So, what experience has the author to talk about casual polymaths? is that his area of study?
Beware the Casual Polymath
61–70 of 123 posts
Re: Beware the Casual Polymath
#62We already have a word for this, "dilettante".
Re: Beware the Casual Polymath
#63We are told to be wary of who is speaking, what their qualifications are, if they are only casually opining on something, they may be wrong, we may not know any better.
We are told in the form of a long, wordy blogpost on a blog that is called "Applied Divinity Studies", there is no author named, there is no "about" for the page at all.
Although at the bottom of the page is a link to another article that seems to be about free market capitalism and a previous one that's about the politics of secession.
What was that it just said about blogs that have lots of wordy, generalist opining from non-specialists ?
Re: Beware the Casual Polymath
#64I think the author/post neglects the most important reason for valuing generalists and learning from them. (Hyper)specialists have a hard time understanding context outside their narrow domains, and filtering the relevance of their own specialization to a situation. Having access to a highly sophisticated hammer, everything looks like a nail through their lens. Consequently, there have a hard time communicating with…
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 bullsh…
[deleted]
Re: Beware the Casual Polymath
#65I think the author/post neglects the most important reason for valuing generalists and learning from them. (Hyper)specialists have a hard time understanding context outside their narrow domains, and filtering the relevance of their own specialization to a situation. Having access to a highly sophisticated hammer, everything looks like a nail through their lens. Consequently, there have a hard time communicating with…
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 bullsh…
What about generalists who aren't willing to bullshit? ;)
Re: Beware the Casual Polymath
#66I'm sorry, but if being an expert in art, engineering, acting, AND directing doesn't make you a polymath, then precisely what does?
The author severely underestimates the universal genius of diCaprio.
Re: Beware the Casual Polymath
#67I think the author/post neglects the most important reason for valuing generalists and learning from them. (Hyper)specialists have a hard time understanding context outside their narrow domains, and filtering the relevance of their own specialization to a situation. Having access to a highly sophisticated hammer, everything looks like a nail through their lens. Consequently, there have a hard time communicating with…
> Generalists are typically far better at motivating the relevance of a problem/situation and filtering out the important details from the unimportant. Couldn't agree more. John von Neumann is a perfect example. His colleagues would often lament his unwillingness to adopt a narrow specialty, but I think it was his wide range that allowed him to maintain the passion that made him so effective. [1] [1] http://paulgraha…
Well yeah, given the choice between specializing in one area and acquiring specialist-level expertise in a bunch of areas before you're 40 (which is what von Neumann did -- look at all of the sections in his Wikipedia page [1]!), it's better to do the second one.
But most people are choosing between specializing in one or maybe two areas and having very-sub-specialist-level expertise in more. von Neumann's not an example of that kind of generalist.
Re: Beware the Casual Polymath
#68Unfortunately 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 befo…
Nor do I think anyone was celebrating John F. Kennedy as some polymath. Degree in government. Navy. Career in government. Pretty narrow focus.
Can we even call this an article? It makes no sense. What is Applied Divinity Studies anyway?
Re: Beware the Casual Polymath
#69> Gell-Mann Amnesia
Quick reminder-- this concept is an off-hand blurb from a sci-fi writer. It's no more based in research than the inkling that nation states should tighten their belts when the economy gets rough because after all, that's what a sensible hard-working family does. Or the notion that it's "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."
Those last two are usually uttered by people who have an agenda and are not interested in doing serious, open-minded research into those topics.
If you're the kind of person who does enjoy learning from research papers, you might reflect in your free time on why you're repeating the inkling of a sci-fi writer, and perhaps even whose agenda that could be serving.
Re: Beware the Casual Polymath
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 bullsh…
What about generalists who aren't willing to bullshit? ;)
I would suggest that 'bullshitting' in this case would be a willingness to openly converse and express spontaneous opinions with a third party in order to learn more about a subject.
Caveat: The more eager you are, the likely more you'll be taken as a bullshitter.