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, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
In context, the quote is actually from a list of principles/observations the character has written in a notebook. I do not read it as an argument that mastering a skill/field is bad, but simply an observation that never bothering to learn new skills would be rather boring.
Strongly agree. I've been vegetarian for years, the only exception I'll make is if I go hunting with my family. If you aren't willing to kill it and clean it yourself, at least once in a while, you should probably stick to salad.
> If you aren't willing to kill it and clean it yourself, at least once in a while, you should probably stick to salad.
Why? Is the idea that meat has a unique ethical component that a consumer must grapple with up close by killing and butchering?
There seem to be many items we consume that have complicated and unethical production processes, but nobody goes around telling people they need to make their own cell phone or t shirt at least once in a while.
I'll bite: There's something 'humane' about hunting an animal, rather than it being in captivity birth to plate. T-shirts and mobile phones were never alive so this doesn't strictly apply, but I think everyone could tinker with a Raspberry Pi and sewing at least once. It keeps us grounded with reality.
I agree with you. I wouldn't be able to make a cellphone from scratch in a million years, but I have researched where they come from, and have settled on only using secondhand units, so that I am not directly complicit to everything which goes into making one.
I've developed a similar stance to most products, and have largely abandoned spending money, exactly because factory farming is not that much different from making a cheap T-shirt, if not worse, in terms of cruelty and environmental damage.
you have a point, but actually we should. not so much build your own phone but at least understand how it, and anything else is produced, where the materials come from, the environmental and other damage the production causes, how the profit is distributed (how much are those miners earning?) etc.
for food those are actually more well known, and we are starting to care about that more, but the demand for eggs from cage free hens is really not much different than a demand for better working conditions for factory workers, or for environmental friendly production processes
So under this definition I too am a polymath but so are most of my colleagues. Some of the smartest engineers Ive ever met have wildly different hobbies outside of engineering or software. Boating. Baking. Triathlons. Music. But the most successful people do one thing, 100% in an all consuming way before flipping into another. Theyre the best bakers. Have sailed the furhest distances, written the best songs, and posted the best times.
Another way to think about it is “you can have anything you want, but not everything you want”. Choose accordingly.
This is the way to do it. Done well, a 5-year deep dive can make you a world-class expert in most things. Do that, and then move onto the next thing, bringing that skillset along.
It goes faster every time too. It turns out there are lots of overlaps. Linear algebra and differential equations are (roughly) the same in electronic engineering, quantum mechanics, or mechanical engineering, and where they're not is where you often bring in unique insights.
The people who struggle are the ones who go shallow. A half-dozen HN articles a day.
The people who struggle are the ones who go shallow. A half-dozen HN articles a day.
It's not really a half dozen HN articles a day. It's the shallow absorption of HN articles that's only 5 or 10 minutes top per article.
And then you only remembered 10% top of the article you absorbed.
Whereas you select and absorb two HN article for a week, at twenty minutes each article per day, you'll retain more and makes connections you otherwise wouldn't see.
What I would add to this is a caveat and a model. The caveat is that individual specialization doesn't scale, and so long as you are just talent solving problems for someone, your employer will be the ceiling and bottleneck on the good you can do in the world.
The model is that as a polymath, your job is to scale. You don't know as much as specialists, but you have the unique ability to appreciate the value of what they do and this provides a natural advantage in leading them and scaling their talents.
Value is the act of bringing something from one place to another. As a polymath, you have multiple repositories that are relatively deep, which you can trade ideas between. However, what I advise polymaths is that if there is one skill you should cultivate, it's smuggling, because a lot of people who are good at one thing choose gatekeeping to ensure its status, and the biggest challenge you will have is getting value past gatekeepers and the people with a stake in their decisions. To succeed as a polymath, you should learn to live as a smuggler, fugitive, insurgent, and pariah. If nothing else, it keeps the needs of others central to your thinking.
Sure, you could just live comfortably as a pet and a curiosity, stuck in someone elses cubicle, solving problems for peanut tokens and scattered applause, but if that's not satisfying, the tools to change it are already in your hands.
Out of curiosity I google image searched "ikigai torus" to see if anyone had made one, and got a few distinct things: A 3-circle shape being sold as jewelry that claimed to represent the concept, it being used as magic/mantra on new-agey sites, and one that straight claims that this diagram is a misrepresentation of the concept (but is also selling a workbook).
Now I can't help but wonder if this is one of those "those silly westerners" things, akin to gibberish or insulting Japanese/Chinese words as tattoos.
> When I first began to study polymaths, I was excited to see a template for a life I didn’t know I was living. But when I started to embrace the polymath identity, my inner critics appeared. I wondered whether I’m even qualified to write about polymaths, let alone call myself one.
Then why not just go on cultivating diverse interests -- which is really what this blog post is about, and which seems like a fine idea -- and sidestep all of this "polymath" business? Why make it harder by picking the grandest label you can find and then worrying about whether you qualify?
Yep. Indeed you're better off not picking the grand label even if it perfectly suits you, because people are more likely to chuckle at your pomposity if you start describing yourself as one (see also self-described 'intellectuals', 'geniuses' and 'ninjas') than be impressed.
It doesn't help that for much of the post the author seems to conflate the concept of the Aristotle-type polymath making breakthroughs in multiple unrelated fields with standard career paths [engineer, manager, teacher, founder, advisor] and transferable career skills. All of which are entirely worth pursuing without the dubious label.
Between this and that [0], it popped into my head that we should just go further and invent polymodal. Would specifically refer to the other comment's "only one thing" deep dive.
I have been a generalist my whole life, and have struggled significantly to translate this into a meaningful career. I have thrived in interdisciplinary roles, but have always found myself carving them out once I have forced my way through the door in a more specialized role.
Is it simply a disconnect between the hiring process and these sorts of skillsets that is causing this issue, or something else?
I worked at a 3D printing startup and found myself liasing between hardware, software, and materials teams (and sales... and marketing... and...) and was the happiest I have been professionally at that time. I don't know where to look for roles similar to this. Do they even exist?
> Is it simply a disconnect between the hiring process and these sorts of skillsets that is causing this issue, or something else?
I feel like it's a practicality. I like doing front-end and I can hack together pretty much anything you can design in Photoshop (did some side jobs to test exactly this hypothesis), but my company would rather pay for a specialist in front-end to provide higher quality output, and have me do my expertise where I also provide more overall value.
Generalists are great if the company cannot afford more people (startups, typically, love generalists), or if there's a time pressure and there are no other resources.
Generalists are also great in some specific positions, like consultants, possibly (solution) architects, and one-man freelancers for small projects. Not so much for permanent positions at your Fortune 500 companies.
> The answer lies in modern society’s preference for specialization.
Yet modern society also has a preference for a broad liberal arts education. Like bundling/unbundling and reductionism/synthesis, there seems to be an ongoing ebb and flow between multi-disciplinary and specialized skills driven by the value add.
Whole article resonates so thank you for putting that up. The word POLYMATH is a little clunky for non-native speakers. If you were to ask people in the streets the word GENERALIST is probably easier to understand. I experienced that with a lot of words that tend to describe a certain type/trend/box. I'm not advocating against the word just trying to raise awareness why there's people out there that would rather simply break it down to "Generalist" and Polymath will most likely be a niche word on a global scale.
A polymath has multiple areas of specialization or expertise, a generalist has (even more) multiple areas of competence. These aren't mutually exclusive. Note the special case of the generalist with ONE area of expertise is the "t-shaped" individual, which is probably a more appropriate baseline goal than anything else. Although I am not sure how domain knowledge intersects with technical skills as a matter of strategy...
Interesting read, would say a lot of good product managers have polymath traits... Software design, understand how to sell , commercial, legal, marketing...
I've always considered myself a jack of all trades and made the switch to product management after being a designer for the last decade.
The switch felt almost fully natural, and I noticed that I have a very obvious significant leg up from most of my peers, I'm easily 3-4x more productive while working at the same pace as everyone.
Software development is an interesting field in that it is a lot less specialized than others. It's pretty easy to bounce around doing completely different work at each job. So far the field has resisted any sort of assembly line model and I hope it remains that way. Some essay I read likened it to classic gunsmiths: the tolerance is so tight, that a single craftsmen was responsible for every part of the gun. The same is true for programming: you can't just take a bunch of different libraries and "assemble" them together. And if you try, the quality of the final product will undoubtedly be poor. I'm looking at you, simple websites that take the entire memory space of 200 Commodore 64 computers put together!
I think biologically we evolve to be polymaths. Only after humans formed complex societies we have opportunities that sustainably reward specialization. And there is probably very little genetic reinforcement of modern specialization. Don't have my own experience but from what I see, family life of a polymath seems much more rewarding and with a lot of genetic reinforcement. The Revenant might be a good example of 2 stages of evolving human societies where one totally rewards Polymaths and in other you probably want to start being a specialist.
> The lack of freedom might be a worthy sacrifice in exchange for job security. But therein lies the problem: few companies can actually guarantee long-term stability. Many workers already face ambiguity with their job security due to the impending effects of automation. Now, with the tornado of change brought about by the COVID pandemic, the brittleness of even large corporations’ stability has become apparent.
So how do we survive these waves of change? Adaptability.
This starts out with a good analysis, but an approach that tried to change the system rather than the individual-by-individual approach it proposes would be so much more defective. We don’t just have to adapt to an increasingly brutal labor market and society. We can change it!
There's a site called https://puttylike.com/ that calls it a "multipotentialite" and in the gal's Ted talk she makes us out to be victims. That, I don't like- but I do like the premise of most of what she's saying otherwise. Being a generalist only means you get to explore whatever's fancy today, and because you've defined yourself as eternally undefined, nobody generally cares.
It's easy to feel like a victim when you learn really quickly, are very good at a wide variety of different areas, and languish in poverty and debt because the only way to get non-marginal employment is 10 straight years of the exact same specific thing that doesn't even have 2 years of learning to be wrung from it.
I've always thought of myself as an 80 percenter. I like to throw myself passionately into a sport or activity until I reach about an 80 percent proficiency level. To go beyond that requires an obsession that doesn't appeal to me. Once I reach 80 percent level I like to go off and do something totally different; that probably explains the diversity of the Patagonia product like - and why our versatile, multifaceted clothes are the most successful.
-Yvon Chouinard
> I've always thought of myself as an 80 percenter. I like to throw myself passionately into a sport or activity until I reach about an 80 percent proficiency level.
This is a very difficult thing to grasp as a beginner. As a beginner, you have no idea where you are on the scale. You might be an "80-percenter" in React at your company and discover that you know very little when you start applying for senior front-end positions.
Thanks for sharing your sentiments. I tend to associate polymaths with the Renaissance era. People like Da Vinci and Galilei are true polymaths. In modern days Elon Musk is one. However I do think the word polymath is more well-regarded/skilled than a generalist.
It's best to follow a "T" approach, have a broad skillset but with enough depth in one particular trade that can last economic downturns and for which demand is inelastic.
From my experience, "T" approach is a lie. You get people who are just generalists ("-" people).
"T" approach is FAANG's way of forcing people to dedicate 12h a day to their engineering career both before they apply to get in, and after they get in to advance.
You’ve likely heard the saying: “A jack of all trades is a master of none.” It warns against the futility of pursuing too many disciplines. Be a specialist, or you’ll be nothing.
It may surprise you to learn there’s actually an extended version: “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one.” With a subtle addition, its meaning becomes inverted to tout the benefits of being a polymath (a.k.a. generalist).
Why is the former so common, and the latter so unknown?
The answer lies in modern society’s preference for specialization. This essay explores how specialization limits workers’ freedom, how the polymath approach can offer a reprieve, and my own learnings exploring a multitude of pursuits.
I think it's a mistake to call a polymath a generalist. The concept of a polymath is predicated on top notch knowledge and skill at multiple disciplines.
That too was my only gripe with the article - solid and engaging writing, but I was wincing every time polymath was mentioned. I feel like you could substitute most uses of the word with just 'generalist' and the article would have held together just as well.
— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love