The last days of the polymath

None of whom feel the need to reference their position or achievements unless providing clarification, context, or disclaimers.

We're discussing an article that opens up by mentioning one man's prowess in multiple areas. The article uses this man as a springboard to ask if there are similarly talented people today. My response was that I think there are, and that while the current generation of Internet People is still young, there's a hell of a lot of promise there, pretty much wherever you look.

I'm sorry if you're insecure about yourself; I didn't mean to shove a list in your face in an attempt to make you feel unhappy. I know firsthand the shallow satisfaction that comes from doing things just to fill out a resume; happiness comes from friendship and personal curiosities. When I was 17 I thought writing a novel would make me happy; it didn't.

I don't know much about Ellison and Ventor. Would you really call Abagnale a polymath? He's a fascinating man, but I don't know him well enough to say that his activities are diverse enough to be called polymath. He was a con man; now he works in security. What else has he done?

I'd also cite, say, Ricky Gervais as an instance of a person who is pushing the boundaries of multiple fields at once. His directorial style inspired a dozen other single-camera television comedies (including Arrested Development, which I think is the king sitcom); his acting style and his "theater of embarrassment" similarly begat actors like Michael Cera, and a wide stripe of other comic actors who play off deadpan silence. His writing style, meanwhile, especially for the original Office and for Extras which followed it, was incredibly bleak and devastating, and simultaneously very heartwarming. He had a sympathy for his characters which very few TV shows had. I think his particular blend really set a trend for a decade of television that followed.

I think the problem is how we define "expert". If you mean somebody who is definitively at the top of a field, then, yes, you're right, we don't have many people at the tops of multiple fields at once. That's because it's hard: We have more competitive fields now than we've ever had before. More experts in every single thing. But I'd argue that we probably have just as many people operating on that high a plain of expertise in multiple areas. It's just that when you've got so many, it becomes very, very hard to notice every single one, and so the bar for "exemplary" gets incredibly high. It's a bias in the data that returns more dismal-looking results.

Addendum 1: Unfortunately I can't name many people in the sciences, because I'm as far from a science person as you get. I'd be convinced they're there, though.

Addendum 2: I don't just mean a musician who plays multiple instruments. I mean a musician who plays multiple aesthetic styles with radically different philosophies. There are guitarists who can play funk music and flamenco and free jazz and modern classical. If you know anything about the cultures and styles of any of those four, you know that the difference between playing each isn't just technical ability. It literally requires playing the instrument in ways that are anathema to any of the others.

You might argue that just because all four styles are classified as "music", they are too tied together to count as diverse; I'd argue that you're wrong. They're about as similar to each other as physics are to linguistics, which is to say that while there are similarities, they're simply too far apart to be umbrella'd together without doing each a great disservice.

But it's easier nowadays to educate yourself than it ever has been before. That was partly my point: More people are teaching themselves about more things than has been possible in the past. Certainly if I'd been born 10 years earlier, I wouldn't be nearly as well-off as I am now (though this theoretical 30-year-old me would be wiser than the 20-year-old actual me, of course). People are better able to connect to one another, and to test out their ideas, and to experience others' ideas, now that we have this monstrous network that lets you access anything at any time. When I was 13 I was attempting to debate Communist philosophy on a game design forum; I doubt I'd have been doing that without the Internet.

Don't worry. I have no illusions about my prowess. I'm only this year starting to work on things that I think say something meaningful. Maybe five or ten years from now I'll be a legitimate expert in a field or two. Even that would be faster than expected.

(I fail to see, though, how self-publishing somehow prevents me from interacting with others or letting them comment on my work. When my novel was published in 2007, self-publishing let me distribute it freely and thousands of people did — more than would have bought it, I'm sure. Many of those people, including some of the community here, decided to directly respond to it; loads of them, I assure you, were critical. Similarly, I've launched web sites on Hacker News and learned a lot from the critical feedback; my essays and the subsequent comments were similarly devastating.

If anything, I'd say that self-publishing makes it even easier for others to rip me to shreds. It's a self-perpetuating game; the better I get, the more people see my work, and the more informed the subsequent criticism is. I've gone from a community of dozens to a community of tens of thousands. I'm a masochist. I love nothing more than hearing people tell me why I should eat shit and die, especially when they're right.)

2) The population as a whole is increasing exponentially, as is the rate of discovery in a great many fields. While I doubt the situation is sustainable, the condition does exist at least in the short term. There is a degree of subjectivity here, but I stand by my statement.

3) Same as #1, worded differently a bit. I actually spent some time looking up different variations of the definition of polymath, and it turns out orthogonality (or independence, since orthogonality seems to be imply different things in compsci than for other disciplines) is not a requirement, just divergence seems sufficient.

As an aside, I am not trying to redefine polymath for my own benefit, being a broad generalist in a lot of fields, but still too focused on some compsci stuff to be a true expert in any of the other ones.