3 ms·

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 th

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.

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.