[PREV - FREEMAN_DOWN] [TOP]
POLYMATH
January 9, 2019
February 7, 2019
The question is this: February 18, 2019
Is it better to specialize in a This is a question I haven't
particular field, or to be more bothered to ask for some time:
wide-ranging, learning I have pretensions of being a
something about many fields? generalist without a strong
commitment to any specialty,
Is it better to go deep or go wide? but this is more a matter of
personal temperament rather
Or as Robert Root-Bernstein put it: than belief in a strategy.
"So, monomaniacal precocity or I would've said that the smart
profligate breadth? Intense focus money is on avoiding "jack of
or combinatorial permutations?" all trades" syndrome; "Being
a Renaissance Man went out
with the Rennaissance."
It turns out that there's some evidence
that going wide can be an effective strategy: [link]
"Multiple Giftedness in Adults: The Case of Polymaths"
by Robert Root-Bernstein of Michigan State University, Jan 2009:
"A survey of the scientists in 1988 determined the number and
types of their adult avocations and these were then correlated
with the scientists’ publication, citation, and impact factor
data and evaluated in light of their previous interviews.
Significant correlations were found between the number of adult
avocations each scientist participated in and their success, as
well as between specific avocations and success. Scientists who
painted and drew were very significantly more likely to be among
the Nobelists and National Academy members than were those who
did not."
Some of the studies summarized by
Root-Bernstein work with surveys I don't think Root-Bernstein
conducted over a long period of makes it clear whether the
time, before anyone could know what the 1988 study was conducted
the scientists careers would be this way.
like-- that makes selection effects
a lot less likely.
And I suspect issues with
sample-size though: some of the
studies Root-Bernstein describes
were fairly small (~40 people).
Using Nobel Prize winners is a good
way of delegating the need to
evaluate creative geniuses: we're To be aggressively skeptical
mostly willing to concede that your though: winning a Nobel isn't
average Nobel winner qualifies. just doing bright work, it's
a long social process of attracting
But the Nobel Laureates are up at attention and impressing people
the top of the scale, and it's a with your intelligence. The
pretty small circle. You might "polymath" strategy *could* be
wonder how well the polymath less about mental capability
strategy works lower down the and more about posing--
scale where most of us-- even
most intelligent, creative Banging out some Mozart or
people-- are going to spend our Chopin on the piano always helps
lives. to rack up genius points.
It's not hard for me to think of (How many Creative Geniuses
examples of people who are very are there who remain heroes
bright, well-rounded intellects unsung by the Nobel selection
who nevertheless seem very under committes?)
utilized by the modern world.
And if the advocates of
We-- excuse me, I mean *they*-- polymathy succeed in putting
generally get by pretty well, but over their cause, and
do so by taking work that utilizes everyone believes that the
a tiny slice of our-- excuse me, *real* hot-shots always
*their*-- capabilities. dabble widely, isn't it
likely the mediocre will
Much of the activity of the modern start faking it?
world is run by large organizations
and you can't possibly expect that Just the thought of the inevitable
they'll be set-up to depend on accusations of phoniness makes me
finding Rennaissance (Wo)Men that tired ("Aren't you just padding out
can cover multiple roles-- when you that "Other Interests" section at
build with human beings you need the bottom of your resume?").
lots of reliable interchangeable
parts, not a bunch of flashy
intellects who might turn in
brilliant work now and then.
A typical endeavor only needs a
limited number of creative geniuses "Too many chiefs"
developing radically new ideas.
All jack-of-all and
no players makes
jacks a dull game.
(Oops. Just lost
some genius points.)
Some other points:
It at least used to be a common
criticism that the conventional
academic disciplines have arbitrary The "one or many?" question
boundaries which were put in place for presumes you can count.
historical reasons and then preserved
out of tribal habit.
There are many definitional problems
here that won't go away, and can
make the question murkier. To summarize:
To evalutate the idea that a
background in many fields leads
to great successes, we need
some grasp of:
o fields
o membership in fields
o success
o the connection between
success and knowledge I.e. was knowledge of the
of a field field useful for the success,
or an irrelevant factor?
Identifying correlations is a good first
step. The casual claim seems to be
largely supported by anecdote (maybe it
can't be any better).
And granting the polymath thesis,
I think it remains an open
question as to whether it would
work prescriptively--
Can you consciously
develop a wide range of
side interests to
improve your success in
your chosen field?
Phrasing the question as "deep or wide?"
no doubt oversimplifies.
Going for infinite width without
any depth at all is unlikely to
work terribly well.
Many of Root-Bernstein's better examples
of polymathy aren't just a shallow
aquaintence with a few other fields,
it's more of a matter of going deep
in multiple areas instead of just one.
Rather than ask "should I
specialize in a field?"
better question might be
"how many fields should I
specialize in?"
There are more than two strategies.
--------
[NEXT - POLYMYTH]