In which it is explained simply as "like the Nobel Prize for math".

So that's it. There you go

My favorite example is documented in Bully for Brontosaurus (see https://www.amazon.com/Bully-Brontosaurus-Reflections-Natura... if you want to buy it) in the essay, "The case of the creeping fox terrier clone." For close to a century, the first thing that everyone learned about the early horse Euohippus, officially known as Hyracotherium, was that it was "about the size of a small fox terrier". This despite the fact that essentially nobody knew what size a small fox terrier WAS. And despite the fact that later research found that the animal in question actually weighed several times what a fox terrier does! (But the shoulder height is indeed close.)

I've certainly seen the phrase "like the Nobel for mathematics" many times. I couldn't even have cited the original source. But it doesn't surprise me if this is the only thing most people have heard about the Fields medal. And it also doesn't surprise me that it would come from a movie.

Sure. Except that most people under the age of 25 probably haven't heard of the Fields medal anyway, unless it's from someone who watched GWH.

I don't think the suggestion was that everyone watched GWH and then had that misconception straight from primary source.

I probably view(ed) it a bit wrongly too, and I have seen GWH, but I'm pretty sure I'd read ('pop math'/news) about the award/it's winners before that.

I'm not personally familiar with the history, this just turned up when I googled the nytimes for "fields medal" and "nobel prize", but that query also turns up articles from 1986 and 1977.

On the other hand, if it's still part of the public imagination, it does seem more likely that its from Good Will Hunting and not the cold war.

One recognizes individuals who are not too old and the other recognizes individuals who are not too old (i.e. dead).

Thanks for the anecdote about Wiles. I had no idea mathematics didn’t have some way of properly recognizing achievements from the ancients over 40. So much for respect for one’s elders.

I appreciate OP for explaining that the field recognized this pattern and made a step to try to encourage future mathematicians to have something to aspire to.

As someone noted, since Fields is for the under-40 crowd, it'll be able to draw upon female mathematicians coming up into the field. Abel and Wolf would need to draw on the larger population. And thanks to all the biases, I'd imagine the number of women get smaller as the age gets higher.

That should correct itself in time.

Everyone wants to pretend they’re Abel or Galois in Math.

I know it's given as a credential when someone wants to be shown as "good at math".

Unfortunately, nature - as ever - doesn't care about causing offence.

At the very highest creative level, maths - like pop music and physics - is a young person's game.

* The general population, but also academics, take increasingly more time to mature.

* The body of knowledge grows and mastering it takes more time.

* People (at least the privileged elites) spend more time taking care of their mental and physical health. For example, we see that athletes competing in team sports on top level may reach their peak in their mid-30ies, which is a relatively recent development. If one translates this to math (I know it is a shaky assumption, but why not speculate) and peak creativity is reached in the mid-30ies, the papers that result from it may be published years later.

* In some decades, people will most likely frequently use software tools as helpers.

Not that I think that these developments change things completely, but I would expect that we will see a substantial shift.