First of all, appologies for the last post. I managed to explain the purpose of the game very badly. It generated a long list of names of very common suspects, which of course contained zero information.
Now let's try to fix it. Please nominate your favorite theory researcher, together with a 3-line description of the reasons for your nomination. I imagine a comma-separated list of results would work very well, as would more complex explanations.
With this ammendment, maybe we can answer the original questions of (1) understanding how we appreciate researchers these days -- actually state a short explanation for why we value these people; (2) having a somewhat meaningful narrative for the junior people who might ask such a question -- a list of names without any justification is not so inspiring, since they haven't been exposed to our mob's peculiar mentality.
Also, here are the rules to keep this interesting and decent:
- only post anonymously;
- feel free to ask for clarifications on somebody else's nomination. What the heck, post rebuttals if you like;
- understand that this is just a summer game for a bit of fun and a bit of understanding the community we live in (I think it would be enlightening to see what our peers value);
- focus on the goal is to understand what we value, and ignore the impact that your nomination (or rebuttal?) might have on a specific person. Of course all these people are too senior to care whether some anonymous commenters on my blog like them or not :) You don't need to make them happy, and there no way you're realistically going to insult one of them...
- don't complain that there's no way to compare so many uncomparable people. I am hoping we're all old enough to understand the impossibility of such a pure comparison. Be subjective! That's what we want to understand -- out community's subjective thinking.