Hacker News Reader

Comment by andyidsinga | Hacker News Reader

I like to think of myself as somewhat of a polymath in tech - enjoying and doing decent work in a variety of types of software at all different layers. I also enjoy other things that I would put myself squarely in the hobbyist side: small engine repair, metal and woodwork, plumbing etc.

So how would one determine if someone has 3 "top 1%" skill level (per the article)?

I suppose the answer is in 2nd half of the article?

Two types of more reasonably defined polymaths emerge - pick three skills and achieve a certain level of output in a reasonable time:

apprentice level 4% input, 64% output, 10 months

journeyman level 10% input, 80% output, 48 months.

thoughts??

View on HN

"Polymath in tech" is by nature not in line with the article IMHO. Let's assume you are a tech expert, now try to be a master chef or PhD in sociology or Olympic gold medalist in rowing etc

I think the article mentions people who are able to master at complete different fields.

good points - completely different fields is sort of key to the article's points

edit: btw - when I read your first sentence - I was like "ah shit...duh" :)

you are right, but there is a paralell. when it comes to hiring programmers i prefer people who are good at programming in general and at least familiar with two or more languages. because those who are very good at only one language and have never touched another will have a hard time learning a second language, and, will also have a hard time getting to expert level because they will miss out on that additional pwrspective that other ways of doing things provide.

same goes for knowing multiple web frameworks like angular and react for example, to be even more specific.

greetings, eMBee.

My first thought on the requirement of reaching the top 1% was that it's unrealistic to achieve in three very different fields. But after some careful consideration it might actually be possible for quite a lot of people. What does it take to be a top 1% programmer? If you're smarter than most people, probably less than 20 years. Do that three times in different fields (and keep up with the other fields while learning a new one) and you're a polymath before 80. Be still a lot smarter, you can do it before 50.

It's just that only some people are capable of reaching top 1% in their field to begin with. And of those capable, most won't because they change fields before they reach it or they have other priorities, etc. And the few people that do reach top 1% tend to be passionate enough to keep at it for the rest of their lives, and it's usually lucrative enough to try reaching an even higher level at that point.

I like your definition of a reasonable polymath and it's my goal to be one. Most of us can't be da Vinci. Still, I hope we will see more of the true, strict, history-changing polymaths.

I think being a good polymath is always seeking knowledge and taking on a vast variety of small jobs.

Nothing is hard if you get going in it. And the best way to learn something is to have a problem to solve (that isn't too far fetched).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com