Beware the Casual Polymath

> So you believe K-8 teaching, the greatest amount of teaching by far globally in the modern era, is done by non-generalists?

I think you're smart enough to know what I meant (and I even made the "of import" qualification). You don't need to hold a PhD in mathematics to teach kids their multiplication tables.

The warning should really be “beware listening to advice without doing your own research”.

So 'beware' sure, but I'm not sure if the reasoning is correct here especially the bit about the 'rich kid' getting into Congress. There's an incredible amount of 'good opinion' being had from armchair experts, the question really is how to sort through it.

Very few are actually 'prepared' for Congress, and frankly, it's always been an elitist affair, and ironically when it's not, i.e. the 'Restaurant Server' gets elected, for some reason we tout that as positive?

JFK was not a lazy entitled 'rich kid'. From among an overly entitled class, he was probably the most deserving - he was very bright, educated, definitely had a vision for what public service should be. He was incredibly curious and intellectual. He was chronically ill with certain ailments but didn't let it affect him, he had most of the qualities we would want for that kind of office.

When JFK and Jackie were dating, he would have Jackie translate entire books on cutting edge French philosophy just so he could read them. Just fathom that again: 'Sweetheart, I really want to read Lyotard's latest book on Postmodernism, can you go ahead and translate an entire book for me just so I can read it'? And she did. Imagine what that says about the intellectual foundation of both of them.

In 2020 we have enough transparency to recognize that the foundations of many of the 'Sciences' and certainly private and public institutions are definitely frayed. 'Casual Polymaths' can provide a lot of ideation, insight, a kind of 'oversight', even sometimes facts about a particular subject that really can't be ignored.

COVID is a good example - it's fairly obvious from intently watching the various governing agencies public displays of knowledge (i.e. Dr. Henry in BC, Dr. Tam at Canada Federal level, the Swedish Minister etc. ) that there is an incredible amount of disagreement about various aspects of it, and that they are not always paying attention to one another. Especially where the science crosses public policy, economics etc. there's a lot of fodder for discussion. Dr. Henry, in BC, whom I admire, has not once in 6 months even hinted at the economic impact or social/health impact of any of the Province's policies, as if 'people's means of subsistence' didn't matter at all in light of the pandemic. It's probably exemplary of the worldview of an MD/Epidemiologist/Bureaucrat who thinks in other terms - which is fine, but it needs public voicing.

Particularly in the area of Social Sciences wherein the science is really difficult to shake out - and - individuals can have tremendous life experience that speaks to human behaviour - discussion should be had.

Beware of the pretentious snobs preaching the supposed virtue of academic, dis-integrated vertically siloed hyperspecialization.

The specialists that I've met have never been any less capable of understanding context outside their domains, or motivating problems, filtering out details than similarly intelligent people who don't have any specialist domain knowledge. I think we're talking about several separate characteristics: 1. General intelligence and articulateness 2. Deep knowledge of and skill in a specific domain 3. Willingness to bullshit

A "specialist" is somebody who has 2, a "generalist" is somebody who has 3