My first thought on the requirement of reaching the top 1% was that it's unrealistic to achieve in three very different fields. But after some careful considera

My first thought on the requirement of reaching the top 1% was that it's unrealistic to achieve in three very different fields. But after some careful consideration it might actually be possible for quite a lot of people. What does it take to be a top 1% programmer? If you're smarter than most people, probably less than 20 years. Do that three times in different fields (and keep up with the other fields while learning a new one) and you're a polymath before 80. Be still a lot smarter, you can do it before 50. It's just that only some people are capable of reaching top 1% in their field to begin with. And of those capable, most won't because they change fields before they reach it or they have other priorities, etc. And the few people that do reach top 1% tend to be passionate enough to keep at it for the rest of their lives, and it's usually lucrative enough to try reaching an even higher level at that point. I like your definition of a reasonable polymath and it's my goal to be one. Most of us can't be da Vinci. Still, I hope we will see more of the true, strict, history-changing polymaths.