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

Beware the Casual Polymath

applieddivinitystudies.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 123 posts

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#11

Post by gilleain »

dvt wrote: post #3

The article is interesting, and probably right -- albeit maybe slightly unfair to da Vinci -- but I don't really buy this premise: > We live in times of great disaggregation, and yet, seem to learn increasingly from generalists. Most teaching is done by non-generalists -- be it in schools, on TV, in documentaries, in courtrooms, or basically anywhere of any import. There's quite a bit of irony in the author quoting W…

The point about Leonardo da Vinci makes sense, but is definitely unfair. Of course, an art historian might assume Leonardo's mathematics was as great as his artistic ability.

In practice, no one has the time or the ability to be equally great in all fields of knowledge.

This paper : https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00004-007-005... talks about what mathematics he did

> . The equation a^n + b^n = c^n does not have a solution in integers for n > 2 . But this theorem had yet to be demonstrated. It was not before 1753 that Leonhard Euler demonstrated that the equation a^3 + b^3 = c^3 does not have a solution. And the final demonstration of the so-called “Fermat’s third theorem”, which is that the general equation does not have a solution for n > 2 , was given by Andrew Weil in 1993.

So its fairly impressive that Leonardo was on a path that leads to Euler and then to Weil. Of course, Euler himself was a 'mathematical polymath' as it were, with a wide range of proofs across a number of fields.

To critise Leonardo da Vinci for not being good enough at mathematics is a little like complaining about Euler's drawing skills.

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#12

Post by contingencies »

Taking this back to the startup world, I find that the enjoyable wicked problem of cross-disciplinary engineering in a startup environment is that you get to build things in areas in which you have only generalist knowledge. The task of the founding team is to optimize not only the process of discovery within those specific domains but also to ensure the development and management the team, providing a correct degree of emphasis on tangible outputs with respect to commercialization and available resources, with an eye on the future developments and business and research landscape. It's damn hard, it's fun, it's addictive, it's unlike anything else.

More briefly, the venture notion might be re-construed as the belief that generalists who reliably and tirelessly execute win large returns because they have their eye on the big picture and can deliver aggregate value beyond component achievements. The patent world has long recognized this notion as something like a 'novel arrangement' of pre-existing components.

Another idea is that specialists, by virtue of the well defined discipline in which they hold expertise, are easily located and hired/consulted. Arguably rarer competent generalists therefore become the de-facto 'glue' to link the requisite fruit of those specialist domains.

Da Vinci himself was apparently against overt formalization of learning and rigid professional hierarchies: They will say that because of my lack of book learning, I cannot properly express what I desire to treat of. Do they not know that my subjects require for their exposition experience rather than the words of others? And since experience has been the mistress, and to her in all points make my appeal. - Leonardo Da Vinci ... via https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#13

Post by twirlock »

Cool. More reasonable observation about how ostensible authority is often bullshit, but we'll all just use it as the reason our Republican friends need to treat CNN as gospel and we should get to be the priests.

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#14

Post by alynn »

Unfortunately this article seems to be written in the same casual polymath style it claims to warn of, with people making broad generalizations without any deep knowledge of what they are talking about.

I stopped reading at the point where JFK’s 1947 election was claimed to be purely due to wealth. Although JFK is today remembered much more for other historical events--

He was already a nationally known war hero before 1947. See, for example, this 1944 article in the New Yorker:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1944/06/17/survival

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#15

Post by smogcutter »

bean-sprugget wrote: post #4

But, it seems like there are more polymaths in the past than now - more people who were extremely smart, even if the general intelligence of people nowadays has increased. I think being a "casual" polymath is the important part: like the article mentions, you'd need a deep understanding of a subject to actually have it's interdisciplinary benefits. I think with the Internet today, it's easy to see so many interesting…

In the past in order to be a dilettante you generally needed to be one of the idle rich - that gets you the trifecta of time, resources, and lack of pressure to produce anything worthwhile. Today all you need is an internet connection.

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#16

Post by onecommentman »

flipactual wrote: post #2

This seems much less about being casual or being a polymath and more about those who overestimate the value of their own input I’m leaving this comment only because I most often do not overestimate the value of my input and therefor don’t leave comments, but this seems the perfect place to deviate

Which may mean you underestimate the value of your input and, in some sense, leech off the contributions of others...leaving a vacuum that gets filled by shills and hacks. Why would you do that? A little preparation and basic work-study and critical thinking skills is all a post needs, along with something you really want to say and is actually worth saying, of course. Maybe once a day, maybe once a week or once a month. Internet posting practices and moderation have matured enough to make posting on sites like HN useful without an inevitable devolution into rantfests or infomercials. (Although it can still happen.)

Silence, digital or otherwise, is a fine spiritual practice. It’s not necessary for some...probably sorely needed by others...

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#17

Post by gilleain »

bean-sprugget wrote: post #4

But, it seems like there are more polymaths in the past than now - more people who were extremely smart, even if the general intelligence of people nowadays has increased. I think being a "casual" polymath is the important part: like the article mentions, you'd need a deep understanding of a subject to actually have it's interdisciplinary benefits. I think with the Internet today, it's easy to see so many interesting…

Presumably (am not an expert in this!) because the barrier to entry in a field of knowledge was lower in the past. As in, at one point you could read all there was to know about a subject.

Also, there was more 'low hanging fruit' in the past. No one is impressed now if you reinvent the calculus. So it used to be easier to have major discoveries in multiple fields.

Finally, the whole idea of different areas of knowledge is relatively modern. The 'sciences' used to include astrology, for example. Even the distinction between biblical studies and observation of the natural world was vague at some point.

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#19

Post by leptons »

onecommentman wrote: post #16
flipactual wrote: post #2

This seems much less about being casual or being a polymath and more about those who overestimate the value of their own input I’m leaving this comment only because I most often do not overestimate the value of my input and therefor don’t leave comments, but this seems the perfect place to deviate

Which may mean you underestimate the value of your input and, in some sense, leech off the contributions of others...leaving a vacuum that gets filled by shills and hacks. Why would you do that? A little preparation and basic work-study and critical thinking skills is all a post needs, along with something you really want to say and is actually worth saying, of course. Maybe once a day, maybe once a week or once a mo…

You're both right.

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#20

Post by gerdesj »

Well there are some pretty deep evaluations of that post here already.

It's bollocks. Quite involved bollocks but really big, round and very, very hairy.

Probably machine generated.

Post reply on HN