6 ms·

I find the term "Polymath" useless when it comes to the times we live in. Today's high school students would have ranked as a polymaths a few centuries ago. And

by yedava 3y ago

I find the term "Polymath" useless when it comes to the times we live in. Today's high school students would have ranked as a polymaths a few centuries ago. And today, someone who spends their entire time in one field - say software engineering - can be rightly called a polymath. Gone are the days when one person can gain insights by digging deep into one specific subject. Knowledge of multiple areas is a given. Even more importantly, the days of a lone wolf discovering something new are even more dead. Today's discoveries can only happen collaboratively. Groups of people working hard, with each group egging on the other to push themselves farther (Think AI. We can no longer worship one guy as having advanced the field. There are no Newtons or Einsteins). Instead of patting our backs for being polymaths, lets figure out how best to propel our collaborative capabilities.

wut_wut_wut 3y ago
[dead]
jeremyjh 3y ago
SP is talking about people who publish papers in scholarly journals, not people who score well at Trivial Pursuit. This is intensely specialized today; much more specialized than it was "a few century's ago". There are not many people publishing in widely separated fields.
__rito__ 3y ago
The idea of a Polymath is actually more relevant today than earlier years. Each field has grown into a silo with "experts" in one field barely knowing about the cutting edge of another field. Before what was the cutting edge was knowable to anyone who really tried. Because the total body of human knowledge was extremely limited. And that's why we see so many "gentleman scientists". They were people with passive income from property and enough time to tinker where they liked. Robert Brown of Brownian motion wasn’t exactly a genius. Yet you find his name in multiple areas of Science. Nowaday, the edge of human knowledge is far more spread out, and it is harder to be a polymath. Polymath aren’t people who can "talk about" and "hold intelligence conversations" about different fields of Science/Social Science, they are the people that do multiple areas of academic study/engineering. EDIT: And knowledge gained in HS is extremely shallow. They don't know even one field enough, let alone multiple fields. And High Schoolers of earlier years actually knew stuff more in-depth, because stuff weren’t diluted for "inclusive" education. I have seen the Curriculum of British Indian HS, and it was much tougher than today's curriculum. 200 marks paper of two, as opposed to one of 70, more advanced topics each year as opposed to easier topics to bump scores up and make the provincial government look good. Not exactly relevant to Polymaths, but everyone here knows that one who was educated in 1850-1970 years, knows much more than one educated in later years (as chosen randomly among those who have a degree). I believe education dilution has happened everywhere. Even today HS Physics, Math, Chemistry in India is much harder than US. I have seen curricula and books from both.
- dchftcs 3y ago
  There's a lot of progress that can be made in cross-disciplinary areas, but if it's done by one person it tends to be someone who specializes in one thing and stumble upon a low hanging fruit elsewhere. Much more often, in case of deep results, is that two very smart people in their areas talk about their work and discover an opportunity to collaborate. Most people who claim to be polymaths are dilettantes. Even if they are really smart. People who claim they're polymaths don't have the humility to recognize it's very difficult to be at the forefront of two disciplines. A dilettante wouldn't know this because they don't know the amount of effort and learning it takes to be a true expert. A true expert spends a lot of time on a subject and may on the surface may appear to have no more knowledge than someone who just reads and follows their papers for less than half the overall effort. This is because much of extra work is spent on trying different ideas and learning for producing the next good idea, or trying to apply it effectively in various contexts, rather than just learning other's good ideas for the sake of it. Whether the expert is more valuable in dollar terms or potential impact than the dilettante or a humble generalist is another question. People can indeed be good at wearing multiple hats and create value. But I think someone like that should recognize that they are trading depth for breadth and not claim they are better than others at everything they learn.
NemoNobody 3y ago
I don't think you understand what a polymath is. I am essentially self taught. I have no degrees although I did go to 5 years at a state school. I've read more than every person born before a certain date - I estimate that date would be within my lifetime. I retain everything I read and I can revisit it in seconds if I chose and all the information is at my fingertips and I frequently access it. I read 3 volumes of encyclopedias before I was 9 - I got the Internet at around 12. I can't spend 3 minutes googling something before I have to prove that I'm a human being. I fell into the art rabbit hole a few years ago - I got kicked off of two different art info sites I paid for monthly access, one I got a week the other two. None of my efforts to work with their customer support could change their mind that I was using bots. I was not. I read the translated Nag Hammadi library and then I went onto everything in English that has come out of the ground. I can kinda read Latin solely from the amount of exposure I've had to it. I fell into Tesla and I can say that he never did wirelessly transmit electricity even tho he did "electrify" the world's fair wirelessly - I understand what I just said. There are political systems that exist only in my head that are arguably superior to any that exist now. I can already identify stuff from the DSM 5 that won't be in the DSM 7 or 8 bc their stupid. Truthfully much of psychology will be redone. I fundamentally reject the multiverse as it's commonly understood. With time, our scientist will realize they are confusing aspects of our singular reality that deal with probability and possibility for "other universes" of course they will not be able to see this until they start operating under the pretense that we live in a constructed reality - which this is, I know that like I know the sun will come up and I'm not a religious man - tho I've read all/a sh*tload of that also. I've collaborated with nobody. I try to go thru my days in first gear - that's literally how I think of it. I shouldn't be around people in third gear bc I lose a lot of social skills bc most of conversation is absolute BS and I cant deal with conversation for conversation sake. Lastly, I don't need to pat myself on the back - I have a confidence in myself and my own ability, that is separate from my ego - it just is what it is. I don't need your approval, it changes nothing. Based on my experience what I've typed will bother a lot of people - it's all still true tho. I'm at a point where every other living person could tell me that I'm wrong about something and I understand them to be right, they are not. That said, if someone challenges me about something and proves me wrong, even if it's the most fundamental change to my world view, I will adopt it that day. I'm actually still chuckling at the pat myself on the back thing - like I brag about these things, I hide who I am to even those I love, bc if they understood how far away from them I actually am they would be afraid of me. I know that bc every now and then something happens and I get caught up and real intensely focused on something and I quote exactly a conversation we had 6 weeks ago or I complete a really complicated problem requiring actual math in a few seconds (everyone knows I'm bad at math) - people don't like that shit. Anyways, tell yourself whatever - I assure you polymaths do exist, as I am here, as I am. No amount of collaboration will arrive at my perception of reality. Nobody reading this over a certain age can catch up to me unless they have always been like me and are very committed. I'm also certain that I'm not the smartest person, there are people ahead of me, likely some I cannot catch. I'm about to fully adopt AI into my own life - so that I'm able to consume more information more quickly and better revisit information I've already consumed. There is reason for me to do this, it's habit at this point. So yeah, this the most I've ever patted myself on the back or ever even tried to convey what I actually am I guess. Frankly tho, I'm just sick of people believing people like me are not real.
firemelt 3y ago
no

by yedava 3y ago

wut_wut_wut 3y ago

[dead]

jeremyjh 3y ago

SP is talking about people who publish papers in scholarly journals, not people who score well at Trivial Pursuit. This is intensely specialized today; much more specialized than it was "a few century's ago". There are not many people publishing in widely separated fields.

__rito__ 3y ago

The idea of a Polymath is actually more relevant today than earlier years. Each field has grown into a silo with "experts" in one field barely knowing about the cutting edge of another field. Before what was the cutting edge was knowable to anyone who really tried. Because the total body of human knowledge was extremely limited. And that's why we see so many "gentleman scientists". They were people with passive income from property and enough time to tinker where they liked. Robert Brown of Brownian motion wasn’t exactly a genius. Yet you find his name in multiple areas of Science. Nowaday, the edge of human knowledge is far more spread out, and it is harder to be a polymath. Polymath aren’t people who can "talk about" and "hold intelligence conversations" about different fields of Science/Social Science, they are the people that do multiple areas of academic study/engineering. EDIT: And knowledge gained in HS is extremely shallow. They don't know even one field enough, let alone multiple fields. And High Schoolers of earlier years actually knew stuff more in-depth, because stuff weren’t diluted for "inclusive" education. I have seen the Curriculum of British Indian HS, and it was much tougher than today's curriculum. 200 marks paper of two, as opposed to one of 70, more advanced topics each year as opposed to easier topics to bump scores up and make the provincial government look good. Not exactly relevant to Polymaths, but everyone here knows that one who was educated in 1850-1970 years, knows much more than one educated in later years (as chosen randomly among those who have a degree). I believe education dilution has happened everywhere. Even today HS Physics, Math, Chemistry in India is much harder than US. I have seen curricula and books from both.

dchftcs 3y ago
There's a lot of progress that can be made in cross-disciplinary areas, but if it's done by one person it tends to be someone who specializes in one thing and stumble upon a low hanging fruit elsewhere. Much more often, in case of deep results, is that two very smart people in their areas talk about their work and discover an opportunity to collaborate. Most people who claim to be polymaths are dilettantes. Even if they are really smart. People who claim they're polymaths don't have the humility to recognize it's very difficult to be at the forefront of two disciplines. A dilettante wouldn't know this because they don't know the amount of effort and learning it takes to be a true expert. A true expert spends a lot of time on a subject and may on the surface may appear to have no more knowledge than someone who just reads and follows their papers for less than half the overall effort. This is because much of extra work is spent on trying different ideas and learning for producing the next good idea, or trying to apply it effectively in various contexts, rather than just learning other's good ideas for the sake of it. Whether the expert is more valuable in dollar terms or potential impact than the dilettante or a humble generalist is another question. People can indeed be good at wearing multiple hats and create value. But I think someone like that should recognize that they are trading depth for breadth and not claim they are better than others at everything they learn.

NemoNobody 3y ago

I don't think you understand what a polymath is. I am essentially self taught. I have no degrees although I did go to 5 years at a state school. I've read more than every person born before a certain date - I estimate that date would be within my lifetime. I retain everything I read and I can revisit it in seconds if I chose and all the information is at my fingertips and I frequently access it. I read 3 volumes of encyclopedias before I was 9 - I got the Internet at around 12. I can't spend 3 minutes googling something before I have to prove that I'm a human being. I fell into the art rabbit hole a few years ago - I got kicked off of two different art info sites I paid for monthly access, one I got a week the other two. None of my efforts to work with their customer support could change their mind that I was using bots. I was not. I read the translated Nag Hammadi library and then I went onto everything in English that has come out of the ground. I can kinda read Latin solely from the amount of exposure I've had to it. I fell into Tesla and I can say that he never did wirelessly transmit electricity even tho he did "electrify" the world's fair wirelessly - I understand what I just said. There are political systems that exist only in my head that are arguably superior to any that exist now. I can already identify stuff from the DSM 5 that won't be in the DSM 7 or 8 bc their stupid. Truthfully much of psychology will be redone. I fundamentally reject the multiverse as it's commonly understood. With time, our scientist will realize they are confusing aspects of our singular reality that deal with probability and possibility for "other universes" of course they will not be able to see this until they start operating under the pretense that we live in a constructed reality - which this is, I know that like I know the sun will come up and I'm not a religious man - tho I've read all/a sh*tload of that also. I've collaborated with nobody. I try to go thru my days in first gear - that's literally how I think of it. I shouldn't be around people in third gear bc I lose a lot of social skills bc most of conversation is absolute BS and I cant deal with conversation for conversation sake. Lastly, I don't need to pat myself on the back - I have a confidence in myself and my own ability, that is separate from my ego - it just is what it is. I don't need your approval, it changes nothing. Based on my experience what I've typed will bother a lot of people - it's all still true tho. I'm at a point where every other living person could tell me that I'm wrong about something and I understand them to be right, they are not. That said, if someone challenges me about something and proves me wrong, even if it's the most fundamental change to my world view, I will adopt it that day. I'm actually still chuckling at the pat myself on the back thing - like I brag about these things, I hide who I am to even those I love, bc if they understood how far away from them I actually am they would be afraid of me. I know that bc every now and then something happens and I get caught up and real intensely focused on something and I quote exactly a conversation we had 6 weeks ago or I complete a really complicated problem requiring actual math in a few seconds (everyone knows I'm bad at math) - people don't like that shit. Anyways, tell yourself whatever - I assure you polymaths do exist, as I am here, as I am. No amount of collaboration will arrive at my perception of reality. Nobody reading this over a certain age can catch up to me unless they have always been like me and are very committed. I'm also certain that I'm not the smartest person, there are people ahead of me, likely some I cannot catch. I'm about to fully adopt AI into my own life - so that I'm able to consume more information more quickly and better revisit information I've already consumed. There is reason for me to do this, it's habit at this point. So yeah, this the most I've ever patted myself on the back or ever even tried to convey what I actually am I guess. Frankly tho, I'm just sick of people believing people like me are not real.

firemelt 3y ago