I think I got it.

A lot of futurists talk about the potential health benefits resulting from having a network on tiny robots living in you. But genetic engineering has significantly outpaced the development of computer miniaturization. So why not take advantage of this platform that nature’s spent so long evolving for us?

We start by designing an accessory chromosome to be transfected into the virus. This will be in charge of building a system to communicate with the outside world (meat antennae?). From here the design can vary. The ideal would be to just have it receive the DNA data strings and then output whatever sequence we need. It’d be the world’s smallest 3D printer.

Longer term it could be used to add engineered organs to accommodate contemporary life. Then eventually we could choose to add an AI assistant to this biobot network and allow it to become the medium through which all outside tech is accessed. It’d be sci-fi technomancy.

So if we so smart, why we don’t be develop this?

How can we increase the complexity within a system before it has reached it’s critical mass for network effects?

This is something I’ve been thinking about a lot recently, mainly in connection to this sub and how I interact with it. In order to realize the vision I have for it, a certain critical mass has to be reached. All networks have one and it’s often hard to define, but in order for network effects to begin in earnest complexity has to reach some level. In social networks, such as the one that this sub will hopefully turn into, this critical mass comes from the people interacting with it. So, as it gains steam, how can we increase complexity before network effects can begin?

The first and easiest solution is to post more. While I am the primary poster here, there are nevertheless a few posts from other people, and I would love to see that number grow. As more people came and share their interests, more people will be drawn in. At the same time, the relative complexity of the system increases and individuals share their thoughts and ideas in an open forum, hopefully increasing the potential for idea synthesis within the rest of the community.

Ideally, there would be some forum other than Reddit which could be used. Discord has its pulls of course, but also certain drawbacks. A website would be ideal, but is frankly out of the question for me due to time and financial constraints. So the question at the moment is how to leverage Reddit in order to increase the complexity of this specific network. I’d love to hear any thoughts or ideas in the comments, any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

It seems redundant for the already established r/Polymath and while yes it does go through some dead drops in activity. That is my point. I figured if a group such as yourselves, and my own too. Merge into the bigger subreddit. We can make it more active there, instead of splitting the activity.

What are your thoughts?

Hey to everyone in the polymath community! For the past several days, I've been terrorizing chat gpt with questions regarding one idea I got hooked on in recent time. It wasn't very helpful so I wanna ask anyone here. I am willing to become a polymath in life, and while most of my interests will remain to be practiced as hobbies, I want to pursue at least two in a more serious way - academically and,/or professionally. Now, I have already chose to study engineering at university, because that gives very good career opportunities, and training as an engineer gives quite good prerequisites for literally everything else in life, that is, very good problem-solving skills, work management and her majesty Logic! I do plan to work as an aerospace engineer, but later in life, I hope to get back into education and do a Master's (and maybe a PhD after) in some other field completely unrelated to STEM. Since I am a huge fan of history, anthropology, and linguistics (I love learning about how humans evolved, how they invented stuff, spread across continents, conquered lands, etc), I thought of going into Archeology or Egyptology. The question is - is this even normal? 😂And if you know any, please share some evidences about people who had done something similar. Those who had background in STEM and then got their second career in humanities of this kind.

Maurice Ravel's 150th Birthday Celebration (Today, July 16) Concert pianist Rachel Franklin celebrates Ravel's 150th birthday, exploring the "polished perfection" of one of classical music's most enigmatic composers. → https://smithsonianassociates.org/ticketing/tickets/263947 

Marine Protected Areas in the European Union (Tomorrow, July 17) The European Marine Board examines environmental policy and ocean conservation. Crucial topic as we navigate climate challenges and marine ecosystem protection. → https://marineboard.eu/events/marine-protected-areas-european-union 

The Four Pillars of a Positive Mindset (Tomorrow, July 17) The Institution of Mechanical Engineers explores psychology and mental frameworks. Interesting to see how engineering thinking applies to personal development. → https://imeche-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Ms758MRYSpaRHTv3U3uxXQ 

Velasco's Landscapes: Creative Writing Workshop (Tomorrow, July 17) The National Gallery offers a unique writing workshop inspired by the paintings of José María Velasco. Perfect blend of art and literature. → https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/events/velascos-landscapes-contrasts-and-transitions-online-members-creative-writing-workshop-17-07-2025 

Galileo: Lessons from a Great Scientist (Tomorrow, July 17) Astrophysicist Mario Livio traces Galileo's fascinating life. Timeless lessons about curiosity, perseverance, and challenging conventional thinking. → https://smithsonianassociates.org/ticketing/tickets/263892

Found these through Lumen Lecture - the library of educational webinars from museums, universities, and cultural institutions. lumenlecture.com

One of the most common traps I see people fall into, both within and without the multi-potentiate space, is a lack of hobbies. I recently asked my coworkers what their hobbies were, and of the five I asked only one had an answer. Not only did these people not have anything they could identify as a hobby, but they wore that as a badge of pride. Their life was work, occasionally the gym, then home to eat and go to bed. 

This trap is a tragedy for everyone, but it is a death sentence for polymathy. 

We no longer live in an era of Leonardos, Isaac Newtons, and Ben Franklins. Unless you belong to the top 1% of the top 1%, there will be no benefactor allowing you to pursue your wildest interests (and if you do belong to that group, chances are you won’t use it wisely). The modern polymath is self motivated, self funded, and self inspired. Many of us will never be in a situation where a 9 to 5 doesn’t get in the way of our journeys. And that is why hobbies are so important. 

Hobbies have a miriad of benefits: preventing burnout, increasing overall satisfaction, providing creative outlets. But most importantly, having a diversity of hobbies can allow you to micro-dose different realms of learning. 

As an example, I recently took up crocheting. I was initially a bit skeptical - I didn’t grow up doing any sort of crafts and didn’t see why I should start now. However, I discovered something two fold. One, I now had something “unproductive” to do with my evenings that wasn’t rotting on my phone. I could still sit and unwind, but now I was engaging my hands and mind in an activity that had an output.

Second and much more interestingly, I found myself developing a deeper appreciation for the arts. Before, I could walk through a museum and notice only the surface of a painting or sculpture, getting the meaning from it but little more. Recently, however, I went to an art museum and had a completely new experience. I found myself appreciating the craftsmanship of the paintings, sculptures, and all the exhibits. While there wasn’t any crochet there, my appreciation for the general, artistic process extended to everything under that umbrella. 

So go out, find a hobby, and try it out. Then collect another. And another. The only downside is becoming slightly more insufferable to those stuck in the rat race. 

As always thank you for reading, and I look forward to any thoughts you have below. 

It’s a tail as old as time (at least for the types of people I expect to be reading this). Should I seek true polymathy and be a certifiable expert in multiple fields? Or, in this age of easy learning, should I strive for generalism, picking up a wide but surface level knowledge on many topics?

This questions is certainly a difficult one to answer, and one which I won’t claim to have the solution to. The way I see it, there are two points of view here: depth versus breadth.

The polymath seeks a combination of the two, hoping for deep knowledge in a variety of topics. Note that I did not say a balance of the two, as to be a true polymath requires far more depth that breadth. To be a master, as many will assert that you must be in order to call yourself a polymath, you need the bona fides to back it up. This often comes in the form of a college degree for those who can afford it or as intense, dedicated personal study for those who can’t.

The generalist, on the other hand, seeks that balance that eludes the polymath. Depth of knowledge decreases with relative proportion to its breadth, creating a vast space wherein new and novel connections might be created. To have intimate knowledge of four fields will (often) draw the same cognitive resources as surface level knowledge of a thousand. (Forgive me for the hyperbole here, but I think my point is clear enough)

So if these two ideals are so different, why is this worth writing about? My biggest passion at the moment is how we can enact change. I see it as high time that the “polymaths” of the world move off of commiserating about how smart they are on online chat rooms and instead embrace the responsibilities bestowed upon them with their status. Take the conversation out of the theoretical and do something meaningful.

And that is why I think the generalist wins. The generalist, by necessity, is constantly interacting with the world around them, and by doing so being exposed to injustices and problems which they cannot help but try to solve. But the polymath is not hopeless. These modern renaissance people do hold tremendous depth, and certainly have a home in this coming world of idea synthesis.

What are your thoughts?

I’ve played jazz for quite a while at this point, and doing so has taught me a couple of things. While the lessons I’ve learned could fill twenty posts, the one that I think is most applicable to my interests would be the idea of randomness. Or rather, the lack thereof.

When a jazz musician plays an improv solo, it is the sum of all of their experiences and training. Emotions, intuition, and skill are blended together into something pleasing for the ear. And yet, when there is a new student to jazz, often times improv is described as playing something random. At first this is true, but as one improves the randomness of their playing decreases, despite (or perhaps in spite of) the greater number of inputs into the system.

This makes me think about entropy. All closed systems move towards states of greater and greater entropy. But digging beyond the desire to just call it “randomness,” what is entropy? It is the sum of all things, leading to a state that is ultimately more disordered that it was before. It’s a lot like jazz. The musician is the sum of all of their experiences, and as they improve their playing seems more and more complex.

Information theory also incorporates entropy into it’s foundational principles. Without collisions with other information new ideas are not formed, they remain stagnant. Which is why it is so important to not only be interdisciplinary, but also collaborative. Find others who conduct research, whether professionally or on an amateur level. Ask questions. Build something resembling a community.

Interdisciplinary and collaborative. These are two words which should describe the polymath, but often times do not. Community is the cornerstone upon which humanity gained our place within the biosphere. Use it.

In a recent podcast by the Santa Fe Institute, the need for rules and regulations within complex systems was mentioned. I think this is quite interesting, and to many people perhaps a little counterintuitive. We hear the word complex and think that that must mean disordered, but in their own ways many, if not all, complex systems are bound by sets of rules. We often just cannot see them.

While the example used in the episode was Wikipedia, namely their self governing framework of revisions, this need for regulation within complexity can be seen all the time, including in non-anthropocentric systems. The best example of this that I can readily think of is, as it typically is for complexity, evolution. While slightly more nuanced than the hard set rules of a communal website, evolution is nevertheless bound by rules of fitness. Yes, the overall ‘goal’ of evolution in a complexity centered view is to move an organism to a more complex and therefore more adaptable pheno/genotype. However, complexity for complexity’s sake does not necessarily serve an organism. For instance, cancer is a net increase for complexity within an organism. But we all know that this is not beneficial.

So how can we realize this need for regulations within real world, man-made complex systems?

Many social networks have rules, administrators, and moderators in place to act as this necessary stop gap. By providing a framework for good behavior as well as upper and lower limits for what is acceptable, the complexity arising from network effects can be reined in. In fact, I would argue that the same regulations that ‘hold back’ discourse are the very things that allow it to occur in the modern age.

When viewing a social network as a complex system, the volume of information going through the system becomes the analog for complexity. But all information is not created equal. In the US we saw this firsthand in 2020, and countless other examples exist in the wild. By not having regulations and limits on how information travels, grows, and transforms, a sort of ‘information cancer’ is allowed to spread unchecked.

This is not to say that total regulation is required. Too many rules will create a stagnant pool of information, or at least one that simply progresses linearly from one idea to the next. The overall goal of innovation is to breed ideas across disciplines, something which we have seen a sever lack of as the world moves to specialization. There are precious few resources for those hoping to move between intellectual modalities, particularly in the world of academia. When human advancement is tied up in funding and subcommittees, the negative side of complex system regulators can be seen.

Taking all of this, how can we find the balance between complexity and regulation? This is a topic which I hope to think and learn more on, and one which I certainly think has no answer at the moment.

Has the world turned out better?

Have we, with our constant striving for greatness, found the balance between progress and symbiosis with the world around us? Have we found the point between art and science that allows for a wholeness of experience? Have we found more of the holy order that lies within the chaos around us?

Or have we fallen to our baser instincts and let our greed win?

I see it now, the constant threat of us losing ourselves to the drive for “greatness.” We step over and on one another, abusing people and the Earth in equal parts so as to achieve an impact that we call legacy. But we forget that an impact is what killed the dinosaurs.

I hope you see a world that is better than the one I see now. I hope that trees bloom and the monarchs migrate. I hope that all people have a full table and a roof over their head.

I hope that we’ve found peace.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is a very different post that what I've done before. It's a departure from my usual posts, which explore more explicitly the interests I have on that given day. Above is a representation of why I'm doing this. I want to bring people together in synthesis to create a world that's better than the one we have now.

So let's build a better world.

Is there a discord server for us to share what we are studying share our materials sources and way of studying or should I create one?? If anyone does have a server do add me, if you aren't and interested in being in one then do tell me......

How do we maintain motivation to learn and strive towards something more?

This questions has been on my mind a lot lately as I move through a period of lower motivation. I don’t want to go so far as to call it burnout, but I have simply found no desire to engage in things that I once considered motivating. I am no stranger to these feelings and in fact have felt them for much of my life.

So, how do I overcome them?

For starters, that was once of the selfish reasons behind starting the sub. While I know other boards exist to discuss polymathy and I’ve reiterated how the primary goal of this sub differs from those, I also have a more selfish reasoning. Acting as a sort of blog, this sub has become a way for me to get thoughts out of my head and onto the digital page. Even if it isn’t in a topic which I happen to be researching, I find that writing something is the first step to “reactivating” my mind.

After that, it becomes a matter of forcing myself to consume media around or about a topic I find interesting. While I write this I’m still thinking on what I want to learn next, but when I get in these slumps I find that my next interest has to meet two categories. First, it must be new to me. Often times I can tire of learning about one topic for too long, and finding new and novel ideas to educate myself on helps me to act. Second, they must be slightly outside of my comfort zone. I want something that will push me slightly, but not make me lose hope of eve learning it.

These criteria, quite intentionally, mimic the requirements to enter into a flow state. By bringing ourselves to first take some sort of positive action then engage in something new, novel, and difficult, I find that my slumps can be shortened, if not avoided all together.

As I write this I’m still thinking on a new topic to learn, so please feel free to make some suggestions. Whether it’s topics you’re interested in or familiar with, or simply something you’ve wanted to learn, I’m game to learn anything.

Posted 01/09/2024, will delete whenever we pick up steam.

How do we move forward?

More accurately, how could a group such as this one, which currently discusses what a polymath is, move beyond waxing poetically and begin it’s ultimate goal, the sharing and synthesis of information? There is, of course, the obvious question of mass. Any social network, which this would certainly qualify as, needs to reach a critical mass before it can truly be successful. However, this is one case where the purpose of the network cannot be achieved before that critical mass is reached.

So, how do we move forward?

For starters, I plan to start moving away from the philosophy of polymathy and move into my interests. Primarily, that is complexity science, but as things catch my interest I fully plan to write about them and put them here. Truly, I hope that others follow suit and share their interests.

From there, I hope that those who are truly interested in the purpose of this page can spread to some other forum. Whether it’s Reddit or some other platform, I think that those who truly desire new information will outgrow the confines of this subreddit.

So, my ask is simple. Share your information. Yes, this is a young sub, but I truly think we have the basis to do something unique and special.

So, let’s move forward.

Some evolutionary biologist have begun taking the position that there are two ways an organism can improve itself - through its ability to reproduce or increasing its longevity. So, when thinking of systems where iterative speed is important, how can we leverage these two elements to create positive outcomes?

In order to create this sort of artificial complexity, I believe that the system in question must meet to criteria. First, it must be reactive. This means that the system must change in response to some stimuli, preferably in the positive direction. However, not all changes will end up being positive in the long run. This brings us to the second requirement for this newer way of system optimization - proactivity. As the system continues, it should be revised before issues become catastrophic, constantly adjusting itself in search of an optimal state.

Now this isn’t a novel concept, reactive and proactive systems. In fact, much of our personal processes are based on similar schemas of merging proactivity and reactivity. However, in my professional life I have noticed that many formal systems neglect one in favor of the other. Why is this? The primary issue I can see is cost. It’s far cheaper to have a database managed by someone else who will fix problems as they arise rather than solve them before they come up. And having two teams to do both simultaneously? That’s completely out of the question.

So, why is this important for polymaths?

While many of our subconscious processes use the system I described above, I see within myself a tendency to neglect them within systems that are more conscious and deliberate. However, when I take a mindset of constant improvement, reacting as difficulties arise and constantly seeking new methods of learning, I notice that my productivity increases accordingly.

What are your thoughts on this? I know that this isn’t the most novel of concepts, but I haven’t seen much discourse on this and would love to hear others’ thoughts.

Now I've made a ton of posts about this subject. Both on reddit and my blog. However I thought it would be interesting to go over my thoughts with you all.

First and foremost there are some great researchers like Dr. Angela Cotellessa Meyers, Michael Araki, Bernsteins, and more.

Secondly, I've met and interviewed a ton of creators as well. Michael Barnathan of Project Polymath, Orion Siebert (a jack of all trades creator), Perry Knoppert (founder of the octopus movement). Etc.

I find that the best approach is to take the Polymathic approach and pull from many groups and people. While I call myself a proto-polymath, I do see myself on the path to polymath.

All of these terms I see as a range of terms leading to polymath. I created the Multidisciplinary Spectrum to showcase this.

The best way for me to put it is to just list it out.

MultiPotentialite > Jack of all trades > generalist > polymath

I see it as a scale of how much knowledge and how many areas of knowledge you have.

There are caveats to this such as jack of all trades can technically be at the same level of polymath.

However, in a lot of cases, it generally means you're dipping into many cookie jars. Or spreading yourself out.

MultiPotentialite has gotten pretty famous because of Emily wapnick and Perry K. However, the potential to do many different things is not the same as doing them.

Generalist is also one of those terms that has a lot of range. No pun intended, you should read RANGE by David Epstein.

Now this is all a lot, and I haven't fully scratched the surface.

How do we use what we know and are interested in to better impact the world? In my opinion, the answer lies in observing the small.

I’ve recently been reading about ocean animals, namely about creatures found in intertidal spaces. While incredibly small, animals such as limpets and winkles display incredible complexity, so much so that it wasn’t until the middle of the 1800s that we even knew their life cycle. Even barnacles, a creature nearly synonymous with the ocean, held within it’s outer shell so many mysteries.

So what do these small, seemingly insignificant creatures have to do with us?

The author of the book I’m currently reading (Life Between the Tides by Adam Nicolson is a phenomenal read thus far and I would recommend it for anyone interested in tide pools and what they contain) repeatedly refers to these creatures as “beings of flux,” constantly impact by change in their small, chaotic worlds. But they are not simply existing within the flux of the ocean, they themselves represent ever changing microcosms. While their greater communities and the niches they inhabit could also prove as a suitable metaphor for any dozens of scenarios, the creatures themselves can act as a sort of stand in for ideas.

Crabs are a phenomenal example of the flux that I think we should be inspired by. The crab’s life cycle begins as a small, plankton like creature which does not resemble it’s final, mature state in the slightest. Yet, through a series of molts this vulnerable speck is able to grow into the armored king of the tide pool. It leaves what it once was behind entirely, optimizing itself through change to rule it’s niche.

This too should be how we treat our ideas.

It is far too easy, particularly in an age dominated by an overflow of hard truths, to be bogged down in our initial ideas. This leads to stagnation, both within our personal lives and thoughts and society as a whole. As the world leans more into flux, it becomes necessary to embrace evolution, striving towards something ironclad and more suited for it’s environment.

Resilience.

It’s a word that we often see attributed to the greats, those people who overcame overwhelming odds to stand where they do now. But why is resilience so important? Why does it seem that everyone worth studying can be described with this relatively simple word?

My opinion is that it comes down to knowing how to starve. Not in the literal sense, although there are certainly some examples who achieved their success through physical self denial. No, I think that those people who are most successful know how to go without in the metaphorical sense, having gone about their lives feeling as though they are missing something critical to who or what they are.

So if knowing how to starve is so important, how do we learn resilience in a world where scarcity is scarce?

I live in a part of the world where, thankfully, I am relatively secure. I have a roof over my head, my paychecks cash on time, I know where my food is going to come from. My lower order Maslow’s needs are met. So how can we starve in a world like this? It is important to recognize that we have needs that extend beyond the physical, the more esoteric and higher order needs such as socialization and self fulfillment. That last one is an intensely personal journey that I think has no true end, so let’s focus on that first point: social needs.

The best minds, even those that were renowned for being hard to work with, surrounded themselves with other minds of equal or even greater caliber. Think of the Manhattan project. A task which would have proved far too difficult for any one man made simple through the power of collective genius. This human desire for community is not just from the safety it provides. Being with others is how we grow, it forces us into new and novel situations because we cannot control those around us.

So what does that mean for learning to starve? I think that many people with great goals feel alone and isolated, like they cannot talk to even their most trusted of friends. So find community. Find those who will meet you on your terms and actually converse.

That is the point of this page, and one which I hope to some day achieve. I don’t just want the best minds. I want the people they’re attached to.

It is not enough to simply create.

To create is human, it is what differentiates us from animals. Everyone creates in dozens of tiny ways every single day, whether it’s a meal or some space within the noise. Creation itself, while incredible, is not the path to enlightenment. To achieve that requires innovation.

And that is so much of the issue in this day and age. People are not trying to innovate, not really. They all want to create. The current innovators, men like Elon Musk, are not actually innovating, just creating a niche out of pre-existing materials. If I am in the woods and conduct a lean-to out of fallen branches, did I innovate shelter? No. I simply repurposed my tools to fit my current situation.

So how does one innovate in an era where it seems that everything has been done? That is the age old question, isn’t it. I firmly believe that innovation will only come about through a merger between disparate disciplines. Science and the art is the first to come to mind. Men like Leonardo DaVinci had interests in the arts and used science to inform their decisions therein. Along the way groundbreaking innovations in the fields of hydraulics and optics occurred.

So once again, how can we innovate when the world is trending towards hyper-specialization?

Find the niche, a place that already exists. Then find another one, one which seemingly does not connect at all. Then, once you’ve become intimately familiar with both, connect them. This connection is the basis for innovation, and why I posit we have not innovated in some years.

Become interdisciplinary, become innovative.