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

A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]

paulrcohen.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 82 posts

Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]

#11

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

... would be good. But it's been a decade and I think we're further from a society of polymaths now than we were then.

I'm lucky enough to have been able to afford a constant trickle of college classes for the last 20 years. It's awesome. I get so much more out of it than my younger full-time classmates are. But it requires a lot of sacrifice. I probably wouldn't be on this path if I had had kids, for instance.

So as nice as it feels to get excited about polymathy, I'd rather we take steps to make it normal.

Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]

#14

Post by demaga »

I've been on the fence about generalists vs specialists debate for a while now. Although people love to bring up examples of outstanding geniuses like da Vinci, it seems society as a whole moves towards specialists.

Natural selection shows that cooperating specialists do better. So I'm not so sure how useful are these efforts to educate new generations of polymaths.

Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]

#15

Post by [deleted] »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #11

... would be good. But it's been a decade and I think we're further from a society of polymaths now than we were then. I'm lucky enough to have been able to afford a constant trickle of college classes for the last 20 years. It's awesome. I get so much more out of it than my younger full-time classmates are. But it requires a lot of sacrifice. I probably wouldn't be on this path if I had had kids, for instance. So as…

[deleted]

Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]

#16

Post by staticautomatic »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #11

... would be good. But it's been a decade and I think we're further from a society of polymaths now than we were then. I'm lucky enough to have been able to afford a constant trickle of college classes for the last 20 years. It's awesome. I get so much more out of it than my younger full-time classmates are. But it requires a lot of sacrifice. I probably wouldn't be on this path if I had had kids, for instance. So as…

I think there may always be too much socioeconomic pressure against it in modern industrial society for it to become normalized.

Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]

#17

Post by alganet »

demaga wrote: post #14

I've been on the fence about generalists vs specialists debate for a while now. Although people love to bring up examples of outstanding geniuses like da Vinci, it seems society as a whole moves towards specialists. Natural selection shows that cooperating specialists do better. So I'm not so sure how useful are these efforts to educate new generations of polymaths.

The text seems to put effort into differentiating between what a generalist is and what a polymath is:

> Polymaths don’t simply know a lot, they understand what fields have in common.

According to the text, the polymath focuses on the intersection of fields. This is more specific than a generalist, that could know a lot of fields but have no particular experience in what is their connection.

I don't know if I agree with the text definition of what a polymath is. It is, however, what they meant.

Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]

#18

Post by satvikpendem »

bullshy wrote: post #13
greekanalyst wrote: post #2

Great piece. One of the best places cultivating this type of polymathy today is Stanford's Symbolic Systems Program. https://symsys.stanford.edu/

you can't create real polymath... polymaths are self-created... that's the physics of this.

Yeah this is what I don't understand as well, most of the polymath type people I know are naturally curious and self motivated for whatever it is they want to study and do. I am not sure what or how an institution can cultivate such behavior. I suppose it can encourage it to people but again, most polymaths are naturally self motivated and don't need encouragement at all.

Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]

#19

Post by alganet »

> If one is looking for a single label to encompass many of the new foundations – perhaps to form a new school or department – I would suggest Systems.

What about good old philosophy?

Philosophy already has a long tradition of birthing new sciences, a long tradition of encouraging polymath thinking and a long tradition of estabilishing foundational ways of thinking.

Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]

#20

Post by musicale »

greekanalyst wrote: post #2

Great piece. One of the best places cultivating this type of polymathy today is Stanford's Symbolic Systems Program. https://symsys.stanford.edu/

It does look interesting (and related to the Systems school proposed by TFA), though I've also heard it described as a watered-down or easier CS degree. (Then again, CS itself is sometimes criticized as a watered-down or easier engineering degree, or a degree in calculators.)

Data Science sometimes gets a similar watered-down label, but it looks like Stanford's program (at least) might be somewhat technical and may incorporate scientific computation, as well as statistical applications.

Post reply on HN