If anyone thinks they can be educated into polymathy they've already lost.
Be interested enough in many things and spend 5+ cumulative years working on each of those things.
A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]
61–70 of 82 posts
Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]
#62If anyone thinks they can be educated into polymathy they've already lost. Be interested enough in many things and spend 5+ cumulative years working on each of those things.
Yes I don't see how a modern institution could reasonably produce polymaths, unless the individual themselves is doing 90% of the learning through self-teaching, but then the strict scope of universities would limit those people.
Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]
#63A few books which I enjoyed that are somewhat on the subject of polymathy: - The Polymath by Waqas Ahmed. This one directly discusses polymathy in history, and how our "natural state" really is of that of the polymath, not the specialist. A nice book that helped me get past some mental blocks and really embrace learning whatever it is I'm interested in, without reservations on what others may think about such "distra…
Great comment. Agree with everything; Indeed "polymathy" is our natural state because we are always thinking/playing with different concepts and their interrelationships. It is highly frustrating when i see folks saying things like they "can't learn/understand/grok something" and treating it as some sort of an intrinsic limitation whereas the reality is that all people have the potential and if they really applied th…
Thanks.
This is true Education and should be approached with full enthusiasm and distinct from Schooling/Job needs.
Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]
#64I'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 w…
I see. So their definition might be even closer to specialists than generalists.
Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there may always be too much socioeconomic pressure against it in modern industrial society for it to become normalized.
I see what you mean, but I'm reluctant to agree with "always." As technology gets better at eliminating jobs, we may see a socioeconomic pressure towards remaining pivot-ready by constantly broadening one's capabilities... A world where as soon as you have a job you start training for your next one on the side because they just don't last that long. Making such a lifestyle broadly accessible would mean some significa…
> we may see a socioeconomic pressure towards remaining pivot-ready by constantly broadening one's capabilities...
If this isn't already a line out of a dystopic speculative fiction short story someone should crib it for that purpose.
Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 w…
I see. So their definition might be even closer to specialists than generalists.
Generalist versus specialist is a false dichotomy. The text has little to do with it, it tries to distance itself from portraying these roles as stereotypical.
Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]
#67> Those colleges and universities that figure out how to organize research and teach new foundations and polymathy and prepare their students to understand a world in which every system, at every scale, acts causally on others, will see their stock rise. The rest will struggle to remain relevant. It is safe to say that this prediction did not come to pass. The system (pun) keeps churning idiot-savants, well-trained c…
In an unexpected turn of events I think Chatgpt qualifies as a polymath.
Not according to the article. Chatgpt could be argued to have knowledge. It cannot be argued to have understanding (yet).
Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an unexpected turn of events I think Chatgpt qualifies as a polymath.
Not according to the article. Chatgpt could be argued to have knowledge. It cannot be argued to have understanding (yet).
ChatGPT cannot be argued anything, it will just apologize and move on.
Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They cannot force somebody to a polymath, but they can create an environment that promotes polymath-ing and allows polymaths to thrive, vs an environment that promotes overspecialisation. This can be reflected to a degree/study program to the extent that overspecialisation can also be reflected in one.
Even just putting together people from different background and trajectories can do miracles sometimes.
Re: A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]
#70> Those colleges and universities that figure out how to organize research and teach new foundations and polymathy and prepare their students to understand a world in which every system, at every scale, acts causally on others, will see their stock rise. The rest will struggle to remain relevant. It is safe to say that this prediction did not come to pass. The system (pun) keeps churning idiot-savants, well-trained c…
I'd argue that it hasn't come to pass, but it is not wrong that its a better way to teach. Virtually all education has been set up in an industrial line style of pre-u education -> university -> companies -> profits -> some value to society. Every part has been attempted to be structured to optimise for the subsequent stage - companies optimisie for profits, universities optimise for employment rate and salary, high schools optimise for college entrance rates, etc. Yet because of Goodhart's and organizational incompetence, each part optimises badly, so education gets exponentially disconnected from each. His proposals are valuable to society, but the system is structurally against it.
The only way this works if it skips the assembly line right down to being of value to society, ie you set up a system which explicitly transforms that teaching into things like startups, research, nonprofits etc.