I used to be skeptical of modern-day polymaths or renaissance individuals, a term that emerged a few years ago to describe people skilled in various fields. For instance, in tech innovation, you might find someone good at business, marketing, technical aspects, communication, and even artistry – an ideal tech startup founder.
This concept re-emerged in Silicon Valley and tech circles in general as a response to the growing criticism of hyper-specialization in all areas: People who often study one subject intensely, and the more they learn, the narrower their worldview becomes. They may become experts knowing almost everything about almost nothing. In the past, figures like Einstein, Newton, Da Vinci, and many ancient thinkers and philosophers had broader but also shallower knowledge since there was less information available.
So, when I first encountered the term "modern Renaissance man," I worried that it meant having shallow knowledge in various fields, becoming a jack-of-all-trades but master of none. As someone with a strong technical background in computer science, I valued my expertise in a narrow area to produce, eg., high-quality research papers that could be published in top scientific venues. So I cringed at the idea of expanding that knowledge domain and necessarily being less knowledgeable in general.
However, after graduating and teaching students, I realized that our narrow focus on technology and computer science left many important aspects unconsidered.
I began exploring philosophical ideas, design thinking, and human-centered design, as well as modern marketing concepts focused on putting people at the core. I also discovered various teaching and communication methods. I realized the importance of versatility in skills, such as communication, design, writing, and team management, without sacrificing a few strong areas where you're exceptional and competitive.
In engineering, to create world-changing products, you need top-level skills. But for these products to genuinely impact people, you must also excel in marketing, sales, design, and business ideation.
So, while I wouldn't label myself a "true polymath" -whatever that means- I do believe in building a T-shaped expertise profile: having a couple of strong areas where you're highly knowledgeable and many broader adjacent areas with greater-than-average knowledge. This allows for incorporating ideas from different fields into your thinking and decision-making.
However, I have concerns with this versatility approach. It's essential to distinguish between passive interest in topics outside our expertise and assuming we can contribute professionally. For instance, I'm fascinated by black holes and astrophysics but wouldn't write a technical article on them. Similarly, I enjoy writing fantasy stories but wouldn't claim to be a fiction writer -I know, I know. When people embrace versatility, it's crucial to delay forming strong opinions without sufficient knowledge or experience.
For example, if you're interested in epidemiology, read and learn as much as you can, but remember that even after a couple years of study, you may not be fully prepared to determine the best course of action during an epidemic, so you must still listen to the experts.
And I've seen this a lot in social media. It's common for people with only a brief exposure to a technical topic to develop strong opinions on what works and what doesn't, and then go about lecturing others on what to do, sometimes with disastrous consequences. The key is to recognize the limits of your knowledge as a polymath or versatile individual. You might have slightly above-average knowledge in many areas, but that doesn't make you an expert.
Experts understand the limitations of their knowledge because they've explored their field to its frontiers. They can evaluate weak points and areas they don't yet understand. Non-experts, however, may struggle to recognize these limitations and can become over-optimistic about their understanding.
When learning about a new field, it's easy to make the mistake of forming strong opinions without having a well-trained epistemic system. So, embrace versatility and strive to be knowledgeable in a wide range of areas – this improves decision-making, communication, and our ability to contribute positively to society. But also remain humble and understand that unless you've spent years delving deep into a specific domain, you're likely missing the whole picture and not fully grasping crucial aspects.
So, yes, conduct your own research, learn as much as you can, but also respect those who've dedicated years to mastering a skill or deepening their knowledge in a specific area. If you haven't invested the time, it's difficult to grasp the full picture until you've experienced it.
I feel and enjoy sharing with other polymaths. However, sometimes, there is a thin border between being curious about so many issues and being a busibody or know-it-all. Humility is a must.
This resonates with me. I don’t claim to be an expert in multiple domains, but I have always felt that I had a strength that other people accused of being a weakness.
As a Gen X Brit, I grew up with the label “Jack of all trades, master of none” but somewhere around the middle of my career I started to suspect that being a generalist is a feature not a bug.
But “generalist” never seemed to fit me either, because I go deep and specific, but in domains that people don’t normally span. And that’s where I suspect my value is.
Then one day I stumbled across a definition of Polymath as not just someone with broad experience, but someone that combines insight from multiple domains and creates unexpected insight. And I thought “that’s it!”
For example my most recent article contrasted two startup techniques that I’d never seen contrasted before, but the combination of the mindsets is the foundation of my value.
The only problem is I feel like a complete douche calling myself a polymath. Feels like such a grandiose title I don’t deserve, so I never say it publicly. I just think it, and aspire to it.
Thank you Michael. You are right I do not think of myself as a Polymath. However, I do know I have very strong skills integrating information across disciplines. I have been blessed in my career as an analyst to meet and know some incredibly gifted people. Some people are so gifted I am truly in awe. 🫢. But one thing I noticed over the years that these people often struggle. Society does not always accept them. They often have to hide behind the scenes where other people speak for them. I feel so privileged that I have had opportunities to have such engaging conversations with people like this. Some of the best conversations I have had with people like this were not practical at all (which is why I would usually have them when my boss was not there. 😂😂😂). I would describe people like this as polymaths. However, I do not think most of them would refer to themselves in this way. I consider myself a success if I can empower people to share their gifts and passions with the world more freely. Just say no to overly simplistic elevator pitches. 😂😂😂. It is refreshing to hear your perspective about an aspiring polymath. It does not mean you are arrogant to own your interdisciplinary skills. Perhaps it is time to free the word polymath from the jail we have it in. Thanks for moving forward with this idea 💡.
I used to be skeptical of modern-day polymaths or renaissance individuals, a term that emerged a few years ago to describe people skilled in various fields. For instance, in tech innovation, you might find someone good at business, marketing, technical aspects, communication, and even artistry – an ideal tech startup founder.
This concept re-emerged in Silicon Valley and tech circles in general as a response to the growing criticism of hyper-specialization in all areas: People who often study one subject intensely, and the more they learn, the narrower their worldview becomes. They may become experts knowing almost everything about almost nothing. In the past, figures like Einstein, Newton, Da Vinci, and many ancient thinkers and philosophers had broader but also shallower knowledge since there was less information available.
So, when I first encountered the term "modern Renaissance man," I worried that it meant having shallow knowledge in various fields, becoming a jack-of-all-trades but master of none. As someone with a strong technical background in computer science, I valued my expertise in a narrow area to produce, eg., high-quality research papers that could be published in top scientific venues. So I cringed at the idea of expanding that knowledge domain and necessarily being less knowledgeable in general.
However, after graduating and teaching students, I realized that our narrow focus on technology and computer science left many important aspects unconsidered.
I began exploring philosophical ideas, design thinking, and human-centered design, as well as modern marketing concepts focused on putting people at the core. I also discovered various teaching and communication methods. I realized the importance of versatility in skills, such as communication, design, writing, and team management, without sacrificing a few strong areas where you're exceptional and competitive.
In engineering, to create world-changing products, you need top-level skills. But for these products to genuinely impact people, you must also excel in marketing, sales, design, and business ideation.
So, while I wouldn't label myself a "true polymath" -whatever that means- I do believe in building a T-shaped expertise profile: having a couple of strong areas where you're highly knowledgeable and many broader adjacent areas with greater-than-average knowledge. This allows for incorporating ideas from different fields into your thinking and decision-making.
However, I have concerns with this versatility approach. It's essential to distinguish between passive interest in topics outside our expertise and assuming we can contribute professionally. For instance, I'm fascinated by black holes and astrophysics but wouldn't write a technical article on them. Similarly, I enjoy writing fantasy stories but wouldn't claim to be a fiction writer -I know, I know. When people embrace versatility, it's crucial to delay forming strong opinions without sufficient knowledge or experience.
For example, if you're interested in epidemiology, read and learn as much as you can, but remember that even after a couple years of study, you may not be fully prepared to determine the best course of action during an epidemic, so you must still listen to the experts.
And I've seen this a lot in social media. It's common for people with only a brief exposure to a technical topic to develop strong opinions on what works and what doesn't, and then go about lecturing others on what to do, sometimes with disastrous consequences. The key is to recognize the limits of your knowledge as a polymath or versatile individual. You might have slightly above-average knowledge in many areas, but that doesn't make you an expert.
Experts understand the limitations of their knowledge because they've explored their field to its frontiers. They can evaluate weak points and areas they don't yet understand. Non-experts, however, may struggle to recognize these limitations and can become over-optimistic about their understanding.
When learning about a new field, it's easy to make the mistake of forming strong opinions without having a well-trained epistemic system. So, embrace versatility and strive to be knowledgeable in a wide range of areas – this improves decision-making, communication, and our ability to contribute positively to society. But also remain humble and understand that unless you've spent years delving deep into a specific domain, you're likely missing the whole picture and not fully grasping crucial aspects.
So, yes, conduct your own research, learn as much as you can, but also respect those who've dedicated years to mastering a skill or deepening their knowledge in a specific area. If you haven't invested the time, it's difficult to grasp the full picture until you've experienced it.
I feel and enjoy sharing with other polymaths. However, sometimes, there is a thin border between being curious about so many issues and being a busibody or know-it-all. Humility is a must.
This resonates with me. I don’t claim to be an expert in multiple domains, but I have always felt that I had a strength that other people accused of being a weakness.
As a Gen X Brit, I grew up with the label “Jack of all trades, master of none” but somewhere around the middle of my career I started to suspect that being a generalist is a feature not a bug.
But “generalist” never seemed to fit me either, because I go deep and specific, but in domains that people don’t normally span. And that’s where I suspect my value is.
Then one day I stumbled across a definition of Polymath as not just someone with broad experience, but someone that combines insight from multiple domains and creates unexpected insight. And I thought “that’s it!”
For example my most recent article contrasted two startup techniques that I’d never seen contrasted before, but the combination of the mindsets is the foundation of my value.
The only problem is I feel like a complete douche calling myself a polymath. Feels like such a grandiose title I don’t deserve, so I never say it publicly. I just think it, and aspire to it.
Dude, I did NOT know you were 6'6"! You would have a great spider guard if you trained BJJ and stuck with it for a long time.
(also, this was a good piece to create - this will help a lot of folks)
Thank you Michael. You are right I do not think of myself as a Polymath. However, I do know I have very strong skills integrating information across disciplines. I have been blessed in my career as an analyst to meet and know some incredibly gifted people. Some people are so gifted I am truly in awe. 🫢. But one thing I noticed over the years that these people often struggle. Society does not always accept them. They often have to hide behind the scenes where other people speak for them. I feel so privileged that I have had opportunities to have such engaging conversations with people like this. Some of the best conversations I have had with people like this were not practical at all (which is why I would usually have them when my boss was not there. 😂😂😂). I would describe people like this as polymaths. However, I do not think most of them would refer to themselves in this way. I consider myself a success if I can empower people to share their gifts and passions with the world more freely. Just say no to overly simplistic elevator pitches. 😂😂😂. It is refreshing to hear your perspective about an aspiring polymath. It does not mean you are arrogant to own your interdisciplinary skills. Perhaps it is time to free the word polymath from the jail we have it in. Thanks for moving forward with this idea 💡.
This is great. However, I'm now thinking of a polymathic unicorn (mythical creature)
Well done for making it so approachable and aspirational for everyone!