Personal Development For Polymaths
December 14th, 2009
Email this article to a friend
Leonardo da Vinci: scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician, and writer. Polymath is almost an understatement.
“Polymath” comes from the Greek word polymathēs, meaning “having learned much,” and usually refers to having significant knowledge or expertise in a variety of fields. I’m going to broaden the term and say it also refers to having diverse interests and hobbies. It’s the opposite of a monomath, someone who specializes in one field and has a more focused range of interests.
The word “polymath” is less common than the term “Renaissance man,” but (1) being politically correct by writing Renaissance (wo)man every time would be awfully cumbersome, and (2) the world has changed a lot over the last 400 years, and the Renaissance ideal no longer applies in the age of the iPhone.
Polymaths and monomaths are at opposite ends of a long and nebulous spectrum. An extreme example of a monomath would be someone who completely isolates themselves from society to devote their entire life to becoming the ultimate chess player, to the detriment of everything else. An extreme example of a polymath would be a pure generalist, someone who chases everything under the sun, seeking high achievement in every field of study, every language, every musical instrument, every sport, etc.
But neither of these extremes actually exists. Everyone is somewhere in between. Most people are clustered near the middle, some are more on the monomath side, and others are more on the polymath side. It’s a really vague scale, so don’t worry about pinpointing your location on it. You might have a sense of where you are, and if not, that means you’re in the middle, in the range we call “normal,” with a typical balance of breadth and depth.
As you can see, my blog’s tagline is now “Personal Development for Polymaths.” Nothing is really going to change, except that I now have a context for everything. The purpose of my blog is to seek an answer to the question: How does a polymath make the most of their life?
I haven’t thought the whole polymath thing through all the way, but here are some thoughts for now. Feel free to add your own in the comments.
1. Let’s ditch da Vinci as an example of a typical polymath.
Yes, that’s his self-portrait above (copyright expired), but he’s an extreme example, not a representative one. Leonardo was an outlier among outliers, the archetype of the Renaissance man at the height of the Renaissance. He made Michelangelo look like a two-bit hack who just got lucky with a chisel. He bears little resemblance to the modern day polymath next door.
2. You are a polymath if you think you are.
If Leonardo-like stature is not required for admission into the ranks of polymaths, what is? It’s hard to propose a clear definition, because polymaths are all so different. Tanned muscle-bound aikido-master genius stud philosophers would probably qualify, but what about real estate agent psychologist figure skater weapons expert hamster breeders?
Anyway, do you have intense interest or significant proficiency in areas that are usually considered unrelated? Do you struggle with finding something to focus on, because you think you’re supposed to? Would you find life to be empty if you could only pursue one thing? Do you think specialization is for insects? If so, you might be a polymath.
It’s hard to judge other people because we don’t necessarily see all sides of them, and it’s probably pointless to come up with a test that tells you where you fall on the spectrum. So you’re the best judge of yourself.
3. Polymathy is neither good nor bad, it just is.
Albert Einstein focused on theoretical physics. Isaac Newton took a much broader approach, making important contributions to many different branches of science. He also invented calculus, and though he’s not known for it, most of his work was actually in the field of Bible interpretation.
In the end, they achieved very similar levels of success, recognition, and impact. They both did what they wanted, and they both came out on top.
4. The world needs specialists, but you don’t have to be one of them.
We need specialists to do things like find a cure for cancer and research alternative fuels. But that doesn’t mean it has to be you. Don’t worry about what you should or should not be. Just go with what you are.
(However, this is not to say that a polymath should eschew all aspects of specialization, as it still has a place in their bag of tricks.)
5. Somewhat paradoxically, being a polymath has nothing to do with being well-rounded.
Polymaths are often condescendingly called “jack of all trades, master of none.” This is flawed right off the bat because no one is a jack of all trades. Everyone has major holes. Trying to be well-rounded means ignoring your strengths and passions to work on things you hate and suck at. How can that possibly be a good thing?
Being a polymath means pursuing a wide variety of trades, but certainly not all of them. If you don’t want to play the piano, don’t play the piano.
6. Mastery is overrated.
A follow-up to the “master of none” bit. First, specialization does not guarantee mastery. There have been many people who gave their lives to theoretical physics, who did not come close to Einstein’s level. That doesn’t mean their lives were a waste, of course. But if you have many interests, you shouldn’t ignore all but one with the expectation that greatness will surely follow.
Also, maybe mastery at that level isn’t that important. Reaching the 95th percentile is far easier than reaching the 99.99th percentile. Some people will prefer moderate mastery of many things over supreme mastery of one thing. Besides, being the best in an objective sense doesn’t guarantee that others will subjectively agree, because value is in the eye of the beholder.
7. Polymaths may have certain traits in common.
As different as one polymath is from the next, I’m sure they tend to have certain things in common. For now though, I don’t know what they might be.
Any list of recognized polymaths you dig up will look like a list of universal geniuses. But I actually think polymathy has little to no correlation with intelligence (witness Einstein the monomath). I was thinking that polymathy is highly correlated with curiosity, but again, Einstein is an obvious counter example. Thoughts?
8. Polymaths face different challenges from monomaths.
Monomaths face challenges such as burnout from lack of variety, working ever harder for continuously diminishing returns, and facing stiff competition from people who do the exact same thing, only better.
The main challenge polymaths face is that their fanatical thirst for variety may deprive them of the focus and follow-through needed to have a significant impact in any one area. Leonardo himself warned about this, saying “Like a kingdom divided, which rushes to its doom, the mind that engages in subjects of too great variety becomes confused and weakened.”
Polymaths may also have trouble finding appropriate outlets for their talent in a world that increasingly demands specialists.
Overall, I think the monomaths have it easier, because the world is friendlier to them, they know exactly what they want, and they’re likely to have a clear road map to follow. Hence, there is a need for more polymath support.
Please share your thoughts. What makes someone a polymath? What do they have in common? Do they have a harder time in life? Would they be better off pursuing all their interests, or focusing on a smaller number of them?
December 15th, 2009 at 8:04 am
I have to completely disagree with your statement, “Most people are clustered near the middle, some are more on the monomath side, and others are more on the polymath side.” Most people are on the monomath side. I’m not saying they are extreme monomaths. However, it is rare I find someone who can talk intelligently about stuff outside of their job and maybe one or two side interests.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:44 am
“The world needs specialists, but you don’t have to be one of them.”
Amen. The world is full of specialists who wake up one day and realize they couldn’t give a tinker’s dam about everything they’ve worked for and to be until then.
Permission to be interested and competent at more than one thing comes more easily with age and experience. There is too much emphasis on specialization when we are younger and planning our education and careers. The General Ed degree fell completely out of favor about 30 years ago, and now one must declare a major. Bah.
Declaring a niche can result in focus and progress, but I’ve seen too often where the requirement results in confused anxiety and ultimately, nothing much.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Hi Hunter – I didn’t know what it meant until today but I am definitely a Polymath. I do like to learn things in quite a lot of depth but I love to learn about lots of things. I am studying right now and my next course is on Business Strategy.
But the thought of two business courses in a row is way too boring, so I’m trying to choose between philosophy, international studies or another psychology course. It’s hard to choose though, because I want to do them all.
I know specialist are useful but so are folk with experience in lots of different things. And as you say – Polymaths are curious and curiosity is useful in lots of different roles.
I like your new tagline BTW – now I’m off to find out more about Polymaths.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I think we are all polymath naturally (more or less) but many of us force ourselves to be more specialized because of the seeming ease for specialization, as you say. Remember how tough it is for many young college students to choose majors? That is a natural resistance.
So today, we have so many monomaths who are so specialized to the point they are dysfunctional — for instance, a CPA who knows so much about tax regulations but who cannot fix a meal for herself. Sad.
Good luck with this polymath approach. I believe the world need it a lot.
Akemi
December 15th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I just wanted to point out that Albert Einstein was also a very good violinist, hence, not such a pure monomath. I also think he gave a lot of thought to God, so I imagine he must’ve been into phylosophy too.
As for me, I would definetely fall within the polymath group. And I believe, in agreement with one of the coments above, that we all are, one way or another, polymaths. The only thing is that because of diferent circumstances we are guided (forced?) into following one of this areas of interest. I think this is most of the time due to the fact that we have to specialice in order to make a living doing something specific. And thanks to our super-busy, overcrowded schedules, we don’t leave much physical time or mental energy to persue our other interests. A real pity.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I identify as a polymath/scanner/renaissance soul and am glad to see more people exploring what it means. There are so many interesting questions about the different variables involved. For example, Chad’s point about ‘only’ being able to talk about work and one or two interests – well that’s 3 things there already, is that polymath enough?
It’s easy to assume that everyone is like the people we meet, so I might think that polymaths are rare (I know so many people who are focussed in one area) but others might think they are prolific – it’s more a measure of who we spend time with and get to know well enough to see other sides of them.
It does feel like the world is geared towards monomaths (fun word) but that’s perhaps more to do with how it’s easier to deal with people when we apply labels/put them in boxes: John is a banker, Fatima is a writer. I imagine it’s possible to see a level of polymath in everyone, since no-one is an extreme monomath, and where you choose to draw the line is possibly arbitrary and possibly highly subjective.
There’s an expression in French “Violon d’Ingres” which refers to hidden talents. It refers to the famous painter Ingres who was also an accomplished violinist but unless you knew this you might have thought him a monomath painter, dedicated to one art.
Other thoughts: What makes a polymath/scanner (I always think of polymaths as being particularly successful examples of scanners, so I’m getting a little hung up on the word) … for me, what makes a polymath is someone who is just as devoted to several different areas. I have a friend who is devoted to writing, she also studies languages, history, geography, spirituality, psychology, etc. etc. but that’s because she’s intelligent, curious and likes to learn. She is definitely not a polymath though, she is a writer and that is what she is dedicated to. I use the name ‘Dancing Geek’ because I am equally devoted to dance and maths/science/logic. I have been unable to ever choose one over the other, I have always been pulled towards both. In the meantime I’ve also learnt languages, music, knitting, careers analysis, customer service, theatre direction, personal development, etc. etc. because I’m intelligent and curious. I’m a polymath though, because I could never point to one central focus in my life. I feel like a planet orbiting a binary star.
As for the question of what is better, I think that it’s completely subjective. For me, better means happier, but happiness is about keeping my awareness in the present moment and has little to do with being a polymath. My answer would be to give yourself permission to be open to opportunities that interest you and let go of anything that has lost its pull. It may not lead to money, power or fame but it has been the only way that I have found genuine fulfilment.
Looking forward to seeing where this idea goes on your blog, Hunter.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:47 am
@ Chad, let’s say that we somehow came up with a function that gave a numerical value to measure one’s polymathy. We’d expect it to form a bell-shaped curve, and that’s what I mean by most people being clustered near the middle.
What we find in the middle of the curve may be seen as moderate, very narrow, or very broad depending on who’s looking at it. And the further one is from the middle, the less moderate the middle will seem.
I think the average person can talk intelligently about far more than two or three interests though. Every guy except me seems to be an expert on football, so that’s one thing they tend to have almost by default. Throw in a job, and that’s two areas of expertise right there.
@ Betsy, I wasn’t required to declare a major, though I ended up majoring in math. Someone with no major would probably get people wondering if they really graduated.
If there happens to be a niche that someone is happy to focus on completely, great. But I’d be very concerned about being one of those “specialists who wake up one day and realize they couldn’t give a tinker’s dam about everything they’ve worked for and to be until then!”
@ Cath, studying philosophy, international studies, or psychology in addition to business strategy could easily be more beneficial to you than just taking another business course. And that’s especially true if you might get bored with two business courses in a row. I think you’re doing the right thing, listening to your subconscious mind that craves variety.
@ Akemi, actually, I didn’t have any difficulty in choosing a major. I wasn’t required to choose one, so I didn’t really think about it until I noticed that a math major would be easy to pick up, given what classes I had already taken.
But I could have seen myself doubling in psychology, and I started switching to computer science near the end. And if I were to go back to school, it could be in econ or business. Although maybe I would do better to learn culinary arts so I could fix a meal for myself!
@ Gustavo, I’m sure that Einstein had other interests and talents too. People tend to get famous for their one thing, so for all I know Einstein could have been a great breakdancer.
We’re forced into generalization in high school, then start being forced into specialization in college, and more so in the work force. I see some benefits to being forced in both directions, but ultimately we do get to decide which way we’re going to go. Unfortunately, I agree about our lack of time and energy limiting our ability to branch out.
@ James, your friend is one example of why it’s so hard to classify someone as mono or poly. She’s focused in terms of her career, but she has a wide range of interests outside of that. Although “writer” could mean a lot of different things, potentially with a lot of variety. BTW, it occurred to me recently that there are just three kinds of jobs: writing, talking, and doing.
It sounds like Dancing Geek fits you in the same way that my Simpsons/Matrix gravatar fits me. Like Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, they’re two great tastes that taste great together.
I think I’m going to refrain from writing too much about polymathy specifically, at least in the beginning. I’ll see where it goes, but at least now I have an easy defense when someone says I should pick a niche.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:46 am
@ James
Personally, I wouldn’t consider a person with one specialization with a couple interests to be a polymath. My view of an interest is below.
@ Hunter
I couldn’t disagree more (in a calm voice) with your statement that the average person can talk intelligently about two or three interests let alone more. I consistently find people lacking in depth, and I live in the most educated city in the U.S. (DC). It’s scary how little they know about the world and any major piece of legislation (unless their job ties them directly to congress, white house, etc.).
Concerning the football “knowledge” of 99% of guys, it is lacking to say the least. I played college football and coached it. The majority of people know a few names and a few philosophies, but have no real understanding of those philosphies or how they work on the field.
Of course, everyone can’t talk intelligently about everything. However, in my experience the football example you give applies to the majority “interests” maintained by people. That is, they think they can talk intelligently about something, but they really can’t. Know one ever calls them on it, as their audience might not have the knowledge to, or it’s socially impolite to call “bullshit.” This leaves everyone pretending they are actually well rounded.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:47 am
Know = No…damn too early to be typing I guess.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
[...] changed his blog tagline just two days ago to “personal development for polymaths”, and in a corresponding blogpost, he highlights some main points about polymaths and who they [...]
December 16th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Part of me thinks that the effort towards “specialisation” came with the industralisation of the world — suddenly we only needed to be really good at one thing, but that one thing may not be a trade, it might only be a specific part of a trade. Historically, our ways of looking at ourselves are largely reflected by greater socio-economic trends.
To be able to “function” in the world today (i.e. to make a living and be financially independent), you do need to have at least skills — preferably a coherent set of skills that can fit into a part of a profession. You may have a ton of other abilities, but finding ways of using all of them may be much harder. It might take some creativity to find work where your favourite skills are used, or perhaps find a balance that accommodates your different inclinations and interests.
I’m a specialist in building web sites applications, having done this for over 10 years. Within this specific technology domain, I’m a generalist across the kinds of skills required to get a site built professionally. That said, I also used to be a performing musician. For me, knowledge is pretty good, but abilities and skills are just as important towards being a polymath. Talking alone isn’t good enough ( i can talk about the weather but that doesn’t make me a meteorologist), there needs some emphasis given onto what you’re able to do with what you know.
I also grew up being told I should “focus”, and I’ve found in my personal experience that learning to be good at many things made me more flexible and adaptable — and that the most important skill I’ve picked up is the ability to learn very fast. One of the myths is that to learn something, you’re learning entirely from scratch. This can be true for some things (i.e. learning a new language if you’re monolingual) but even then, you would be matching patterns of what you know based on your mother tongue.
However, (responding a bit to what Chad said), how open our eyes are onto what we can learn has a lot to do with how we’ve been educated and the values of the culture we each live in. This is one topic that probably deserves a whole discussion in its own right
December 16th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
@ Chad, I do agree that there are a lot of ignorant people out there. I’ve noticed on several occasions that you appear to be appalled at the average’s person’s ignorance of history and politics. Myself, I’m more appalled at the average person’s ignorance of math and logic. Some people aren’t that into history, and some people aren’t that into math, fine, but everyone should at least be on par with a high school student across the board.
Still, even guys that appear pretty ignorant overall often have what seems to me like an amazing amount of football knowledge. I actually find football to be an interesting game, just not so much that I’ll set aside the time to watch more than a handful of games a year (Super Bowl + a couple of college games). I know very few players, I don’t know any stats, and I still can’t figure out why people punt from midfield on 4th and 1. But I know the basics, and I have what I consider to be a decent level of understanding for someone who just isn’t a football person.
So when I hear people rattling off endless stats, debating who’s going to win the Heisman, predicting who’s going to what bowl game, etc. with a high level of apparent passion and authority, it just amazes me. Ask them a basic question about their 401(k) and they’ll have no idea, but name a player and they can recite their bio off the top of their head.
Since you played college football and coached it, we’re complete opposites in this area, which partly explains why we’re seeing things differently. It would be interesting to grab a random sample of people off the street and see how many things they can talk about in depth, but I find it hard to believe that the average person couldn’t find a few things. Of course, we may have different ideas about what level of depth is expected, or what count as valid topics.
@ Steph, you’ve brought up a couple of things that could become discussions of their own. For now, I’m too tired and hungry to tackle them.
But I especially like your point that you don’t have to learn entirely from scratch. If you can find common ground between a foreign task and something you already know, it doesn’t have to be all that hard to learn.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:57 am
I’m appalled about the lack of math and logic too. And, yes, I am just basically appalled with the stupidity of the average person in general. The lack of logic is what really scares me. I don’t have a high view of my fellow man, which I assume you do. Well, at least higher than mine.
By the way, there was a study done to determine if statistically it was better to punt on 4th and 1 or go for it. Per the study it is better to go for it on 4th and 1 all the time and at any point on the field. Of course, the study probably didn’t take into account the quality of your punter, defense, or offense. I would tend to agree with you that it is better to go for it on 4 and 1 at mid-field than punt.
December 17th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Being a polymath is a blessing and a curse. It’s how I label myself on my personal blog (my name one word dot com, not linked here).
The blessing is that’s it’s easy to find something interesting to do, at least when times are good.
In these less good times, it’s a bit tougher when you don’t have a buzzword-compliant list of skills and credentials demonstrating the appropriate technical specialization.
December 17th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Just wanted to say great article.
I enjoyed reading it.
I feel you are asking some great questions!
December 18th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Hey Hunter.
I would agree here that polymaths would have a struggle that others wouldn’t, in that their lack of a solid focus would keep them less likely to specialize, which is what is highly prized in our specialized society. It could be difficult to be developing various areas of expertise when others would keep wanting to influence toward just having one.
That point about how not everyone has to be a specialist is very fitting. There can be a large amount of specialist, along with a large set of non-specialists as well, as they complement each other. We need people along all degrees of the specialization spectrum, to fill in with services that connect specializations, or that improve upon them, or so on.
I’m not sure which I am, but I will lean towards polymath.
December 19th, 2009 at 12:15 am
@ Chad, my view of my fellow man has changed over the years. I might write about that sometime.
@ Dave, you’re right that we sometimes need to show specific expertise in order to get a job, etc. But a lot of it is just presenting yourself in the right light. For example, a resume should be tailored to the job you’re seeking, showing why you’re a good fit, and not including info that isn’t relevant to the job. But you can still work in different fields at different times, do things outside of work, etc.
@ Travis, thanks!
@ Armen, don’t feel like you have to declare yourself as one or the other. We all have some elements of both, and we can also change over time. I intend to make my blog friendly both to polymaths and to people who are leaning that way.
December 19th, 2009 at 12:25 am
@ Hunter
I would enjoy a post on how your view of our fellow man has changed over the years. I may not agree with it, but agreeing with you is not why I like your blog.
I like it because you ask interesting questions or post interesting topics now and then. Plus, you have some very strong similar traits (introvert/poly), but also some very different traits (much more positive, a little more open).
A good example is this post. It pulls in a few different people (Akemi – being on one end and Me – being on the other end), which if they can be civil produces some interesting conversation. By the way, I know I can be, and sometimes the typed word can be, overly antigonistic, even if it’s not meant to be. It is hard to display tone in 4-8 sentence comments. I like a good argument, but I have no intention of being overly rude.
December 20th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
@ Chad, um, yeah, you and Akemi are kinda different.
I enjoy seeing diverse reactions from everyone – it makes things interesting, especially when commenters engage each other.
You do seem antagonistic at times, but I’ve learned that your intended tone is a few notches down from what I perceive it to be. I probably seem antagonistic with some of the comments I leave on other blogs, but it’s usually just because I like a good debate, or I think one side of the story has been missed. And then I wonder, “Do they know I’m not attacking them?”
I’ve put the “view of my fellow man” post idea in my to-do list, but it might be a while before I get there. I still have some thinking to do.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:48 am
I just got an email from you and realized I hadn’t seen what you were up to in a while. What a delight to come here and see that you’ve gained a new focus and a new home page, not to mention way more subscribers than last time I was here. I’m thrilled for you, Hunter. So I don’t make this mistake again, I’m subscribing to your blog.
And yeah, definitely polymath.
January 3rd, 2010 at 8:21 pm
@ Michael, thanks for stopping by. I guess your blogging wisdom has rubbed off on me! Yeah, I knew you identified as a polymath when you wrote about why you should hire generalists for blog help. I really liked that post.
January 8th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Hey All,
Im glad i found this site..in a nutshell it finally clears what ive felt for a while (im a polymath)..”fanatical thirst for variety may deprive them of the focus and follow-through needed to have a significant impact in any one area” is just it…im talented in many areas…but cant seem to satisfy the follow through to accomplish something or perhaps even follow as a life path…so my question is..what resources is there for help in this? is there a llink or something that helps polymaths strengthen their weaknesses?
Cheers
January 9th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
@ Emi, that’s a really good question. Actually, there are a few different questions in there, but the main one seems to be how to find a life path. For that, check out the “Purpose” section in my boot camp.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:32 am
I’m glad to have a new phrase for myself, rather than renaissance (wo)man. Perhaps if I use polymath it will not be followed by chuckles and a “yea right.” I’ve always been told that I need to pick one thing and do that. Focus on that one thing. But I never could. I was always drawn to my interests. Going into college I figured, well, if I go into film than I can use all my interests for one end. And now that I’m in it, I find that’s not even true. I am in one area of career but I’m still being told I need to do only one thing (art department, production, post, etc.).
Everyone has multi-interests. However, I think most people are monomaths, because they decide to follow one career. Very few people stretch themselves over multiple career paths. For me, I’ve found that I enjoy being a polymath; it makes me more marketable. As far as polymaths having a lesser chance of specializing in a field… it’s not easy, but I don’t think it’s impossible, but I will agree that it is probably a lesser chance because no one really wants to go through how hard it is, or the amount of work it takes. Some things just come easier to some people than others, and before you know it, BOOM, you are specialized in an area you didn’t even think was possible.
January 14th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
@ Diane, I think that polymaths can definitely specialize, but they may want to try out a lot of different things first. After they have their fun in different fields, they may find something they wouldn’t mind specializing in. Then they can be a specialist with no regrets.
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:53 pm
As a 55-year-old polymath, I’m delighted to find your site and am looking forward to going through the boot camp. I’ve made my career mostly in writing-related activities, which provides a lot of room to explore different topics, but the publishing world loves specialists, and I get tired of figuring out where my next assignment will come from. Maybe learning more on your site will help. It’ll be nice to have company, in any case.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:30 am
@ Janet, one of the polymath’s tricks is the ability to specialize if they want to. Remember that many great writers tried different kinds of writing before finding the niche that worked best for them (e.g. Shel Silverstein was all over the place before he ever tried children’s writing).
By pursuing multiple interests, you’re having fun while also getting a feel for where you’d like to specialize – if you choose to – and then you’ll have a wide range of experience to draw from. Anyway, we can all use the company!
April 11th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
I believe polymaths rule, and I just learned of the term about five minutes ago. But I am a 46 year-old with a law degree, a third degree black-belt in a traditional Japanese karate style, a prolific woodworker who built all the kitchen cabinets in his home, including an 11-foot island, 8-foot walnut bathroom vanity, and installed stone and bamboo floors, walk-in showers, and who has also been a paid screenwriter and is currently writing another screenplay after a ten-year hiatus, and has absolutely NO LIMITS on what he thinks is possible for even the average man, if they would just TRY!
I cannot specialize. I cannot limit myself. I may be a polymath.
I am very glad I found this website.
April 11th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
@ Jim, thanks for providing such a good example of a real life polymath! That’s a diverse set of talents there. BTW, I’m currently writing a screenplay as part of Script Frenzy. Fun, isn’t it?
July 28th, 2010 at 11:20 am
From one polymath to another: Barbara Sher writes about polymaths–she calls them ‘scanners’. Refuse to Choose was a pretty good read. She also does retreats for scanners, etc., though I have never been.
Saludos,
Paul
July 28th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
@ Paul, I’ve heard the term “scanner” before, though I think it almost sounds pejorative…and certainly less cool than polymath! Anyway, I think I probably need to read that book.