<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Dave -<br>
</p>
I am sympathetic with your disappointment when tangential topics are
risen in a thread but then lost or dropped. This is what fresh
threads are made of? Owen used to harp on blatant threadbending,
which is rampant here, but rather than our having collectively
improved ourselves, I think we mostly have just worn him down. I
used to try harder to coin a new thread or "subthread" with the form
"XXX: was YYY" but I'm not sure that helped either. In any case, I
welcome this bend in the Homo Hiveus thread, derived from the
previous one. I think we are in fact talking about <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_the_human_species#List_of_binomial_names">Homo
<i>this-n-that</i></a> here or to be recursive <i>Homo Humanis</i>
(man the human). <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:73d32b11-5fa8-4982-bfa3-137f1a2d7c76@www.fastmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I have been told that Leibniz was the last true polymath — knew "everything there was to know." Obviously not true in any literal sense, but likely mostly true in the sense that he had some depth of knowledge in every subject taught at a typical university of his day. But, as several people have pointed out it would be impossible, today, for any single individual to be a true polymath.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I think of the ideal of "knowing everything there is to know"
somewhat differently than that of being a <i>polymath</i> or a <i>renaissance
man</i> or in the vein of my <i>homo hiveus, homo universalis.
</i><br>
</p>
<p>When I was first working as a systems engineer
(software/hardware) I believed I knew computers from
Schroedinger's equation up through solid state physics through
logic gates and VLSI technology and principles of OSs and
Compilers to algorithms and (pre OO, but implicit OO?)
software/systems design. Of course, that knowledge, in
retrospect looks like a thin film of swiss cheese or maybe a
sierpinski gasket, defined more by it's *holes* than it's
substance.<br>
<i></i></p>
<p>In studying (mildly) this idea I found the Wikipedia entry on
Renaissance Man to defer to Renaissance Humanism, described thus:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Renaissance humanism was a response to the <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian"
class="mw-redirect" title="Utilitarian">utilitarian</a>
approach and what came to be depicted as the "narrow pedantry"
associated with medieval <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism"
title="Scholasticism">scholasticism</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-2"
class="reference"><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_humanism#cite_note-2">[2]</a></sup>
Humanists sought to create a <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenry"
class="mw-redirect" title="Citizenry">Citizenry</a> able to
speak and write with eloquence and clarity and thus capable of
engaging in the <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_engagement"
title="Civic engagement">civic life</a> of their communities
and persuading others to <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue" title="Virtue">virtuous</a>
and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudence"
title="Prudence">prudent</a> actions. This was to be
accomplished through the study of the <i><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitas"
title="Humanitas">studia humanitatis</a></i>, today known as
the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities"
title="Humanities">humanities</a>: <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar" title="Grammar">grammar</a>,
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric"
title="Rhetoric">rhetoric</a>, <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History" title="History">history</a>,
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetry" title="Poetry">poetry</a>,
and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_philosophy"
class="mw-redirect" title="Moral philosophy">moral philosophy</a>.
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My experience at Los Alamos was that folks trained in the hard
sciences often aspired to have broad knowledge and capabilities.
Some merely *affected* such breadth but in such a rich
environment, this often did not stand. At dinner parties, it was
not uncommon to hear someone trying to bluff their way through
some topic they *aspired* to be experts on, only to be confronted
with the fact that someone within earshot was likely *one of* the
world-class experts on the topic. I was humbled by this many
times. <br>
</p>
<p><tangential anecdote> The most acute being when I was fresh
to LANL and attending the first Evolution, Games, and Learning
Workshop formal dinner at Los Brazos (now Gabriels). <br>
</p>
<p>I was standing in line for the buffet and asked by a shorter
elderly gentleman with a pink face and wispy white locks of hair,
lots of silver and turquoise (as did his wife), "what do you do?"
or similar? I (only) had a BS in Physics/Math and lots of CS
courses and had come to work on the Proton Storage Ring but was
quite proud of the practical knowledge I was gaining at this
(then) cutting-edge experimental physics facility. After
blathering on for 10 minutes about everything I knew about
elementary particle physics (not that much really, just enough to
be semi-competent at my job), I asked him what he did, and he said
he was "a university professor" and then I asked him what he
taught and he replied "Physics" but then added that he mostly did
research. I asked him his name, hoping I might be familiar with
some of his publications. It was Murray Gell-Mann... who from my
point of view *was* not only *all of elementary particle physics*
but also *most of* String Theory and Quantum Chromodynamics at
the time. </anecdote>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:73d32b11-5fa8-4982-bfa3-137f1a2d7c76@www.fastmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">So what might a "modern polymath" actually be? My idiosyncratic understanding begins a thousand years ago when I was in 2nd grade and reading A.E. van Vogt's SF novel, "Voyage of the Space Beagle." The hero of the book was a "Nexialist," a new profession and someone who could solve (most often existential for the space ship) problems that the various specialists (physicists, chemists, psychologists, ...) could not.
Fast forward a bit and another SF novel, "Rite of Passage," by Alexi Panshin wherein two more new professions were described: "ordinologist," someone who knew everything there was to know in a particular domain, had it all sorted, organized, and thoroughly indexed; and a "synthesist" who could wander from one ordinologists domain to another and note that this idea or concept or practice would be really useful in this other domain.
A final SF novel, "Polymath," by John Brunner added the notion that a polymath was someone with 'sufficient' knowledge to "make the right decision with imperfect and incomplete information."
A final root was James Burke's TV series, "Connections."</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>The genre of science fiction certainly has it's share of examples
of the "Competent Man" character-trope along with his cousin "Jack
of all Trades". Such characters are particularly handy as
protagonists, antagonists, and supporting characters in Post
Apocalyptic Dystopias as well as the frontierish Space Opera. I
can acknowledge that my own aspirations to be broadly capable and
well rounded is probably as rooted in reading to much Science
Fiction as a kid as having grown up in rural contexts where many
modern services either hadn't penetrated to our locale, or were
prohibitively expensive. Folks "had to make do", and they
did. <br>
</p>
<p><tangent> As an early flight enthusiast, I was totally
enthralled by the idea that the first commercially viable
airplanes (first 20-30 years?) were designed somewhat differently
than the automobile. Firstly, a failure during flight (or worse
takeoff/landing) had higher consequences, leading to more robust
materials, design, and redundancy (dual magnetos/plugs, etc.) but
secondly since the average biplane of the time was likely to be
put to use away from modern conveniences... In particular a
"barnstormer" pilot or "areal explorer" had to understand not only
how to operate the plane, but also meteorology, navigation and
enough mechanical understanding to obtain "local help".
Competency (and tools/materials) in Blacksmithing, Cobblering, and
Sail/Tarp making would go a long way and were still widely found
in the countryside of any (semi?) developed country. My first
(only) airplane was a 1947 Luscombe Silvaire (two-place
taildragger with a 60hp engine) and was the last commercial
airplane to have a fabric wing. The frame/fuselage was aluminum
which was already a very well understood industrial material but
there were *many* issues with understanding whether the airframe
was "aging" well (corrosion and fatigue). It was anecdotally
described to me that the "classic" wood/fabric airframes were
*much* easier to inspect (and repair). </tangent></p>
<p>BTW... I'm a fan of Brunner and Van Vogt. In spite of their
work having become painfully dated (esp VV), they both addressed
some very interesting and broadly important issues in their
work. "Nexialist" and "Ordinologist" are new terms to me... but
nicely apt to this conversation. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:73d32b11-5fa8-4982-bfa3-137f1a2d7c76@www.fastmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">From these roots, the ideal that an individual possess an integrated body of knowledge, transcending traditional specialization silos, that enabled informed and useful communication and exchange of understanding across those same specializations. The key term here is "integrated" something that is impossible to achieve in a modern educational system, even in the most ardent 'liberal arts' institution.
A practical influence on the modern polymath idea comes from Business, the Applied Arts (especially architecture, graphical, and product design), and to a far lesser extent, software development. In all cases it is noted that most work product comes from teams, not individuals. And a real problem with teams is the fact that they are comprised of silo-ed specialists.
Even if there were a specific profession like Nexialism, putting such an individual on each team to facilitate cross-disciplinary communication would not be very effective. Instead it is essential that each member of the team possess sufficiently wide, and integrated, knowledge that they can follow (to a significant extent, but not completely) the contributions of others outside of their own narrow specialization. Everyone needs the ability to recognize how ideas or concepts in other domains might serve as metaphors for solving problems or gaining insights into their own domain.</pre>
</blockquote>
I can attest from my own experience that teams *do* benefit well
from having at least one "synthesist" and in fact often was promoted
myself to "lead" a team simply because I demonstrated that quality,
when in fact the team might have been better served by someone with
better organizational skills and patience for bureaucracy, leaving
me to my own strength of wandering between subprojects, asking the
right questions and sometime offering useful "outsider" solutions.
By the time I was done with working on teams that I didn't form, I
realized that I should *never* accept a leadership role unless there
was a *stronger* synthesist already on the team. While I *could*
provide that role to some extent as manager, the other tasks
involved usually undermined that role.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:73d32b11-5fa8-4982-bfa3-137f1a2d7c76@www.fastmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">The production of such individuals, who were also tier one software developers, was the goal of the program at Highlands.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm not a big sports fan, but from my layman's perspective, a
good systems/software team is a bit more like a baseball team than
some of the other team sports. A good management team is a bit
like the pitcher/catcher team who hopefully keep the rest of the
team from having to exercise their "defensive skills". Each team
member needs to have very solid abilities at throwing and
catching, but it is the hitting and running that "scores the
points". Your program at Highlands might have been more like a
farm-team in some ways, providing good, well rounded experiences
to prepare them for entering the 'big show" as tier one
developers?</p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>