Author also contradicts himself.

First the author laments only 8 novel prizes of the batch. Then in the next sentence goes on to praise Lisa Randall for revolutionising physics, and notes that for every Lisa Randall there are dozens that fall short of their potential.

Ironic because Lisa Randall didn't win a Nobel Prize in physics. Yet.....

Yeah this is actually a terrible article. The author keeps confusing creativity with success. And he keeps thinking that "creative" people are the ones that change the world, which is ridiculous. To change the world, you need to be almost insanely stubborn and almost insanely self-confident.

Agreed. This article may or may not have made some good points, but I couldn't keep reading after that.

That means 1 in 250 go on to win a Nobel Prize. An absurd rate.

I'd bet money that the only group to perform better over the same timeframe is the list Nobel Prize winners themselves.

Edit: I stand corrected. Solvay Conference had 15/29 one year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference#Fifth_Confer...