Welcome to Polymathic Being, a place to explore counterintuitive insights across multiple domains. These essays take common topics and investigate them from different perspectives and disciplines to come up with unique insights and solutions. Today's topic
I’d love your take on something I think about all the time — that it’s easy for a generalist/polymath to really be a dilettante spouting off about half-understood things picked from multiple domains.
You cite Thomas Sowell — I’ve read "Wealth, Poverty and Politics" and he draws interesting insights from economics, history, and sociology. And yet specialists in each field consider him to be engaging in reasoning without fully investigating his claims if not downright cherry-picking to purposely mislead.
That could be intellectual dishonesty, of course, but I think any generalist is at risk of something similar. The specialist is blinded by lack of breadth, but the generalist is blinded by lack of depth. They're just two sides of the same coin, and equal dangers.
So what's the solution to the "dilettante problem?" Or is it just another variation of imposter syndrome, since every domain has its pitfalls?
It's a great question and is an accusation that gets thrown at me as well. The challenge is two-fold.
1. I may be wrong because the experts have more depth but I find that to be less of the case
2. The experts think I'm wrong becasue they *are right* but only in their tiny domain. When you pull that information out into broader context you find that it just doesn't scale.
That's the larger issue with Sowell I think... He's talking macroeconomic trends, which work more often than not. The others are talking microeconomics which fail more often than not.
I also wrote a bit about the quandary here "Who Are You To ____?" when it comes to crossing domains and Disciplines. And to your point about the dangers, I like to say that Polymathy is an aspiration and grounded in.
1. Insatiable Curiosity
2. The humility to accept I don't know enough about a topic.
3. Intentional reframing to make sure I have the right problem definition.
Great Substack topic!
I’d love your take on something I think about all the time — that it’s easy for a generalist/polymath to really be a dilettante spouting off about half-understood things picked from multiple domains.
You cite Thomas Sowell — I’ve read "Wealth, Poverty and Politics" and he draws interesting insights from economics, history, and sociology. And yet specialists in each field consider him to be engaging in reasoning without fully investigating his claims if not downright cherry-picking to purposely mislead.
That could be intellectual dishonesty, of course, but I think any generalist is at risk of something similar. The specialist is blinded by lack of breadth, but the generalist is blinded by lack of depth. They're just two sides of the same coin, and equal dangers.
So what's the solution to the "dilettante problem?" Or is it just another variation of imposter syndrome, since every domain has its pitfalls?
It's a great question and is an accusation that gets thrown at me as well. The challenge is two-fold.
1. I may be wrong because the experts have more depth but I find that to be less of the case
2. The experts think I'm wrong becasue they *are right* but only in their tiny domain. When you pull that information out into broader context you find that it just doesn't scale.
That's the larger issue with Sowell I think... He's talking macroeconomic trends, which work more often than not. The others are talking microeconomics which fail more often than not.
I also wrote a bit about the quandary here "Who Are You To ____?" when it comes to crossing domains and Disciplines. And to your point about the dangers, I like to say that Polymathy is an aspiration and grounded in.
1. Insatiable Curiosity
2. The humility to accept I don't know enough about a topic.
3. Intentional reframing to make sure I have the right problem definition.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/who-are-you-to-____
Fantastic read and I very much ascribe to the polymathic mindset.