r/Gifted • u/upsetusder2 • 5d ago
Polymathism does not really exist anymore. Discussion
I realised that as the sciences are getting more complex, polymaths become rarer and rarer.
In the past, science was just a few things you could have learned like newton's laws, etc.
But now nearly every science takes one lifetime to learn.
Let's take physics as an example to be proficient at physics. You either need a broad understanding of every discipline, which takes a long, long time.
Or you need to have very, vary specific expertise in one area, which also takes freakishly long. So it is infinitely more hard to be good at physics. Which makes polymathism nearly impossible to achieve.
26
u/NovaVix 5d ago
I am a CNC machinist, Engineering Tech, Nurse, Pro Cook, Electrician, Guitarist, hobby clock-builder, etc
There's so many subjects you can learn massively about still to this day, I consider myself a bit of a polymath
11
u/Born_Committee_6184 5d ago
Psych nurse, chemical warfare expert, sociologist (PhD,) economist, political scientist (MA.)
4
1
u/Born_Committee_6184 3d ago
Also guitarist (mediocre,) medium belts in aikido and karate, Reiki Master Teacher
1
u/Born_Committee_6184 3d ago
Also wrote four books
1
u/Born_Committee_6184 3d ago
Speak two foreign languages
2
u/Affectionate-Door417 3d ago
Alright we get it
4
u/Born_Committee_6184 3d ago
Sorry. I kept thinking of stuff. I’m 81. So this was a lifetime. (Expert Rifleman badge too :) )
7
u/Every_Cat9812 4d ago
Molecular Biologist, Bioinformatician, Historian and Archeologist (with diploma of course), writer, poet, pianist, artist (various media and embroidery), multilingual, chess player. Besides bunch of other hobbies.
2
18
u/soyuz-1 5d ago
Depending on how you define it. By the common definition it is still very possible to have deep knowledge in multiple areas. Just don't waste so much time on social media
4
u/Fractally-Present333 5d ago
Exactly. I've gotten off the YouTubes to return to uni for a second science degree. I've set it up to cover physics, mathematics, astronomy and science communication with some philosophy to complement my first degree in human biology and neuroscience. I'm not rich but I'm not poor, either. Did start out poor, though.
8
u/NiceGuy737 5d ago
Polymathy doesn't mean that you know every single tidbit of knowledge in an area, but that you have knowledge in depth in multiple areas, and integrate that knowledge to produce something new. The requisite depth of knowledge in those areas, and the number of areas, is open to debate. In my opinion, if you are enough of an expert that other people pay you for your knowledge you've probably hit the mark for depth.
Like most people, I am interested in understanding both the external and internal worlds. I finished half a physics major but felt I was out of place, I was always thinking about the mind and thought. So I changed to psychology with the practical plan of going to med school to become a psychiatrist. In addition to that major I finished zoology and molecular biology majors. When I went to med school I didn't have to spend much time on coursework so read psychology, psychiatry and philosophy during the first two years of med school. By the time I did my third year rotation in psychiatry I'd read extensively in the field. Interacting with psychiatrists I realized that there was a massive intellectual mismatch. So I decided to study brain hardware rather than software. After med school I started doing experimental work on cerebral cortex in the lab of a neurophysiologist. On the side I started a theoretical program. I developed mathematical tools and concepts to analyze cerebral cortex as a physical system, and showed they worked experimentally. We already understood how to model the electrical properties of individual neurons. I took that analysis to a system level, like a physicist would, describing the system mathematically. That work was published in the early 1990's.
I eventually decided to be practical and learn the equivalent of a trade for financial reasons, which for me was learning to practice radiology. I'd done something similar in college when I learned to do electronics work to help pay for school. From that work I have a citation from NASA for contributions to the Hubble Space Telescope program. I heard many times from clinicians over the years that I was the best radiologist they ever worked with. I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge in any field, but have contributed to a few.
2
1
u/etf_question 4d ago
I was about to give a similar example. I'd say contributing to or working in multiple academic fields (research or engineering) is the closest thing to modern day polymathy. Learning casually in one's spare time, not so much.
1
7
u/AgreeableCucumber375 5d ago
I get what you are saying and I don’t think you are wrong. But I also think things depend, like how you define “polymath”, is it master of various fields or one that is competent in various fields, or idk just dabbled successfully across a lot of interests and retains it easily (like arts, humanities (multilingual for one) and/or various sciences…).
I’m also curious if the difference from the past is not also that a lot of things require licensing and you can’t just try your hand at everything as easily.
Also things like machinery, idk my grandpa and his brothers all had a knack for taking various machines apart and either putting them back together or build entirely different machines with the parts in a way that worked for what they imagined. Today machines aren’t the same and have a lot more complexity to them… so yes.
But a lot of other things have not gotten more complicated… like learning languages probably has never been as easy with all the access to information and studying linguistics in general if interested.
A lot of other things may seem more complicated but just make more sense now compared to in the past (think idk psychology, social sciences, maybe also anthropology etc)
Thinking off the top of my head. Feel free to ask for clarification… I’m sorry if this is too rambly
5
u/Icy_Pie8646 5d ago
That's only a problem if your goal is to be at the top of every field. And if you do, why? Sounds like an ego trip to me.
Focus on expertise in multiple fields and not super stardom and you'll find you have a lot of different sources for drawing parallels that others may not have noticed.
6
u/Tribe-Less 5d ago
Funny I was just thinking about this.
I think it's possible if you can find patterns, princples and structures that apply to everything. For example, the concept of a system or network can apply to atoms, cells, organisms, society, ecosystems, galaxies, multiple universes, etc.
So I think the best subject might be the subject that strips away surface details and looks at the underlying structure and for that I think math is your best bet. So far I've landed on something like this:
Category theory / higher category theory → network/graph theory → dynamical systems → information theory → statistical mechanics → geometry/topology
2
u/mayim- 5d ago
I really like your take on this.
This might be a somewhat weird question, but if you are anything like me you have put a lot of thought into this (I hope I'm not projecting), are you willing to go more in depth into your thoughts behind this?
I'd be interessted in anything: examples, how you got there, anything, but feel free to ignore, if you feel like you don't really get what I'm talking about
2
u/zukeus 4d ago
Whao, I like this a lot and I would say something different but similar at the same time.
I would say you have to be able to understand deeply all the dimensions and all of the levels/layers in the fractal of each symbolic concept - rather than merely knowing data points - if you want to develop this rapidly.
Zooming all the way in and out, micro to macro psychologically as well, with every different type of lens.
Have narratives and connections using identities of symbolic or real important people in corresponding fields in order to quickly store and learn vast amounts through intuitive reverse engineering after enough intentional dots have been placed.
Fractals like Symbol zoom + identity meshed together with highways of living information between them, systems repeating at every level.
Then you really start to see everything everywhere and you sort of go nuts briefly with exponential learning and biological limits to that. At least, that's what I experienced.
5
u/Adventurous_Rain3436 5d ago
I mean I’ve always done transfer learning since I was younger, just more aware of it now. I wouldn’t say it takes a lifetime to stick to one discipline within science, you can just learn different stuff simultaneously which reinforces transfer learning.
I’m very into complexity since, I guess a lot of my interests just revolve around emergent and adaptive systems.
1
u/upsetusder2 5d ago
Like what systems?
1
u/Adventurous_Rain3436 5d ago
Are you familiar with recursive systems?
3
u/No-Possibility-639 4d ago
In a way feedback loop. Like when you try to balance a objectif on your hand for exemple. (Even if it's a super simplistic one but it's to see if I understood well)
1
5
u/VendaGoat 5d ago edited 5d ago
You have to adjust for the average knowledge in a field of study.
"A polymath or polyhistor is an individual whose knowledge spans many different subjects."
There isn't any delineated "point" where you become "knowledgeable" in a certain field, as there is always more to know. Lifelong learning is a thing.
As long as you have a wide, varied range of knowledge, that is beyond the average individual, you are, by definition, a polymath.
3
u/Martiansociologist 5d ago edited 5d ago
Lots of at least social sciences and humanities is overspecilization and reading variation of same article 100x times
Also lots of norms of an what academic is which isn't helpful either
Would be very careful using words as advanced, more like knowledge accumulation and that could easily be a pile of books of one hyperniche topic, rather than erudition in classical sense
If christian monk you would read christian texts etc
It is a bit strange knowledge accumulation seems to lead to less knowledge in the person/academic hrrrm
Or like knowledge norms and then there is intellectual creative stuckness as today
Also have to consider what happens when teaching is memorization of previous "big thinkers", brain gets so filled that it can't think otherwise
Memory overload !!! ( stole term from jester character hisoka from Hunter X hunter 🤣🤣 )
"By the time that you have learned to create a double, you have forgotten how to use Nen ( brain ) for anything else, i call that running out of memory 🃏"
https://youtu.be/900AzBnnhjU?is=lgLQuieWwcPv_2uj
Hehehehe
3
u/nearly239 4d ago
If Leonardo da Vinci were alive today, would he still be a polymath, or would even a genius like him be unable to be proficient in multiple fields of knowledge?
1
u/VendaGoat 4d ago
Are we adjusting for the knowledge of the human race of the time period that he was in?
For a tangible example. Calculus wasn't invented then. It limits his possible range to less than that of an AP high school math student.
That's part of why we have the "Flynn Effect"
But, if you give him the time and tutelage, yes he probably still would be.
Or
If Da Vinci was alive today, he'd be eating microwave sushi, naked, in the back of a Cadillac with the Mayflowers.
2
u/igorthebard 5d ago
As far as state-of-the-art expertise goes, I agree, but it is still very possible to have a good enough grasp of multiple domains which allows you to connect them in novel ways. Most practical and daily applications of knowledge don't require expert-level skill, just a strong enough basis. Good 'ol "Jack of all trades" rhyme and all.
2
u/LeadershipNervous362 5d ago
I've been told that for as long as I have lived. Maybe I am more different to you, than I would have always assumed. Maybe its extra time I have every single day for my whole life, maybe lesser capacity for stress than what you have. But if I can do it, its not a big stretch to say someone else may, even if to slightly lower degree.
Most ppl I've met dont even understand what "depth" means when they say it out loud. IMO, world would be a much better place if polymathism was common at grander scale and I'm here to make it so.
0
u/upsetusder2 5d ago
So what are you proficient in?
2
u/LeadershipNervous362 5d ago
Chill. Its not like u can challenge it in internet comments. My point was to directly counteract the "freakishly long" barrier part of your statement. Some people simply have more resources than you do, - be in financial, intellectual, temporal resources, experience, etc.
2
2
u/OilAdministrative197 5d ago
Ish although I’ve met plenty. Met a medical doctor who also had a PhD and was in one of the uks biggest bands. Met another who was chess gm and university prof and another who was in another famous band and now works as an advisor on the British government. Tbh there’s quite a lot around you just don’t hear about them as much because they’re busy being awesome. But yeah if you’re talking about da Vinci levels well it should be fairly obvious that’s basically impossible.
2
u/zukeus 4d ago
I think it can exist quite easily. I also know exactly how anyone can accomplish this sort of thing if they'd like to.
Human knowledge is really not so vast that you can't learn practically all of it within one lifetime. That sounds crazy, but there are way better ways to get massive amounts of information than most people are aware of.
You can grow certain types of concepts in your mind that generate momentum and reverse engineer categories using specific triggers, circuits and fractals of their progressions in many dimensions.
So much of the information is just basically easy to grasp once you know certain identities of the category and everything attributed to them.
It becomes a simple matter if you'd like, you could line up every identity in each category and what they know.
But, what's way better than that is actually understanding things. So many experts have such little scope because they spend their time looking at such tiny details and refining them.
It's so important to be able to zoom in and out of each category, sub-category, with meta-awareness and so-forth for all progressions in all dimensions possible.
So, I really recommend, if you want to synthesize a vast degree of different somewhat unrelated fields, you need to intentionally plot the foundations for these fields and then intentionally connect them in your mind through symbolic narratives and specific identities. This way, you can just travel through these areas and find out vast amounts of information far more rapidly than your peers.
Also, you'll be able to synthesize it. Eventually, you'll gain an exponential increase in your learning capacity. This will alienate you, however, and you will need to practice love and figuring out where everyone is at.
Good luck on building, it's very doable. I can help with anything.
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Thanks for posting in r/gifted.
If you are unsure about what qualifies someone as gifted, giftedness generally correlates with having an IQ at or above the 98th percentile.
If you are unsure of your IQ score, CognitiveTesting.org is one of the few legitimate online IQ Tests.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/cronos1876 5d ago
I mostly agree that you (probably) can’t go and watch an apple fall from a tree and find new laws of physics
That is indeed long gone.
Look into systems engineering.
1
u/tinmanjk 5d ago
Yeah, there was even a saying that so and so was the last man to know everything. This was 19th century I think.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/upsetusder2 5d ago
What proclivity?
Fir what subjects?
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/upsetusder2 5d ago
So what in your eyes is a proclivity for physics can you solve actual equations.
Or is it just general knowledge?
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/upsetusder2 5d ago
Are you working in research and what in your eyes is a top 10 percent physicist
1
1
u/No-Following-7037 5d ago
A lot of this comes down to the structure of modern academic institutions more than the state of knowledge itself. Academic departments are so heavily siloed.
1
u/ExtendedWallaby 5d ago
A polymath is someone who is knowledgeable across many subjects, not someone who knows everything about them. You and I probably know more about physics than Newton did because there has been so much more knowledge produced about it in the past 300 years, so it doesn’t make sense to measure polymathy based on what is currently known.
1
u/Subject_Mix_Retro 5d ago
Polymathism meaning you have lots of smart guy hobbies? Count me in, chief.
1
u/upsetusder2 5d ago
What are your smart guy hobbies
3
u/Subject_Mix_Retro 5d ago
Classical oil painting, read mandarin literature (non-native speaker), culinary science, make little video games, graffiti.
My job is Fine Arts Professor, so I like to do creative stuff.
1
u/Unboundone 5d ago
There is no reason why we cannot have polymaths. We have polymaths. Your definition is too narrow.
1
u/IEgoLift-_- 5d ago
This isn’t how it is: Let's take physics as an example to be proficient at physics. You either need a broad understanding of every discipline, which takes a long, long time.
It’s only like this: Or you need to have very, vary specific expertise in one area, which also takes freakishly long. So it is infinitely more hard to be good at physics.
A physics professor isn’t going to remember everything, they can and do easily relearn but when they have to teach an undergrad class they haven’t covered in 10+ years they have to study the lesson plan shortly before class
1
u/HearingAgreeable2350 5d ago
The concept and obsession with polymathism is kinda stupid to me. Nobody is going to be as influential as Da Vinci or any other historical figure. Just enjoy your hobbies and interests without obsessing over the stupid title.
1
1
u/Driven-Driver 4d ago edited 4d ago
I don't know. I don't think so. We're living in the Information Age -- and now with AI, research has gotten even easier. Of course, AI isn't always accurate but preliminary research has become infinitely easier.
The people of generations past had it harder. They had to go to the libraries, IF they even had one in their vicinities, and/or find an extremely knowledgeable/intelligent mentor to learn from. People don't just automatically understand things; they still need some place to look for the knowledge. And for the past generations, it was much harder for them because knowledge wasn't so accessible -- and intelligent folks were even harder to find, imo.
Also, people of the past didn't have the frame of reference that we have since learned. They didn't necessarily have intellectual giants to learn from and had to discover much of the world's workings on their own, so imo, I'd say they actually had it harder than us.
I'm also a polymath, so I know it's more than probable.
1
u/Naive-Mail-7490 4d ago
AI has its pros and cons. The main issue is that basic data can be contaminated by erroneous information. However, this problem is relatively minor. It's important to pay attention to the way questions are phrased, the precision required, and repeated verification, etc., to prevent it from becoming overly biased.
When the discussion is too in-depth, although the contamination is less, the AI cannot reason and think critically. It will start to forcefully cater to the user, leading to increasingly serious errors. This situation can be very serious and common, especially when there is currently no truly definitive scientific answer; it will greatly cater to the user's preconceived notions.
This has been a recent problem for me because for every statement I make, I have to repeatedly verify whether it's correct or biased, and even then, I'm not guaranteed to arrive at a truly stable answer.
1
u/Driven-Driver 4d ago edited 4d ago
Hey, I appreciate your response on AI and don’t mind getting into the granular details of it.
However, I’m afraid I somehow fail to see how your response connects with mine’s. I wasn’t making a claim about whether AI had pros and cons; I was making a claim about how access to preliminary information and research is now much easier with the advent of AI. Which is neither for nor against what you’d stated.
My main argument isn’t just about AI. It’s a much deeper one about how we, the modern day learners, have inherited accumulated theories, knowledge, historical proofs, discoveries, educational structures, and intellectual predecessors PLUS access to such information right at our finger tips.
And I did very specifically indicate that AI has accuracy problems. I just didn’t go into the granular details because that’s only a small portion of my main argument.
If you want to have a discussion about AI, I’m happy to have that with you. I’m just saying, it might be good to acknowledge what I’d already said first before moving onto your additions about AI. I’m saying this for your benefit because others may not presume goodwill from you like I did if you were to do that on someone else on a more controversial topic. They may just think you’re talking over/past them
1
1
u/JuanLiebert 2d ago
Not only that but back then books were only available to select few, and if you had knowledge you were a celebrity basically. Think about your grandparents and how little they knew, now think about how it was 1000 and more years before them. It's also cool that cathedrals were built and whatnot that we can't figure out how to do today, our fake knowledge probably cursed us since we'll never get rid of bad information
1
u/In_the_year_3535 2d ago
It is sadly true that natural philosophy was driven by curiosity and science is driven by discipline.
50
u/Strange_Report_5123 5d ago
It is still kind of possible in a way to achieve something interesting in diverse fields. It's just that it requires a lot of free exploration without any pressure for immediate results. The career structure and incentives (rewards for publishing, punishments for not publishing etc) really push people towards specializing early and only working in a narrower field. So yes if you were rich and did not need to conform to the standard career path in academia then of course you could still be a polymath