Really strange how this is painted as a gender issue, and the strict definition of "hobby" is strange too. What's the difference between a "hobby" and an "interest"? I know plenty of people who refer to cooking as their main hobby, and they seek out new recipes, buy new equipment because they want it, and experiment with new food all the time.

I also know far more dads who were gifted a tool set "so they can be handy around the house" than I know people gifted fridges. It's not something I know of people complain about, and it's not something I ever thought as being strange until I saw some people on the internet being enraged about giving women cooking equipment. As a person who never asks for anything in particular for Christmas or birthdays, a sharper new kitchen knife, a new pan, or a new (non-smart) fridge would be absolutely perfect. If I'd want anything, it's something I'll use daily, and if I'm sharing it with family, that's fine.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with loving to cook, regardless of gender. But women are often expected to cook, whether they like it or not, and women are often gifted things that help them take care of the house and family rather than things that are actually personal interests for them.

A big part of the difference in my mind is whether this is an expectation hung on them by other people and/or forced on them by circumstances versus something they genuinely want to do out of interest and enjoyment.

I'm a former homemaker. I did a lot of cooking while I was a military wife and homeschooling mom, but I don't actually like cooking. My oldest son took over the cooking when I got divorced and got a corporate job.

I've done a lot of reading to try to figure out how to make my life work. I was one of the top three students of my graduating high school class, a National Merit Scholarship winner, etc. No one expected me to be a homemaker for two decades, least of all me.

The ways in which sexism exclude women from some things and force other things upon them are often fairly subtle, which helps make the problem intractable.

There’s little question that having the freedom to pursue a hobby is a privilege reserved for a few, broadly speaking.

I think what’s interesting is that the study was comparing Nobel laureates to other scientists, which I’d imagine would somewhat correct for this bias.

Reading. A hobby available to anyone who can read.

Playing music. So many ways to do this now — people all over the world play music without lessons.

Listening to music, live or recorded. Being a lover of music.

Dancing.

Drawing.

Poetry, although less popular, is easily accessible.

I get what you mean, and undoubtedly there are hobbies that require both a surfeit or leisure and material wealth to pursue, but with respect I think you may be underestimating the degree to which people of all economic classes have access to the various cultural activities (of which the above are some examples) of their own, well, culture.

Which is not indicated in the title. The title is the thing I'm critiquing. I'm a writer. Titles are hard. I get that.

This one basically sucks -- IMO, of course.

It appears that the actual title of the article is "Hobbies are not distractions", with the HN submission title being... I'm not sure it's really a subtitle, maybe a pull-out point from the quoted reference in the article?

[Edit: though, since it looks like the author wrote both the article and the HN submission, this point might be somewhat irrelevant.] :-)

Thanks. I have sucktastic eyesight and only skimmed a bit.

So this is also a pointless violation of HN guidelines, which indicate you should use the original title unless it's clickbait or a few other provisos.

Of course, "the first rule of downvotes is don't talk about the downvotes", but I've been genuinely puzzled by why this particular comment has so many downvotes. And I think it's because the title was changed at some point, apparently without a note being left anywhere indicating that. It didn't originally have the part about "compared to their peers".

Ah, got it. Can’t argue with that!

Broad statements which seem designed to yet again paint women as victims.

Nobel winners are nothing like the average rich or poor man or woman in how much time they have. They are obsessive in how much of their time they put into their work.

I am surrounded by rich people (I live in Silicon Valley). The women dedicate at least as much time on hobbies as the men. When I go skiing, the women are easily 50%, possibly more. Travel to a nice destination? Maybe 70%. Scuba diving? 25% maybe. None of these hobbies is cheap. None has cost me less than several thousand dollars, some over 10k, one over 60k.

A lot of hobbies are close to free. Watching TV is more of a reflection of the values you were raised with. You don’t need to be rich to know how to read. Books are a lot closer to free than TV is. This is how I spent most of my childhood. I would say it’s similar for the hard core researchers I know, men or women.

I’m a guy and cooking was a major hobby of mine. Gifts in support of this hobby included knives, woks, wok burners, grills, nice cookware, expensive induction cooktops, expensive ingredients, etc. I guess it didn’t count as a hobby because others benefited? That’s news to me. I should scold my wife for ruining it for me, since she benefited.

I gotta say, that fridge thing, no. That’s not cool. That’s just a damn appliance that’s not interactive in a way that you can demonstrate skill with.

A current hobby of mine is working out. I go to the gym, do my thing, come home. My wife has the same hobby. I’m sure someone will say it’s a hobby for me, but not for her. She must not have any agency? Lucky for her she can always divorce me.

Super achieving people are very different from the tens of millions of rich you are referring to. Upper class is dime a dozen. Top prize winners are so rare you can actually memorize their names. Take a look at the demographics of who wins Nobel Prizes. Look at their common traits as well. Crazy talent, tenacity, broad curiosity, and appetite for risk are almost universally at the top. Aside from tenacity, I don’t see these traits as common in the upper class. Yes, they exist, but not anywhere near as common as in the Nobel class of people.

> "Newsflash: Upper class men still rule the world."

Do you have to really bring class and gender into this debate? Examples of not-so-upper-class people who went on do great things in life -- Srinivasa Ramanujan, Michael Faraday, Linus Pauling.

Given how sparse these data points are, then aren't these examples of exceptions that prove the rule?

In this case though, it’s a comparison across just scientists. Since so many are in academia, I wouldn’t ascribe a huge variation of artistic/creative pursuits within that population as to whether or not they are upper class. Instead, I think it’s about whether or not they choose to spend their “off hours” doing more research-ey stuff or say playing guitar. But I haven’t read the original book referenced!