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

71–80 of 82 posts

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

#71

Post by willtemperley »

PaulHoule wrote: post #23

One of the best things going at my Uni (Cornell) in my mind is not that they have a data science major [1] but that they have a data science minor that goes with anything from literature to biology [2]. [1] not sure I, as an applications programmer, want to hire that person because they're too focused on writing the April 2024 sales report and not on developing the process to make the monthly sales report. [2] (talk…

No true programmer can leave unclosed parentheses nor can an academic omit their references

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

#72

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

quasse wrote: post #65
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Accelerando it was necessary to make drastic alterations to oneself in order to keep up with that pressure (or an analogous one). Those who decided not to had to flee the planet because they just weren't nimble enough to participate in Economics 2.0

It sounds outlandish but I think the path away from scarcity based economics must eventually traverse a zone where the only scarcity-driven careers left aren't substantial enough to commit a lifetime to, so being dual- or triple-specialized will be a necessity.

And as much of a hassle that may be, letting scarcity continue to drive despite its inability to avoid hazards seems much worse.

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

#73

Post by motohagiography »

syndicatedjelly wrote: post #47

A 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…

this comment about a polymathic attitude is really important. if we start with the idea of becoming the image of a polymath, this will just produce unsatisfying reflected representations.

if you want to be an athlete, start with an athletic attitude. if you want to be a genius, start with a genius attitude and ask what the most brilliant person you can think of would do, then find out. if you want to be a mathematician, start with a mathematical inclination, etc. it's the only way to get there.

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

#74

Post by bmitc »

openrisk wrote: post #32

> 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…

There are already colleges like this that are basically ignored by the status quo. For example, the College of the Atlantic has a single degree in human ecology. It's a requirement to have a multidisciplinary course selection plan that includes multiple fields and both arts and sciences.

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

#75

Post by bmitc »

analog31 wrote: post #34
alganet wrote: post #19

> 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.

Physics is like this too. An odd thing about physics is that it doesn't have very many of its own techniques or tools, so we have to go outside of our field if we want to solve any nontrivial problem -- theoretical or experimental. For instance I didn't take any electronics or programming classes beyond "101" level, but have ended up using both extensively in my later work. At my present workplace, I've noticed that…

Physics is one of the least systems oriented sciences. It is also the easiest science when it comes down to brass tacks. Because physics can make so many simplifying assumptions, it has very few tools to tackle systems. Most physicists I have met have the least capability of anyone I have met when it comes to systems thinking and have the most narrow mindsets and approaches.

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

#76

Post by analog31 »

bmitc wrote: post #75
analog31 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physics is like this too. An odd thing about physics is that it doesn't have very many of its own techniques or tools, so we have to go outside of our field if we want to solve any nontrivial problem -- theoretical or experimental. For instance I didn't take any electronics or programming classes beyond "101" level, but have ended up using both extensively in my later work. At my present workplace, I've noticed that…

Physics is one of the least systems oriented sciences. It is also the easiest science when it comes down to brass tacks. Because physics can make so many simplifying assumptions, it has very few tools to tackle systems. Most physicists I have met have the least capability of anyone I have met when it comes to systems thinking and have the most narrow mindsets and approaches.

I don't doubt your experience. But it seems odd, because the people I've known who were the best at "systems" and multidisciplinary thinking were physicists and physical scientists, including myself. My title was "systems engineer" for many years, and they finally let me be "scientist" though I do mostly the same work. I work in measurement instrumentation, at a site that has mid-sized engineering and manufacturing departments. I'm often the first and only person to fully grasp how a product works, when it involves optics, electronics, mechanics, computation, and the application domain, and has to be manufactured with high quality.

The thing is, the limitations of our tools don't excuse us from having to do research and make things work. Or from finding employment. ;-) So we tend to be opportunists in terms of synthesizing knowledge from multiple fields.

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

#77

Post by alganet »

analog31 wrote: post #76
bmitc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physics is one of the least systems oriented sciences. It is also the easiest science when it comes down to brass tacks. Because physics can make so many simplifying assumptions, it has very few tools to tackle systems. Most physicists I have met have the least capability of anyone I have met when it comes to systems thinking and have the most narrow mindsets and approaches.

I don't doubt your experience. But it seems odd, because the people I've known who were the best at "systems" and multidisciplinary thinking were physicists and physical scientists, including myself. My title was "systems engineer" for many years, and they finally let me be "scientist" though I do mostly the same work. I work in measurement instrumentation, at a site that has mid-sized engineering and manufacturing d…

Physics and math have been together for a long time, they have high levels of cross-pollination.

Somehow, this was extended to computers too. The three of them are now cross-pollinating. It happens with other sciences too, but it seems it started earlier in physics and math.

In that sense, anyone with knowledge consisting of "a little bit of computer science plus one single other trade" likely represents the new baseline, not polymathy (similar to the previuous one "a little bit of math plus one single other trade").

So, if you want to be a CS polymath, you'd have to know what CS will look like when all this cross pollination settles down. I think it will look very different from what it is now, it is such a new science. Impactful, but very new.

Even biology had this cross-pollination thing. Lots of fields took evolution ideas, some in very dangerous ways. This influence survives to this day (neural networks, evolutionary algorithms, etc), but it is more like a cargo cult than real intersection. It resembles more biology from the past than what biologists think today.

Polymaths right now are probably working in the fields with less computers, trying to fill that gap. In the cross-pollination analogy, they're the first to waggle dance.

In that sense, I see a history+biology polymath more rare and special than a cs+math polymath, for example. They probably have a more unique and singular perspective on science than the more estabilished swarm of existing cs+math polymaths.

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

#78

Post by analog31 »

alganet wrote: post #77
analog31 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt your experience. But it seems odd, because the people I've known who were the best at "systems" and multidisciplinary thinking were physicists and physical scientists, including myself. My title was "systems engineer" for many years, and they finally let me be "scientist" though I do mostly the same work. I work in measurement instrumentation, at a site that has mid-sized engineering and manufacturing d…

Physics and math have been together for a long time, they have high levels of cross-pollination. Somehow, this was extended to computers too. The three of them are now cross-pollinating. It happens with other sciences too, but it seems it started earlier in physics and math. In that sense, anyone with knowledge consisting of "a little bit of computer science plus one single other trade" likely represents the new base…

Indeed, I think that in some sense, physics and math (and maybe astronomy) were all born together. The Pythagoreans thought that they were discovering the secrets of the universe. Aristotle wrestled with the difference between physics and math, for instance between an ideal circle and a real physical one. Physics was always an exploration of what aspects of nature could be described mathematically. Development of calculus and differential equations gave physics a gigantic boost. We always want to try out the new toys.

As I mentioned in another post. physics ran out of problems that were solvable by hand with equations roughly a century ago. Feynman managed rooms full of "computers" who were people operating mechanical calculating machines for nuclear physics problems. When digital computers gradually became available, physicists were already waiting in line to use them. Von Neumann promoted government funding of academic computing facilities with an eye towards using the computers for bomb yield calculations.

The software industry gradually began to emerge roughly a decade later.

Ironically, I was "a little math plus some other trade." I learned programming in high school (1981) but had a summer internship at a computing facility and it didn't spark my interest in programming as an occupation, so I majored in math. My other intended trade -- being a rock star -- never materialized, and I ended up with a second major in physics instead. But I've always been an avid programmer, and I do most of my computational and experimental work by coding. All of my fellow physics grad students were coders, and many went into programming when their luck ran out in the grim physics job market.

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

#79

Post by mikhailfranco »

syndicatedjelly wrote: post #47

A 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…

The Creative Act by Rick Rubin

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

#80

Post by hawtbalrog »

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.

100% agree with you on this. I come from a long line of polymaths. My dad is a Caltech EE, but also has a gunsmith business on the side, is a botanist part of a rare fruit growers association, and also brews beer. When you grow up with exposure to this way of thinking that you can indeed be a master of multiple disciplines, it's hard to try and fit in to the box of traditional education. I myself studied classics, Mandarin, Econ and data science. I even run a polymath book club
Post reply on HN