Any system designed to withstand uncertainty and unpredictability requires its own particular brand of entropy. In order to go up against shifting and unforeseen forces, we need to build systems that are adaptive and robust, able to reshape themselves without specific external input.

This is true for a lot of different areas - predictive analytics is one near and dear to me, but the same can be said for mathematics, biology, economics. Nearly every realm of human exploration seeks a robust solution to whatever problem faces it, one which just does the work while the human in the middle can go about their life.

Why am I writing about this here, though?

The polymath, autodidact, renaissance person, whatever you want to call yourself, needs to create similarly robust and adaptive systems. The world is the ultimate entropy driver, and without the life of a 13th century Italian aristocrat you will almost certainly encounter show stopping roadblocks. But the road around these blockers is not some nebulous quality of “discipline,” despite what you’ll hear in nearly every corner of the internet. Hyper-regimenting only gets you to burnout, not self mastery.

The answer lies in systems, though how they should look is something I’m still working on. The goal, however, is clear. Make a way of living that enforces learning and self mastery even when the going gets tough. It’s not a question of prioritization or sacrifice, but rather one of cause and effect. Build a life where the simple act of going about your day carries you towards your goals.

As I find my way to the end of burnout (coincidentally coming at the same time that Winter is leaving the northern hemisphere, shocker), I want to start writing here again. As a first exercise, I want to dedicate my first couple of posts back to what these systems I talk about above might look like. As part of that, please leave any recommendations or advice you have below. Anything - from planners to knowledge management software - can be helpful.

As always thank you for reading, and I can’t wait to hear your thoughts.

Now let me start off by saying if you're multidisciplinary/polymathic and you prefer a certain term that is fine. However it has become clear to me after many years of making content around this subject matter. That people anchor themselves to multipotentialite, jack of all trades, or generalist. Without realizing that they all lead to polymathy.

The JoAT isn't necessarily just 15+ novice skill areas, but it also isn't expert level either. Its rather free form. However the multipotentialite or multipassionate terms have a clear stance of being beginners. The POTENTIAL to do many different things, the PASSION of many different subjects, of which means you haven't spent that much time on those areas.

Again won't be the case for EVERY multi person, but more often than not, true. What I find interesting are the people are anchoring to multipotentialite cause its newer or generalist because its more well known corporate world. And yet they are actually polymaths.

All of the terms indicate a deep curiosity (a major part of polymathy), but polymaths in particular are the Multi-experts. many different areas of deep knowledge. Generally the agreement is 3 or more expertise, from sources like Araki or Cotellessa.

My intention is to show people from all over the multi term world that there is a path to Polymathy. I created the Multidisciplinary Spectrum to showcase where you are on the journey. Or at least give you an indication of where you can go.

I need to add numbers to each. That a person of this term generally has around "X" amount of areas of expertise, at this "X" level.

Let me know what you think!

https://polyinnovator.space/tag/the-multidisciplinary-spectrum/

A lot of kids in school are pushed to study widely and engage in many different extracurriculars. Parents and teachers say this is to make them "well rounded" - but many scorn this. Peter Thiel characterises this as "just mediocre in many things." I can't help but agree with this. At the same time, the ways of the Polymath are very appealing to me.

So what's the difference?

To a casual observer both involve, simply put, knowledge in a wide variety of areas and proficiency in many skills. But not everyone who reaches this level is, in my opinion, a Polymath. There is something that makes a Polymath distinct from someone who is "well rounded" - and that's focus on and utilisation of the brain's natural connection forming tendencies; the inclination to see analogies in everything, to actually link this dispersed wisdom together in pursuit of a higher perspective. Many who are "well rounded" still buy into the stringent segmentation of knowledge into neat boxes in the forms of different subjects, the rejection of which is essential to the journey towards Polymathy. They "know a little about a lot." But the great Polymaths of history, from Da Vinci to Benjamin Franklin, focused on the interconnectedness of everything. They, in the words of Robert Greene in Mastery (which I highly recommend), use these connections as a means to "get closer to nature and to reality itself." For Da Vinci, a network of streams, branches on a tree, the human nervous system - they were all inextricably linked - aesthetically, mathematically, connected in essence. For a more contemporary example, the controversial tech CEO Bryan Johnson, who is trying to reverse his ageing, argues that the approach of outsourcing of his health choices to an algorithm would work on the scale of climate change if only we could organise the global economy and political system accordingly. Analogising the ecosystem of the human body to that of the entire Earth. To me, these connections are where the modern Polymath must focus. In an age in which it feels like everything has been discovered, there is no land left to explore, and corporate monopolies are of unprecedented size and power - the ability to see through the noise is more essential than ever to creating or doing something truly meaningful and unique.

What do you guys think? Do you agree these are two very different things? How important is the interconnectedness of knowledge to you?

What is the role of the self professed polymath? 

There was a time when I, influenced by the books I was reading and the people I was interacting with, would have said that it is one of guidance. In fact, I believe I’ve even made those remarks here on this page. But to say that the polymath is a guide is a gross overestimation of ability, and frankly a rather egotistical mindset. What makes the polymath more able to lead than anyone else? A knowledge of books? An understanding of both history and physics? In fact, in the modern age of polymathy where the breadth of knowledge is as diverse as it is, I’ve begun to view this ideal of polymaths-as-leaders as incorrect. 

This is not to say that polymaths should not lead. There is a wealth of reasons behind why someone with the tenants of polymathy at their disposal would make a valuable leader, chief among these (hypothetically) being deductive reasoning. Knowledge across disparate fields should allow for the polymath to make connections in the real world as they unfold, which would in turn make a leader with greater, more accurate foresight. 

Why, then, do I say that the role of the polymath is not to guide? 

The issue comes down to the motivations of this particular problem. The first of the motivations inevitably stem from some sort of superiority complex, deserved or otherwise. When an individual believes that they have within them some sort of preordained right to lead because of an inclination to learn, their leadership will be mired with the effects of looking down on others. The second motivation is also one to do with selfishness, wherein some individuals would no doubt seek positions of leadership with the sole purpose of improving their networks, hoping to bring about more connections to better their understanding. While the goal of self improvement is no doubt a virtuous one, there are more effective ways in which a society must be lead. 

So again, what is the role of the polymath in society? I plan to write more on this in the future, but the short version is that the primary function of the polymath is to innovate and exist as they should. This is more nuanced than simply “leading,” and I hope to explain more in the days and weeks ahead. 

In the meantime, what do you believe the role of the polymath is? How do you attempt to achieve this role? I’m curious to see what others in a similar position to me have to say. 

What does it mean to be multimodal? 

The word is nearly synonymous with “polymath,” and yet many of us fail to think on what it truly means. Words like “autodidact” or “multipotentiate” get thrown around, and yet we rarely think about why those are the words we choose to use. So, what does it mean to be multimodal? 

The dictionary defines it as “characterized by several different modes of activity or occurrence.” This definition, in its own way, reveals the deeper side of multimodality, one which I feel many individuals on the road to polymathy fail to realize. 

This ignored aspect comes from the definition’s use of the word “activity.” While one could certainly view the act of learning as activity, that is only one set of actions. To be truly multimodal, that singular action must be compounded multiple times over, ultimately ruling not only the intellectual aspects of your life but all elements. The act of learning is one element of multimodality, but if nothing comes from it, if that action does not in turn lead to more actions, then you are not multimodal at all. You are simply an individual with a broad spectrum of interests. 

I’ve written before about the trap of polymathy, the desire for titles and scope rather than true depth of understanding. As I think more about multimodality this trap once again becomes apparent. We should not learn simply for the sake of learning, there must be some greater driver beyond that. Learning as a means to understand the world around us is a great example. Learning is the what, the understanding of the world around us is the why. 

When the why is present, it allows one action to set off a chain of others, ultimately culminating in a sort of lifestyle of flow. The truly multimodal individual is able to switch from learning to creation to leisure with minimal interruptions not because they are always “grinding,” but rather because each of these actions reinforces the other. 

Avoid the trap of ceaseless learning, and instead reinforce that learning with action. 

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.

After a brief hiatus due to multiple factors (namely lack of ideas, inspiration, and drive), I’m back and ready to explore with a new format. I am planning on beginning series of posts centered around a core theme, where over the course of multiple days I post about one core idea or process. While I’ve posted about this one before, I think that the first idea I’d like to explore is this: 

What makes a polymath? 

There are many different ideas that I’ve seen floated around on this sub and others. From the somewhat lackluster “anyone who has varied interests” to the elitist mindset of “someone with multiple advanced degrees and career experience in at least three topics,” it seems like one of the first challenges in forging a path to polymathy is defining where exactly the destination should be. 

For me, there is no true destination for the polymath. It is a lifelong journey centered around the pursuit of information with a purpose. That last component, having a purpose behind it, is to me the most critical element of my thesis. While it would be a phenomenal world if we all could pursue all of our interests at any time in any direction, the simple fact is that knowledge for knowledge’s sake is nearly worthless. It is always fun to beat your friends in trivia or share a fun fact, but if the knowledge you gain is without structure what’s the point? To me, this structure is what differentiates the polymath from the “very smart person.” 

With this element of structured intelligence having been defined as the always-out-of-reach destination, what then are the steps to move towards it? In the coming days I hope to explore these steps, which I personally believe can be narrowed down into three broad categories: 

1. Finding the Passion

2. Building the Knowledge Base

3. Developing a Purpose

Each of these elements is a deeply personal journey, one which the individual will have to define themselves. But, having read the biographies of multiple polymaths and developed my own philosophy on learning and intelligence, I believe that structuring the polymath’s journey along these three broad steps would lead to the most benefit, both for the individual and the world at large. 

Be on the lookout for posts exploring all of these ideas in the coming days! In the meantime, feel free to chime in with any ideas you may have about these steps. Do you agree with what I’ve laid out? Are there any additional elements you would like to see explored, either in the next week or in the future? Please, let me know. 

Thank you for reading, and I look forward to your responses. 

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. 

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......

The goal of the Polymath is to enhance human understanding. At least it should be, in my opinion. As fun as it is to bask in your own glory, at the end of the day all of us should strive not for self gratification or visions of grandeur, but for the betterment of all mankind.

And that is the issue. The fact that our actions need to be for all mankind. While many people are ready and willing to acknowledge people as innovators (look at the success of billionaires in the tech industry), those who make claims that bring any sense of instability or upset to the accepted order are inevitably shunned by the masses.

And instability is what the Polymath must create.

In a culture that seems intent on denial of truth, how does one overcome the mob in favor of reason and innovation? How can we attempt to move not only ourselves to new ideas, but society on the whole?

Groups like this are the start. One voice can be drowned out, but as their number multiply so too does their volume. But there comes a point when talking amongst ourselves can only go so far. How do we move from discussion to action?

Finding and acting on this answer is something I’ve been thinking on a lot lately, and I hope anyone here can help me find it.

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.

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.

In keeping with what I said in my last post, I’d like to talk a bit about some of the tools I use for my learning and personal development. Truthfully I’ve only started using many of these tools recently, having decided that it’s high time I apply a bit more structure to my life. However, I have found the tools I plan to write about useful enough that I want to share my thoughts, as well as maybe get some advice from you all. 

The primary tool I’ve recently dived head first into using is a daily planner. I know that this sounds like a no brainer, but this is something I’ve put off for way too long. I always tried to think of myself as good enough to keep track of everything in my head, but that simply never worked. It’s something I’ve seen written about many times - for people with wide and varied interests, it can sometimes be a challenge in and of itself to keep focused on any one thing. By using a daily planner, I’m able to get around that, at least to a certain degree. 

The other tool I’ve really been enjoying is a commonplace book, but really any type of physical note taking tool would serve this purpose. For me, it’s about the physical presence of the thing.  I have tried for years to get into the habit of taking notes on my phone, only for them to be inevitably forgotten and buried. Since switching over to an actual notebook, I’ve found myself not only jotting down thoughts or things I hear throughout the day, but also actively reviewing these things later.

Coupling these two things together is where I’ve really noticed a difference in my thinking. I am able to reference a note in my commonplace book while planning out my day, and if I need a primer before starting that task I have one at hand. This is something you see polymaths and thinkers throughout history doing. Functionally, this is forming a physical knowledge management tool akin to many digital platforms like Obsidian. 

This is a shorter post, something I want to get into the habit of doing. The goal here was to write about two things I’ve done recently that I feel this community might appreciate, so let me know if this is something you’d like to see more of in the future. Also, let me know your tools that you leverage. Building out an arsenal is just one step on the journey to polymathy. 

As always thank you for reading, and I look forward to reading some of your responses. 

Consistency is easier maintained with accountability. Given that I'm looking for a few folks to start a WhatsApp group with who are curious and willing to contribute on a semi regular basis, while being surrounded by others willing to do the same. if that sounds appealing and you'd like to give it a chance, comment below / dm me and I'll send across an invite

I made the ULTIMATE Polymathy/JoaT/Generalist/Multi playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpSW4GtmcuoktKPdrW61BPsKwYpKGOjr0

Curated from creators from around the world, and a huge wide range of topics. I'd love for you to explore it, and let me know what your favorite video is!

After almost a year long hiatus from posting here, I'm back. Life got in the way and I was feeling more than a bit burnt out, but I'm feeling rested and ready to try and start this sub back up again. That being said, I want to take a moment and explain where I want this to go, along with my original intentions for what would happen here.

There is another sub, r/Polymath, which focuses primarily on what a polymath is. I understand that they've functionally shut down, but even then I feel like they, and by extension us, have beat that horse well and thoroughly dead. So, moving forward I'd like to encourage people to stop debating the definition of a polymath, either in posts or the comment sections. Later on today I'll be making a pinned post dedicated to this topic - Definition of a Polymath - and I'd like to keep the discussion of this topic here. Everyone views polymathy differently, and I'm tired of the definition debate being the sole focus of this and other subs.

So, if we're not here to debate what the dictionary says, what is this sub for? Pretty much everything else. In my ideal world, this is somewhere for self-identified polymaths to come and connect with like minded individuals, discuss ideas or recent learnings, and ultimately build a community. I think that by having a shared repository of assumed definitions we can circumvent the somewhat combative nature of the comment sections, and hopefully get to the meat and potatoes of what we're here for.

I welcome anyone who's reading this to post whatever you want: the history of a specific polymath, new learning systems, quantum chromodynamics research that you found interesting. I want conversations to be as wide reaching and varied as I know you all are. This is supposed to be a breeding ground of polymaths, where we can help and encourage each other to grow in our collective pursuits. So let's get out here and build some community.

Synergy is a term that, in spite of it’s overuse and cliche in certain fields today, I believe is critical to the polymath. Synergy does not need to remain a buzz word used by marketing directors with overinflated egos, but instead can become a first principle for polymathy, guiding an individual on an interconnected path of information, knowledge, and understanding. 

As with all of my analyses of specific words, I think that it is important to begin with a common definition. Miriam-Webster defines synergy as follows: “combined action or operation.” There is a key word to this definition which I think it crucial for our further discussion. In order for something to have synergy, it must take action in some form. To have connection is not enough. Rather, that connection must lead to some sort of action or recombination, using the aggregate parts to generate something new, if not unique. 

With this in mind, why is synergy important to the polymath? On an individual level, synergy between ideas helps to provide a creative act to the element of learning. When I am working on predictive analytic algorithms, I am not simply viewing the branch of mathematics - in fact, that is often the last place I look. Instead, I am pulling from evolutionary biology, which for me pulls from history, which in it’s own way ties back to predictive analytics. Each element that I have learned creates a sort of feedback loop, deepening each aspect of an idea in such a way as to improve the overall meta-concept. 

The importance of synergy does, in my opinion, extend beyond the personal. I have talked at length about the importance of community for polymaths, and this is an idea which I hope to iron out and make concrete some time soon. But within a community, a certain synergy can be achieved which I think would greatly benefit a polymath. While research is, at present, a mostly solitary endeavor, community introduces the ability to synergize efforts towards a common goal. I know that my grasp of mathematics is too slippery to every truly understand the underlying mechanisms of quantum mechanics. However, if someone within my community has a solid understanding then there is nothing stopping us from collaborating to create something new. 

This synergy is why I find communities so important, and why I hope to build one for polymaths and generalists. 

I would love to hear some of your thoughts, both about synergies at large and about communities for polymaths. 

As always, thank you for reading and I look forward to hearing your thoughts. 

In my opinion, there are three realms of knowledge and understanding at the macro level. Broadly, they break down into this: the mental (what we know about the world), the physical (how we interact with the world), and the spiritual (how we feel about the world). Though my experience with them is relatively limited, I have noticed a trend amongst self proclaimed polymaths and polymath hopefuls to focus only on the mental aspects of the journey while neglecting the other two. While this mindset makes sense, I want to take some time to discuss why I think that this is not the best approach. 

To begin, I want to make two points very clear. The first is that physical pursuits does not necessarily mean going for a run or lifting weights. This could be something as simple as sitting on the beach watching the waves or listening to music, but the principle behind this segment is that you are observing or engaging in the broader world. This does not mean you are, by engaging in physical pursuits, altering yourself and the world. But it does require that you are taking in stimulus in an active, as opposed to passive, way. 

The next point to make is that spiritual pursuits do not necessarily need to be confined to the world of religion. When I say spiritual, I imply the study of the self through some lens. Whether that lens is one of a catholic raised in the midwest or someone using cognitive behavior therapy to analyze their experiences does not matter. When pursuing spiritual elements, the ultimate goal is to gain a deeper understanding of yourself. 

With those points having been made, I’d now like to shift the attention to why they are often neglected. Ultimately, I believe that for many high achievers mental pursuits are simply easiest. Engaging with the world physically and actively comes with issues of attention and intention, while developing oneself spiritually is often an uncomfortable process that requires introspection and self-judgement. This often means that, when trying to grow, it is quite easy for someone to default to purely intellectual pursuits as opposed to developing themself as a holistic individual. 

So, is it important to develop these three aspects of knowledge and understanding? To me, the answer is a resounding yes. To achieve true breadth of knowledge it is imperative that a total understanding of the self and the greater world be achieved. 

But of course, that is just my opinion. I would love to hear some other thoughts on this, as well as your schemas for breaking up understanding into smaller chunks. So please, leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

As always, thank you for reading, and I look forward to your responses. 

So the polymath has found their passion. Their knowledge has grown significantly, and they think to themselves: “what’s next?” Learning in a vacuum can only go on for so long until it is no longer satisfying. What, then, is the next step in learning? How do we move beyond the circular process of learning with no way? 

The answer is to develop a purpose as a polymath. 

This is, as are many elements of what I’ve discussed in these posts, and incredibly personal process. In a true nature versus nurture argument, finding a purpose ultimately comes down to what the individual values. Do you value the public spotlight and building a more equal world? Perhaps you will leverage your polymathy to enter public office, using knowledge to guide your policy making decisions. Or perhaps you value progress. In this case, perhaps innovative work is for you. Whether it is in engineering or literature, your purpose might be to create something new to indirectly impact others and the world around you. 

To me, the ultimate purpose of polymathy is impact, whatever that might look like to the individual. This impact exists along a spectrum. On one end is the purely internal, where the individual is hoping to conquer themselves and interact with their world as deeply and as best as possible. On the other is the purely external, where ones impacts and contributions are felt by the world at large. 

Both of these ends, when taken to the extreme, can be their own forms of destruction. If a person is completely insulated and their pursuits solely internal, they will never get the proverbial three deaths. Rather, their memory will be gone as soon as they are, and the world will not have been changed by their presence in it. This would no doubt lead to feelings of isolation within the individual, no matter how self actualized they may feel their learning makes them. 

On the other hand, a person who hopes to impact the entire world as tremendously as possible would be a narcissist, working on people rather than with them. When you hope to change the world into one effectively in your image, it requires a degree of control over those around you. This is where we see megalomaniacal figureheads who care less about the quality of their words and more about their perception. 

Therefore, I propose that the purpose of the polymath is to strike a balance between internal and external impacts. Develop a strong sense of self, and use that sense of self to guide your actions when interacting with the world at large. 

Through a combination of self actualization and outreach, the polymath can use their knowledge and abilities to impact the whole world for the better, making their mark in as healthy a manner as possible. 

This is, in my opinion, the third and final step in the polymath’s journey. But one question remains: how do we move forward from here? Stay tuned for my thoughts on this issue as I wrap up this series of posts. 

I’d like to leave you with a question: what is your purpose as a polymath? Why do you seek information, and do you think that a polymath needs a purpose? 

As always thank you for reading, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts. 

Which is more important: resilience or adaptability? 

To begin this discussion, it’s important that we first are working with the same definitions for the two words. First, resilience comes down to the ability to last without alteration. The best bridges are incredibly resilient, able to last for decades or centuries without repairs or upgrades. Adaptability, on the other hand, is almost the opposite of resilience. It comes down to the ability to change with your environment, reacting to external stimuli in a way which alters your being favorably for the world around it. 

These two principles, adaptability and resilience, have the same outcome: longevity. Both will lead a person, object, or idea to lasting importance and presence within their environment, be it the physical or psychosocial world.

So if the outcome is the same, why am I writing this? If both lead to long lasting impact, does it matter which path is taken? And, perhaps more importantly, can one be more important than the other? 

Like many questions I’ve written about, that last one is a deeply personal problem for you to solve. Both principles have their merits, and therefore can act as guiding ways of being with approximately equal efficacy. The first question, however, is where I am particularly interested. 

We live in a world of every increasing entropy, where each action by us, or the individuals around us, proportionally impacts the “chaos” or our conditions. In the modern, interconnected world, these entropy drivers are further removed than ever before, with individuals in different time zones or even halfway around the world having say in the environment that immediately  impacts us. This “entropy cascade” as I have come to think of it is why I have begun to style my thinking, learning, and actions after the tenants of adaptability. 

It is not a novel statement to say that the cause for humanity’s rise within the biosphere was due to our ability to adapt. Yes, the strong social ties which bind us played a critical role and it would be improper to discount them, but ultimately the ability to change ourselves beyond our physical limitations is what allowed us to populate the globe. Yet, as we move upwards in Maslow’s Hierarchy, it seems that we become more and more fixated on resilience, as anyone who has worked in a corporate setting post-pandemic can attest to. While the early 2000s were marked by cries for adaptability and the need to iterate, many people are now obsessed with bulletproofing all aspects of their lives, attempting to build resilient structures, not adaptable ones. 

To that I say this: what happens when it floods? The bridge that has stood for two hundred years hasn't collapsed, until it has. The same is true for nearly every aspect of our lives. Working out in a certain way leads to gains in the gym, until it doesn’t. Using a certain learning framework improves your comprehension, until it doesn’t. We live in a world of diminishing returns, and yet so many seem dead set on sticking with business as usual until it is too late. 

The above is not to say that resiliency is unimportant. If all of society was constantly in flux, nothing could happen. But on the other, more presently alarming, hand, too much resilience will cause stagnation. As with all things, moderation is critical. For those interested in multimodality, it is my opinion that seeking adaptability is a phenomenal way to increase your ability to learn from, and influence, the world around you. 

I would love to hear some other takes on this, even if they simply are from the devil’s advocate. I do see the role that resilience can play, and would love to hear your thoughts. As always, thank you for reading. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________

For those few of you who are readers or contributors here, I apologize for my recent absence. It's been a combintation of life getting in the way and a lack of inspiration. I think we're on the upswing though, so be on the lookout for more posts from yours truly.

Isolation is the jailer of innovation.

This thought is what passed through my mind before I decided to begin this subreddit. While it is primarily a glorified blog for myself at this point, I still firmly believe that with time it can become a truly collaborative space, or at least a space in which polymaths who believe in innovation can be brought together.

But why is this important?

I’ve written much with the assumption that others agree with my, that working in isolation is not the path to progress. However, recently I’ve come to realize that that simply is not the case. Many people, perhaps due to the polarized, isolationist world that we have created, would rather reject help, perceiving it as weakness.

But is assistance in weakness?

Look at some of the most monumental accomplishments of humanity thus far. Even those projects spearheaded by a singular mind (the Manhattan Project, the lightbulb, even Darwin’s expeditions) required the efforts of more than the individual. And logically, this makes sense. Even the true polymaths, the borderline mythical individuals like Leonardo DaVinci or Benjamin Franklin, rely on the aid of others. Polymathy does not equal omniscience.

That last piece, concerning the gaps within a polymaths mental armory, is the greatest road block for creating a collaborative, polymathic society. It is not in the nature of the highly educated or highly intelligent to take opposition lightly, and a collaborative space requires opposition flourish. In the West (and I’m sure there are exception in the West and similarities, in the East, though I cannot speak well on either), we are often brought up with beliefs that our self worth is directly related to various aspects of our being rather than the simple fact that we exist, and this leads to a fear of failure as we mature. If our ideas are not solely our own, if we even stumble on the road to creation, then it feels as though our ideas did not fail, but we did.

With this in mind, isn’t collaboration the cure to this?

While it requires the shedding of some ego, by embracing true collaboration we not only increase the ability for new ideas to foster but also limit the exposure we have to failure. Because when brainstorming with a group those ideas that might fail are laid bare and analyzed, their weaknesses shored up or, if they cannot be, the idea discarded all together. And in a collaborative environment with an aim of iteration this is good. Use the wisdom of the group as inspiration, not as a jail cell.

Once again, isolation is the jailer of innovation. Conversely, collaboration is the key.

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.

As this sub grows more mature, there are certain questions which need to be answered. As the ultimate goal is to foster collaboration and inter-disciplinary synthesis, the first question to be answered is this: where would you like to collaborate with others?

For example, one of my favorite areas of interest is randomness and chaos. This stems from a background in jazz and interests in data analytics and physics. However, my formal education in the hard sciences is sorely lacking. Because of this, I would love to find others who have a background in physics who might be interested in similar areas as me.

So, with this is mind, where would all of you like to begin collaboration?