
The genuine polymath is still one in a million - Hooke
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-genuine-polymath-is-still-one-in-a-million
======
0d9eooo
One thing that struck me at an exhibit of Leonardo's notebooks is how totally
wrong he was about so many things. It wasn't mentioned in the exhibit but for
every one thing he was correct about, it seemed like there were many many,
dozens perhaps, that he was completely incorrect about. Some of the ideas seem
preposterous now, although it's difficult to view them appropriately as they
would have been at the time.

This could be seen positively or negatively. One way of spinning it is that he
was persistent in exploring ideas. Another way, though, is that something --
mythmaking, hype, his art, whatever it is -- has allowed history to ignore the
fact that he seemed to have been wrong more often than he was right, along the
lines of a broken clock being right twice a day.

In either case, I think there's something to be said for some kind of cultural
and social context playing a strong role in how all of this is interpreted. A
different person in the wrong place or wrong time might have been interpreted
as a crackpot.

~~~
chongli
Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his
contributions to calculus and physics. What about his occult studies, alchemy,
and chronology [1]? It seems only historians (academic and amateur), Newton
buffs, and compulsive Wikipedia clickers know or care about these weird ideas
that were so important to Newton.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies)

~~~
freyr
Were these studies inconsistent with a curious mind and the limitations of
knowledge at the time? In any research, some avenues of investigation are
fruitful and others are not.

When people look back on us 300 years from today, they'll likely find many
cases of geniuses working on things that seem naive or misguided in
retrospect.

~~~
onemoresoop
You can say the same thing about the limitations nowaadays. Looking back from
the future we’ll have learned a lot of things that we are thinking now will be
seen as preposterous when more knowledge is covered.

~~~
freyr
That’s exactly what I wrote.

------
lostinroutine
> the idea of knowing everything

I don't think that's what defines a polymath, for if it does, then none
existed. My view of what makes one a polymath is deep --likely cutting-edge--
expertise in several disciplines.

That being said, I agree with the general sentiment that it is increasingly
harder to become a polymath these days, especially in the disciplines with
lots of active research. To have an expertise in just one discipline it takes
years of education (to catch up with progress) and then a considerable
recurrent investment of time to stay up-to-date.

If one is to be a polymath in a varied set of disciplines where overlap is
minimal (see Leonardo), one would have to go through the mentioned process of
acquiring and maintaining expertise for each discipline. This is different for
a polymath in a set of closely-related disciplines, because there's only so
much more (compared to being expert in one discipline) one needs to do to be a
polymath because there's a lot of overlap. But it is debatable whether that
even counts as a polymath, a point raised in:

> Is Judith Butler’s supposed eminence in ‘philosophy, linguistics and
> politics’ enough to qualify her?

~~~
0d9eooo
I agree with your point re: the depth of information in a field making it
difficult to maintain competence in multiple fields.

On the other hand, I think society increasingly projects an expectation of
this, that someone cannot possess skills in multiple areas, where areas are
increasingly narrowly defined. I think in part this plays a role in stress
over higher education, in that a degree is seen as a skill certificate (that
is, a statement about what someone can do) rather than an opportunity to learn
(that is, a statement about what someone has done).

------
JacobAldridge
This is the focus of my main keynote presentation topic, _On Being a Deep
Generalist_.

Specialisation came to the fore during the Industrial Revolution and achieved
a form of preeminence in the 20th Century that hadn’t existed elsewhere in
human history when knowing, at depth, a wide variety of skills and disciplines
was either essential for survival or in order to be considered a well-rounded
individual.

The internet, not without ongoing battles against vested interests, has solved
the discoverability challenge faced with approaching the wealth of knowledge
created in the past few centuries. For many of us aspiring polymaths (and I
agree with the other comments here that a polymath isn’t someone who knows
“everything about everything“, but rather knows “a lot about a lot” or “enough
about enough”) the challenge is mental and societal.

We convince ourselves that we must specialize to succeed; most schools and
many workplaces promote the same. Yet creativity and insight so often depends
on interdisciplinary knowledge and the ability to use our brains to connect
novel ideas.

It’s not the right choice for everyone. If you want to be the best in the
world (or the top 1%) at something, then specialize. But most of us are more
varied than that, which has benefits for us as business owners, or employees,
and as humans.

~~~
alok-g
What's the definition of Deep Generalist that you have in mind?

~~~
smiley1437
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a
wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization
is for insects.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

~~~
n4r9
Technically the quote belongs to a character in one of Heinlein's novels. He
did love writing hyper-competent men though, so chances are he believed it
himself at some point.

It's a decent description of a hyper competent person, but I wouldn't say a
"deep generalist" in the sense of someone who has prolific knowledge of many
different fields of human knowledge.

------
toohotatopic
>In fact these days we are all that man or woman; you only need to resort to
Wikipedia to realise how outdated the idea of knowing everything — or indeed
anything — has become.

The word is polymath, like polyglot. We don't expect a polyglot to speak all
languages.

Leonardo won't have known everything either.

------
daviddaviddavid
When it comes to modern/living polymaths, it's worth mentioning Noam Chomsky.
He did groundbreaking work in formal language theory that is fundamental to
lots of theory of computation. He basically (re)invented modern linguistics.
Then there's the media analysis work of Manufacturing Consent. Then there's
the unending political criticism. It's pretty staggering.

------
m12k
We're standing on the shoulders of giants - so many giants in fact, that it's
quite possible to spend a lifetime just climbing upward these days. By
comparison, in Leonardo's time, a curious mind would almost certainly have to
jump laterally to find something to hold its attention.

------
friendlybus
The same Judith Butler that came up with 'performativity'? Good luck with that
spectator!

I dont understand the polymath moniker, it seems to be a British definition
that elucidates a role in life that requires multiple high level skills
without describing where that applies in modern life. As if it were a position
one could attain rather than a useful, purposeful skill.

Tech leads like Jobs described art and science at the highest level as the
same thing. He demonstrated in production, high level knowledge in both
distinct categories, but would likely never be discussed by the Brits.

Its strange to see someone like Stephen Fry being described as a polymath,
when he works as a quiz show host and author. He is paid to learn and recite
that learning independent of its application in society.

I prefer the older British term 'expert generalist' as it seems more accurate
and discusses people who applied their learning more frequently.

------
bluquark
Looks like a case of an attention-grabbing headline not written by the article
author. The book review itself seems to argue that the idea of polymathy can
no longer be applied at all today.

~~~
ginko
I was about to say that. If a genuine polymath were 1 in a million we should
have 7000 von Neumanns right now.

~~~
glitchc
You know we might just have 7000 von Neumanns among us, but may be unable to
recognize them. The vast majority of 7+ billion people on the planet are
unknown to everyone some except family and a couple of friends.

The adage "Popular does not equal good" has never been more relevant.

~~~
papeda
> The adage "Popular does not equal good" has never been more relevant.

Eh, it depends. It's not true that popular ==> good, but I think there are
plenty of areas where it's more true than it used to be that good ==> popular.
For example, many more people now have a much better chance to get an
education and demonstrate aptitude in some area. And better communication
means talent is better matched to opportunity.

That's not to say we're really optimizing human potential. That doesn't even
seem close to true. But I think we're doing a lot better than we were even 50
years ago.

------
brenden2
Not so much "genuine", but rather celebrity polymath. There are plenty of
polymaths who have no interest in fame and fortune, and simply keep to
themselves.

~~~
onemoresoop
This is so true and so overlooked. I think there are a lot more intelligent
people, in general, who have absolutely no desire and need to advertise it

~~~
brenden2
You might argue that very intelligent people actively avoid celebrity status.

------
lend000
While the definition of polymath is somewhat contested and arbitrary, my
opinion is that the defining trait of polymathy is insatiable curiosity and a
desire to invent things and solve problems, real or imaginary. I do not know
how common this base set of traits is, and how variable it is in magnitude,
but I suspect it is higher than 1 in 100. When you add in some combination of
raw IQ, financial circumstance, educational circumstance, ambition, work
ethic, and leadership skills, then you end up a more impactful polymath
ranging from the software engineer who builds interesting things and
blogs/researches various topics in her spare time to Elon Musk to Von Neumann.

I see many smart naysayer's on HN who argue "this would never work" or "this
is considered bad practice" without offering some alternative idea. In fact,
this is probably the most common type of comment. While they are usually
correct, this is the exact opposite of how a polymath thinks. Polymaths have a
confidence in their own ideas and a desire to explore and build a mental model
for themselves before taking the tribal wisdom at face value. Thinking via
first principles comes innately to these types.

------
mLuby
The "problem" is how long it takes to get up to speed in various fields, now
that most have decades or centuries of depth.

Accelerated learning tech will open the polymath doors again.

~~~
yoricm
Exactly this. This is the future.

Accelerated learning is fascinating because learning today is so inefficient.
Combine that with the massive knowledge that accumulates over the years.

Elon Musks said it himself. Along with Solar Energy, Mars colonization, AI,
knowledge acquisition needs to be disrupted. Something like bio-technology
with transplanted chips.

Reading books is a very old way, and it doesn't scale well. Listening to
podcast isn't very efficient either. Gamification has not been effective
enough so far.

You can also see it in "Matrix", when training in a virtual world with a
karate-training program that interacts directly with the brain. As you do when
dreaming, but in an interactive way.

In the "Fifth Element", there's also a scene where Milla Jovovich (an advanced
being) learn all Human History in a matter of hours/minutes with accelerated
reading/watching the Internet.

I'm sure there are many other examples of people putting "accelerated
learning" as one feature of the future.

(And I'm already excited to be there.)

------
CPLX
If that’s the case there’s about eight of them in New York City.

