Deconstructing The Polymath

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.