The Physics prize will probably go down as the most earned. The reaearch plyed a very important role in enabling miniature PCs, iPods, etc.Franz Ferdinand wrote:This year's Nobel Prizes were busts (or at least the two I know something about)
The 2007 Nobel Prizes
-
Franz Ferdinand
- Adjunct
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
- Location: Calgary, Alberta
- Contact:
This year's Nobel Prizes were busts (or at least the two I know something about), a clear sign of the Academy selling out for a year and awarding a cheap celebrity cause rather than anything substantial. Al Gore and 2,000 scientists advocating global warming for the Peace Prize? Doris Lessing for the Literature? Completely unnecessary wins by less-than-deserving candidates. Thank God Lessing took the piss about her victory, otherwise it would have been truly deplorable.
Here's a youtube video of Doris Lessing just when she was told she won the Nobel Literature Prize.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vuBODHFBZ8k
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vuBODHFBZ8k
Indeed, this year's prize is related to game theory, alhtough you might not guess it from the prize citation. "Mechanism Design Theory" didn't really ring a bell. I think I'll be reading more closely about this year's prizewinners.
But in any case, six or seven awards for game theory in 40 years is far from "usually".
But in any case, six or seven awards for game theory in 40 years is far from "usually".
The winners today were for their work mechanism design theory, which is an economic application of game theory (it manipulates game rules to achieve a specific outcome). One of today's winners, Roger Myerson has done indespinsable work in game theory, and has written a seminal graduate text on game theory. (I haven't read it myself.)
More market analysts tend to win than game theorists, but several Nobel Economics Winners prizes won for work that involved game theory either directly or indirectly--Herbert Simon, Robert Lucas Jr., James Mirrlees/William Vickrey, Robert Merton/Myron Scholes--even though the Nobel explanation doesn't explicitly say so.
More market analysts tend to win than game theorists, but several Nobel Economics Winners prizes won for work that involved game theory either directly or indirectly--Herbert Simon, Robert Lucas Jr., James Mirrlees/William Vickrey, Robert Merton/Myron Scholes--even though the Nobel explanation doesn't explicitly say so.
Dws, how many have won for game theory? I though there were only five: Harsanyi, Nash and Selten in 1994 and Aumann and Schelling in 2005. Who am I missing?
...And they give the prize for research, not holding office, so Greenspan probably does not have many merits in his favor. Ben Bernanke is far more prestigious as a researcher, but I have no idea if he is expected to win the prize some day or not.
...And they give the prize for research, not holding office, so Greenspan probably does not have many merits in his favor. Ben Bernanke is far more prestigious as a researcher, but I have no idea if he is expected to win the prize some day or not.
More than that, I think his status as an Ayn Rand objectivist would keep him from ever being selected.
The Economics prize usually goes to major figures in game theory and market analysis, and even though Greenspan was one of the most powerful people in the world for several years because of his Federal Reserve Chairmanship, he hasn't contributed any new theory or any new advancements to the field of economics. For several years, he was some kind of economic analyst at several economic firms, but his work was undistinguished. Then he spent some time advising Nixon on domestic policy during his 1968 campaign; after that he was a corporate shill. He's powerful, but as an economist, he doesn't have that noteworthy achievement that the winners of this prize usually have.
The Economics prize usually goes to major figures in game theory and market analysis, and even though Greenspan was one of the most powerful people in the world for several years because of his Federal Reserve Chairmanship, he hasn't contributed any new theory or any new advancements to the field of economics. For several years, he was some kind of economic analyst at several economic firms, but his work was undistinguished. Then he spent some time advising Nixon on domestic policy during his 1968 campaign; after that he was a corporate shill. He's powerful, but as an economist, he doesn't have that noteworthy achievement that the winners of this prize usually have.
As reported in another thread, the Peace Prize is split, 1/2 each, between the International Panel On Climate Change and Al Gore "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." An expected, and I think deserved, award.
As reported in another thread the Literature prize goes to Doris Lessing "that epicist of the female experience, who with scepticism, fire and visionary power has subjected a divided civilisation to scrutiny."
I have this weird feeling that there was something of hers that I read for college English; but, I have no idea what it is.
I have this weird feeling that there was something of hers that I read for college English; but, I have no idea what it is.