A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf] | Hacker News Reader

A Return to Polymathy (2015) [pdf]

paulrcohen.github.io

144 pointsmirawelner73 comments

> Those colleges and universities that figure out how to organize research and teach new foundations and polymathy and prepare their students to understand a world in which every system, at every scale, acts causally on others, will see their stock rise. The rest will struggle to remain relevant.

It is safe to say that this prediction did not come to pass. The system (pun) keeps churning idiot-savants, well-trained cogs in the giant machine that society had been reduced to.

In an unexpected turn of events I think Chatgpt qualifies as a polymath.

Not according to the article. Chatgpt could be argued to have knowledge. It cannot be argued to have understanding (yet).

ChatGPT cannot be argued anything, it will just apologize and move on.

I'd argue that it hasn't come to pass, but it is not wrong that its a better way to teach. Virtually all education has been set up in an industrial line style of pre-u education -> university -> companies -> profits -> some value to society. Every part has been attempted to be structured to optimise for the subsequent stage - companies optimisie for profits, universities optimise for employment rate and salary, high schools optimise for college entrance rates, etc. Yet because of Goodhart's and organizational incompetence, each part optimises badly, so education gets exponentially disconnected from each. His proposals are valuable to society, but the system is structurally against it.

The only way this works if it skips the assembly line right down to being of value to society, ie you set up a system which explicitly transforms that teaching into things like startups, research, nonprofits etc.

There are already colleges like this that are basically ignored by the status quo. For example, the College of the Atlantic has a single degree in human ecology. It's a requirement to have a multidisciplinary course selection plan that includes multiple fields and both arts and sciences.

There is so much pressure to be a specialist in today's corporate world. Specialists are like cogs in a machine - they can be swapped in and out with relative ease, compared to a generalist part/employee that does a lot of undefined, important tasks. Specialists are like puzzle pieces of a very precise shape, while generalists are like natural materials with no two sharing the same shape.

Tech companies consider their brain trusts like they consider their machines - a conglomeration of specialized systems with specific tasks and roles. They want us all to be square pegs that fit into their square holes. I find myself frustrated with this method of work, especially when mentors and managers suggest that we all should give in to this specialist mindset and train up in one specific area, to the detriment of other fields.

The world is endlessly fascinating and I want to learn about it all. I want to live in different places, learn different skills, have different chapters in my life with different focuses. I can't bear the thought that 10 years from now, my mind might be exactly the same as it is today, with no growth and no difference in thinking. I think a great way to avoid that stagnation is to think different thoughts, to change one's mind frequently, and to not get sucked into shortcuts for thinking.

One common shortcut prevalent in Western society currently is that profitability is a direct proxy for value, and that we must constantly maximize value/profitability. "Hustle culture" is a great example of this - is there something you enjoy in your life? Monetize it! Don't consider the fact that the pursuit of money might actually destroy your love of the hobby. It's happened to me before, and I'm very cautious now of letting this exchange of joy for money happen to my other hobbies as well.

Great piece. One of the best places cultivating this type of polymathy today is Stanford's Symbolic Systems Program. https://symsys.stanford.edu/

I'll also plug St. John's College. https://www.sjc.edu

Definitely. This, plus a graduate degree in a more specific field, and you end up with a very well-rounded education.

FYI I just read some more about polymathy and had a look at the curricula. To me it feels really a bit too 'meta'. You might as well say, stay open and curious to any knowledge.

That said, still I'm open and curious... could you please be so kind as to elaborate how that education is very well-rounded? What would the studies yield more concretely?

I'll plug The University of Texas, specifically the Natural Sciences and Liberal Arts colleges (COLA and CONS). This is because they used to be the same college, and as such have loads of slots for elective courses and often you'll find students from one taking classes in the other college.

I was able to complete degrees in COLA and a CONS simultaneously in four years with one of those four years being study abroad studying one subject to the exclusion of everything else because of it. When I graduated, I had studied two foreign languages and taken elective/upper div courses in poetry, immigration policy, ethics, mathematics, and computer science.

Unless things have drastically changed since I graduated, it still holds true for UT in particular, and is one reason I consider my education to have been so great.

you can't create real polymath... polymaths are self-created... that's the physics of this.

Yeah this is what I don't understand as well, most of the polymath type people I know are naturally curious and self motivated for whatever it is they want to study and do. I am not sure what or how an institution can cultivate such behavior. I suppose it can encourage it to people but again, most polymaths are naturally self motivated and don't need encouragement at all.

Almost everyone is a curious polymath until institutions beat it out of them. We could start simply by nourishing curiosity

They don't have to actively cultivate it but they should remove the walls between it. There's a lot of red tape/administrative confusion at most schools if you want to do anything interdisciplinary, especially if you want to cross more than two disciplines. Institutions should be more like buffets for the polymath. If I want to interlink say landscape architecture, sculpture, acoustics, materials science and biology I shouldn't need more than one signoff much less the 5 it would probably take to do work in something like that at most universities.

The way to 'beat' the system's hard testing requirements is to make the interdisciplinary programs more involved, more quantitative, and just be more thorough and engaging, including soft skills elements.

I think the best outcome is to have such students crush their standardized tests by outperforming them due to having a higher baseline because of the interdisciplinary program's curriculum.

There's a difference between "Create polymaths from scratch" or "Create a polymath degree" (oxymoron, honestly) and just "Let's have a learning environment that allows it".

If you don't understand, then seek the places that do that. Colleges like Reed.

They cannot force somebody to a polymath, but they can create an environment that promotes polymath-ing and allows polymaths to thrive, vs an environment that promotes overspecialisation. This can be reflected to a degree/study program to the extent that overspecialisation can also be reflected in one.

Even just putting together people from different background and trajectories can do miracles sometimes.

100% agree with you on this. I come from a long line of polymaths. My dad is a Caltech EE, but also has a gunsmith business on the side, is a botanist part of a rare fruit growers association, and also brews beer. When you grow up with exposure to this way of thinking that you can indeed be a master of multiple disciplines, it's hard to try and fit in to the box of traditional education. I myself studied classics, Mandarin, Econ and data science. I even run a polymath book club

This. Real multidisciplinary is bottom up, where a person with multiple fields of expertise makes them work together. A singing number of these organizational versions are top down, where some leadership decided interdisciplinary studies are the future, so someone mixes a bunch of courses together and ta-da!

It does look interesting (and related to the Systems school proposed by TFA), though I've also heard it described as a watered-down or easier CS degree. (Then again, CS itself is sometimes criticized as a watered-down or easier engineering degree, or a degree in calculators.)

Data Science sometimes gets a similar watered-down label, but it looks like Stanford's program (at least) might be somewhat technical and may incorporate scientific computation, as well as statistical applications.

The prestige of the degree seems to come more from the quality of the students that are admitted, than what is actually taught to them.

> If one is looking for a single label to encompass many of the new foundations – perhaps to form a new school or department – I would suggest Systems.

What about good old philosophy?

Philosophy already has a long tradition of birthing new sciences, a long tradition of encouraging polymath thinking and a long tradition of estabilishing foundational ways of thinking.

Philosophy degrees can be designed in this way. Various “philosophy of X” courses to explore. Logic and theory of computation are typically found here.

Physics is like this too. An odd thing about physics is that it doesn't have very many of its own techniques or tools, so we have to go outside of our field if we want to solve any nontrivial problem -- theoretical or experimental. For instance I didn't take any electronics or programming classes beyond "101" level, but have ended up using both extensively in my later work.

At my present workplace, I've noticed that the people who have polymath tendencies tend to have physical science degrees.

I don't disagree with this characterization of studying physics, but there is a very noticeable tendency for physicists to expect their expertise to transfer to fields they are very definitely not experts in. (Not exclusive to physicists, obviously, it's just a lot of public science communicators are physicists.)

EDIT: Most noticeably from the absolute garbage code I had to make work that these 'genius coders' produced. They were good at physics, but they should never have written any code if it could have been prevented.

EDIT#2: And an adjacent poster "FredPret" demonstrated it perfectly. Let's derive Evolution from particle physics... and go! (Sean Carroll is a good antidote to this attitude... he knows there are levels of description that are useful.)

> there is a very noticeable tendency for physicists to expect their expertise to transfer to fields they are very definitely not experts in

It's interesting the converse is true: techbros often think they would've excelled in physics PhD programs

Oh, it absolutely is. AFAICT it's universal for "experts" (whatever that means) in any given field.

(Self-referentially: Even for me... So take what I said above with a grain of salt, but I'm pretty sure this has solid research behind it.)

It's certainly not exclusive to physicists. The syndrome is called "engineer disease," maybe just because engineers outnumber physicists.

Garbage code isn't exclusive to physicists. The coders often complain when they have to deal with code from other coders.

And physicists gonna code. The last nontrivial problem to be solved without computation was probably solved sometime in the 1930s. And the most powerful "physics software" is a coding stack.

In my own case I've made a career long effort to learn good coding practices, but I don't expect my code to go straight into production.

As for deriving evolution from particle physics, I don't think I've known a physicist who would recommend that.

Once you know the foundation of things, it’s much easier to build on that than if you start with a higher abstraction

Physics is one of the least systems oriented sciences. It is also the easiest science when it comes down to brass tacks. Because physics can make so many simplifying assumptions, it has very few tools to tackle systems. Most physicists I have met have the least capability of anyone I have met when it comes to systems thinking and have the most narrow mindsets and approaches.

I don't doubt your experience. But it seems odd, because the people I've known who were the best at "systems" and multidisciplinary thinking were physicists and physical scientists, including myself. My title was "systems engineer" for many years, and they finally let me be "scientist" though I do mostly the same work. I work in measurement instrumentation, at a site that has mid-sized engineering and manufacturing departments. I'm often the first and only person to fully grasp how a product works, when it involves optics, electronics, mechanics, computation, and the application domain, and has to be manufactured with high quality.

The thing is, the limitations of our tools don't excuse us from having to do research and make things work. Or from finding employment. ;-) So we tend to be opportunists in terms of synthesizing knowledge from multiple fields.

Physics and math have been together for a long time, they have high levels of cross-pollination.

Somehow, this was extended to computers too. The three of them are now cross-pollinating. It happens with other sciences too, but it seems it started earlier in physics and math.

In that sense, anyone with knowledge consisting of "a little bit of computer science plus one single other trade" likely represents the new baseline, not polymathy (similar to the previuous one "a little bit of math plus one single other trade").

So, if you want to be a CS polymath, you'd have to know what CS will look like when all this cross pollination settles down. I think it will look very different from what it is now, it is such a new science. Impactful, but very new.

Even biology had this cross-pollination thing. Lots of fields took evolution ideas, some in very dangerous ways. This influence survives to this day (neural networks, evolutionary algorithms, etc), but it is more like a cargo cult than real intersection. It resembles more biology from the past than what biologists think today.

Polymaths right now are probably working in the fields with less computers, trying to fill that gap. In the cross-pollination analogy, they're the first to waggle dance.

In that sense, I see a history+biology polymath more rare and special than a cs+math polymath, for example. They probably have a more unique and singular perspective on science than the more estabilished swarm of existing cs+math polymaths.

Indeed, I think that in some sense, physics and math (and maybe astronomy) were all born together. The Pythagoreans thought that they were discovering the secrets of the universe. Aristotle wrestled with the difference between physics and math, for instance between an ideal circle and a real physical one. Physics was always an exploration of what aspects of nature could be described mathematically. Development of calculus and differential equations gave physics a gigantic boost. We always want to try out the new toys.

As I mentioned in another post. physics ran out of problems that were solvable by hand with equations roughly a century ago. Feynman managed rooms full of "computers" who were people operating mechanical calculating machines for nuclear physics problems. When digital computers gradually became available, physicists were already waiting in line to use them. Von Neumann promoted government funding of academic computing facilities with an eye towards using the computers for bomb yield calculations.

The software industry gradually began to emerge roughly a decade later.

Ironically, I was "a little math plus some other trade." I learned programming in high school (1981) but had a summer internship at a computing facility and it didn't spark my interest in programming as an occupation, so I majored in math. My other intended trade -- being a rock star -- never materialized, and I ended up with a second major in physics instead. But I've always been an avid programmer, and I do most of my computational and experimental work by coding. All of my fellow physics grad students were coders, and many went into programming when their luck ran out in the grim physics job market.

>Philosophy already has a long tradition of birthing new sciences

Historically, yes, but what about in recent years? I know there have been some new fields that arose out of philosophy, but this seems to have slowed down.

A few books which I enjoyed that are somewhat on the subject of polymathy:

- The Polymath by Waqas Ahmed. This one directly discusses polymathy in history, and how our "natural state" really is of that of the polymath, not the specialist. A nice book that helped me get past some mental blocks and really embrace learning whatever it is I'm interested in, without reservations on what others may think about such "distractions".

- The Creative Way by Rick Rubin. This masterpiece is written by a legendary musical producer who has probably worked with one of your favorite Western musicians at some point. His Zen-inspired approach to creativity and acceptance of ideas, wherever they may come from, is an essential tool in any polymath's toolbox.

- How We Got to Now by Steven Johnson. I really enjoyed learning how the world-changing inventions that we take for granted were often invented by creatively gluing together wildly divergent ideas, to ultimately make something that appears deceptively simple.

The key takeaway for me is that anyone and everyone can be a polymath, with the correct attitude. Learning is not a skill reserved only for the most intelligent and capable - everyone is capable of learning anything they want. Some people may be more naturally skilled, but that doesn't preclude the rest of us from participating.

Great comment.

Agree with everything; Indeed "polymathy" is our natural state because we are always thinking/playing with different concepts and their interrelationships. It is highly frustrating when i see folks saying things like they "can't learn/understand/grok something" and treating it as some sort of an intrinsic limitation whereas the reality is that all people have the potential and if they really applied themselves will be far better than most folks. Skim/Browse/Read books/articles/watch videos on any and every topic that takes your fancy, think over connecting the dots, debate/discuss/argue to strengthen understanding and always keep switching between "the forest"(i.e. the holistic big picture) and "the trees"(i.e. the individual specialties). This is true Education and should be approached with full enthusiasm and distinct from Schooling/Job needs.

Thanks.

    This is true Education and should be approached with full enthusiasm and distinct from Schooling/Job needs.

If there was one thing that could improve society the most, it would probably be understanding this simple truth. Education really is a magic key to achieving anything one desires in life. We used to believe in education in America decades ago, but that message is lost in the noise today.

this comment about a polymathic attitude is really important. if we start with the idea of becoming the image of a polymath, this will just produce unsatisfying reflected representations.

if you want to be an athlete, start with an athletic attitude. if you want to be a genius, start with a genius attitude and ask what the most brilliant person you can think of would do, then find out. if you want to be a mathematician, start with a mathematical inclination, etc. it's the only way to get there.

The Creative Act by Rick Rubin

One of the best things going at my Uni (Cornell) in my mind is not that they have a data science major [1] but that they have a data science minor that goes with anything from literature to biology [2].

[1] not sure I, as an applications programmer, want to hire that person because they're too focused on writing the April 2024 sales report and not on developing the process to make the monthly sales report.

[2] (talk about putting your skills and knowledge on wheels!

No true programmer can leave unclosed parentheses nor can an academic omit their references

If anyone thinks they can be educated into polymathy they've already lost.

Be interested enough in many things and spend 5+ cumulative years working on each of those things.

Yes I don't see how a modern institution could reasonably produce polymaths, unless the individual themselves is doing 90% of the learning through self-teaching, but then the strict scope of universities would limit those people.

If you find this interesting, you might enjoy this old interview with the founder of the CLT, a competitor to the SAT that's intended to create incentives for schools to teach a more classical curriculum: https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/philosophy-of/educating...

I'm both hopeful and skeptical about that kind of thing.

On one hand I think one of the smartest things you can do is look at things from the widest perspective in time and space (I told somebody once that "I'd like to be somebody that someone from 3000 years ago could understand")

On the other hand many of those programs are pushed by people who are closed minded.

When it comes to philosophy the likes of Plato, Aristotle and Socrates can still come across as really fresh. As much as you might hear about Euclid's Elements if you self-study math, I think Elements is a complete waste of time in 2024.

I made a journey from being an anime fan to a sinophile and lately I've been meditating on how the Asian collection at my Uni is one of the largest in the US but is dwarfed by the National Library of China. Important works are not in translation or the translations are poor. Books on Chinese mythology in English don't even agree on who the important figures are, it's like you get one book on the Greek myths that never mentions Hercules and another that mentions Apollo.

The more I learn about the sinosphere the more I realize just how ignorant I am. Western "Great Books" are great don't get me wrong but they only tell you part of the story.

... would be good. But it's been a decade and I think we're further from a society of polymaths now than we were then.

I'm lucky enough to have been able to afford a constant trickle of college classes for the last 20 years. It's awesome. I get so much more out of it than my younger full-time classmates are. But it requires a lot of sacrifice. I probably wouldn't be on this path if I had had kids, for instance.

So as nice as it feels to get excited about polymathy, I'd rather we take steps to make it normal.

I think there may always be too much socioeconomic pressure against it in modern industrial society for it to become normalized.

I see what you mean, but I'm reluctant to agree with "always."

As technology gets better at eliminating jobs, we may see a socioeconomic pressure towards remaining pivot-ready by constantly broadening one's capabilities... A world where as soon as you have a job you start training for your next one on the side because they just don't last that long. Making such a lifestyle broadly accessible would mean some significant changes from where we are now, but in the long run paying for all that school and tolerating all that time-off to attend it might end up being cheaper than the cost of the unrest associated with resisting change.

> we may see a socioeconomic pressure towards remaining pivot-ready by constantly broadening one's capabilities...

If this isn't already a line out of a dystopic speculative fiction short story someone should crib it for that purpose.

In Accelerando it was necessary to make drastic alterations to oneself in order to keep up with that pressure (or an analogous one). Those who decided not to had to flee the planet because they just weren't nimble enough to participate in Economics 2.0

It sounds outlandish but I think the path away from scarcity based economics must eventually traverse a zone where the only scarcity-driven careers left aren't substantial enough to commit a lifetime to, so being dual- or triple-specialized will be a necessity.

And as much of a hassle that may be, letting scarcity continue to drive despite its inability to avoid hazards seems much worse.

I've been on the fence about generalists vs specialists debate for a while now. Although people love to bring up examples of outstanding geniuses like da Vinci, it seems society as a whole moves towards specialists.

Natural selection shows that cooperating specialists do better. So I'm not so sure how useful are these efforts to educate new generations of polymaths.

The text seems to put effort into differentiating between what a generalist is and what a polymath is:

> Polymaths don’t simply know a lot, they understand what fields have in common.

According to the text, the polymath focuses on the intersection of fields. This is more specific than a generalist, that could know a lot of fields but have no particular experience in what is their connection.

I don't know if I agree with the text definition of what a polymath is. It is, however, what they meant.

I see. So their definition might be even closer to specialists than generalists.

Generalist versus specialist is a false dichotomy. The text has little to do with it, it tries to distance itself from portraying these roles as stereotypical.

Hard to publish interdisciplinary stuff in scientific journals when it's usually shot down by disciplinary specialists who don't get it

Lots of crap too as well as stuff that is hard to characterize.

I like this guy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Badiou

who basically plays the same game as Derrida. Except Derrida plays it very sloppily even if you might blame yourself for not understanding it because he is analyzing a difficult text in German in French and now you're reading a bad translation in English.

Badiou on the other hand will mash up Marxism with difficult problems in math such as the Continuum Hypothesis. Unlike Derrida there's no doubt that he really understands the math and he did the hard work with the precision of continental analytic philosophy. He irritates many of the people who are irritated by Derrida for the same reasons except at the level of details Badiou is impeccable which would all the more infuriating if somebody tries to engage with it in order to refute it.

(Funny I found Badiou's concept of singulation to be very relevant to ontology in computing, particularly the distinction between individuals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(programming_language)) and categories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language) in Wikipedia, particularly given that something can be an individual and a category at the same time... Which twists systems like OWL into knots.)

"Badiou has been involved in a number of political organisations, and regularly comments on political events. Badiou argues for a return of communism as a political force."

a not-unreasonable point of view. Remember “communism” and “Stalinism” are not the same thing

Also Badiou was doing his best work before the Soviet Union fell. For all of Stalin's crimes it's not so clear Russia was going to survive the 50 years 1917 in retrospect and it developed from a economically and politically backward country with a few culturally advanced spots [1][2] to an economic, technological and political rival to the US. People in "non-aligned" countries like India and Egypt could only wish they could develop that quickly.

Academically, Marx was ahead of his time even if his prophecy that capitalism would be smashed by "the tendency for the rate of profit to decline" and the labor theory of value turned out to be bunk. He was popular in the 20th centuries and even David Bell chair of the social sciences department of Harvard and as ardent a supporter of the status quo as there ever was claimed to be Marxist. [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Futurism [3] https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Contradictions-Capitalism-20...

Really? Communism is terrible. In a communist regime, we don't need all of these book-reader "polymaths;" we need ditch-diggers.

just sounds like teaching more students philosophy, but now the dominant philosophy is systems theory. which i super agree with. systems are relevant everywhere from literature to engineering. i agree with everyone else who has said true polymathy can't be taught.

> Universities have an opportunity and an obligation to train polymaths. The opportunity comes from the emergence of new foundations that unify fields. The obligation arises because humanity’s pressing problems are not neatly confined within academic disciplines. However, the divisive organizations of academic departments and curricula make it hard for faculty and students to understand systemic problems such as climate change, biological diversity, sustainability, and poverty. Universities might be judged harshly in future for promoting specialization and a cult of expertise when they could have been training new generations of scholars to understand systems as systems.

I absolutely love the general idea the essay promotes - it is completely in line with my opinions in what academia should be.

Unfortunately, the author chooses to ignore the elephant in the room: who is going to pay for it? Students are already saddling themselves with six figures of debt in the US, in Germany it's at least tens of thousands of euros to cover costs of living, and that doesn't allow for "unproductivity" aka learning stuff not relevant to one's degree that isn't mandatory - and even worse, at least in Germany you have to finish your degree in a specified time or you'll get forcibly kicked out. Society doesn't give a fuck either, education budgets have been slashed for decades now, partially causing the debt issue in the US as well as the very rigorous rules in Europe. And that's noticeable in all the "liberal arts" and other non-STEM degree programs as well - a degree in these courses doesn't result in high-paying jobs, which means they're mostly rich/affluent kids that can afford it, and some of them like Slavic studies have barely any students left at all (which explains both the quality of online discussions regarding anything Eastern European and the quality of Western politics regarding these countries - the reactions to the Russian invasion were so shameful because there were barely any qualified experts to guide politicians!).

And to make it worse than it already is, there is a second even larger elephant in the room: the purpose of academia has been completely perverted over the last decades, ever since the "push for education". Many universities these days are effectively reduced to being degree mills. Employers don't care about degrees, they care about universities weeding out undesirable employee candidates (the poor, the disabled, students with mental health issues etc pp - there's been many studies done on social strata and academic achievements) so they don't violate anti-discrimination laws or risk "duds". Capitalism has perverted and weaponized academia.

(I could go off on a tangentially related issue - who is funding academia in the first place, "chasing grants" taking away research and education time, Germany and its infamous job insecurity for anyone employed in academia and not on a tenure/professorship track, but the comment is long and rant-y enough as it is...)

Why is the author responsible for solving the "elephant in the room" of affordability? The rest of your comment is about how politicians and capitalists have completely hijacked the mission of education - why are they not held more accountable for fixing it? It seems like excuses are constantly made for those responsible for education's conversion into a means of resupply for employers i.e. "capitalists be capitalizing, whatcha gonna do". Meanwhile, the people actually pointing out the problems are immediately criticized for not solving the issue, as if there's even a single solution or group of solutions that will reform the economy into whatever idealist society people dream of.

> Why is the author responsible for solving the "elephant in the room" of affordability?

They could have at least mentioned it! Complaining that academia doesn't do what the author wants is one thing and completely justified - I think we both agree that the situation of modern academia is a disgrace - but to not even mention the two biggest drivers behind the situation once is ... sad.

> It seems like excuses are constantly made for those responsible for education's conversion into a means of resupply for employers

Oh I'm not excusing that. I'm accusing, both employers for demanding their prospective employees go through many years of training that they won't ever need and saddling themselves with debt for it (we used to label jobs requiring one to pay for training as scams, 'member?), and society itself for not pushing back on this crap. But in order to credibly accuse someone, one first has to name the goddamn thing and state that there are two giant elephants in the china shop that is our modern society.

my solution to this has been do a base degree, then chip away at new areas with diplomas or graduate diplomas/certificates and enlarge my knowledge base that way. besides just reading lots of stuff.

For those without means understanding is a luxury, for many with, it is merely aesthetic. Matching drive with opportunity could unlock humanistic discovery but it is far more likely to be done artificially given the way we organize our societies.

> For those without means understanding is a luxury

Saying that those without wealth are barred from genuine understanding reduces learning to a matter of money. Plenty of us with limited resources develop deep insights by way of libraries, conversations, online education, or other active seeking in the margins of what time and means permit.

That proposition also throws away personal agency by framing understanding as something that happens only if external conditions allow it, rather than admitting each person’s power to seek knowledge and push beyond circumstance.

Your second sentence feels more balanced, setting up a good question: how do we bootstrap Gene Roddenberry’s future fairly while still recognizing personal drive, differences, and merit?

Polymathy or Jack of all trades mentality is the new self-help. Ever since I started this journey in 2022, I've become a better writer, more fit, and motivated overall.

I recommend building your polymathy journey like RPG stats. Your five stats are: Strength, Intellect, Creativity, Spritituality, and Charisma. Then you tie your hobbies together with these stats. If you feel like one of your stats is low, then you practice it.

Reading Range and Thinking Like Leonardo Da Vinci will also teach you to think like a multidisciplinary thinker. The hardest part of this path is balancing your time, but the trade off is amazing. Even though I'm not a super-genius, I feel like I can do anything I put my mind on.

i wonder how much of it is just that: "encouraging you that you can do anything" / abundance mindset.

I got into self-help and polymathy at a younger age and it quite literally pulled me out of poverty because I believed that I could.

Now that I'm older, I realise and understand that I'm actually not the best at everything, but I can do a little bit of everything to a sound standard, and that most other people can once they give it a little try and work through the beginner mistakes.

Some people have a real geniune fear of either: 1. Mistakes and being wrong, or 2. Learning, and having to understand something that is different to what they know currently.

I deal with people in camps 1 & 2 every day, so I'd love to find a way to help them overcome both.

What helped me in camp 1 was having a mentor who didn't freak out about my mistakes. That and quotes like "failure is the way forward" and "Failure doesn't define you."

Camp 2 is interesting. I've met people who didn't know the value of learning. Learning prevents mental disease. Yet not many people go home to learn something new, even when it's proven to help you in all areas of life. Hopefully, you find the answer for this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com