Learn, like a polymath, how to teach yourself anything, develop multidisciplinary expertise,
and become irreplaceable, written by Peter Hollins, narrated by Russell Newton.
Think of the smartest, most successful people history has ever known.
Which names come to your mind?
Be it Einstein, Da Vinci, Bill Gates, Isaac Newton, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, or someone
like them, their success can be attributed to one common factor - they were all polymaths.
This means that they specialized and were knowledgeable in several different domains,
and they integrated these disparate fields of study to create art,
come up with scientific inventions, and so on.
Though this might sound intimidating and only achievable for those who are
naturally highly intelligent, anyone can become a polymath with the right mindset and attitude.
You may have heard that it’s better to specialize or master
one skill rather than be a jack of all trades.
Some cultures even have sayings like “a man with twelve talents has nothing to eat for dinner."
However, the modern workplace increasingly requires a more
diversified skill set in order to thrive and achieve success.
To be the best in the world at one thing,
you need to be better than everyone else who specializes in that field.
But to be great, without being the best, at three or more subjects simultaneously is not only rare,
but also significantly easier than being the greatest of the great in one field.
As such, being a polymath can be critical to leading a successful professional life,
and in this book, we’re going to discuss how you can start thinking like one too.
Two Paths to Polymathy
Over the years, several theories have been
presented to explain what makes someone a polymath.
One such theory is Howard Gardner’s notion of multiple intelligences.
To understand this theory, we first need to delve into what
the traditional view of intelligence has been.
Historically, intelligence has been perceived in fairly one-dimensional ways.
Your intellectual capacity was thought to be fixed at birth as a result of
your genetic inheritance, without any possibility of change in the future.
This intelligence mainly consisted of one's ability to comprehend language and logic,
which could be measured using some standardized tests, such as IQ tests.
(LumenLearning, Keith 2009)
Since then, much progress has been made in broadening our concept of intelligence.
Gardner, a Harvard psychologist, considered the traditional view
of intelligence insufficient for explaining how different people learn and exhibit their smarts.
Where those who are highly articulate or able to solve complex logical problems
are often considered to be conventionally intelligent, he emphasized those who are
gifted in more creative fields, such as architecture, music, and dance.
Those who excel in creative fields rather than logical ones are often labeled as “learning
disabled,” thought to be suffering from ADD, or are simply cast off as underachievers.
This is because most classrooms cannot accommodate the ways of learning these
individuals need to become more proficient in different subjects, and as a result,
these learners don’t excel in areas they are actually quite capable of grasping.
Gardner’s theory revolutionizes this outdated approach to intelligence.
So what is his theory of multiple intelligences all about?
According to Gardner, we all possess at least seven unique
forms of intelligence through which we learn and retain information.
All of these types of intelligence can be cultivated with the right learning tools,
although some individuals are more developed in certain forms of intelligence compared to others.
His system outlines the following different types of intelligence -
Linguistic intelligence
Individuals with high levels of linguistic intelligence are generally articulate and
adept at expressing themselves through spoken or written words.
They find it easy to learn new languages, enjoy reading various kinds of literature,
playing word games or debating, and generally have a unique way with words.
Such individuals commonly take up lawyering, writing, public speaking,
journalism, and other language-related jobs.
Logical-mathematical intelligence
People who possess logical-mathematical intelligence are attuned to logical
thinking and have excellent powers of reasoning or deduction.
They are good at thinking abstractly about problems that involve various concepts or
numbers, which makes them temperamentally suited to maths and the natural sciences.
These skills are useful for those involved in programming,
scientific research, accountancy, etc.
Spatial intelligence
Spatially intelligent individuals are great at visualizing information and
processing or manipulating it in critically evaluative ways.
This is similar to logical-mathematical intelligence, except spatial intelligence
usually involves physical spaces or environments and the objects placed within them.
Architects, painters, and engineers are some examples of people with high spatial intelligence.
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence
Having bodily-kinesthetic intelligence means possessing the ability to use your
body and physical movements to retain information.
People who have successfully developed this type of intelligence prefer to learn in a
more hands-on fashion that involves dynamic activity rather than excessive thinking.
They are also good at expressing themselves through their body language.
Athletes, gym instructors, dancers, and actors are all intelligent in this way.
Musical intelligence
Musically intelligent individuals learn through sounds, rhythms, patterns, beats, and tones.
Their talent lies in being able to produce, perform, and appreciate music.
Conductors, songwriters, music teachers,
instrumentalists and singers possess this type of intelligence in abundance.
Interpersonal intelligence
Interpersonal intelligence involves having a keen awareness and sensitivity to the emotions,
mental states, and desires of other people.
These individuals are conventionally known as
“people smart” and can hit it off with just about anyone they meet.
Interpersonally intelligent people tend to have many friends,
learn through their interactions with others, and are generally empathetic in nature.
This type of intelligence is common among psychologists, salesmen, politicians, etc.
Intrapersonal intelligence
This form of intelligence is the opposite of the previous one in
that it involves being deeply aware of your own spiritual, mental, and emotional self.
Individuals who possess intrapersonal intelligence are deeply aware of
their strengths and weaknesses, fears, motivations, desires, and capacities.
Counselors, social workers, and philosophers are generally high in intrapersonal intelligence.
(LumenLearning, Keith 2009) (SimplyPsychology, Marenus 2020)
While these are the seven main categories of intelligence in Gardner’s system, he would
later go on to add three more - naturalist, existentialist, and spiritual intelligence.
Though existential and spiritual intelligences in particular have received much attention recently,
Gardner claims that these types are qualitatively different from the original seven laid out above.
As the names suggest, naturalist intelligence involves being able to distinguish between nuances
inherent to plants, weather patterns, animals, and other natural phenomena.
Existentially intelligent people are proficient at tackling life’s deepest
questions, such as why we exist, whether God exists, and so on.
Lastly, spiritual intelligence is the ability to place one’s actions and life within a broader
context in meaningful ways that give us direction and inspire us to action.
(LumenLearning, Keith 2009)
Now that we’ve laid out what kinds of intelligence exist,
we come to how these categories relate to becoming a polymath.
By one possible view, being a polymath involves becoming
proficient in at least three of these multiple intelligences.
For example, a counselor may treat his or
her patients effectively through their interpersonal intelligence.
However, to be a polymath who excels in this field, they may also want to
develop their linguistic, intrapersonal, and logical-mathematical intelligences.
Similarly, an artist might well be high in spatial or musical intelligence,
but developing their interpersonal, linguistic, and intrapersonal intelligences might help
them achieve greater success than what they would have managed by just being good at art.
Adherents of this view hold that increasing your
skills or knowledge can primarily be done in a compartmentalized fashion,
wherein training your various intelligences one by one helps one achieve polymathy.
For detractors, It’s unclear how distinct these intelligences really are,
or whether science shows that they actually exist.
Nonetheless, Gardner’s ideas remain an influential theory
that is particularly popular among educators.
Besides this, there is another prominent view of what makes
a polymath, and this perspective is described in the next section.
This next view of what makes a polymath has some things in common with both the
traditional view of intelligence as well as Gardner’s multiple intelligences.
We’ll refer to it as the biological view of intelligence,
since it is heavily dependent on the structure and development of your brain.
The human brain is one of the most complex organs in our entire body,
with close to 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion connections all
interacting with each other to coordinate our daily functions.
Different parts of our brain are responsible for managing their own separate functions,
and being a polymath requires these parts to be well developed individually,
as well as in connection to the whole.
As you’ll see, one part of your brain is responsible for logical thinking,
while another controls your ability to interpret language.
According to the biological view of intelligence, to become a polymath,
you need a brain whose distinct parts are developed beyond the average in
ways that facilitate higher order logical or linguistic intelligence.
To find out more about this theory, read on.
You might have come across the notion
of some people being left-brained whereas others are right-brained.
If you’re the kind of person who is methodical and always thinking rationally, you fit into the
former camp, whereas more artistically oriented individuals fall into the latter category.
(Healthline, Weatherspoon 2019)
This theory is partly based on the way scientists
have formulated the function of specific parts of our brain.
To understand this in greater depth,
we need to familiarize ourselves with some basics on brain biology.
Our brains consist of three overarching parts - the cerebrum, the cerebellum, and the brain stem.
The cerebrum is divided into two hemispheres, which control processes like movement,
speech, hearing, vision, regulation of emotions, reasoning capabilities, etc.
Each hemisphere is then divided into four lobes, which individually perform
the aforementioned, along with other functions.
These are called the frontal, temporal, occipital, and parietal lobes.
(Healthline, Seladi-Schulman, 2018)
The frontal lobe can be found in the forward region of our
head and is responsible for many essential functions of our brain.
This includes emotional regulation, reasoning,
planning, and most importantly, determining our personality.
Its role in controlling the way we express ourselves, memory, language, impulse control,
sexual behaviors, and more makes it central to the way others perceive us.
The temporal lobe, located on the sides of our head near our ears,
is primarily engaged in two distinct roles.
The first role is controlling visual memory, which helps you remember people's faces, objects, etc.
The second is managing your verbal memory, which helps you interpret language and speech.
Besides these functions, the temporal lobe also plays a part in the formation
of long-term memories and the retention of smells.
The parietal lobe is largely responsible for our spatial intelligence.
Moreover, it also plays a role in interpreting sense data that is
related to vision, hearing, pain, and other sensations.
The parietal lobe combines all the various inputs it receives from our
senses to facilitate cognition and thinking.
(KenHub, Shahid, 2020)
Lastly, the occipital lobes, which can be found at the back of your head,
are mainly responsible for processing visual information.
This includes colors, shapes, lighting, etc.
As you can see, these four lobes that together make up the cerebrum are involved in functions
related to interpreting various forms of sensory input to allow for our cognitive processes.
However, the cerebellum and brainstem, the two other main parts of the brain,
are also significant for our routine functioning.
The cerebellum can be found below the cerebrum and
is crucial in coordinating operations that are related to physical movement.
It helps us maintain our posture and balance while walking,
allows motor functions such as riding a bicycle,
and facilitates motor learning-related activities like learning how to play an instrument.
It also plays a part in regulating our speech.
(MedicalNewsToday, Fisher 2018)
While the cerebellum makes many of our voluntary movements possible,
the brain stem is in charge of controlling our involuntary processes.
This includes our breathing, regulation of our heartbeat,
sleep and eating cycles, sensitivity to pain, etc.
The brain stem is particularly important because all information to the cerebrum and cerebellum
passes through it first, making any damage to it the most catastrophic of any part of our brain.
(KenHub, Crumbie, 2020)
You would be forgiven for thinking that you have mistakenly stumbled across a biology textbook,
but this information is essential to our purpose—the distribution of functions
across different parts of our brain might tell us something important about being a polymath.
If we were to reject Gardner’s multiple intelligences as being
the root of polymathic abilities in favor of this biological view,
a polymath would be someone with a well-developed brain with a particularly advanced cerebrum.
We know that the brains of intelligent people have more folds in them, which
increases their surface area and allows for a higher density of neurons overall.
Thus, if specific parts of your brain, such as the frontal lobe or the parietal lobe,
were to have a higher number of folds, that might explain the source of polymathic ability.
The former being denser would point to improved reasoning skills,
which the latter could indicate heightened linguistic abilities.
One might be tempted to accept this proposition given that Gardner’s theory appears more abstract,
while the biological view seems more scientifically grounded and thus reliable.
Alternatively, we could also combine the two theories to
understand what it takes to become a polymath.
A person with high spatial intelligence might
just be someone whose parietal lobes have matured extensively.
Similarly, an individual who is strong in logical-mathematical intelligence could
simply be someone whose frontal lobes have grown beyond what might be considered the average.
This points to a similarity in both theories, which is their delineation
of specific functions to either a particular type of intelligence, or a specific part of our brain.
However, it’s important to note there is a difference between talking about various types
of intelligences in a way similar to Gardner, and actually believing these intelligences to exist.
Saying that someone is musically intelligent
does not mean that Gardner’s idea of musical intelligence exists.
Someone could simply be prolific at music composition by virtue
of possessing a well-developed brain.
So which is it?
Is Gardner right, or does the biological view paint
a more accurate picture of what makes a polymath?
Or is it a combination of both?
You might be relieved to know that, in truth, both of the preceding theories about polymathic
abilities are deeply flawed and fail to do a good job of explaining what makes someone a polymath.
It might be tempting to think that polymaths simply have more developed brains than we do, or
that they are smarter in ways that we just aren’t, but neither of these possibilities is accurate.
While both theories sound perfectly reasonable in their own right,
neither has been sufficiently backed by scientific research to be taken seriously.
To take Gardner’s multiple intelligences,
there is nothing to suggest that there are actually distinct “intelligences” at play
when individuals show proficiency in a certain field such as music or debate.
The types of intelligences as Gardner lays them out are also hard to measure and evaluate.
Some, like intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligence, can be hard to define at all.
One factor that makes these barriers significantly worse is that Gardner has refused to outline
specific components of each intelligence type or suggest ways in which they can be verified.
Instead, he has chosen to simply describe them extensively,
which brings his theory on par with any other abstract theory on intelligence.
(PsychologyToday, McGreal 2013)
Regardless of these issues,
there have been fairly rigorous efforts to prove the validity of his theory.
Researchers have improvised and come up with their own guidelines of assessment,
but none of these have proven conclusive in establishing Gardner's theory.
The general consensus appears to be that each form of intelligence
he highlights has a high degree of correlation with other forms.
So if a person has high logical-mathematical intelligence,
part of the reason behind that is because they also have high linguistic intelligence.
One of Gardner’s intelligence types, naturalistic intelligence,
was found to be correlated with all seven other types.
(PsychologyToday, McGreal 2013)
Despite all its flaws, Gardner’s theory does do some things right.
It rightly undermines the authority of IQ tests,
making it clear that you do not necessarily need a high IQ to be intelligent or a polymath.
It also expresses the notion that one isn’t intelligent in permanent ways,
and that mental abilities can fluctuate with the right approach and tools.
This conclusion will be instrumental in our discussion of how to become a polymath,
because it suggests that anyone can master a diverse set of skills.
However, these ideas cannot compensate for the fact that ultimately there is very little,
if any, scientific research supporting Gardner's theory.
Even if there was, being a polymath isn’t just about
acquiring a ton of knowledge in different domains.
You need to be able to use this knowledge in collaborative ways, and there is nothing in
Gardner’s theory to suggest that someone with, say, intrapersonal, interpersonal,
and linguistic intelligence can necessarily use all three together as opposed to individually.
This brings us to the biological view, and why exactly it fails to explain polymathic abilities.
Many of the criticisms of this approach are similar in structure to the critique
of Gardner’s theory, namely because both seek to isolate functions and types of intelligence
in ways that are not scientifically useful in understanding intelligence.
The claim that certain parts of our brain exclusively handle certain functions is
simply misleading, and one can see this even by knowing the very basics
of what roles various parts of our brain play.
There is great overlap between, say,
the way different lobes contribute to the interpretation of sense data.
A great example of this is when we listen to music.
Based on the descriptions of what each lobe in our brain does,
you might think that music is primarily interpreted through
our temporal or parietal lobe since these sections process auditory information.
However, not only does listening to music require different regions in both of these lobes that are
responsible for separate functions, but it also involves the frontal lobe and even the cerebellum.
As such, listening to music, like so many other activities, requires almost all of our brain.
Another reason the biological view fails is that
we exert very little control over how different parts of our brain develop.
Ninety percent of our brains develop before the age of five.
(Brown, Jernigan 2012) If someone wanted to be a polymath based on this view, they would be placing
an undue burden on factors like upbringing, culture, etc., in shaping our abilities.
From a biological perspective, there would be no way for one to “acquire” polymathic
abilities since that would be entirely contingent on external considerations.
This lends credence to the fallacy wherein intelligent people are smart just because they
won the genetic lottery, and there is no scope for improvement for those who didn’t luck out.
Thankfully, we know these claims to be false, and one can indeed “become” a polymath.
All of these points, when considered together,
make a damning case against the biological view of polymathy.
Consequently, the theory of left and right brains becomes highly suspect as well.
This theory is another way of saying that particular parts of
our brain are responsible for specific functions.
What makes these theories so appealing is that they appear to give us greater
insight into who we are, or why we aren’t who we want to be.
If you’re good at math, it’s because you’re left brained,
and if you’re good at composing music, then it’s your right brain dominance expressing itself.
While these explanations are attractive for their simplicity,
things are never quite this straightforward.
There is a complex web of biological factors that
make someone more attuned to logical thinking versus artistic expression.
Like in the case of listening to music,
both of them involve different parts of the brain all working together.
This brings us to the fundamental truth about being and becoming a polymath - you
don’t need to be intelligent in specific ways or have a certain
level of brain development to achieve polymathic abilities.
Anyone can become a polymath through the tools and ideas expressed in this book,
no matter who you are or what your general intelligence level.
Cross-Pollination as the Key
If you want to become a polymath, there are two things you need in abundance - a willingness to
learn new and different things, along with the time and effort that goes into learning them.
There is nothing inherently special about polymaths;
they have simply taken the time to learn the things they wanted to be good at.
In some ways, learning is a skill in itself.
Acquiring new skills requires discipline and unwavering focus,
especially when the thing you’re trying to learn is challenging or alien to your knowledge base.
The fact that we’re constantly being told to specialize instead of generalizing our skill set
makes it easier and more tempting to abandon our efforts at diversifying our areas of expertise.
Warnings against being a generalist have been made for several hundreds of years,
with Shakespeare receiving one of the first.
Several cultures have their own sayings that illustrate this warning too.
In Eastern Europe, for example, one reads, “Seven trades, the eighth one—poverty."
While these beliefs may have been relevant at a certain period of time, our modern
era is one where change is constant and rapid.
We need to arm ourselves with multiple useful skills to stay relevant and retain value in
an increasingly competitive economic world, no matter what it is that we do.
This brings us to a concept that is becoming increasingly relevant
in the business world - cross-pollination.
Ordinarily, cross-pollination refers to pollen from one type of
crop mixing with crops of another type, resulting in the creation of hybrids.
This is often done intentionally to create all sorts of unique combinations.
The same concept is applied to business,
wherein acquiring expertise in disciplines or skills that are unrelated to each other
results in uniquely qualified candidates who think in creative and productive ways.
This perception has also been backed by several studies in recent times.
One report by Lee Fleming in Harvard Business Review examined 17,000
patents and found that innovators with qualifications in disparate fields were
less likely to produce financially viable ideas than their counterparts.
However, it also found that when these innovators do experience a creative breakthrough, the result
is of “unusually high value—superior to the best innovations achieved by conventional approaches."
Another study by Brian Uzzi, a professor at Northwestern University, analyzed more
than 26 million scientific research papers dating hundreds of years apart.
He found that the papers which ended up being most influential
were composed by teams made up of people with diverse backgrounds.
A third enquiry by David Epstein in his book Range has revealed
that influential scientists are much more likely to have diverse
interests outside of their primary area of research than the average scientist.
Lastly, the investigations of Robert Root-Bernstein and Michele Marie
Root Bernstein have established that the more artistic interests scientists hold,
the more likely they are to gain eminence in their field.
These scientists noticeably integrated skills they had acquired through their artistic interests,
be it visual arts or music, into their professional scientific work.
This made them more likely to be cited and receive prestigious awards like the Nobel Prize.
These studies are just the tip of the iceberg given the amount of research that
has been done on the correlation between polymathy and success.
All of these make a very strong case for diversifying your skill set given
the advantages it’s been shown to have instead of specializing in one trade alone.
However, there is one more study that will be crucial
to our understanding of what exactly a polymath is and how you can become one.
Michael Araki is one of the few theorists who has attempted to
create a system that exactly describes what components go into being a polymath.
Generally, the word polymath refers to someone who is intellectually oriented,
or someone who is simply good at many different things, and even
as an ideal that should be pursued but can never actually be reached.
The problem with definitions like these is that they don’t illustrate degrees well.
Exactly how intellectually bent does a polymath need to be?
How many different things do I need to be good at,
and how can I measure how good I am at those things?
Problems like these can make achieving the goal
of polymathy harder, but Araki poses a neat solution to them.
According to Araki, there are three main components of being
a polymath - breadth, depth, and integration.
Breadth is the largest category of the three,
and consists of the knowledge you have of different subjects or skills.
Often this is considered to be the only important component of polymathy,
but Araki warns against making such an inference.
Breadth only includes the superficial knowledge you have of certain areas.
So if you’ve slightly familiar with Freudian theory, your knowledge of
psychology along with other areas of interest forms a part of your breadth.
Depth refers to the vertical accumulation of knowledge in specific fields.
This, combined with breadth, makes up the store
of your total knowledge across various disciplines and topics.
However, these two factors aren’t enough to make you a polymath.
You could be incredibly knowledgeable about psychology, philosophy, and political theory,
but that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re adept
at using your knowledge in one field across the others.
This is where integration comes in.
The final piece of the polymath puzzle rests in your ability to connect, articulate,
and synthesize disparate disciplines together to be creative in novel ways.
This combination of depth, breadth,
and integration is very similar to the cross-pollination theory outlined above.
The latter involves taking two divergent types of pollen and bringing them together
to create something altogether new, and that’s exactly what Araki’s theory of polymathy states.
You take at least three different, disparate disciplines or skills, get
to know them sufficiently well, and combine them instead of using individual skills separately.
To take the example of Leonardo da Vinci, he wouldn’t be a polymath if he were just
good at drawing, efficient at doing math, and possessed the ability to invent things.
He’s considered a polymath because he used mathematical principles in his artwork,
which he in turn employed to come up with inventions.
He cross-pollinated (or integrated) his three skills in ways few else have been able to.
Araki’s theory of polymathy solves all of
the problems we highlighted with alternative definitions earlier.
It gives you an idea of how to measure your expertise in a given field and also
tells you how skilled you need to be to qualify as a polymath.
Both of these functions are served by the integration component.
If you don’t know enough about your chosen topics, you will likely fail to integrate them together.
Likewise, if you are successful in integrating them, you can
safely conclude that you’ve sufficiently mastered the topics you’re trying to integrate.
Guidelines and a Plan
Now that you’ve familiarized yourself with what a polymath is and how anyone can become one, it’s
time to put all the concepts to use and formulate actual guidelines for achieving polymathy.
These guidelines rely on your ability to cross-pollinate different subjects
and then integrate them in efficient and creative ways.
Here’s how you can do that -
Step 1
Choose the different areas you want to achieve expertise in.
You should pick a minimum of three that are sufficiently distinct from each other.
For example, learning about Freudian theory and Jungian
psychology wouldn’t count since they are both subsets of the same subject.
Instead choose a combination like psychology, philosophy, and political theory.
Even better if these areas or fields have some relevance to your work.
Step 2
Start by establishing some breadth, which involves
gaining some superficial knowledge about the areas of interest you’ve chosen.
The citations on Wikipedia pages for your topics are often a great place to start.
You can also simply read the first five to
ten articles that show up on rudimentary Google searches.
At this stage, all you’re trying to do is get to know your topics on a basic level.
Step 3
This is where we add some depth, and there are several ways you can do this.
Depending on the type of media you prefer,
you can approach learning about your topics in different ways.
If you prefer reading, look for some books on Amazon.
Alternatively, you can search for introductory, intermediate,
and advanced online courses if you prefer a more audio-visual method of learning.
If your topics are academic disciplines like in our example, this should be fairly simplistic.
However, in some cases you might need to use a combination of different resources like books,
podcasts, YouTube, online courses, etc.
Step 4
While performing the previous step, you’ll likely discover that your
topics of interest are far too broad, and that you need to choose subtopics
within them in order to gain a better understanding of the topic as a whole.
So you might choose particular fields within philosophy like ethics or metaphysics along with,
say, liberalism and totalitarian movements within political theory.
You don’t need to learn everything,
so pick your subtopics depending on what interests you and focus on them.
The more subtopics you choose the better, but at the same time, your choices need to
be practical and manageable so that you can complete your studies and master the topics.
Step 5
Now comes the trickiest step, which is integrating everything you’ve learned together.
Let’s say you know some Freudian psychology, a little about totalitarian movements, and ethics.
One good way to combine all of this is to study the totalitarian governments like the Nazis,
their use of psychological repression as a tool
to control their citizens and the morality of such tactics.
This is close to the way the Frankfurt School
investigated phenomena like the rise of the Nazi party.
Depending on which topics you’ve chosen,
the best way to integrate them is to try and find points of convergence.
In this example, totalitarian governments are by definition oppressive, and so we
look at the psychological ways in which this oppression plays out.
Oppression carries with it strong ethical undertones, but who exactly
is morally responsible for the rise of the Nazis?
Is it Hitler alone, his cabinet, the entire Nazi party, or Germany as a whole?
One can always find areas of convergence; you only need to look diligently enough.
Let’s consider another example of how you can go about becoming a polymath.
Step 1
Pick another set of three disciplines or skills you want to learn.
This time, let’s assume that your interests are theology, philosophy, and logic.
Step 2
Familiarize yourself with these three topics individually.
Start with the basics.
Since you’ve chosen theology and philosophy, you can study the
problem of evil from the latter and the ways God’s existence would address that problem.
The question here is, if God is supposed to be perfect and
completely good, how can he allow evil to exist?
Regarding logic, you’d need to study deductive argumentation to be able to
assess whether claims related to God and evil are valid, sound, true, false, etc.
Step 3
Once you’ve developed some breadth, establish depth.
Go deeper into the areas of your study.
Get to know the two major paradigms of evil, those espoused by Fyodor Dostoevsky and Hannah Arendt.
Then dig deeper into the various theological arguments that might
help you answer why these forms of evil exist.
Lastly, use your enquiries into logic to evaluate the validity of these arguments.
Step 4
We’ve already completed step four because we chose our subtopics early
based on possible connections between these three disparate disciplines.
The problem of evil is a major subtopic in both theology and philosophy,
while deductive argumentation is one of three methods of arguing for or against a claim.
Step 5
Lastly, integrate these three categories together.
Use your knowledge of the three disciplines to ascertain whether there is any way of
reconciling the existence of evil and God together based on logic.
As far as the plan goes, you need to think on a broad level as to what you want to accomplish.
This is where you make sure that you are spending your time the way you want to.
This can be accomplished by following six steps.
First, decide what you want to learn.
This seems obvious, but there are better and worse things to spend your time on.
When considering a course of action, you will want to first consider your strengths and weaknesses.
Often, whether it’s in work or in play, we’re better off emphasizing
and developing our strengths than we are trying to minimize our failings.
After all, no one is going to ask us to do everything, and when we really have trouble,
acquiring help from others is always possible.
But excellence in one area, or a small group of areas, easily transforms us
into experts in our fields, which is a highly desirable place to be.
Emphasizing your strengths when you choose what to spend your time on is a good idea.
Of course, if you want to learn something totally new, that’s also something you can accomplish!
Even if you’re only looking to advance your professional skillset,
you should still consider what you want to do when choosing a subject to learn or a skill to develop.
Career paths are a consideration, but it’s even more important to take into
account what sorts of activities make you happy and unhappy.
You don’t want a degree in accounting if you hate numbers,
after all, even if it would improve your paycheck.
Paths that align with your interests and are emotionally fulfilling are usually more rewarding.
Consider Darlene, who works as a web developer.
She wants to have greater control over the processes that occur on her websites, rather than
outsourcing for code when she needs it to perform certain functions she can’t create herself.
Moreover, she wants to be able to manipulate that code and make it
from scratch so that she completely understands what’s on her pages.
Her vision for her learning is to gain knowledge of more types of code so that
she can be a more competent, better-rounded web developer.
The second step is analyzing your current skills and experience to spot gaps in knowledge.
Where are you lacking compared to your future self?
What do you already know and do well?
What do you still need to learn?
Can other people fill in these gaps in knowledge for you,
or do you need to step up to the plate and seek out additional resources?
Once you find areas in which you need to improve, you will be able to discern
specific topics you can study and skills you should develop to come closer to your goals.
This gives your plan a concrete shape,
because you will know exactly what you are missing to get to Point B.
Darlene already develops web pages for a living and knows the most current versions
of HTML and CSS by heart, but she currently outsources certain types of coding to others.
This leads to problems with version control and gives
her a sense of powerlessness over that aspect of her job.
If she wants to fill that gap in her knowledge,
she needs to study other languages used on the web.
She decides to start with Java,
as that’s the code she most often interacts with without understanding.
Third, identify the proper solution to your problem/deficiency/goal.
This is about surveying your resources.
Part of your approach will depend on your temperament.
Are you a self-starter, or do you learn better in a classroom setting?
Do you need a source of knowledge you can pick up and put down as your schedule allows,
or can you afford to set up regular appointments with a teacher to develop a skill?
Your schedule, income, and preferences all play a
role in determining the right resources to seek and employ.
Lots of learning resources exist in the modern world, from books,
journals, webpages, and podcasts, to seminars, work teams, and formal classes,
to one-on-one instructional training in formal and informal settings.
When choosing a resource to learn from, it’s important to take into
account your own learning preferences, but that’s only one of many considerations.
You must also consider the reputation of your source or teacher, and whether
you will gain any formal credentials from studying with a specific teacher
or demonstrating competence in a certain field.
It’s also essential to think about convenience,
because a class you can’t get to is not useful, no matter how well-regarded the teacher may be.
By contrast, solo studying offers no emotional or technical support from others,
while a course or a tutoring situation may involve substantial help and oversight from someone else.
If this support and community might be valuable in the area you’re studying,
it could be worth paying for.
Darlene is highly motivated but often pressed for time.
She considers community college courses,
learning from books and journals, and even hiring a private tutor, but ultimately decides to engage
in one of the many online programs to help her develop her skills on her own schedule.
These courses won’t automatically get her credentials, but she’s aware that
she could take a skills test to certify herself once she gains skill mastery,
and as she will have an immediate use for Java in her current job,
she’s not worried about being unable to use her new knowledge in the future.
The fourth step is developing your learning blueprint.
Once you know what you want to accomplish,
you should look for people who have already achieved your goal.
These people will serve as a step-by-step guide for how to get to where you want.
If the person is famous or no longer living,
you can research their life to figure out how they became who you want to become.
If they’re not particularly famous or renowned, even better,
as you can approach them personally and ask about their road to success.
Take note of any struggles, education, or personal relationships they had to overcome
or pursue to reach their goals, and try to find ways to mimic this path in your own life.
This can give you deeper insight into skills to
focus on and paths to pursue once your initial research project is complete.
Darlene sits down and has a conversation with her team supervisor about the best ways to advance
her career and land a comparable job to her mentor when the time is right.
He tells her about specific skills she’ll need to learn and
certifications she’ll need to complete once she gains the skills she needs.
He will tell her about the struggles to expect and how to overcome them.
Darlene may ultimately choose a different path,
but researching blueprints provides clarity and information.
The fifth step is to develop measurable goals.
Your learning goals should be simple, specific, and easy to quantify.
You need to set up deadlines where you will measure yourself against your expected
progress using the metrics you devised, and you need to stick to that schedule.
Placing your goals in a public, visible space will increase accountability by
ensuring that others are aware of your project and your expectations.
Remember, you should be acquiring specific, measurable skills and abilities by set points
in time, and these benchmarks should all be in service of your larger learning goal.
If you’ve chosen a more formal environment, your class times may be set for you,
but you must still set aside time to study, learn, and practice on your own.
No class gives you all the practice you need to master its skillset on the teacher’s time.
If you’re engaging in self-study, setting up a consistent schedule
for studying on your own is even more essential.
Keep in mind, genuinely mastering a skill takes a little time even with the best techniques,
so be generous in the study windows you provide yourself.
You don’t only want time to read or watch a video,
but also to reflect upon what you’ve learned, perform meaningful exercises,
and catch and correct the errors you are inevitably going to make.
Darlene marks a schedule for herself based on the units offered in her online course, sets
aside specific times to undertake each course, and allot blocks of time to study each unit.
She also allocates a specific time each week to take the unit’s quiz.
She programs all this into her phone so that she doesn’t forget the plan,
and prints a copy of her calendar to put on her cubicle wall.
She stays on track throughout the months,
and as a result, she will reach her goal of achieving programming proficiency.
Sixth, set aside time throughout the process to reflect on what you’re
learning and reevaluate whether you’re progressing at your maximum capacity.
After all, if one method isn’t working, that doesn’t mean you’re hopeless!
Sometimes all you need is more accountability or greater independence to really shine.
You want a learning plan that gets your skills where you want them to be,
not something that isn’t clicking and is therefore wasting your time.
A chef will always taste their food while they are making it;
you should assess your progress in a similar way.
Darlene sticks diligently to her plan and is happy with her progress,
but finds the course itself a little low on support for her needs.
She solves this problem by approaching her
supervisor with questions when she needs further clarification.
He’s happy to help her along.
Ultimately, she gains the skills she needs and becomes a more efficient, more skilled employee.
Takeaways
•We’re often told in different ways that the key to success is specialization,
and that being a generalist is inadvisable.
Yet, many of the smartest individuals that have ever graced the earth are
renowned for being polymaths with skills across multiple subjects.
•The modern workplace and companies are increasingly reliant on polymathic
individuals to bring them success, making it imperative for us to
diversify our skill set instead of simply mastering one trade and sticking to it.
•But what exactly is a polymath?
Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences might be useful in answering this question.
He lays out seven different intelligences that include musical, spatial, linguistic,
and other abilities that we all possess.
A polymath is simply someone who has developed three or more of these intelligences.
•Alternatively, we have the biological view of polymathy.
According to this perspective, different parts of
our brain are responsible for their own unique functions.
Our ability to write is dictated by one part of our cerebrum,
while the capacity to comprehend writing is controlled by another part.
A polymath is someone with an exceptionally developed brain
whose cerebral lobes have matured beyond the average.
•So which of the two is accurate?
The truth is that both of these theories are
highly flawed and unsupported by any kind of scientific research.
Gardner’s multiple intelligences is simply a theory that can’t be proved scientifically,
while the idea that specific parts of our brain alone conduct certain functions is patently false.
•A true polymath is someone who possesses three components of knowledge - breadth, depth,
and integration.
This is also known as cross-pollination.
Such a person has acquired expertise in at least a few different domains,
and can successfully integrate those domains together instead of treating
them as unrelated and distinct subjects or skills.
So a scientist who is also artistically inclined can use the latter to aid his research in ways
that will make him more successful than the average member of his field.
This has been Learn Like a Polymath, How to Teach Yourself Anything, Develop Multidisciplinary
Expertise, and Become Irreplaceable, Written by Peter Hollins, Narrated by Russell Newton,
Copyright 2020 by Peter Hollins, Production Copyright by Peter Hollins.