The Polymath: A Cultural History from Leonardo da Vinci to Susan Sontag Paperback – August 31, 2021

This was an interesting review of people who qualify as polymaths. It is well referenced, so follow up questions can be addressed by readers. The author (Peter Burke) spends some time describing individuals as generalists or specialists (he uses foxes and hedgehogs as descriptors). I wish that he had also discussed the difference between specialists and experts. In my sarcastic sense I think of a specialist as: Somebody who knows more and more about less and less until he or she knows everything about nothing. An expert needs more than branching logic and lots of facts. A grandmaster chess player can play times simultaneous games and win. I postulate that this may be more related to pattern recognition (like machine learning) than brute memory or logic. Are polymaths better are perceiving patterns, and thus able to use this talent in multiple fields?

An excellent book, well written and well cited. A guide to anyone with broad interests.

“The Polymath: A Cultural History from Leonardo da Vinci to Susan Sontag,” by Peter Burke, Yale Univ Press, New Haven, CT, 2020. The dictionary defines polymath as one with encyclopedic knowledge or those with expertise in three or more fields. In this 327-page paperback Peter Burke elaborates. He collects a list of 500 polymaths and presents them with brief biographies in chronological order. His list is based on their writings especially in academic terms. He notes that until about 1850, it may have been possible for an individual to know “everything.” After about 1850 the explosion of knowledge made that impossible. He attributes that to the expansion of universities and surprisingly to the development of cheap paper from wood pulp. He does not mention the printing press.Burke then characterizes polymaths from his data. His portrait section lists key aspects as curiosity, concentration, memory, speed, imagination, restless energy, work, timeliness (in a hurry), competitive, and playful. In the work section there is suggestion that Protestant work ethic may be part of it, but then discounts that notion as Catholics, Jews and others also qualify. He cites Leonardo Syndrome as an aspect. That seems to be procrastination. The inability to complete projects. There always seems to be another better idea to examine.He explores many other characteristics. Early exposure to knowledge as in an encyclopedia is often a factor. Groups as in families or groups of friends contributes. Especially in the sciences groups that review new developments, scientific societies that hold meetings, and journals that publish results are pluses.His list of polymaths includes many we know. Leonardo da Vinci is perhaps best known. Others include Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton, Voltaire, Samuel Johnson, Adam Smith, Joseph Priestly, Thomas Jefferson, Lavoisier, Goethe, Wilhelm and Alexander von Humbolt, Charles Babbage, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Freud, HG Wells, John Maynard Keynes, Aldus Huxley, Buckminster Fuller, Leo Szilard, Linus Pauling, John Von Neumann, Peter Drucker, Alan Turing, and Richard Feynman.No doubt this list is subject to much discussion. Exactly what criteria are used and who was overlooked.This is an interesting study. You will find it thought provoking. Photos. References. Index.

Review of Burke’s "The Polymath" by Paul F. RossAbout to finish my then-in-process read and wanting something current, I picked up my copies of recent issues of Science and scanned the book reviews. Andrew Robinson’s review of Burke’s The polymath (2020) in the 28 August 2020 issue of Science (p 1064) won my attention. I purchased a copy through Amazon.com.Peter Burke tells us about polymaths – individuals with remarkable in-depth knowledge, even creativity, in multiple intellectual regimes and possibly also physical skills when compared with other individuals of their time – from Leonardo da Vinci of the 1500s to Susan Sontag of the 2000s. Burke’s five-hundred-polymaths come primarily from Europe and America although he casts his eyes briefly into Eastern and Arabic cultures. Robinson himself had published books under the titles The last man who knew everything (2007) and Genius: A very short introduction (2011) and surely is a qualified reviewer. I should have noted with greater care Robinson’s comment: “For all its considerable insight into polymathy, however, at no point does [Burke’s] book address what distinguishes a polymathic genius from a specialist of comparable standing. … There has always been a tension between specialization and polymathy. Universities and professions are chiefly organized for the benefit of specialists, not polymaths. … specialists … receive greater funding … more recognition … than polymaths do.” Having read a mere sixty pages of the 330-page book, I had become a cynic about polymathy. If being on Burke’s list is the qualification for being a polymath, one must be male, of European heritage, importantly wealthy-royal-religious in order to have the time to read and study, and born after printing had been invented. These entry requirements are very different from the qualifications I had imagined as I started to read Burke. My expectations were that “a polymath” has been outstandingly intelligent, lucky enough to have enjoyed extended good health, and has contributed something new and important in two or more fields … that is, more than just amazing.I wondered how polymaths had affected my life and education. I spent the first twenty-nine years of my life (minus six pre-school years) – even during the year and a half I was in the US Navy – exploring, learning, and acquiring knowledge in depth in the fields of high priority of the moment. My scientific field of expertise for my career had barely been invented at the time of my birth. Having heard of it entirely by accident while in graduate study in another field, it took me a mere six months to apply for and enter a four-year program of study in graduate school to acquire its entry credentials. I chose psychology as it is relevant to behavior and success in organizations of every kind. While acquiring my entry credentials, I owed particular debt to giants in learning theory, social relationships, and the methods[Sorry for the strange format. Amazon.com allows no means for uploading a table.]Table 1Giants in my education in psychology and statistics … and my experience in measuring/predicting performance(There are only five polymaths among them, marked with an * … according to Burke.)Giants in^^^^^^^^^^ Giants in^^^^^^^^^^ My teachers^^^^^^^^^ My experiencelearning theory ^^^^^ statistics^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (all of it aided by psychometrics, statistics,perception^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ behavior in organizations, computing)psychometricsSkinner, Burrhus F.^^^ Spearman, Charles^^ Wherry, Robert J. Sr.^^ Measuring job performanceHull, Clark^^^^^^^^^ Pearson, Karl*^^^^^ Wickens, Delos^^^^^^^ Peer reviewing scientific manuscriptsAllport, Gordon^^^^^ Yule, George U.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Assessing influences on purchasesEbbinghaus, Hermann^ Thurstone, L. L.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Selecting executives, managers, marketersThorndike, Edward^^^ Galton, Francis*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Selecting clerical workersPavlov, Ivan*^^^^^^^ Kaiser, Henry F.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Position-candidate matchingWatson, John B.^^^^^ Hotelling, HaroldGuilford, Joy^^^^^^^^ Thorndike, E. L.Cattell, Raymond^^^^ Descartes, Rene*Helmholtz, Hermann*Pinker, Stevenfor measuring psychological aspects of behavior (psychometrics). I also owed particular debt to giants in statistics. To better understand the sources of my knowledge, I decided to record the names of giants to whom my studies owed much (see Table 1), then discover how many of these were listed among Burke’s polymaths. Giants in the fields of knowledge to whom I owe debts are listed in Table 1 along with uses to which I have put my knowledge in my sixty-year (and ongoing) career. Of the twenty giants I list, five (those marked with an *) make it into Burke’s list-of-five-hundred-polymaths. Accepting Burke’s list as authoritative, there were more specialists than polymaths contributing to the knowledge important in my career in science. As with all professional and leadership roles, my career has required a variety-of-knowledge-and-skill-in-depth for survival … overlooking for the moment the good luck of at least modest good health. Robinson’s insight seems correct. “Universities and professions are chiefly organized for the benefit of specialists, not polymaths. … specialists … receive greater funding … (and) more recognition … than polymaths do.”Burke packages his chapters by time period. The polymaths in each period are described, each at paragraph length at the most. His biographies often produce introductory sentences of this kind: (The named polymath) “was active as a philosopher, theologian, lawyer, mathematician and astronomer as well as a diplomat and cardinal, was driven by the idea of reconciling conflicts” (p 37) … listing the polymath’s fields of expertise. Another sentence or two and that biography is complete … a polymath like Leonardo da Vinci receiving a bit more attention in different segments of Burke’s book.When outstanding performance is expected by the person himself/herself or by those around him/her, that person’s responsibilities require knowledge and skills of various kinds that go well beyond the instinctive, the casual, the ordinary. Activities like baby-sitting an infant, driving a car at speed limit on a super-highway, leading a classroom, building a marriage, hosting a formal dinner party for cherished friends, or contributing a crucial idea during a meeting of an important committee all require a variety of sound judgments and multi-faceted knowledge/background/skills. In a way, all but the least able among us, those unable to be responsible for their own lives, are required to be “polymaths” in at least one sense of that word.ReferencesBurke, Peter (2020) "The polymath: A cultural history from Leonardo da Vinci to Susan Sontag" Yale University Press, New Haven CT, xi + 327 pagesBellevue, Washington21 September 2020Copyright © 2020 by Paul F. Ross All rights reserved.

In his introduction to this book, Peter Burke cites a definition of polymath as "someone who is interested in learning about many subjects." It might be more accurate to say that a polymath is someone who actually "mastered" a number if not many subjects. A true polymath would also be widely viewed as a "genius," an issue Burke fails to address. Oh ... and Susan Sontag or that smooth-talking fraud Jacques Derrida a "polymath"? Move over Leonardo, Thomas Jefferson, and Goethe. Let the small fry have your place at the high table!

Very detailed