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?
. I thought this was a little odd, as I didn’t see why doing everything you love would be such a big challenge, aside from productivity issues. Like Nike said, just do it.
