5 ms·

Yeah but the article overlooks the many polymaths who spread themselves thinly across a variety of different fields, never achieving true mastery of a particula

Yeah but the article overlooks the many polymaths who spread themselves thinly across a variety of different fields, never achieving true mastery of a particular field. The phrase 'Jack of all trades, master of none' springs to mind. There are however polymaths who achieve mastery of all the fields they choose to pursue, although I imagine they are rare.

keithwhor 7y ago
... is this a joke? The article covers this in almost exactly these words. I wonder how often HN commenters actually read the full text of the article they're commenting on? > There are, of course, some good reasons why we might be hesitant to pursue multiple interests. One is the fear that we might spread ourselves too thinly if we devote ourselves to more than one avocation. With a divided attention, we would fail to achieve success in any domain – the idea that the “Jack of all trades is the master of none”.
- octosphere 7y ago
  Oops, my bad. You are right, I didn't read the article fully and presumed it didn't talk about spreading oneself thinly. Thanks for pointing it out ;)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
thejohnconway 7y ago
I guess the question is: would these people be significantly better at any of these fields, if they specialised more? That seems like an open question to me. My personal experience as a jack-of-all-trades is that if I try to specialise, I dry up creatively and get less effective.
- RBerenguel 7y ago
  I recently found out about the concept of “scanner personality”, which covers what you mention (I’m also a “sufferer” of it). If I specialise (too much) I feel constrained and dry up creatively as well.
  - amelius 7y ago
    The trick might be to always imagine multiple angles along which you can approach a problem, however specialized the problem might be. That way, you never feel "constrained".
- z3t4 7y ago
  Many world class athletes are also very good at other classes or sports. But by specialising in one event, it will be enough to take them from just outside an OS final in multiple events - to inside an OS final in one event. This can be the difference between a 1 million sponsor contract or no contract.
suyash 7y ago
The articles mentions a criteria that to be a PolyMath one has to make to make at least a major contribution in three different fields. For someone to make a major contribution, by definition they are an expert in that field, therefore there are a fewer people number of Polymaths vs those who are considered as "Jack of all trades".
- ackbar03 7y ago
  I don't think even Einstein fits by that definition. An instrument as a hobby hardly is a contribution. Da Vinci is probably one of the closest I can think of by that definition and even he said something like "tell me if anything ever was done" since he felt like he never managed to finish anything properly
  - copperx 7y ago
    The definition also fits Von Neumann perfectly.
  - morelisp 7y ago
    There are plenty of uncontroversial polymaths in the 20th century alone - von Neumann (hopefully no need to list here), Chomsky (political science, linguistics, computer science), and Nabokov (literature, chess, entomology) come to mind quickly. In retrospect, many polymaths look like an expert in only one field because they more or less invented it. (Chomsky synthesized computation and lingustics into computational linguistics; Helmhotz synthesized physics, medicine, psychology, and philosophy to help found modern psychophysics; Frege, Russell, and Whitehead synthesized logic and mathematics into, uh, mathematics.) Another issue seems to be assuming that all or at least one of the fields is a science (or even a hard science), but this isn't the case. Paul Robeson has been cited as a polymath due to his contribution across several dramatic arts, law degree, his political activism, and football career.
    - tux1968 7y ago
      I like the one Bill Burr made a point of highlighting: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Body building champion, movie star, and governor of California.
solinent 7y ago
Jack of all trades, mater of none, better than a master of one.

keithwhor 7y ago

... is this a joke? The article covers this in almost exactly these words. I wonder how often HN commenters actually read the full text of the article they're commenting on? > There are, of course, some good reasons why we might be hesitant to pursue multiple interests. One is the fear that we might spread ourselves too thinly if we devote ourselves to more than one avocation. With a divided attention, we would fail to achieve success in any domain – the idea that the “Jack of all trades is the master of none”.

octosphere 7y ago
Oops, my bad. You are right, I didn't read the article fully and presumed it didn't talk about spreading oneself thinly. Thanks for pointing it out ;)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

thejohnconway 7y ago

I guess the question is: would these people be significantly better at any of these fields, if they specialised more? That seems like an open question to me. My personal experience as a jack-of-all-trades is that if I try to specialise, I dry up creatively and get less effective.

RBerenguel 7y ago
I recently found out about the concept of “scanner personality”, which covers what you mention (I’m also a “sufferer” of it). If I specialise (too much) I feel constrained and dry up creatively as well.
- amelius 7y ago
  The trick might be to always imagine multiple angles along which you can approach a problem, however specialized the problem might be. That way, you never feel "constrained".
z3t4 7y ago
Many world class athletes are also very good at other classes or sports. But by specialising in one event, it will be enough to take them from just outside an OS final in multiple events - to inside an OS final in one event. This can be the difference between a 1 million sponsor contract or no contract.

suyash 7y ago

The articles mentions a criteria that to be a PolyMath one has to make to make at least a major contribution in three different fields. For someone to make a major contribution, by definition they are an expert in that field, therefore there are a fewer people number of Polymaths vs those who are considered as "Jack of all trades".

ackbar03 7y ago
I don't think even Einstein fits by that definition. An instrument as a hobby hardly is a contribution. Da Vinci is probably one of the closest I can think of by that definition and even he said something like "tell me if anything ever was done" since he felt like he never managed to finish anything properly
- copperx 7y ago
  The definition also fits Von Neumann perfectly.
- morelisp 7y ago
  There are plenty of uncontroversial polymaths in the 20th century alone - von Neumann (hopefully no need to list here), Chomsky (political science, linguistics, computer science), and Nabokov (literature, chess, entomology) come to mind quickly. In retrospect, many polymaths look like an expert in only one field because they more or less invented it. (Chomsky synthesized computation and lingustics into computational linguistics; Helmhotz synthesized physics, medicine, psychology, and philosophy to help found modern psychophysics; Frege, Russell, and Whitehead synthesized logic and mathematics into, uh, mathematics.) Another issue seems to be assuming that all or at least one of the fields is a science (or even a hard science), but this isn't the case. Paul Robeson has been cited as a polymath due to his contribution across several dramatic arts, law degree, his political activism, and football career.
  - tux1968 7y ago
    I like the one Bill Burr made a point of highlighting: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Body building champion, movie star, and governor of California.

solinent 7y ago

Jack of all trades, mater of none, better than a master of one.