Slashdot Mirror
Does the World Need Polymaths? (bbc.com)
Two hundred years ago, it was still possible for one person to be a leader in several different fields of inquiry. Today that is no longer the case. So is there a role in today's world for the polymath -- someone who knows a lot about a lot of things? From a report: Bobby Seagull's fist-pumping and natty dressing, and Eric Monkman's furrowed brow, flashing teeth, contorted facial expressions and vocal delivery -- like a fog horn with a hangover -- made these two young men the stars of the last University Challenge competition. [...] They're still recognised in the street. "People often ask me, do you intimidate people with your knowledge," says Monkman. "But the opposite is the case. I have wide knowledge but no deep expertise. I am intimidated by experts." Seagull, like Monkman, feels an intense pressure to specialise. They regard themselves as Jacks-of-all-Trades, without being master of one. "When I was young what I really wanted to do was know a lot about a lot," says Monkman. "Now I feel that if I want to make a novel contribution to society I need to know a great deal about one tiny thing." The belief that researchers need to specialise goes back at least two centuries. From the beginning of the 19th Century, research has primarily been the preserve of universities. Ever since, says Stefan Collini, Professor of Intellectual History and English Literature at Cambridge University, researchers have labels attached to them. "They're professor of this or that, and you get a much more self-conscious sense of the institutional divides between domains of knowledge."
A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one.
My breadth of specific technical knowledge is what makes me valuable to my company. I'm not saying I can't be replaced, I'm saying my unique set of knowledge that covers several different needed areas would make it difficult. That makes my "specialty" the broad range of things I can do. That specific breadth makes me valuable to my company... but unfortunately, only to my company.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Otherwise we get people who are VERY specialized in a singular field, but completely myopic.
Then they either:
a) don't see the connections between their field of study, and others -- kind of a silo effect
b) have a high level of expertise in one field, and can speak with authority on that topic, but foolishly believe that it carries over to everything else.
(this is also why liberal arts educations are a good thing, and STEM majors tend to be incredibly dull people. ;) )
I believe that I fit the description of polymath (I really know a lot about many things), but since I'm not exactly human so I do not know if my case counts.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Because we get the first post
The problem with "polymaths" is that their knowledge is too shallow to be of any real worth these days. It may be actively harmful to make decisions based on this type of knowledge.
But, as it turns out, experts at the top of their game have to have a lot of surrounding knowledge and will need to be experts in more than one subject area. They also will need to be able to acquire new knowledge fast and accurately. In a sense, polymaths have been replaced by "meta-experts" that can become experts in most topics in several larger areas on demand.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The key that many companies value is not so much cross disciplinary education per se, but being able to be highly knowledgeable across a wide variety of fields and then taking that knowledge and using it to come up with unique, valuable solutions that draw on that knowledge.
Brute forcing a problem is something you can get out of any fresh college graduate, but an elegant, economical solution that draws on multiple fields is truly valuable and the people who can regularly generate those kinds of solutions are both rare and valuable.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Depends on where.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
The value of specialization is obvious to most people, but it seems that somewhere along the line people stopped thinking of the value that generalists bring.
Aside from general utility (the reason that you are more likely to carry a multitool with you than carrying a knife, even though the knife is much better at knifing), there is a more important thing:
Generalists are better able to see interconnections between disciplines, and how to leverage them.
I majored in Math and Minored in Philosophy, at first. I ended up taking more Philosophy than I did Math and getting 2 degrees. Liberal Arts has morphed into something else today though. You can get a Liberal Arts degree without ever taking Ethics, Logic, or even more than an "Intro" class to Philosophy at most schools.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I was in the shed with Dad pre-school, helping him fix the car, build, carpentry, crystal radio, metal work.... He was multi-skilled - old school trades apprenticeship on the docks, then wireless, tv, early computers, and I picked a lot up from him. I did mechanics, electronics, chippy, plastics, farm work.... Got a picture of my youngest in a nappy, spanner in hand, covered in grease, fixing my outboard.
Go well
"Today that is no longer the case." -- Is this the voice of the art critic criticizing the artists? How would you know, if you're not one of those people?
The actual specialized knowledge will be available on-line through Google Assistant or whatever that morphs into in 10 years, as well as all the online learning resources like university lecture series and Khan academy, "the great courses" what have you.
A meta-level polymath is one who knows all about philosophy of knowledge, and in a personal way, knows how to use their own mind in a way that is in accord with sound knowledge-gathering practices and knowledge-organizing practices.
The meta-polymath, is an expert in the practice of efficient inquiry, learning, categorization, information prioritization etc.
Perhaps as a shortcut, they have trained in some very general areas of knowledge such as the most commonly needed mathematics and logic, as well as have become expert in their best natural language. All of these are just to ensure speed and accuracy in learning other more specific fields.
Perhaps they should have one to three areas of specific knowledge that they are passionate about, and bother to go deep and current in, and innovate in, but this is more just to keep in mental practice, so they can apply the same passionate but principled learning rapidly to any new domain.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Curly: Do you know what the secret of life is?
Curly: [holds up one finger] This.
Mitch: Your finger?
Curly: One thing. Just one thing. You stick to that, and the rest don't mean shit.
Mitch: But, what is the "one thing?"
Curly: That's what you have to find out!
The world is indeed heading toward more and more specialization, then what happens is the specialists miss progress in unrelated fields. Worse the progress that is missed is not necessarily in widely divergent fields, shockingly the ideas missed could all be in the computing field but one in wired networking and one in radio networking and still be missed. By being a polymath you can bring together different ideas and glue them together in ways never thought of before, The wider ranging you are the more ideas you can bring together in unique ways. Thus in many ways Polymath's are critical for breakthroughs.
It seems IT is moving this way also. In the past, in-house apps were typically developed by app-dedicated teams. Now with MVC and similar architectures, the trend seems to be "layer specialists"; with UI experts, DB experts, security/user-role experts, etc. dedicated to that layer, and more detached from the domain. The jack-of-all-trades developers in general don't seem to be able to keep up with the latest UI trends and fads, and proverbial books are judged by their covers for good or bad.
Or is this maybe internal IT trying to mirror startup trends out of habit and/or a keep-up-with-Jones's thinking? If they pick something that's more practical but less up-to-date, will they lose staff who are afraid of not keeping up? Seems IT moves almost as fast as the fashion industry these days.
This also opens the door to charlatans who hype stuff and make PHB's fear being left behind. IT in practice often is not about cold rational logic and evidence, but involves the sociology of bullshit and FUD.
Table-ized A.I.
We invented the desktop computer and now people who aren't very good at arithmetic can use a spreadsheet to calculate sales growth. This has made it possible for less intelligent people to step into roles that they would not have been qualified for a few generations ago. The big thing that is now missing is a real comprehension of the tasks they are performing, the ability to look at the results the computer gives them and question if they really make sense. The first effect of this is increased entropy, things become less stable over time, things that used to work don't work quite as well (for example, headphone plugs and headphone jacks have been standardized for years, but changes in the configurations mean some headphones won't work with some jacks). The second effect is corruption, people realizing that there are some gaps in the numbers on paper, and they can exploit them for personal gain (for example Defense contracts in the 1980's, where a toilet see could cost thousands of dollars).
I'm in my 30s and have already had a large amount of success by having a little bit of math, computer science and engineering knowledge. I've received many awards for my work (even one from President Obama at the White House)... but I'm incredibly intimidated by my peers who all specialized in either math OR computer science OR engineering. While I'm always able to put the pieces together in a novel way... which solves interesting problems... I always feel out of my depth when it comes to conversation.
I'm currently back at school doing a PhD in yet another interdisciplinary field: Computational Science and Engineering. But this time I'm specializing in applying it to nuclear energy production. It feels good to specialize a bit and really learn something about _one_ field in particular. I still won't be the world's greatest nuclear engineer... but at least I can hold my own in conversations now.
In addition to just feeling like I don't know much I must admit that publishing is always difficult. Journals tend to be very specialized and deciding where to send my papers or even what audience to target can be tough.
That said: there are not too many generalists out there, so I know that my interdisciplinary skillset will always be valuable... you just have to push past that feeling of knowing "nothing"
Polymath is a word I haven't come across in years or even decades. Seems like a fancy word for generalist. Most of the comments fall into the generalist vs. specialist debate. Based on my 20+ year technical career, it's better to be a generalist most of the time, and a specialist as needed some of time. Then again, the highlight of my resume is cleaning out IT storage closets.
"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!" - R. Heinlein
Never stop learning. Do not be afraid to try new things.
It may not work for everyone, but I had many job offers base on the fact that I have done a little bit of everything. One Manager that hired me specifically said that the offer was based on the fact that I could be flexible and move to many positions on their team if needed. (and did so)
However, utility player positions do not get the big paychecks. So eventually find something to focus on.
Here is the thing, I like learning. I'm now in my 50's and still learning things daily. A lot of things, about a lot of topics. I am not really an expert in any one thing, but I do know a lot about a lot of different areas. Science, politics/law, computers/electronics, art, mechanics and so on.
I think what one knows is almost as important how deep. Broad knowledge over a wide range of areas allows one to see connections that others just can't see. I have a rare condition, and when I was told, I read everything I could on the subject. Everything. I'm not a doctor, but at least I can converse with my doctor, about my condition, and ask questions that need asking. Hell even knowing I don't know something, I can ask the question "Is there anything I should be asking, that I am not".
But learning, life long hard edge learning is the key. Most people stop learning, and just "do" whatever they know. I get that, it is comforting place to be satisfied. I just know I am not wired that way.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"People often ask me, do you intimidate people with your knowledge," says Monkman
So, not so much an expert in basic human interaction, then?
-Styopa
Of course we need polymaths, they're the only ones who can open the Chamber of Secrets!
I might have mis-read the summary...
The way tech is jumping from one fad the next, you better choose very carefully if you are going to focus on one thing only. Sure by all means have a strong specialty, but not to the point where it excludes anything else.
First, the answer to the question is yes, the world need's polymaths. But the post raises another question in my mind:
According to Betteridge's Law any headline that ends in a question can be answered no. Since, in my not so humble opinion, the answer to this one is yes... Exception that proves ('prove' in the old sense of 'test') the rule?
Being master of something doesn't mean you are the very best in the world of that field, there is only one best.
Traditionally, in the trades a master is a person who is formally recognized by his/her peers to be equivalent enough in skill to join their ranks.
A master's degree is the obvious equivalent to this. And there are numerous people who have gone beyond this and possess PhD's in multiple fields. A Doctor of Philosophy is an important distinction and indicates that you have contributed to a field in some way.
If you contributed to multiple fields in a way that is recognized by the other leads of the field, I believe that is quite a fair qualification to be called a Polymath.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I am an expert and well accomplished in software engineering, digital circuit design, computer graphics, CPU architecture, and several other things. One time I had a recruiter tell me I should write one software and one hardware resume because companies won't believe that I could be good at both. Even after I'd had like 15 years of experience. It just shows you how cookie cutter hiring practices usually are.
On the other hand after I had been working as a professor for a while, these combos came in handy to get side work as an expert witness. I guess it's okay after your reach some level or amount of experience.
Yes, knowing a lot about a lot has been replaced by google. Why are you seeking a "novel" contribution? Pride?
Renaissance men belong in the Renaissance, not in the 3. millennium.
So sick and tired of folks saying "maths" instead of the right way, "math". It must stop!
Ok,sorry for the rant. Off to read the article now.
I've had a successful 20 year career on the basis of knowing a lot about a fairly wide range of technical topics so that I am able to bring together solutions drawing on these different disciplines. The first step on that path was getting my first job after college in a different technical area to my degree. This was a hiring mistake by my first employer, but it worked out well.
The thing I have noticed, is that after a very deep dive into solving a particular problem in computer security a few years ago, which drew on all my experience along with that of a few other people, I've been considered the 'expert' in that field. As I've been more recognized as the expert, people's understanding of my place as a broad skilled problem solver has diminished. They tend to think I'm a narrowly focused specialist. I get offered jobs on the basis of my position of eminence in a field I'm done with. I'd like to move on to new problems.
My escape plan is to write a book, which will be published next year, telling everyone how to do my job. Then I'll find something else to do with a clear conscience. I'm two years and 298 pages in so far.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I can do a lot of things and I know a lot about a lot of subjects, but I'm old enough and wise enough now to know my limits.
I've always done nearly all the maintenance on my home, car, mowers, and computers. I can talk with friends about nearly any subject they bring up - history, astronomy, physics, gardening, politics, television, music, etc.. But I'm not an expert about any of those.
So, if my car's transmission needs work, it's time to call in a pro. If I need doctor, I go to a doctor.
They be called: Small business owners
Accounting, law, taxes, HR, inventory control, marketing, repair tech, all the way down to: how the hell do I keep the earwigs out of the warehouse?!?
Unfortunately I seem to know more about any category than those 'specialists' also :(
Betteridge's law of headlines fails for the first time...
I work with a lot of PhD's, and it appears that if you get one of those, you immediately know everything about everything.
I had a PhD, who had just come back from a 2-day "Scientist to Sea" underway, tell me that I really didn't understand how standing watch worked on a ship, despite my having spent eight years on sea duty in the Navy, but she would be glad to "PhD-splain" it to me.
I started out as a Computer Engineer in avionics and evolved to System Engineering and Architecting. At that level, I had to be able to pick up virtually any engineering trade to a fairly high degree of competency. I also had to master things like human factors design and project planning, project management, etc. I would say that I absolutely had to be a "polymath" and that it is essential to have such people in the higher level positions of R&D efforts.
I consistently see that "leaps" in technology tend to be made by polymaths whose thoughts benefited from unexpected cross-fertilization between fields. In fact, it seems to me that the way to break loose virtually any field that has stagnated is to bring in people from other fields to try to break the tunnel vision effect that the narrowly focused seem to suffer from.
But, moreover, other aspects of life benefit as well. I can perform most of my own car repairs with a high degree of competency. I have earned my Journeyman Electrician's license. I installed my own instant water heater a couple of months ago. I rebuilt a floor and wall shortly before that. I've completely replumbed the hot and cold water in more than one home. I have bought homes, stripped them to the frame, and rebuilt every aspect but that frame without hiring a single contractor. I am a very competent cook and cook all of my family's meals. I've rebuilt wells that supply my drinking water. I've written short stories. I can have a conversation with my doctor about my health without him dumbing down any language and can easily understand most medical research papers. I am a competent accountant and have successfully kept books for businesses. And on and on and on.
Once you reach a certain level of competency, you get to where you just know the way something has to work because everything follows the same rules of math, physics, biology, etc.
In short, being a polymath has enriched my life so much, I wouldn't want to give it up for any amount of pay. I'd much rather have the pleasure of doing things myself than be rich and pay others to do things for me.
Often a startup is founded by a couple of people that are have very specialized knowledge and they need people that can do a lot different tasks well to grow the business on very little capital. This is especially true if they don't have a bunch of VC money to throw around. As a startup grows and becomes more successful (has more money), these people can be supplemented with people with dedicated skills/knowledge enabling the company to continue growing.
Being a polymath does not make money. This society, it is the "code monkey" that gets the job in engineering. It is the person that knows how to do that one thing and will work cheap that get the job. Specialization and Differentiation creates a more efficient company. That is the whole idea behind H-1B workers. it is cheaper to hire a person for overseas than it is to train them here.
often come from a creative insight that mixes ideas in wildly different fields. Sometimes this comes from collaboration, but oftentimes from a single person. Great minds, the rare and true geniuses, best serve the world in that traditional role, the polymath.
The non-pros may understand the BASICS of how something works, but the problem is that they lack the education regarding industry standard practices that exist for better safety or possibility of later repair.
Example from real life: someone installed a light with the electrical switch on the -neutral- side of the circuit. Works for turning the light off and on, but if they had placed the switch on the -live- side of the circuit instead (before the light), it would have made the light safe to touch when switched off. Not that people should do that... but they would be protected if they did if the light were wired that latter way.
A trained electrician would not have wired the switch in the unsafe manner.
People whose talents and competencies span several areas create new areas of inquiry and they stimulate connections. A criticism often leveled against modern academic inquiry is that of siloization: people retreat into little mutually unintelligible niches and hide there. The need for them will never be obviated. They add elan, brilliance, and lustre to our intellectual world.
The most dramatic jumps in science tend to be made by people with experience in more than one field, where an appropriate usecase is present. After they've established the role, others without the same level of expertise can jump in, but (for example) we needed biologists who were also computer scientists to really start off the bioinformatics revolution.
We have a lot of polymaths that know nothing about everything. Some of them are so proud of telling the truth that they can cast a judgment on anything.
We call them mainstream journalists.
I don't think it's possible to be successful without being excellent in more than one field. There is always someone out there who knows a bit more than you, has better resources than you, or can work harder than you. The certain way you can distinguish yourself from competition is by being good at more than one thing.
I'm a PhD scientist many years removed now from school. I'm reminded daily that I have spent more time learning about business and biology than I spent on my Physics PhD. If becoming an expert takes ~5 years of focused work, you can become an expert in a lot of fields.
What drives a polymath?
As a practicing dilettante I have at times drifted into polymath territory (see: http://www.seanet.com/~hgg9140/ ) NOTE: That website deliberately does not cover topics I actually did for a living (sysadmin, developer, DBA, OSS champion, systems modeler and architect, etc.) Also haven't yet written up cartridge reloading, bow hunting, metal working, woodworking, boat building, and Italian cooking.
On that basis I think the key ingredients are:
a) Unquenchable curiosity and naivete -- if some human can do it/think it, why not me?
b) Acceptance that getting there takes work -- you have to do the homework and live the experiences. I'm still struggling with Reiman curvature, so I can read about relativistic fluid dynamics. Also bogged down on homeric greek on the way to reading The Odyssey.
c) Thus willingness to be the most ignorant/incompetent guy in the room, but with a grim resolve to "catch up with the others" It is emotionally painful, but you have to do this topic after topic, year after year, decade after decade.
d) Experience in the act of learning -- where to get the best books and youtube videos, when to splurge on expensive equipment, when to take classes or entire degree programs, etc.
e) Some sense of what "success" means. In my case, I want to be well-grounded -- so I can later learn from true masters and can recognize BS when it showed up.
f) Willingness to share what you have learned. You don't have to be a full master to help other raw beginners get going.
I've heard this argument before, and I bought it: Evolution comes from depth of knowledge, revolution comes from breadth. However, a strong argument can be made that employers are looking and paying for depth, and those revolutionary ideas are nothing without capital... xD
In a commercial environment, polymaths are highly sought talents. Especially if you have a knack for communication too. On the academic side, you might not find great acclaim though.
Both are needed. Both have usefulness and value.
What a stupid question.
And therefore probably dangerous. I think they should be banned. Make me safe now!
In answer to the original question: do we need polymaths? Of course we do, but possibly not attention seekers like the two mentioned; from what I could find in a quick search, their main achievement has been to amass enough knowledge about stuff to score high on University Challenge, a TV quiz show. The real polymaths are people who are highly skilled in several advanced disciplines, who can therefore bring skills from one to the other; like when physicists start working in biology or mathematicians bring their unique insight to the world of physics. These people are extremely important, because they are able to coordinate several areas of science and often think outside the box, simply because they have not been brought up in the tradition of whichever area they are "interfering" in.
Specialism has its uses, but overspecialism is a major problem. There are myriad easy breakthroughs to be made which involve expertise from multiple areas, but too few have an overall viewpoint of the landscape of modern research in order to spot such things. It is as if people can't tell the difference between somebody living two houses down the road and somebody living in another continent. To to overspecialised person, everything past their front-door is akin to another continent.
To the generlist, it looks different: the overall research landscape is a small country, where the natives walk around with 1000x microscopes attached to their eyes, and said microscopes attached to a fixed point on the ground. So much potential is wasted it is frustrating.
well if you know alot, you can be wrong about alot. ...
if you just know one special thing, then that's the only place to make mistakes
Which is good since there are times when shit just needs to get done.
(No sexism implied; they are both dated terms.) The difference is in the telling. The world is filled and run by those who want higher salaries because of the letters after their names, and they have a percentage is discounting any who might offer actual experience or breadth of knowledge as alternatives to academic credentials.
I prefer the term Renaissance Man from a time when luminaries dabbled in everything. Having a broad range of knowledge makes you a better leader because you don't get tunnel vision. It allows you to see connections between various subjects and to come up with ideas that are greater than the parts. If deeper knowledge is required, you hire someone who has that particular skill.
2005 - POLYMATH vs. GENIUS (almost) BEING MORE "ALL AROUND" THAN 1 DIMENSIONAL IN IT/IS/MIS:2005 http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166174&cid=13863159/
* A lot of folks here "hit on" my exact point (that polymaths can relate & cross-train improve various disciplines using them in concert...)
APK
P.S.=> I did it in academia MANY times (producing computer programs for areas other than comp. sci.)... apk
Never let school get in the way of your education! I suppose I am such. I studied engineering, languages, creative writing, English literature, statistical genetics, analytical chemistry, music theory - all to a graduate level. I have worked as an accountant, auto mechanic, software engineer, and serious improvisational jazz violinist. I am a published writer of articles and books in software engineering, and have a US Patent as sole inventor of a means to enable adaptive systems (systems that don't require programming to adapt to their environments - a form of AI). At least all of this keeps me from being bored! :-)
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
So why does the Queens English put an 's' at the end of 'math' when the American's don't ?
(This question has nothing to do with the title, but it did jog my memory. I noticed this effect when watching BBC shows.)
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Lots have critiqued his coding abilities.
In Alan Alda's book If I Understood You, Would I Have This Look on My Face? (2017), he does an experiment in teaching engineering students theatrical improvisation techniques (specifically, exercises advocated by Viola Spolin).
What he observes about these students giving (often stilted) talks to each other (especially in the before condition) is that they barely understand each other's technical jargon.
These are students of mostly the same age and generation, attending the same school, talking mostly the same courses, but focusing on different projects.
I wouldn't call myself a polymath, but I've acquired a way to handle people talking vaguely over my head across a wide range of subject matters (much of the humanities and most of STEM). It's based on years and years of rarely letting an unfamiliar reference pass across my screen without a Google search, a wide range of reading interests, and a facility for careful listening and active questioning.
If a wonk has difficulty conversing with me, he/she probably has difficulty talking to his/her colleague down the hall. At that point, you just need to know not to take it personally.
I'd rather do another thousand Google searches than spend a week on the Queen of Norwalk steaming around some mosquito-infested tropical coastline.
I guess that part of it is 90% temperament.
A specialist is someone who knows more and more about less and less, and ends up knowing everything about nothing. A generalist knows less and less about more and more, and ends up knowing nothing about everything.
Everyone on /. really cares. No, really.
My only formal background is that I have a master degree on IT-related area. I was hired by being a generalist and work with ITC infrastructure for a large global company. Other than that, I play the drums, acoustic guitar and piano. Played on several bands and was invited to play in Vegas (I live in Brazil), paid expenses.
I love to play with electronics, give me a schematic and I can build anything analog or digital. Built many things up to today.
I like to play with mechanics, am building my second CNC machine, this time a router/3d Printer/cutter/milling machine.
I love woodworking and have built many things over the years. Chairs, dog houses, sculptures, roofs, benches, cabinets, you name it.
I love to play with R/C airplanes, gliders and discus launch gliders, but found out I enjoy more the building process than the flying itself.
I am able to construct carbon-fiber and kevlar parts using vaccum bagging and forming techniques.
I am father of one, married and have a cat and a dog.
I like to know everything about anything, but I am not a specialist in one field. I am my own polymath. .:)