A generalist can delve and dive deeper into several areas and become a specialist while a specialist in only one field is not very flexible and cannot keep up with the speed of time.
I doubt they can dive deeper into several areas, its incompatible with the word itself. It's not about feeling that you know its about what is expected from you and how much your peers know, and a lot of times is very high. With that being pointed out, it may be possible to do in new or unexplored field areas.
general and special are just words. im here at art training learning c++ for vfx. ai requires you to apply it to other fields of technology/medical/ astronomy, etc, so how is it specialization then? everything is plane science even art. its just that its a pyramid of steep complexity for a certain subjects and ease for other. you can learn biology faster than complex subjects like programming, for example.
How does he define a polymath out of historical context? I'm afraid there are several fallacies and ambiguities in his examples. 1. We are cherry-picking examples out of context. Leonardo was one of the few success among many who tried. It's called "Law of large numbers". Same with the other examples. 2. While they contributed to different fields, those fields were in an infant stage, likely corresponding to what are beginner levels nowadays, or beginners/amateurs in recent times. If we consider them polymath, then anyone with a hobby and any polyglot is a polymath. 3a. There wasn't standardisation and communication within fields at the time of Leonardo and Young. One didn't have a strict methodology, didn't have to be hired, read thousands of previous publication, design an experiment, applly for funding, write a scientific paper and submit to a journal for peer- and format-review. At their time, no one would have looked at their work if it wasn't already commissioned. In fact, Leonardo was saved from financial issues by the King of France hiring him for his art, not for the science. 3b. Current "polymath" generally don't pursue their other interest professionally, unless they have a familiar or economical advantage, as being involved by relatives in another field or have money and to build a career in another field, such as actors becoming designers and musicians. 4. Applying the same in different context is not doing something different. If I'm a presenter and I present a topic of history and one of physics, that doesn't make me both a historian and a physician. Similarly, reading posts from different facebook or wikipedia pages doesn't mean I understand the topics, I can simply memorise them. The speaker could improve his speaking tone and logical connections.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Who wouldn't love this?
I love this indeed.
A generalist can delve and dive deeper into several areas and become a specialist while a specialist in only one field is not very flexible and cannot keep up with the speed of time.
I doubt they can dive deeper into several areas, its incompatible with the word itself. It's not about feeling that you know its about what is expected from you and how much your peers know, and a lot of times is very high. With that being pointed out, it may be possible to do in new or unexplored field areas.
I guess being specialist at being generalist has been my best way forward
general and special are just words. im here at art training learning c++ for vfx. ai requires you to apply it to other fields of technology/medical/ astronomy, etc, so how is it specialization then? everything is plane science even art. its just that its a pyramid of steep complexity for a certain subjects and ease for other. you can learn biology faster than complex subjects like programming, for example.
Play at X1.25 speed. Thank me later.
Thank you
How does he define a polymath out of historical context?
I'm afraid there are several fallacies and ambiguities in his examples.
1. We are cherry-picking examples out of context. Leonardo was one of the few success among many who tried. It's called "Law of large numbers". Same with the other examples.
2. While they contributed to different fields, those fields were in an infant stage, likely corresponding to what are beginner levels nowadays, or beginners/amateurs in recent times. If we consider them polymath, then anyone with a hobby and any polyglot is a polymath.
3a. There wasn't standardisation and communication within fields at the time of Leonardo and Young. One didn't have a strict methodology, didn't have to be hired, read thousands of previous publication, design an experiment, applly for funding, write a scientific paper and submit to a journal for peer- and format-review. At their time, no one would have looked at their work if it wasn't already commissioned. In fact, Leonardo was saved from financial issues by the King of France hiring him for his art, not for the science.
3b. Current "polymath" generally don't pursue their other interest professionally, unless they have a familiar or economical advantage, as being involved by relatives in another field or have money and to build a career in another field, such as actors becoming designers and musicians.
4. Applying the same in different context is not doing something different. If I'm a presenter and I present a topic of history and one of physics, that doesn't make me both a historian and a physician.
Similarly, reading posts from different facebook or wikipedia pages doesn't mean I understand the topics, I can simply memorise them.
The speaker could improve his speaking tone and logical connections.
Well said.
You really get it
I'm a generalist. And yes, you're right.
Thank you for this, it enlightened me
Well Explained!
I love science
Love this
great speech
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻