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

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#111

Post by chiefalchemist »

> We already understand this intuitively, but only in a limited set of cases. If a pop star becomes an actor, we are not impressed by their wide range of talents. Instead, we understand that popularity is a semi-fungible good.

Yes. But where we got wrong is when the currency of celebrity is used as justification for worshipping their thoughts and ideas in other areas unrelated to their expertise/fame.

I suppose this simply human nature on our part. None the like, like other biases, we should be mindful of it siren-like power. We should guard against the influence of false gods.

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#112

Post by TrackerFF »

MrDrDr wrote: post #96

This article seems to define a polymath as someone who is an expert in one domain and has opinions in other domains - those opinions being given greater value because of their other expertise. However - I'd argue that a polymath is someone with expertise in multiple domains. And the real value of the generalist is the ability to join the dots between specialties. We can argue if polymaths exist - or who might be one…

I think casual polymath seems like the wrong descriptor to use - as they're not experts in other fields.

They're experts in one field, and (most probably) dilettantes in other fields.

The trick however, is that they use their expert status from one field, to reach their audience. And then their followers will take that as domain authority, because they're perceived as authority in some other field.

I'm not going to name names, but this certainly fits the pattern of a lot of people in the VC-industry. Not that they brand themselves as experts (sometimes they'll explicitly state that they're not experts) - but their followers will assume that it's expert knowledge.

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#113

Post by zzzeek »

plaidfuji wrote: post #109
moron4hire wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's equally hilarious to me is that this self-descriptive article, is being argued over by folks on this website, which was started by a man who also engaged in this style of writing.

^This is the real takeaway. Why is this getting so much traction if it’s so bad/over-written/directionless/hypocritical/etc.? My theory is that many HN users quietly consider themselves to be polymaths, and so were baited into reading it to look for either (a) reasons they don’t fall under the author’s umbrella of “casual”, or (b) holes in the author’s argument.

yes I agree, the article basically discusses 95% of hacker news commenters :)

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#114

Post by anoraca »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #102
jhbadger wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why was this article in the New Yorker in 1944? There were thousands of war stories as thrilling or more as the story of the PT 109. The second sentence gives a clue: "Lieutenant John F. Kennedy, the ex-Ambassador’s son and lately a PT skipper in the Solomons...". His story was told because he was the son of Joseph Kennedy, who had been the US ambassador to the UK. And then as now, ambassadorships (at least to pl…

IMO Joe Kennedy was using his sons to rehabilitate his reputation for being a NAZI sympathiser, and I suspect it was Joseph Kennedy not John that was being groomed for a political career.

Do you have a reputable source for that claim?

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#115

Post by hugey010 »

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…

So if someone is informed on a topic they have a kind of societal obligation to post? By not posting, it allows those who may be less experienced or outright trolls to steer the discussion towards irrelevance.

I like the idea, but not sure how folks know which group they fall into.

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#116

Post by mrtranscendence »

nske wrote: post #107
eyelidlessness wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Unless you have high confidence in your ability to grasp the subject, this can be considerably daunting to someone who isn’t blessed with high confidence generally. And one can at least infer that gaining that confidence may involve signific…

When low in confidence, you could just use phrases like "my understanding is that [...]", or "from what I gather [...], is that not the case?" If you stand corrected you stand corrected and you're wiser, likely together with some other readers, everyone wins! People rarely bash others that express themselves modestly and sincerely.

On the other hand, I’ve been criticized for being too eager to hedge anything I say with something like “in my understanding, ... I could be wrong.”

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#117

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

jhbadger wrote: post #81
alynn wrote: post #14

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 befo…

But why was this article in the New Yorker in 1944? There were thousands of war stories as thrilling or more as the story of the PT 109. The second sentence gives a clue: "Lieutenant John F. Kennedy, the ex-Ambassador’s son and lately a PT skipper in the Solomons...". His story was told because he was the son of Joseph Kennedy, who had been the US ambassador to the UK. And then as now, ambassadorships (at least to pl…

And wealthy because he invested heavily in distilleries when it became clear that Prohibition was going to be abolished. As the FA indicates, this is the defining moment of brilliance which should be the stick by which he is measured. Everything else about the Kennedy family came about because of that investment, and the insane returns from it.

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#119

Post by C1sc0cat »

anoraca wrote: post #114
C1sc0cat wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO Joe Kennedy was using his sons to rehabilitate his reputation for being a NAZI sympathiser, and I suspect it was Joseph Kennedy not John that was being groomed for a political career.

Do you have a reputable source for that claim?

Joes (Kennedy) Wikipedia entry, and the Kennedy family have been players in democratic politics for decades and decades

Re: Beware the Casual Polymath

#120

Post by justinclift »

watwut wrote: post #92
codpiece wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> openly converse and express spontaneous opinions with a third party in order to learn more about a subject No, it means confidently express spontaneous opinions and made up facts with a third party with in order to look more knowledgeable then you are and push for whatever you want to push for. Bullshiting typically involves people who are not willing to learn about a subject.

> Bullshiting typically involves people who are not willing to learn about a subject.

... or have decided on recommending a result (eg to decision makers) without any understanding or due diligence having taken place (yet).

Post reply on HN