Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The genuine polymath is still one in a million

spectator.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million

#51

Post by david-cako »

chongli wrote: post #30
0d9eooo wrote: post #16

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…

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...

Natural philosophy and alchemy were names for science before science. Alchemy had a connotation of being very ceremonial; knowledge had to spread by group gatherings and word of mouth.

Cutting edge science today would have been called alchemy historically. Artificial intelligence, gene editing, etc. Fortunately scientists have a pretty good reputation now, where alchemists of the past had to research and convene in secret.

Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million

#52

Post by econcon »

0d9eooo wrote: post #16

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…

He might not actually have discovered or invented everything on his own.

What I most likely think, is that he was more like a Director of a government program or university who's tasked with key projects and allowed to interrogate or gather intelligence from anywhere.

He most likely met a lot of people from both east and west, learned a few things them and decided to document them. Maybe those people also documented it in their own language somewhere but ofc it didn't survive the test of time and only way we know any of those things is through Leonardo's illustrations.

The cities where he lived had influx of traders from all over the world.

It's otherwise seemingly impossible for someone to come up with so many things during his lifetime.

Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million

#53

Post by ColanR »

david-cako wrote: post #51
chongli wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Natural philosophy and alchemy were names for science before science. Alchemy had a connotation of being very ceremonial; knowledge had to spread by group gatherings and word of mouth. Cutting edge science today would have been called alchemy historically. Artificial intelligence, gene editing, etc. Fortunately scientists have a pretty good reputation now, where alchemists of the past had to research and convene in s…

People don't realize, I think, how much modern science owes its tools and methodologies to alchemy.

I like your comparison between alchemy and AI. Even modern neural nets would fit alchemical concepts pretty well - "we flattened a rock, put lightning inside it, and made it speak to us with a human voice!"

Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million

#54

Post by Hokusai »

chongli wrote: post #30
0d9eooo wrote: post #16

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…

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...

> Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics.

The way British write confuses many people. "Newton is the greatest of the greatest", "Shakespeare is the mos prolific writer that ever lived", ""... British writers love hyperbole. The fact that the writing style aligns with national pride helps to create a positive feedback of "grandiose writing".

That does not mean that there is ill intent. The target consumers of the writing are the British readers themselves, and almost all societies have a good self esteem. The fact that globally we communicate in English has tip the balance towards sharing American and British views of the world over the rest and created an over hype of some charismatic national myths.

Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million

#55

Post by mercer »

anticsapp wrote: post #47
onemoresoop wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is wishful thinking on their part IMO. Saying that half of X is wrong makes X look like half true. It could be false in a much higher proportion

That's a great point. Never occurred to me.

That's marketing!

Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million

#56

Post by n4r9 »

smiley1437 wrote: post #50
alok-g wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the definition of Deep Generalist that you have in mind?

“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. Heinlei…

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.

Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million

#57

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

Hokusai wrote: post #54
chongli wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics. The way British write confuses many people. "Newton is the greatest of the greatest", "Shakespeare is the mos prolific writer that ever lived", ""... British writers love hyperbole. The fact that the writing style aligns with national pride helps to create a positive feedback of "grandiose writing".…

Such excessive writing only occurs amongst very few people, them who feel their job is 'culture'. I've heard far too much of it about shakespeare, and I think it undeserved. He's not that great. Emperor/clothes etc.

I've really not heard anything similar about newton though.

Don't confuse those very few who surf their own hyperbole with the average brit (I'm one).

Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million

#58

Post by Hokusai »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #57
Hokusai wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics. The way British write confuses many people. "Newton is the greatest of the greatest", "Shakespeare is the mos prolific writer that ever lived", ""... British writers love hyperbole. The fact that the writing style aligns with national pride helps to create a positive feedback of "grandiose writing".…

Such excessive writing only occurs amongst very few people, them who feel their job is 'culture'. I've heard far too much of it about shakespeare, and I think it undeserved. He's not that great. Emperor/clothes etc. I've really not heard anything similar about newton though. Don't confuse those very few who surf their own hyperbole with the average brit (I'm one).

> Don't confuse those very few who surf their own hyperbole with the average brit (I'm one).

I see your point. And, as any generalization, my point does not apply to all British citizens.

But, that grandiose talking is not uncommon (funny thou):

https://www.reddit.com/r/INGLIN/comments/1p76kk/good_to_see_...

Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million

#59

Post by m463 »

anticsapp wrote: post #29
ColanR wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was told by a doctor that in his 1980s biology class, the professor opened by saying, "half of what I'm going to teach you is wrong - we just don't know which half". I imagine it's similar with Leonardo, and likely with our own state-of-the-art knowledge. We are all broken clocks, and the trick is to figure out which part of our knowledge is wrong.

They say that about advertising spend too. I think it was David Ogilvy but I'm too lazy to look it up.

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half" - John Wanamaker

Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million

#60

Post by JacobAldridge »

alok-g wrote: post #35
JacobAldridge wrote: post #18

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…

What's the definition of Deep Generalist that you have in mind?

In my main keynote I talk about being in the top 25% of the field across 3 different domains, while also being at an intermediary level in a range of others.

In part, that’s to set an achievable first goal - most of the audience are probably already there in 1 or 2 fields, so it’s not insurmountable for them to progress, and hopefully from there they have the success to keep going wide as well as deep.

If I had to add a stronger definition it would be more onerous than that; but at the same time, I’m not keen to be a gatekeeper playing the ‘No True Scotsman’ game - I just feel people would be happier if they pursued their interests and let curiosity guide them, and that we would probably achieve more commercially and creatively if we embraced that part of our natural desires.

Post reply on HN