Computers are impressive machines, and they get more impressive every year, as hardware gets cheaper and software gets better. But while they are substantially better than humans on many important tasks, still overall humans earn far more income from using their smarts than do computers. And at
If you have very high iq you are basically better at everything (like a faster CPU). This is not allowed. Therefore you are only allowed to be good at one thing (like the rest of us). If you claim otherwise you will be shunned.
For those who like the integration between chess and AI, and who are concerned about potential for AI control over future cultures via coercive though reform processes.
It would be interesting to try to estimate the maximum intellectual output at a defined task of a team of two or more humans, each with realistic constraints re: learning and communication.
Yeah, my question is, what's the best way to monetize that status? I've found pretty much the same thing you have, which is most "jobs" are designed for specialists. Even if you're a specialist in multiple fields, which makes you better than usual in a single field, it's tough to find an employer who is going to make use of more than a single field. In some ways, it may be that scarcity keeps employers boxing up jobs in ways that they can always find someone to fill them, rather than optimizing any particular person's job.
So single self-employed business is one option. Another with a bit more security is where you essentially work in multiple fields, but do it across more than one job. Another might be CEO, although as a "lottery" style job, that's a tough one to work towards. Related is the "talent stack" idea, where you can create an uncommon work function by having complementary expertise.
Curious if anyone else here can think of highly valuable jobs best filled by someone who is an expert in a few areas and semi-expert in many others.
"We reserve our highest honors for those who are best at specific recognized specialty areas, and mainly only recognize polymaths when they are good enough at one such area."
One can speculate about why that is. One possible reason may be that it is difficult for all but the most competent people to reliably assess polymath/generalist competence. It is easier to assess specialist competencies (especially in empirical and technical fields).
To each his own default approach, I suppose. My preference would be to invent a new term. But we're limited by the restriction of this discussion to generalities ;), inasmuch as you haven't provided any examples. Seems to me that individuals who are proficient in even two advanced disciplines and also proficient at integrating them are pretty rare, and what most distinguishes them is their integrative ability and interests within restricted domains rather than their breadth of expertise. ("Cross-disciplinary integrative thinkers"? I suppose I can see why you would prefer "polymaths.")
Math, and some areas of philosophy, are fields almost defined as about how far one can go staying with generalities. That approach can go far WITHIN those fields, but it isn't a substitute for learning OTHER fields outside those.
I mean to refer to a polymath who has successfully integrated their many areas of expertise.
What's the advantage of using this term differently from ordinary usage? The paradigm example of polymaths have unrelated accomplishments in disparate fields. (For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... ) Moreover, this isn't just a different understanding; it's a major change in your argument.
I've had the privilege of meeting/knowing some impressive polymaths. I would assert that it is is not uncommon that a person with very great accomplishments in a specific field (e.g., physics) may also be highly-skilled, though less accomplished, in one or more other fields (e.g., music). Such a person could have easily been employed in that other field instead, if not for their primary area of expertise overshadowing their other talents and diverting their attentions from developing them. For those who are somewhat less gifted than true polymaths, specialization and hard work offer an opportunity to achieve real greatness, albeit in a narrow subject field. For many people, this is a very effective path to success. The key is to understand your talents and pursue the right specialty!
Agreed! Who are your favorite superhumans?
If you have very high iq you are basically better at everything (like a faster CPU). This is not allowed. Therefore you are only allowed to be good at one thing (like the rest of us). If you claim otherwise you will be shunned.
For those who like the integration between chess and AI, and who are concerned about potential for AI control over future cultures via coercive though reform processes.
The concept made concrete in a manner usable for “repeated games”: http://www.inandoutofthebox...
If you worry that AI could brainwash everyone, this is a concise theoretical illustration of the HOW.
Might there be an immunologist or two who are also farmers?
It would be interesting to try to estimate the maximum intellectual output at a defined task of a team of two or more humans, each with realistic constraints re: learning and communication.
Yeah, my question is, what's the best way to monetize that status? I've found pretty much the same thing you have, which is most "jobs" are designed for specialists. Even if you're a specialist in multiple fields, which makes you better than usual in a single field, it's tough to find an employer who is going to make use of more than a single field. In some ways, it may be that scarcity keeps employers boxing up jobs in ways that they can always find someone to fill them, rather than optimizing any particular person's job.
So single self-employed business is one option. Another with a bit more security is where you essentially work in multiple fields, but do it across more than one job. Another might be CEO, although as a "lottery" style job, that's a tough one to work towards. Related is the "talent stack" idea, where you can create an uncommon work function by having complementary expertise.
Curious if anyone else here can think of highly valuable jobs best filled by someone who is an expert in a few areas and semi-expert in many others.
Good and important post.
"We reserve our highest honors for those who are best at specific recognized specialty areas, and mainly only recognize polymaths when they are good enough at one such area."
One can speculate about why that is. One possible reason may be that it is difficult for all but the most competent people to reliably assess polymath/generalist competence. It is easier to assess specialist competencies (especially in empirical and technical fields).
I have written a bit on these issues; e.g., here:
https://www.academia.edu/79...
You certainly deserve more recognition, Robin! :)
To each his own default approach, I suppose. My preference would be to invent a new term. But we're limited by the restriction of this discussion to generalities ;), inasmuch as you haven't provided any examples. Seems to me that individuals who are proficient in even two advanced disciplines and also proficient at integrating them are pretty rare, and what most distinguishes them is their integrative ability and interests within restricted domains rather than their breadth of expertise. ("Cross-disciplinary integrative thinkers"? I suppose I can see why you would prefer "polymaths.")
As usual, one looks for the closest term one can find, and then if needed declares that one is locally defining a different sense of that term.
Math, and some areas of philosophy, are fields almost defined as about how far one can go staying with generalities. That approach can go far WITHIN those fields, but it isn't a substitute for learning OTHER fields outside those.
I mean to refer to a polymath who has successfully integrated their many areas of expertise.
What's the advantage of using this term differently from ordinary usage? The paradigm example of polymaths have unrelated accomplishments in disparate fields. (For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... ) Moreover, this isn't just a different understanding; it's a major change in your argument.
Mathematics would seem to be the decisive counter-example to this claim.
I've had the privilege of meeting/knowing some impressive polymaths. I would assert that it is is not uncommon that a person with very great accomplishments in a specific field (e.g., physics) may also be highly-skilled, though less accomplished, in one or more other fields (e.g., music). Such a person could have easily been employed in that other field instead, if not for their primary area of expertise overshadowing their other talents and diverting their attentions from developing them. For those who are somewhat less gifted than true polymaths, specialization and hard work offer an opportunity to achieve real greatness, albeit in a narrow subject field. For many people, this is a very effective path to success. The key is to understand your talents and pursue the right specialty!
Useful generality mostly comes from generalizing from particulars. Trying to be general by staying with generalities mostly fails.
Tool taxonomies are useful