Does the world need polymaths?
While we do need polymaths, the problem with a lot of self described polymaths is that they skip the hard part of different fields and only focus on a &#x27;Gladwellesque&#x27; understanding.<p>I think a better way to be a polymath is to be a real expert on a particular subject, and then augment that with ancilliary knowledge from other fields.  If you claim to understand physics but don&#x27;t know maths, or claim to be an expert on classical literature but don&#x27;t know how to read greek&#x2F;latin, then you aren&#x27;t a polymath but a bullshit artist.<p>The polymaths I respect are people like Peter Medawar, JD Bernal, etc..<p>My particular pet peeve lately is people (especially prevalent in the rationalist sphere) that talk about how Bayesian they are, but don&#x27;t know what a conjugate prior is, or have no understanding of MCMC sampling.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with not knowing either of those two things - but if you don&#x27;t know either, then describing yourself as a Bayesian is just putting on airs.