The Greatest Person of the 20th Century?

[ProfessorDavey]

Apart from all that music and the whole Ziggy Stardust and Aladin Sane stuff.

Ziggy - great album but almost a by-word for taking existing influences and genres and merging them into a hugely satisfying whole. Great - yup, ground-breaking - no. Musically it is massively influenced by the harder hitting earlier glam rock stuff, plus (of course) Lou Reed & Velvets and Iggy & the Stooges plus others.

Conceptially there's nothing innovative about playing the part of a different person in a concept album (see Tommy 3 years earlier) nor a kind of made up band (St Pepper). And surely the notion of the visiting space alien was pretty hackneyed by 72.

Also, he and Mick Ronson produced what might be the best album of all time - Transformers.

I agree - the question is who was the more influential ground breaking talent - Lou Reed or Bowie/Ronson - great combination, but Reed was already a major influence on Bowie - Bowie/Ronson helped him become mainstream.

[ProfessorDavey]

I would agree that there are more influential individuals in 20th century music, but they generally did their work as part of a group e.g. John Lennon, Lou Reed and they weren't on the list.

I think most jazz/rock/pop musicians work in a collaborative manner, regardless of whether they saw themselves as a solo artist or in a band. You made the point yourself talking about Ronson - sure Bowie was nominally a solo artist, but how much of the creative stuff was jointly Bowie and Ronson. And sometimes you cannot work out the key creative content from the writing credits on songs.

[ProfessorDavey]

More than that: Amundsen was the antagonist in the Scott of the Antarctic story. For British people like me who went to school in the 70's, his name only came up as the bad guy that beat Scott to the South Pole.

Which is a real shame, because his achievements are huge. And he was an interesting combination of traditionalist (arguably he beat Scott by using dogs rather than technology), but later he embraced the use of technology for exploring and in particular he was a pioneer of exploring using aircraft.

[Steve H]

On the Ali point I don't think it is a question of people thinking he was the greatest sportsperson, rather I think it's his impact as an entertainer as well, and the fact that he was an activist. It's the overall impact that I think is being looked at here.

And his courage and dignity in the face of Parkinson's.

[ProfessorDavey]

Picasso wins the Artists & Writers section - quite rightly IMO.

However what do we make of the fact that although 12 out of the 28 nominees were women, all the section winners are men.

[Nearly Sane]

That equality of the sexes didn't exist in the 20th century and may not exist now.

[ProfessorDavey]

That equality of the sexes didn't exist in the 20th century and may not exist now.

Sure, but I was thinking a bit beyond that. So I wonder whether the reason women are represented in the winners is (or a combination):

1. Lack of opportunities preventing them from demonstrating achievements sufficient to be seen as iconic
2. Opportunities and achievements but lack of profile so those achievements aren't well recognised or are attributed to men
3. Ongoing bias (perhaps unconscious bias) whereby the public still quote being iconic with being male.

I suspect all 3, but the final one is perhaps the most worrying as we cannot do anything about the first 2 in legacy cases and are hopefully working toward rectifying these issues in this day and age. But if we still have societal attitudes that regardless of the achievements and profile of such achievement that they are somehow deemed lesser if achieved by a woman then we still have a long way to go.

[Nearly Sane]

I think there was a bit of positive discrimination in the original selections going on to try to deal with 1 and 2 - Virginia Woolf being an example. (And as already suggested I think there was a UKish bias as well in the choices)  Point 3 is, I think true, but given 1 and 2, particularly 1, then it's a bit difficult to conclude from this.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think there was a bit of positive discrimination in the original selections going on to try to deal with 1 and 2 - Virginia Woolf being an example. (And as already suggested I think there was a UKish bias as well in the choices)  Point 3 is, I think true, but given 1 and 2, particularly 1, then it's a bit difficult to conclude from this.

Probably true - I do worry however, that even if we deal with 1 and 2 ongoing bias (unconscious or conscious) will mean that the public will still tend to see the achievements of men as inherently more iconic than those of women.

Not sure if you've read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell - a good read - he has a section in auditioning brass players for a particular orchestra where the successful candidate almost almost ended up as a man. There was a perception, perhaps unconscious, amongst selectors that women were physically capable of playing to the same level as men. The orchestra (enlightened) started auditioning 'blind' with the candidate playing behind a curtain - suddenly women ended up being selected far, far more often.

[Nearly Sane]

Probably true - I do worry however, that even if we deal with 1 and 2 ongoing bias (unconscious or conscious) will mean that the public will still tend to see the achievements of men as inherently more iconic than those of women.

Not sure if you've read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell - a good read - he has a section in auditioning brass players for a particular orchestra where the successful candidate almost almost ended up as a man. There was a perception, perhaps unconscious, amongst selectors that women were physically capable of playing to the same level as men. The orchestra (enlightened) started auditioning 'blind' with the candidate playing behind a curtain - suddenly women ended up being selected far, far more often.

No disagreement from me that it is true. Which is why I  posted that I thought it was true. But because of the influence of points 1 and 2, I just don't think that you can use the choice of 7 men here as evidence of it.

Is there any of the categories where you would have chosen one of the women candidates? Do you think they missed a woman candidate that you would have chosen?

[ProfessorDavey]

Is there any of the categories where you would have chosen one of the women candidates?

No

Do you think they missed a woman candidate that you would have chosen?

Can't think of one

That may be because of reasons 1 and/or 2 - however I worry that it might be because of reason 3 and having done unconscious bias training myself I'm more that aware that however much we may consider ourselves untouched by prejudice most of us have deep-rooted and unconscious bias that is not deliberate but affects our judgements nonetheless.

[Nearly Sane]

No
Can't think of one

That may be because of reasons 1 and/or 2 - however I worry that it might be because of reason 3 and having done unconscious bias training myself I'm more that aware that however much we may consider ourselves untouched by prejudice most of us have deep-rooted and unconscious bias that is not deliberate but affects our judgements nonetheless.

Agree - but we know that 1 and 2 apply here, particularly 1.

[ProfessorDavey]

Agree - but we know that 1 and 2 apply here, particularly 1.

Problem is - can you be sure the reason you (like me) didn't think a women should have won in the list and also that there wasn't a woman missing from the list who should have won is because of 3, not 1 and 2.

[Enki]

My choices from the limited selection available would have been(if I had voted):

Leaders: Winston Churchill

Explorers: Ernest Shackleton

Scientists: Albert Einstein

Entertainers: Charlie Chaplin

Activists: Mohandas Gandhi

Sports: Muhammad Ali

Artists and Writers: Pablo Picasso



However I only watched the first episode because I then decided that the system was flawed, as it did not allow a far broader mix, and lost interest in it.

When deciding on these choices above I took no account whatever as to whether they were male or female, but on how they were regarded at the time of their achievements and since.

[Nearly Sane]

Problem is - can you be sure the reason you (like me) didn't think a women should have won in the list and also that there wasn't a woman missing from the list who should have won is because of 3, not 1 and 2.

No, of course I cannot be sure. I haven't suggested otherwise, and I have already stated that I think 3 is true. I just don't think that the choice of the 7 men here is that good an argument for 3 because of 1 and 2

[Nearly Sane]

My choices from the limited selection available would have been(if I had voted):

Leaders: Winston Churchill

Explorers: Ernest Shackleton

Scientists: Albert Einstein

Entertainers: Charlie Chaplin

Activists: Mohandas Gandhi

Sports: Muhammad Ali

Artists and Writers: Pablo Picasso



However I only watched the first episode because I then decided that the system was flawed, as it did not allow a far broader mix, and lost interest in it.

When deciding on these choices above I took no account whatever as to whether they were male or female, but on how they were regarded at the time of their achievements and since.

The point that Prof D is that we might as a collective and individuals have unconscious biases and I don't see how we can declare that to be untrue. We all have unconscious biases.

[Enki]

The point that Prof D is that we might as a collective and individuals have unconscious biases and I don't see how we can declare that to be untrue. We all have unconscious biases.

Yes, Of course we might all have unconscious biases. The fact that my choices were all men might well be the result of an unconscious bias towards male rather than female icons, there again it might not. I see no way in which that can be established.

[ProfessorDavey]

When deciding on these choices above I took no account whatever as to whether they were male or female, but on how they were regarded at the time of their achievements and since.

The point about unconscious bias is that you wouldn't be aware that you might have had a bias in favour of men when making your choice.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, Of course we might all have unconscious biases. The fact that my choices were all men might well be the result of an unconscious bias towards male rather than female icons, there again it might not. I see no way in which that can be established.

Tricky to establish on this particular case but would be straightforward to devise a Harvard type unconscious bias test to check whether you had an underlying bias in favour of relating 'iconic' to 'male'.

If you haven't tried the test, suggest you should - doesn't take long and can be very revealing.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, Of course we might all have unconscious biases. The fact that my choices were all men might well be the result of an unconscious bias towards male rather than female icons, there again it might not. I see no way in which that can be established.

In this specific case, I agree. Indeed that's the point I've been making. We can examine for unconscious bias in general.

[ProfessorDavey]

My choices from the limited selection available would have been(if I had voted):

Leaders: Winston Churchill

Explorers: Ernest Shackleton

Scientists: Albert Einstein

Entertainers: Charlie Chaplin

Activists: Mohandas Gandhi

Sports: Muhammad Ali

Artists and Writers: Pablo Picasso

Leaders: Nelson Mandela (and a worthy winner IMO)

Explorers: Ernest Shackleton (out of the selection - but Roald Amundsen is more worthy in a directly comparable manner to Shackleton)

Scientists: Albert Einstein (agree)

Entertainers: Rubbish selection and rubbish category focussing more on fame than influence as a musician/actor  - so would choose any of them

Activists: Toss up between Gandhi or Luther-King - both worthy winners

Sports: Section is more based on non sporting achievements (effectively another 'activist' category) - so none really rock my boat. If pushed would go for Pele as a genuinely sporting great. In terms of someone who completely dominated their sport - with achievements never likely to be matched, then perhaps Bradman

Artists and Writers: Pablo Picasso - worthy winner

[Enki]

Tricky to establish on this particular case but would be straightforward to devise a Harvard type unconscious bias test to check whether you had an underlying bias in favour of relating 'iconic' to 'male'.

If you haven't tried the test, suggest you should - doesn't take long and can be very revealing.

Just taken the test on gender.

My results stated the following:

Your data suggest a slight automatic association for Male with Liberal Arts and Female with Science.

To be honest, I'm none the wiser about any male/female biases I may have.


Incidentally, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the entertainment and sports categories. Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitgerald, Louis Armstrong and Elvis Presley would have been my personal choice. As far as sports are concerned I would also have included Bradman, despite cricket being a minority world sport. However I do find the whole idea of being an icon utterly confusing here. For instance why not include Dick Fosbury who transformed the whole technique of high jumping.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just taken the test on gender.

My results stated the following:

To be honest, I'm none the wiser about any male/female biases I may have.

Typically the results show biases that link male terms to science and female terms to arts - so in this manner you show a slight counter-intuitive bias. There are other tests as well - worth doing I think. Also I think  it is good not to use your first result as the approach is a bit weird and I think it a good idea to get used to the approach before really testing yourself.

[ProfessorDavey]

Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitgerald, Louis Armstrong and Elvis Presley would have been my personal choice.

I think Elvis should have been there, but again this is more about performers than musicians - I'd have preferred a category that allowed really iconic musicians of the 20thC to be recognised, those people who both wrote and created music that changed the world, rather than people who were good performers of other people's creativity. With the exception of Armstrong on your list none of the others actually wrote music that was iconic and game changing.

As far as sports are concerned I would also have included Bradman, despite cricket being a minority world sport. However I do find the whole idea of being an icon utterly confusing here. For instance why not include Dick Fosbury who transformed the whole technique of high jumping.

The thing about Bradman is that his record is streets ahead of anyone else before or since - he really is in his own league, with just one person in it. I'm struggling to think of anyone else whose record is so much 'out on their own' in other sports.

[Aruntraveller]

And no category that composers sit easily in. The whole series seems ill thought out and restrcitive to me.