Polymaths vs Experts

[_honorentheos]

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/05/in_defense_of_polymaths.html

Where does dabbling one's brush into too many pots tip over into being a modern renaissance wo/man?

[_Gadianton]

I didn't think it was a very good essay. Better than a lot of stuff linked here, but there's never going to be a gold standard for how much a person should diversify. There is room in the market for all kinds of skill sets and personalities, some wide, some narrow. I disagree that specializing makes someone narrow minded and a broad education implies flexibility. Look at the Mopologists, they read books on every topic under ths sun voraciously, yet, has there ever existed a more narrow-minded lot of buffoons? It could be that someone leaning in the direction of asbergers has a narrow and deep skill set and also tends to be narrow in their perspectives on life, but brain physiology is what it is at the end of the day, and it wouldn't necessarily pay off for such a person to try and be Mr. or Mrs. well-rounded social butterfly.

[_honorentheos]

Good points, Gad. I wasn't so much struck by the quality of the essay as I was by the topic in general. I've never seen much discussion of it on the boards, but I've seen many examples that serve as part of the argument. Both pro and con, as you noted with your example of the mopologists.

It's interesting to watch the dynamic between those who are expertly knowledgable on certain topics and those who "dabble"...and those who disdain a subject all together.

But even more so, I find it interesting that many people also seem to have removed themselves from serious discussion and partisipate as distraction or entertainment only. Or to mainly provide substantially content free commentary.

I disagree that specializing makes someone narrow minded and a broad education implies flexibility.

I'd agree with this. To be honest, my opinion is pretty simple: To give a damn what other people think in a way that inhibits one's ability to learn out of concern for their opinion/looking unknowledgable is self-defeating. And to not give a damn what other people think in a way that inhibits one's ability to learn from others is equally self-defeating.

Learning, in that case, requires courage in the form of a willingness to engage and be admittedly ignorant or even wrong...but open. I think specialization can become closemindedness to the degree one stops being able to exhibit that kind of courage. And a broad "education" can be stifling if it isn't exposed to other's input in a meaningful way, also out of a lack of this type of courage.

My opinion, of course.

[_Always Changing]

Fascinating subject. I agree that the information available on the internet enables people to follow their interests, and be more sensitive to differing opinions. I have long been jealous of people who are highly accomplished in many areas, but in recent years realized that social pressures restricted my scope*. And, of course, my narrow scope ten years ago was still restricted by those same social pressures. Access to the internet accompanied with fewer social pressures in real life allowed me to develop my individuality. This is the key, whether an individual is a polymath or a specialist:

Learning, in that case, requires courage in the form of a willingness to engage and be admittedly ignorant or even wrong...but open.

Neither extreme guarantees the presence or absence of open-mindedness.



*Although I have a personality type which is very sensitive to social pressures, the intensity of the social pressures I have experienced must also be considered.

On the other hand, yesterday I substitute taught and the lesson was on the Native civilizations of Latin America and the Spanish invasion. Since my viewpoint and knowledge of the subject is fairly well crystallized and more complex than the middle school level, I needed to restrain myself to comply with the lesson-plan.

[_honorentheos]

I tried to find a book I had read back in ’04 about specialization but couldn’t remember the author’s name or the title. The book essentially made the case that the day of the true polymath was over: human knowledge had expanded too far for any normal person to be able to be what traditionally was known as a “Renaissance Man”. In the past, a little mechanical knowledge or aptitude went a long ways and, combined with a talent or some practice in the arts, the renaissance person could do as Robert Heinlein said,

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

But the modern person would have to do so much more than the above to be competent in most situations they encounter today. Much of the technology we use is based on the idea of converting specialized knowledge and skills into an app that anyone could learn quickly. But does have this access alone make a person “skilled” or a polymath? I’d say no.

On the other hand (from the link):

We live in an age where deep-specialization is highly encouraged — the era of what tech analyst Vinnie Mirchandani calls the "monomath." Doctors specialize, lawyers specialize, academics specialize, mechanics specialize ... just about everyone professionally specializes. The more deeply you specialize, the more money you're likely to make.

And that's fine. Except when it's not. The problem with deep specialization is that specialists tend to get stuck in their own points of view. They've been taught to focus so narrowly that they can't look at a problem from different angles. And in the modern workscape we desperately need people with the ability to see big picture solutions. That's where being a polymath has certain advantages.

The underlined sentence is, to my mind, the definition of narrow-mindedness: being stuck in one's own point of view. Gad's example of the mopologist illustrates this. The Mormon worldview becomes a constraint into which all other knowledge has to be shoe-horned. Examples of pro-Mormon scholars who seem to be broadminded also do not seem inclined to try and force everything into the Mormon box. The world remained a large and beautiful place. Perhaps this explains why so many of us, upon leaving Mormonism, felt like a new world of knowledge and beauty exploded into our view?

I've met people from many professional walks of life for whom I'd say this is also true. The Ph.D. who sees the world merely as a set of systems of varied scales operating under the laws of their discipline is one common example. To attempt an understanding of an aspect of the world that does not fit neatly into their discipline results in dismissal or even contempt.

Perhaps technology allows us to think we are becoming polymaths? But perhaps the test lies in how we approach the world rather than how broad our knowledge base might be?

[_Always Changing]

The Ph.D. who sees the world merely as a set of systems of varied scales operating under the laws of their discipline is one common example. To attempt an understanding of an aspect of the world that does not fit neatly into their discipline results in dismissal or even contempt.

This is particularly true in reference to the profession of school psychology, and one reason why I was so unhappy.

But perhaps the test lies in how we approach the world rather than how broad our knowledge base might be?

Exactly.