Training the Polymath

A polymath is a person who can exercise expertise across several information domains.  We usually hear polymaths referred to as Renaissance men (Or women, though I uncomfortably admit I've never heard that usage.)  Another term is Homo Universalis, though you'd probably have to be a polymath to catch that.

T. E. Rihill writes, "Most ancient scientists were polymaths by today's standards."  Rihill continues, "The organization and professionalization of the sciences is relatively modern phenomenon, having been established only in the the nineteenth century, and the word 'scientist' was not coined until 1834."

Yesterday I was following up research leads related to the decision-support product we're developing and finally started looking into Sidney Harman who purchased Newsweek last August.  Though he's usually described as a businessman and entrepreneur, in the video embedded in the press release he describes himself as a polymath.  He is  currently Presidential Professor and Isaias W. Hellman Professor of Polymathy at USC.  Harman lectures in Law, Medicine Architecture, Business, Journalism, and Technology.  Surely a significant number of domains.

Note that these are not all the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) domains.  This is one of the things that attract me to people like Prof. Harman.  Having worked in the humanities and STEM areas, I have come to understand that the people part of the problem is always more difficult than the technology part.

When people say they have a passion for STEM education, I cringe a bit.  Focusing only on STEM subjects trains mechanics, for the most part.  Oh sure, there will be some who transcend the mechanical application of formula and become artists in their fields.  In my experience, these are also the people who transcend their STEM background.  They trend toward polymathy and are able to synthesize a great many domains to the benefit of their own careers and mankind.

In my corporate engineering life, solving technical problems was usually not too difficult.  There were well-trained, creative people who were passionate about their work.  Intractable problems were rare.  It was usually the coordination of political issues that slowed the solution or sometimes derailed it.  "This isn't a part of our product line, why are we doing it?"  "That's the job of our department, why are they doing it?"  "That guy doesn't know what he's doing?"  "We don't have time to find the right expert in the company, let's figure it out ourselves."  "I can't get anyone to listen to me!  Are they all idiots!"  People are often intractable.

When I was at MIT, I was awarded a scholarship from a company for which I did  not want to work.  I'd spent the interview discussing the novel the interviewer was reading, so I was surprised when the notice arrived.  When I questioned receiving the award, I was told, 'They were looking for someone who could do the math and engineering, but could speak on other topics.'  Apparently they were getting graduates who were superb engineers, but who were not able to dress themselves in the morning.

STEM isn't going to create people who can craft visions and communicate ideas (or tie their shoes).  Complete visions, that consider opportunities and consequences, require polymathy.  Absent this ability to integrate across many domains, we get local optima with undesirable consequences, what retiring Senator George Voinovich called, "the flavor of the month."  Our inability to take a broad view can lead to the counterproductive pooling of power and resources, companies that are too large to fail, for example.

How do we educate polymaths?  Engaging, interdisciplinary experiences are crucial.  However, the tools and techniques for doing teaching them do not appear to be available today.  What techniques exist, are not valued by mainstream educators and institutions, because they aren't funded.  As a result, interdisciplinary educational experiences are often disjoint and uncoordinated.  The contextual relationships that exist between domains, the metaphors that create 'aha' moments are frequently overlooked primarily because educators are too busy to effectively orchestrate the curricula or are not familiar with the parallels.

The required tools and techniques will need to back away from the disciplinary organization that has evolved since the 1800s.  Crossover and chaos will need to be granted asylum in new curricula that allow students to explore the philosophical implications of technology and the mathematics of the arts, for example.  Development of a video game requires math, science, and the fine arts; video games have societal impacts that extend beyond the virtual world.  So curricula structured around video games might be a good example of a way to engage students' emotionally as well as intellectually.

For those who might be interested in more information, Edward O. Wilson's book, Consilience, The Unity of Knowledge provides additional perspectives.  I don't agree with all the details in Wilson's book, but the main points are compelling.  Additionally, there are several videos of Sidney Harman's lectures on Youtube which I've just begun to poke into.  Harman provides edifying and entertaining show.  We would expect no less from Homo Universalis.