They call it the Nobel disease, the Nobel effect, the Nobel syndrome and even nobelitis. And although there are those who say that winning this prestigious award is not a sine qua non condition for suffering from this “disorder”, the long list of winners from the Swedish Academy who have succumbed to this disease is nonetheless striking.
From Pierre Curie (Physics, 1903) to Santiago Ramón y Cajal (Medicine, 1906), including Richard Smalley (Chemistry, 1996) and Luc Montagnier (Medicine, 2008), to name just a few.
But what exactly is this “disease” that can affect people of remarkable intelligence?
Far from being an official diagnosis, it is a somewhat ironic term that is often used to refer to the fact that being highly intelligent and capable in one area of knowledge does not necessarily mean that we are highly intelligent in another.
“You wouldn’t expect really smart people to do stupid things. But the fact that there are scientists with a Nobel Prize who are also known for supporting strange ideas and holding erroneous beliefs, shows that there is a disconnect between intelligence or scientific success and rationality”, explains Sebastian Dieguez to BBC Mundo , a neuroscience researcher at the Laboratory of Cognitive and Neurological Sciences at the University of Friborg, Switzerland.
The surprising number of Nobel laureates who embrace theories bordering on the absurd, adds Shauna Bowes, a doctoral student in clinical psychology at Emory University, basically shows that ” critical thinking is tied to a specific area of knowledge and not to knowledge in general.
That is, one (not necessarily a Nobel) can have a great knowledge of biology, history, psychology or whatever, but this does not mean that we will apply powerful critical thinking when it comes to astrophysics or other topics beyond our reach. .
This is due to the fact that when it comes to topics outside our domain, we tend to resort to prejudices or mental shortcuts to make decisions or make sense of the world, and we do not subject these concepts to a strict evaluation (as we would do with topics that are similar to us).
“In fact, applying the critical thinking mechanism takes a lot more effort and awareness than we are probably comfortable admitting,” says Bowes.
In short: intelligence does not immunize us against crazy ideas.
Furthermore, Bowes adds, “much research shows that critical thinking is quite separate from intelligence.”
“While intelligence is a skill that helps us solve problems and acquire information, critical thinking has to do with what we do with that information and what meaning we make of it.”
“Intelligence makes it more likely that we can think critically, but it certainly does not ensure that we will be good critical thinkers, especially when emotions and intuition come into the picture.”
The prize that makes you “immortal”
While we can all fall into the trap of aplombly discussing topics that are beyond our comprehension, Eleftherios Diamandis, Professor and Head of Clinical Biochemistry at the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology at the University of Toronto, Canada, believes that the case for Nobel is special and limits the nobelitis exclusively to this prize.
“The Nobel is very different from any other prize that a scientist can win. While any other award is of course welcome, the Nobel is a unique distinction that makes you ‘immortal’ . Nobody will remember you if you won a great prize elsewhere, but the whole world will remember you if you are a Nobel Prize winner, ”he tells BBC Mundo.
“This recognition causes laureates to be treated differently, as if they were celebrities, and the danger is that some, but not all, believe that the medal gives them the opportunity to undertake projects and activities with which they are not familiar” , keep going.
“A classic example is from Frederick Banting, who discovered insulin in the early 1900s. As soon as he cured some patients with diabetes, he thought he could later cure cancer.” And he adds: “he tried, but since he knew so little about it, of course he didn’t succeed.”
For Diamandis, nobelitis is basically a narcissistic behavior (similar to hubris or hubris syndrome, a concept that describes extreme pride, arrogance and excessive confidence associated with power), assumed by some of the awarded people, who believe that they have superhuman powers and can solve any problem that comes their way.
Examples of Nobel laureates with absurd ideas
Linus Pauling (1901-1994)
American scientist and winner of two Nobel Prizes (Chemistry in 1954, Paz in 1962), he was a pioneer of modern chemistry for his discoveries in the nature of chemical bonds and the molecular structure of matter, applying quantum mechanics. Pauling did not hesitate to assert that high doses of vitamin C could be effective in curing diseases such as cancer and the common flu. His studies contained multiple errors, and such effectiveness was never proven.
James Watson (1928-present)
An American scientist, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1962 (which he shared with Maurice Wilkins and Francis Crick) for his discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, a finding considered one of the turning points in modern science. The controversial biologist argues that black people are less intelligent than whites, and that differences in IQ are due to genetic factors. He also pointed out that exposure to sunlight in regions near the equator increases sexual drive and that fat people are less ambitious.
Luc Montagnier (1932-2022)
French virologist Luc Montagnier was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2008 for having succeeded in isolating the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) for the first time. A year after being honored with this award, he maintained without any proof that water can remember electromagnetic waves supposedly emitted by the DNA of viruses and bacteria. He also recommended fermented papaya against Parkinson’s disease and criticized the vaccines against covid-19, which he unfoundedly accused of being the cause of the emergence of new variants of the virus.
Ivar Giaever (1929-present)
American physicist of Norwegian origin, he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with Leo Esaki and Brian Josephson in 1973, for “their discoveries about tunneling phenomena in solids.” On several occasions, the researcher expressed his skepticism regarding global warming, which he said did not represent a problem and which he described as a “new religion.”
On the other hand, Diamandis points out that this award is usually given several decades after the researcher made his discovery, which is not exactly when his cognitive abilities are at their best, an observation with which Dieguez agrees.
“The average age of a Nobel laureate is around 70 years. The most brilliant years of these people have already passed”, says the neuroscientist, who also questions the Nobel Prizes as a sign of intelligence or genius.
“You can discover something because you just got lucky, because you were the right person in the right place.”
“There has also been a growing number of criticisms of the Nobel, at least within the scientific sphere, because it rewards the individual, and we know that science is generally a social process,” says Dieguez.
The biggest problem, he argues, is that some of these people with deep knowledge in a very small area that most of us don’t understand have become a trusted and important voice in public debate.
“But the fact that you have made an important discovery in a very specific topic does not give you the right to think that you have better ideas than others in other areas,” concludes Dieguez.