Not quite. A lot of Europeans actually say Holland when referring to the Netherlands. Well knowing it's just a part of the Country. Never heard anyone say Texas while reffering to the US as a country though.
I mean, I'm sure a lot of people call it Holland and don't realise it's just a part of the country. Generally it's just an alternate name for most folk.
Carry, if you type in Holland it autofills Netherlands, so while the name itself might be disputed, he's just saying that its easier to spell Holland everytime rather than typing out Netherlands.
Not really. It's not a matter of British vs. American, it's a matter of correctness, and the region of Holland excludes the rest of the country of the Netherlands.
I prefer to win based on logical thinking and knowing more than the names of countries. Knowing what types of prizes Nobel gives out, and what countries have had advancements in science, or famous scientists, or big well-funded science industries, plus countries that have been notable in literature or peace breakthroughs.
I think India is on the list now. But either way only 4 Indian citizens have one a Nobel Prize, 6 if you include the 2 that won when India was still a British colony. If you add all the laureates of Indian ethnicity, then I guess it would be 10.
Me too! Whenever I think of "western" countries, or countries with notable military, global impact, sport participation etc. I always forget about Israel, and Turkey.
USA and UK have by far the best schools in the entire world (Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, MIT, Caltech, Stanford, etc), so motivated prodigies from other countries are likely to move to one of these countries for school. Also, USA and UK have plenty of money and endowments to support expensive experiments. If you look at nobel prize winners, plenty of Americans and British winners were born in India or other countries.
@TinklePork: I agree in the direction of your answer. However, (1) you have to distinguish between school and reasearch. nobel prizes are for researches. (2) Your cited "schools" do a great job in eduaction, but as do also other (public) universities (at least in continental-Europa). I would rather argue that the anglosaxonian universities are easier to access (you just need to speak English and a lot of money/a stipend). (3) In continental-Europe, a lot of research is done at research institutes and not at the universities. Compare Havard with CRNS (France) or MPG (Germany), see e.g. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7556_supp/fig_tab/522S34a_T2.html .
They don't give out one Nobel prize to every smart person in the country... they give out only one per category. If having a large population was so advantageous then China, India, Brazil and Indonesia would make the list. None of them do, of course, because that's definitely not the the only factor.
@grantdon Nobel Peace Prizes have little to do with it, those are more spread out and fewer given per year than the scientific Nobel Prizes. For example, the USA won 23 Peace Nobel Prizes, but 99 (or slightly less, depending who is counted) Physics Nobel Prizes.
To understand why these countries aren't listed, we have to look at the history and geopolitics.
These countries aren't allowed to develop by the imperial core, more commonly known as the west, through colonialism and neo-colonialism. This is called 'Theory of Unequal Exchange' and it explains how the wealth is extracted from the east/south to the west/north.
If you would like to learn more about it: I'd recommend watching "Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor? (Unequal Exchange and Imperialism)" by Hakim on Youtube. He also recommends books that you can read about this topic.
-Some ME countries are among the richest in the world.
-USA has a similar troubled colonial history to all of Central and Sth America yet it has prospered while they struggle.
-Islam and China have extensive histories as colonisers...far longer than the Europeans. And now they are extracting wealth and knowledge from the west.
The narratives are simplistic cherry picking that make excuses for toxic cultures (such as Islamic suppression of women) and attempt to stigmatise progressive societies that have rejected old practices.
cental and south america definitely did not have similar colonial histories to the usa. in many of those countries, after their european colonizers left, the usa just stepped in and took over that mantle.
Being foreign born does not preclude you from being an American, including the parents of our stupid president, who may have been born in Europe to hear him tell it. (they weren't)
I'm staunchly pro-immigrant. I don't really think my resentment at the petty and inaccurate perception of Americans held by many non-Americans has anything to do with immigration, but...okay.
Your original comment makes just as much sense (which is not much) as the reply. How does the number of Nobel Prizes awarded to the US in any meaningful way reflect the intelligence of its hundreds of millions of citizens?
The funny thing is America is a country based on immigrants. Basically nobody is native there, only the people who are stuffed into small reservations. The 'real' Americans are really just Irish, Italian and other poor European migrants' decendents
Most were already experts in their respective fields and then went to the US as it offered scholarships, academic postings and assistance with their work.
The results are proof of the benefit of targeted migration and recruitment for knowledge centers.
Meanwhile the US has many times more migrants than any other country and plenty of social issues to go with it. Including by far the highest crime rate of any developed country and some of the lowest rates of access to healthcare and higher education as a result of so many ppl who are not integrated into the mainstream.
Except that Americans (in average) really are relatively uneducated on some matters, especially regarding the world outside USA, history, geography.
Even for hard sciences, the average US student is relatively bad compared with several first world countries (though to be fair, my country isn't better regarding that, you're not alone). Having good facilities for the elites, and enabling a good environment for research, doesn't mean the average person is better. That's the problem in the US.
That being said, I'd say many americans are ignorant, not really "stupid". You just don't care about culture in general.
One in one million of us has won a Nobel prize. That doesn't mean the rest of us aren't smart. I was speaking mostly tongue-in-cheek, but I do bristle at the fact that people are so quick to highlight the worst of America's culture and ignore the many brilliant people who work hard and make breakthroughs across all different industries. Americans are not stupid. People just like to highlight the worst of our culture because they resent America's conduct on the world stage (fair enough). But that resentment motivates them to unfairly characterize all or most Americans as fat, lazy idiots waving oversize American flags. It's just not accurate.
You make it sound like this is just a foreign perspective and that Americans who interact with other Americans every day don't tend to find each other stupid
And don't forget Nobel Prizes don't cover every field. For maths, Field Medals are relatively comparable (in prestige at least), the US and France dominate in that. Per capita, it's France.
In general though, don't confuse a country with good facilities for research, with a "smart" country. The school children with the best average level are from countries like Finland or Sweden, I don't think it's strictly linked with nobel prizes or anything else, it's just a loose indicator as anything else.
Not among the leaders, but the decision making is kind of arbitrary. I remember Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel being awarded the Nobel Peace prize for their contribution to peace between Egypt and Israel. Mr Sadat ended up getting shot. There are 4 Egyptians who have been awarded the Nobel Prize, putting them (at time of writing) in 29th place.
Proud to be Israeli, only 8 million people but still have the same amount of Nobel prizes as Australia and India, that its population is 153 times larger than Israel.
I'm actually surprised that neither China nor India made the list. I know education in India is especially poor, but I would've thought that with greater than a billion people each, at least one would be more likely to make the list. That said, the Nobel prizes are fairly Euro/Anglo-centric
India seems to have snuck on in the last update. I was also surprised that China didn't make the cut-off. I imagine that in the near future they will. But, contrary to what many insecure Europeans looking at the stats would like you to think, population of a country really has very very little to do with their ability to win Nobel prizes.
In terms of Nobel Prizes per million, this works out to:
1. Sweden - 3.17
2. Switzerland - 3.12
3. Austria - 2.44
4. Norway - 2.40
5. Denmark - 2.24
6. UK - 2.03
7. Israel - 1.50
8. Hungary - 1.35
9. Germany - 1.32
10. Netherlands - 1.28
11. USA - 1.21
12. France - 1.09
13. Canada - 0.74
14. Poland - 0.50
15. Australia - 0.47
16. Italy - 0.35
17. Japan - 0.23
18. Russia - 0.22
19. India - 0.01
This is obviously a pretty imperfect metric as relative population has fluctuated a lot over time. I'm also using Russia's current population, not the whole population of the former Soviet Union... not sure how these break down by SSR.
Also, since it seems to be a popular topic for debate here I looked at the figures for the EU as a whole. In total the EU has won about 370. I say about, because while I tried to eliminate double-ups from that number, there's bound to be some I missed. An example of what I did is Marie Curie, who would count as 4 Nobel Prizes towards the EU's total if one simply added up the totals for each member country. This is because she won in two categories - Physics and Chemistry - and is counted for two countries - France and Poland. I figured it was more than fair to count each of her separate awards towards Europe's total, but Europe's total shouldn't be inflated simply because she was of dual nationality.
Anyways, in terms of Nobel Prizes per million people, the EU scores 0.83, so the US has Europe beat there with its 1.21.
Maybe because she was a French citizen when she got the prizes? Or because she did all the relevant work while in France and a French citizen? People have complex lives, that extend well beyond the circumstances of their birth. I find French people who don't acknowledge that she was also Polish obnoxious - but so are Polish people who refuse to understand that she was also French. Grow up!
If anyone's curious about China, Wikipedia says they only have 3 Nobel winners. Interestingly, all of China's prizes have come in the past 12 years, whereas Taiwan had 4 prizes from the 1950s-1980s but none afterward. Maybe they refused to give out prizes to the PRC before it gained mainstream recognition? I'm not sure though.
Also, worth mentioning that, 5 other people of Chinese descent living abroad won the prize. This brings up the grand total to... 8.
The five that I did get were ones I got right off the bat because of the fact that I knew them , but all the others were literally not very known to me . I could not have even guessed them .
in Poland we only claim 8 Nobel Prize Winners (Rodblat, Wałęsa, Skłodowska-Curie, Tokarczuk, Reymont, Sienkiewicz, Szymborska i Miłosz). Connection of the rest to Poland is really far-fetched
China
Islamic world
Africa
Latin America
Rip :-(
These countries aren't allowed to develop by the imperial core, more commonly known as the west, through colonialism and neo-colonialism. This is called 'Theory of Unequal Exchange' and it explains how the wealth is extracted from the east/south to the west/north.
If you would like to learn more about it: I'd recommend watching "Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor? (Unequal Exchange and Imperialism)" by Hakim on Youtube. He also recommends books that you can read about this topic.
-Some ME countries are among the richest in the world.
-USA has a similar troubled colonial history to all of Central and Sth America yet it has prospered while they struggle.
-Islam and China have extensive histories as colonisers...far longer than the Europeans. And now they are extracting wealth and knowledge from the west.
The narratives are simplistic cherry picking that make excuses for toxic cultures (such as Islamic suppression of women) and attempt to stigmatise progressive societies that have rejected old practices.
The results are proof of the benefit of targeted migration and recruitment for knowledge centers.
Meanwhile the US has many times more migrants than any other country and plenty of social issues to go with it. Including by far the highest crime rate of any developed country and some of the lowest rates of access to healthcare and higher education as a result of so many ppl who are not integrated into the mainstream.
Even for hard sciences, the average US student is relatively bad compared with several first world countries (though to be fair, my country isn't better regarding that, you're not alone). Having good facilities for the elites, and enabling a good environment for research, doesn't mean the average person is better. That's the problem in the US.
That being said, I'd say many americans are ignorant, not really "stupid". You just don't care about culture in general.
In general though, don't confuse a country with good facilities for research, with a "smart" country. The school children with the best average level are from countries like Finland or Sweden, I don't think it's strictly linked with nobel prizes or anything else, it's just a loose indicator as anything else.
I guessed every country but Japan...
Surprise inclusions: Hungary
from the Netherlands (21 nobel price winners)
1. Sweden - 3.17
2. Switzerland - 3.12
3. Austria - 2.44
4. Norway - 2.40
5. Denmark - 2.24
6. UK - 2.03
7. Israel - 1.50
8. Hungary - 1.35
9. Germany - 1.32
10. Netherlands - 1.28
11. USA - 1.21
12. France - 1.09
13. Canada - 0.74
14. Poland - 0.50
15. Australia - 0.47
16. Italy - 0.35
17. Japan - 0.23
18. Russia - 0.22
19. India - 0.01
This is obviously a pretty imperfect metric as relative population has fluctuated a lot over time. I'm also using Russia's current population, not the whole population of the former Soviet Union... not sure how these break down by SSR.
Anyways, in terms of Nobel Prizes per million people, the EU scores 0.83, so the US has Europe beat there with its 1.21.
Also, worth mentioning that, 5 other people of Chinese descent living abroad won the prize. This brings up the grand total to... 8.