"Now the fact that polymaths peak later in life might be a bit discouraging news to young polymaths." Not discouraging at all, it gives me hope. Just when I think I've surpassed the age of making achievements, I read this and find a newfound motivation. Thank you :)
I think it's hard in this area to distinguish whether it's the mastery of the material that takes time or aquiring the social status and ways of speaking that allow one to be taken seriously.
I suspect that the biggest reason for the time to have an effect on multiple areas is overcoming the barriers fields raise against outsiders.
Range by David Epstein. I think it’s a combination of all 3 that provide understanding of a field’s fundamental concepts and principles that other seemingly disparate fields share.
i think it may be better to expect oneself to use the insights from one field to produce new insights *anywhere*, i'm not sure why it'd have to be in the first field specifically.
(i retract this. forcing it to be a new insight in the original field requires you to become especailly competent in that field, which gaurds against using misaprehended concepts to "illuminate" another area.)
I think that a polymath’s intuition (which I believe to be a non-linear thinking process) to be much better than that of a non-polymath. Our brains can be a blackbox at times, we can intuitively make predictions about certain things and we know there’s a concrete explanation but there are simply too many variables that are being considered that it becomes impossible to explain.
I can share when I was first called a polymath. At the time as I still do now, made me feel like an alien. I had just received my AP scores (5 in chemistry and Biology) in 1979 and had just placed 3rd in the TN state chess fair for 18 and under. I didn't wait for my award because I had a Connie mack baseball game the same day. One of my teachers asked why I was leaving the toeny and called me a poly math saying playing competitive chess and baseball the same day made me such. I struck out 7 that day (long live the fork ball) and almost got our first baseman (Tripp) kicked out the game after their pitcher threw at my head and if it is one thing 200 pound white fiestbasemen in TN don't like it is throwing at their picture. Great memory and a solid piece of writing sir.
BTW I publish 5 or Six a year, could do more but hunting and making music is more fun to me.
Acquiring a field’s depth does take time - though like the increased ease of acquiring each successive new language becomes (cumulative enhancement model), I believe we come to see fields differently than a specialist does, to differently acquire a field, to more quickly see their overlapping fundamentals than to acquire them in their specific depths.
This is the case for all the high sensing. We take in more and it pays off later. Variation of the species. When every else is in their roaring 20s we are struggling. As they hit the midlife crisis we are soaring and settled. Too bad our entire system subverts us so we never reach any level of power.
Would love to hear you rank the areas intellectual areas you've worked in by their perceived importance/strength in terms of contributing to generative insights. might be useful for aspiring polymaths
I really like this! Thank you. I keep asking myself: If everything is a unity and everything is related, finding the relationship in different stuff is wise and yet never ending ... polymath ....
"A one-trick pony can achieve great scientific success, by attaining world-class mastery of a single trick. But a two-trick pony, even one with limited technical prowess, can sometimes make influential scientific contributions just by noticing fruitful connections between different topics or ideas."
A key to the polymath (here "dimath" ?) strategy being a good use of time may be that "limited technical prowess" -- if it takes the apocryphal 10000 hours to become a full monomathic subject matter expert, and yet the apocryphal 80/20 rule applies, then might investing a total of only 4000 hours, half to each domain, be enough to enable a polymath to deliver pretty darn good insights?
"Now the fact that polymaths peak later in life might be a bit discouraging news to young polymaths." Not discouraging at all, it gives me hope. Just when I think I've surpassed the age of making achievements, I read this and find a newfound motivation. Thank you :)
Amen. I feel the same way. Maybe my life won't end up being a wash after all.
I like this. I cannot help thinking, regardless of our efforts everything is and will be a wash ....an illusion right?...
I think it's hard in this area to distinguish whether it's the mastery of the material that takes time or aquiring the social status and ways of speaking that allow one to be taken seriously.
I suspect that the biggest reason for the time to have an effect on multiple areas is overcoming the barriers fields raise against outsiders.
Range by David Epstein. I think it’s a combination of all 3 that provide understanding of a field’s fundamental concepts and principles that other seemingly disparate fields share.
i think it may be better to expect oneself to use the insights from one field to produce new insights *anywhere*, i'm not sure why it'd have to be in the first field specifically.
(i retract this. forcing it to be a new insight in the original field requires you to become especailly competent in that field, which gaurds against using misaprehended concepts to "illuminate" another area.)
I think that a polymath’s intuition (which I believe to be a non-linear thinking process) to be much better than that of a non-polymath. Our brains can be a blackbox at times, we can intuitively make predictions about certain things and we know there’s a concrete explanation but there are simply too many variables that are being considered that it becomes impossible to explain.
I speculate that polymaths mature later, a childish delight in exploration and discovery infecting their personalities too.
Are polymaths disproportionately autodidacts?
Probably
As a polymath this is such a cope for underachieving “gifted” kids
Interesting observation and logical - there’s a recent book out on this topic, generally .. young geniuses and old masters, something like this..
are you refering to Old masters and young geniuses by David Galenson, it's from 2006 so not so recent. or it's there another one 😅
I found David Epstein’s book Range to greatly extend the conversation around this excellent post. I’d love to read the book you reference
I can share when I was first called a polymath. At the time as I still do now, made me feel like an alien. I had just received my AP scores (5 in chemistry and Biology) in 1979 and had just placed 3rd in the TN state chess fair for 18 and under. I didn't wait for my award because I had a Connie mack baseball game the same day. One of my teachers asked why I was leaving the toeny and called me a poly math saying playing competitive chess and baseball the same day made me such. I struck out 7 that day (long live the fork ball) and almost got our first baseman (Tripp) kicked out the game after their pitcher threw at my head and if it is one thing 200 pound white fiestbasemen in TN don't like it is throwing at their picture. Great memory and a solid piece of writing sir.
BTW I publish 5 or Six a year, could do more but hunting and making music is more fun to me.
I guess this means that as I get older, polymathy becomes a better strategy for me?
No, its advantage comes from a long use; can't switch to it and get its advantage quickly.
Why not????
Acquiring a field’s depth does take time - though like the increased ease of acquiring each successive new language becomes (cumulative enhancement model), I believe we come to see fields differently than a specialist does, to differently acquire a field, to more quickly see their overlapping fundamentals than to acquire them in their specific depths.
I am not sure if I qualify to be one but this article rings a bell of understanding in my head.
Is there a difference between a polymath and a "multiptentialite?"
This is the case for all the high sensing. We take in more and it pays off later. Variation of the species. When every else is in their roaring 20s we are struggling. As they hit the midlife crisis we are soaring and settled. Too bad our entire system subverts us so we never reach any level of power.
Would love to hear you rank the areas intellectual areas you've worked in by their perceived importance/strength in terms of contributing to generative insights. might be useful for aspiring polymaths
I really like this! Thank you. I keep asking myself: If everything is a unity and everything is related, finding the relationship in different stuff is wise and yet never ending ... polymath ....
Serendipitously reading an old blog post by John Preskill about the value of being a "two trick pony" -- https://quantumfrontiers.com/2012/08/06/two-trick-pony/ -- the money paragraph:
"A one-trick pony can achieve great scientific success, by attaining world-class mastery of a single trick. But a two-trick pony, even one with limited technical prowess, can sometimes make influential scientific contributions just by noticing fruitful connections between different topics or ideas."
A key to the polymath (here "dimath" ?) strategy being a good use of time may be that "limited technical prowess" -- if it takes the apocryphal 10000 hours to become a full monomathic subject matter expert, and yet the apocryphal 80/20 rule applies, then might investing a total of only 4000 hours, half to each domain, be enough to enable a polymath to deliver pretty darn good insights?