture inheritance thingy stopped being relevant but given an average Nobel laureate age of 59 this would mean people born since ~1930. These might be easier to find data on than Thales of Miletus too!!
Historically those involved in the sciences mainly had to be independently wealthy
There have been professorships of mathematics in Europe since at least the 1500′s, and most of the mathematicians on this list were employed by universities. Funding doesn’t seem to have been a constraint, at least for mathematicians of this caliber.
Education, however does seem relevant. Going through the data, I frequently noticed the biographical pattern “X-person’s exceptional mathematical talent was noticed in [early schooling], and he was sent to [some university].” I don’t know how common it was for children to attend the equivalent of elementary school before the 1900s.
From my very cursory look at the biographical details of these mathematicians I can say that...
At least a few came from very poor families, but nevertheless received early schooling of some kind. (I don’t know how rare this was, maybe only one out of 50 poor families send their kids to school.)
Siblings were often mentioned to have also received an education at the same institution. This leads me to guess that schooling was not a privilege awarded to only some of the (male, at least) children of a family.
Again, if anyone knows more about these things than I do, feel free to chip in.
Possibly a data set which would have more bearing on the question of birth order effects in modern times would be Fields medal, Abel prize, Turing award, Nobel prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine and Economics in the last 30 years or so
Thanks, that seems to rule inheritance laws out as a significant factor. I’m quite tempted to create that data set myself. Any objection if I use your analysis spreadsheet as a template?
Would it be fair to say that any historical data on successful scientists/mathematicians will be over represented by firstborns due to primogeniture inheritance laws and customs? Historically those involved in the sciences mainly had to be independently wealthy and being a first born would tend to help with that with those born after more likely to have to work for a living. Maybe famous historical lawyers would tend to be under represented by firstborns?
I’d expect this to be a fairly large selection effect similar in size to the Less Wrong survey but presumably caused by a different mechanism.
Possibly a data set which would have more bearing on the question of birth order effects in modern times would be Fields medal, Abel prize, Turing award, Nobel prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine and Economics in the last 30 years or so—I don’t have a great feel for how long ago the primogeniture inheritance thingy stopped being relevant but given an average Nobel laureate age of 59 this would mean people born since ~1930. These might be easier to find data on than Thales of Miletus too!!
There have been professorships of mathematics in Europe since at least the 1500′s, and most of the mathematicians on this list were employed by universities. Funding doesn’t seem to have been a constraint, at least for mathematicians of this caliber.
Education, however does seem relevant. Going through the data, I frequently noticed the biographical pattern “X-person’s exceptional mathematical talent was noticed in [early schooling], and he was sent to [some university].” I don’t know how common it was for children to attend the equivalent of elementary school before the 1900s.
From my very cursory look at the biographical details of these mathematicians I can say that...
At least a few came from very poor families, but nevertheless received early schooling of some kind. (I don’t know how rare this was, maybe only one out of 50 poor families send their kids to school.)
Siblings were often mentioned to have also received an education at the same institution. This leads me to guess that schooling was not a privilege awarded to only some of the (male, at least) children of a family.
Again, if anyone knows more about these things than I do, feel free to chip in.
Yep. I think that would be useful.
Thanks, that seems to rule inheritance laws out as a significant factor. I’m quite tempted to create that data set myself. Any objection if I use your analysis spreadsheet as a template?
Feel free!