[octosphere]

Yeah but the article overlooks the many polymaths who spread themselves thinly across a variety of different fields, never achieving true mastery of a particular field. The phrase 'Jack of all trades, master of none' springs to mind. There are however polymaths who achieve mastery of all the fields they choose to pursue, although I imagine they are rare.

[keithwhor]

... is this a joke? The article covers this in almost exactly these words. I wonder how often HN commenters actually read the full text of the article they're commenting on?

> There are, of course, some good reasons why we might be hesitant to pursue multiple interests. One is the fear that we might spread ourselves too thinly if we devote ourselves to more than one avocation. With a divided attention, we would fail to achieve success in any domain – the idea that the “Jack of all trades is the master of none”.

[octosphere]

Oops, my bad. You are right, I didn't read the article fully and presumed it didn't talk about spreading oneself thinly. Thanks for pointing it out ;)

[thejohnconway]

I guess the question is: would these people be significantly better at any of these fields, if they specialised more? That seems like an open question to me.

My personal experience as a jack-of-all-trades is that if I try to specialise, I dry up creatively and get less effective.

[RBerenguel]

I recently found out about the concept of “scanner personality”, which covers what you mention (I’m also a “sufferer” of it). If I specialise (too much) I feel constrained and dry up creatively as well.

[z3t4]

Many world class athletes are also very good at other classes or sports. But by specialising in one event, it will be enough to take them from just outside an OS final in multiple events - to inside an OS final in one event. This can be the difference between a 1 million sponsor contract or no contract.

[suyash]

The articles mentions a criteria that to be a PolyMath one has to make to make at least a major contribution in three different fields. For someone to make a major contribution, by definition they are an expert in that field, therefore there are a fewer people number of Polymaths vs those who are considered as "Jack of all trades".

[ackbar03]

I don't think even Einstein fits by that definition. An instrument as a hobby hardly is a contribution. Da Vinci is probably one of the closest I can think of by that definition and even he said something like "tell me if anything ever was done" since he felt like he never managed to finish anything properly

[yabadabadoes]

The question is really how common each base group is and then how many single field experts each accounts for..

I.e. on one extreme every Expert is a jack of all trades that hasn't reached acknowledgement in more fields. A little absurd, but not as absurd as the other extreme: that all jack of all trades that reach expertise in a field simultaneously get acknowledgement in enough fields to be a Polymath.

The only evidence I see in the article towards that question is the analysis of arts hobbies in Nobel prize winners vs average scientists.

[solinent]

Jack of all trades, mater of none, better than a master of one.