“Jack of all trades, master of none”— a colloquial phrase for someone with a variety of skills but none at a level of mastery. I even used it as my topic for my undergrad university entrance essay, talking about how I had a lot of skills that led me to my choice of major and how potential acceptance would allow me to eventually “master” one skill. In recent years, though, the “complete” saying made its way ’round the world wide web, “jack of all trades, master of none, but oftentimes better than master of one,” although from what I could find, the last part is actually a 21st century addition and is not originally part of the phrase. While a bit cheesy to see on Etsy prints, I really find value in the addition. It shows that there is inherent worth in having a wide skill or knowledge base over only knowing a sole topic. Personally, I think masters of one still have value and can help push fields into new frontiers, but, well, so can jacks of all trades, no? Why can’t you be a master of two? Or maybe a master of an interdisciplinary field? Or someone who masters things consecutively in fields with the same base skills? Or maybe you’re just really good at mastering things?

The previous dilemma and my personal thirst for information and experience brought me into the discourse of polymathy and ultimately deciding how you want to structure your endeavors, if it even is a choice at all.

Wikipedia defines a polymath as “an individual whose knowledge spans a substantial number of subjects, known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems.” People such as Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Benjamin Franklin, and Marie Skłodowska–Curie fall into this category, though of course there are many, many more, known and unknown. You or I could or can fall into this category if we really want, in the same way a term like “polyglot” may bring to mind Steve Kaufmann or J. R. R. Tolkien but just refers to someone who speaks many languages. That “poly-” prefix tells us the most important thing– multiples– and is exactly what we need to describe someone like, oh, say the gorgeous Hedy Lamarr, another polymath, who not only graced our eyes as an actress but is also considered the mother of WiFi for her inventions.

Looking at the people listed, you might notice da Vinci and call to mind the term “Renaissance man.” Depending where you look, some sources distinguish a polymath from a Renaissance man, where the latter is a specific subset of the former, while others consider them closer to being synonymous. I’ve seen some people distinguish that a polymath is not limited by subjects while a Renaissance man has the set fields of the time to follow to be a well-rounded individual (art, literature, music, math, athletics, etc.). Others conversely find that a Renaissance man is a polymath that looks for mastery or a high level of achievement in a few select skills of their choice. Personally, I used to think that a polymath wants to know a little of everything, while a Renaissance man wants to know a number of specific things. Either way, there is not a clear distinction.

From more searching into how these differences are categorized (because I really seem to be keen on putting things into categories), I’ve seen a few major breakdowns. One such included a timeline here, but I felt as though it was somewhat questionable in its info. On the other hand, researchers from Michigan State University looked at creativity and productivity in careers in this study here that breaks it down into six typologies:

The colors in the figure above show different types of activities/fields a successful person has. You can see that in Type 1, the person has a specialty and does not move from it, while the others show varying patterns. Type 2, for instance, jumps around many interests before settling, while Type 5 spends time maturing one skill at a time. The paper itself is really neat as it not only recognizes success in different methods, but also considers outside factors such as age, gender, and variability in fields. I saw the authors also write blogs on similar topics, one of which I wanted to point out is in an interview with Akito Arima, a renowned Japanese poet and award-winning nuclear physicist. Hearing how one cultivates this duality in skill as well as differences in cultural aspects gives much inspiration, and you can read it here for yourself if it piques your interest.

You may notice the picture doesn’t perfectly align with the concepts here, and that’s ok. The point I want to make is that again, there are varying manners to go about learning. If I wanted to make the picture fit better, I think I would make I-shaped extremely deep to be the specialist and the comb-shaped one somewhat longer and shallower for the generalist as they encompass more topics but not as in-depth, for instance. This could easily be changed to fit the topics in a variety of ways, so don’t come at me here, but overall I think it is another valid way to sort differences in knowledge banks.

I personally find solace in the one with the six typologies. There is a reassuring quality in knowing you still have time to explore and gain proficiency in other subjects, or honestly, gain mastery in general. The feelings of life being short and wanting to accomplish something already weigh down on my shoulders, but then the weight multiples by having to decide what that should be and coping with the fact that if you don’t hit your peak “productivity” early in life for some fields, your odds of significant progress are low. I like seeing that there is always a potential “next” if I so desire.

In terms of how I want to structure my own life, I feel it will be somewhere between Type 3 and Type 6. As a child, I explored a variety of subjects interchangeably and was more of a multipotentialite than a specialist, but as an adult I have to put majority focus on just one or two. Right now as a graduate student, I am allowing myself to “master” a knowledge in medical mycology/fungal cell biology. In my free time, though, I still try to learn outside my focus, like maintaining old skills (playing accordion barely, practicing Spanish barely, etc.) and slowly trying new ones without putting pressure on myself (studying art history slowly, starting Chinese slowly, etc.). After I finish graduate school, I can see myself pursuing different paths depending on where life goes. I can see myself returning to teaching as a career, possibly starting a family, spending some time learning natural and home skills (I want to raise bees desperately), maybe go back to school for linguistics or physics, and eventually pursue a tattoo apprenticeship. Money and time permitting, I want to continue learning languages and traveling, try pottery and glassblowing classes, get more into rock climbing and hiking, become a better cook and baker, learn how to fix cars, and maybe try my hand at breeding snakes. I say all this, but I might be tempted by the freedom a career in academia can provide and become a Type 2, even if I don’t see it as ideal right now.

Regardless of where I go in life, I see the power and opportunities a polymath mindset provides. The question becomes: why try to be one? For me, I love the interconnectedness and interdisciplinary thought it helps develop. Believe it or not, that was actually the topic of my grad school entrance essay (how I managed to reference both entrance essays in one post is rather funny to me). The more you learn, the more you see subjects relate to each other. For me, the satisfaction is enough, but for others it can be a selling point for coming up with business ventures and new concepts in your field. And, as more and more interdisciplinary fields emerge, you can more easily fill in the gaps. Transferable skills are another plus. I am always surprised how much I use photography skills in my cell bio microscopy work. In reverse, baking and candy-making got easier for me after I took an intensive organic chemistry lab in undergrad. Generally speaking, too, the more you know, the easier it will be to learn the next thing.

I guess the next step would be thoughts on how to become a polymath, or how to adopt a similar mindset? I don’t know if I could define a singular answer. We all learn and excite and experience ups and downs in life differently. Having a desire to know more and trying one’s best to pursue it (or make legitimate plans to do so later) seems to be a unifying theme. Personally, I find the world so unreal and ineffable that it is hard not to want to explore it all. Similar to how nobody could break the 4 minute mile until Roger Bannister did it, and then shortly after many people could not only run it fine, but even beat it, sometimes knowing it is possible to do a thing removes the biggest mental barriers. So from here, please take away that you can have multiple interests and pursue them legitimately. Go on now, go do something! 🙂

Happy reading,
-Beppa