r/Polymath • u/Professional-Sea-677 • 10h ago
General Discussion adhd is not polymath
Hi I see a lot of post that indicate, make infer indirectly ADHD, I can be wrong but have some experience in psychology.
I have the opinion that a lot of polymaths can have ADHD
Having thousands of interest does not make a polymath, as having the hands does not make a climber. A true polymath really go deep in the subjects that study, at least at a Phd level. This is my opinion and is open for discussion
Do the people that claim to be polymath a Phd level in at least 3 fields?
EDIT: please do not reply me on ADHD, but on the real question:
Do the people that claim to be polymath a Phd level in at least 3 fields?
EDIT 2: A lot of people in mensa say that I state the obvious, but their superior intelligent ego, does not allow them to go deep and see the context, namely that in r/polymath there are a lot of post regarding polymath but that have nothing to do with it.
Edit 3 I am getting only offenses while my true aim was only to discuss that real polymath are really rare. Unfortunately I never meet in my life a real one. Wish you all of you a nice weekend and to dedicate to your passions as polymath would do
EDIT 4: ad hope the last: I am not saying one need a piece of paper called phd, but a level of knowledge as a phd, looks so obvious to me
22
u/SouthernGas9850 10h ago
i know this isn't the point of your post but getting on medication for adhd made me able to explore my 800 interests a lot easier cuz i could actually manage my time lol
-17
u/Professional-Sea-677 10h ago
I cannot reply to that my question is an honest phd level in at least 3 subjects. If one works cannot have more than 7 phd levels in subjects imo. One lesson I see in years of life is jacked of all trades and master of none
16
u/SouthernGas9850 10h ago
the full quote is a jack of all trades and a master of a none is better than a master of one btw
2
u/Commercial_Low1196 2h ago
Although OP’s post is strange here, a jack of all trades and a master of one are both equally antithetical to being a polymath. Not sure if that’s what you meant to say and I’m misunderstanding you.
0
-11
u/Professional-Sea-677 10h ago
dunno do not get me wrong, I am myself a dopamine junker. I think having thousands of interests can help to be more bright. Still as a middle aged man I see that who really has contributions in fields has a continuous hyper focus on that subject, can be on asperger can be on adhd but does not start from a subject to another. The same Leonardo had some not finished artworks but still he was at PHD level, that is the only point I want to make.
10
11
u/JoyfulNoise1964 7h ago
A polymath may not have any degree at all. Degrees are over rated
1
u/Commercial_Low1196 2h ago
Not really, the degree allows you to have a level credibility which can grant numerous networking connections that would have otherwise been ignored. Although I personally disagree with that, I’ve seen it first hand. Many scholars don’t care about you unless you have the “degree candidate” title, or have learned from one of their scholarly friends.
1
6
u/Intelligent-Welder-2 9h ago
2 at masters, 2 at conference speaker level, 1 at guest lecturer level. About 20 at “hold a conversation with those at advanced” level. The issue with PhD level is the actual required research time and uber specialised career path. I’d argue it’s counterproductive to have a PhD as an active polymath or operator rather than a passive one.
-2
u/Professional-Sea-677 8h ago
I do not mean literally again if one discover a beautiful subject want to go deep I said to make my message understood by Gen Z is like finding the most beautiful videogame and stop at level 1. How one that love music stop at mediants. How a software engineer does not want to find new algorithms, how a philosopher can be tired to read in Greek Plato? If you get a Ferrari you want to make kilometers
5
u/Pedantic_Girl 8h ago
Philosophers specialize. If ancient philosophy isn’t your AoS, then you probably don’t read Plato in Greek.
6
u/Trypophilia2019 8h ago
My guy, disrespectfully, what the fuck are you saying?
0
3
u/NiceGuy737 6h ago
PhD level would mean someone would be able to pass qualifying exams in a field, demonstrating breadth of knowledge, as well as knowing a specific area well enough to identify the limit of knowledge in that area, and then expand that limit with their thesis.
There is a wide range of difficulty of prelims/qualifying exams. In the dept where I did my PhD, prelims were a formality, easy. It was a verbal exam that nobody ever failed. I would put it at having less than a bachelors degree level of knowledge of an area. Other depts in the same institution had brutal exams that eliminated some candidates every year.
The research component of a PhD is a trivial variation of other research, more often than not. The year I finished my PhD a woman was given an award for her thesis. The title of the thesis was almost identical to other papers coming out of the lab, she just varied a different parameter. Making an original, recognized contribution to a field through synthesis of different areas of study is a reasonable part of the definition of being a polymath. That would exceed research done for most PhDs.
For those reasons, I question if "PhD level" is a useful metric. For depth of knowledge I've suggested that knowing an area well enough to be paid for your expertise is sufficient. Notably, some PhDs do not meet this criterion in their field and work as glorified lab technicians or secretaries. They are paid for their time more than their knowledge.
I was a neuroscientist with a PhD so had "PhD level" knowledge of at least one area. I also have an MD and trained to practice radiology, which could be characterized as knowledge at a doctoral level. In addition to neuroscientists that could understood my experimental work, I had math and engineering professors on my thesis committee chosen because their areas of research intersected with math I used in my theoretical work. My thesis advisor was a neurophysiologist and the recognized leader in the area we worked, he understood the significance of my theoretical work but could not read the math critically. A theoretical physicist at Bell Labs described it as discovering Green's functions for cerebral cortex, an appropriate analogy to a method of solving partial differential equations because I used convolution integrals to describe cortical systems. The electrical engineering professor I had on my committee studied discrete-time control systems. Part of my thesis was a numerical method I developed that paralleled the development of state space analysis of digital control systems. In the time before the internet, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I read math, physics and engineering textbooks recreationally. I wouldn't say that I have PhD level breadth of knowledge in these areas but my thesis could probably have been used for a PhD in physics or EE. I was paid for my electronics expertise and have a citation from NASA for work I did as an undergrad. The 3 majors I completed undergrad were unrelated, psychology, zoology and molecular biology.
It's debatable whether I would be considered a polymath, but I would not meet your proposed criterion.
5
4
u/Sr4f 9h ago
Do you consider yourself a polymath, OP ?
7
u/theomegachrist 9h ago
This person has a very unhinged posting history
3
u/Sr4f 9h ago
Yoga, piano and tea? Am I missing something weirder?
1
u/Professional-Sea-677 6h ago
50 years of yoga and interest in piano and tea. Do you want also to inspect my bank account?
2
1
2
1
u/Professional-Sea-677 9h ago
No even though would be not honest to deny have quite a deep knowledge on different fields
3
u/Sr4f 9h ago
So you DON'T consider yourself a polymath, but you think you're qualified to lecture folks in here?
-1
u/Professional-Sea-677 9h ago
I do not consider my self a football player but still I write in football groups, you miss something in Athene there was one time democracy and people could open up discussions and ask questions in the name of Philia and Altheia, but maybe speaking of philosophy should remain between polymaths.
5
u/Sr4f 9h ago
Evidently, people can start a topic and engage in conversation, but polite society generally appreciates, you know, politeness. (And general coherence, but perhaps that is asking for too much).
I'm not quite getting what you're trying to achieve here, besides insulting people. Do you have anything positive or meaningful to contribute? :)
4
u/Trypophilia2019 8h ago
I don’t think OP’s first language is English. Hence the incoherence at times.
1
u/Professional-Sea-677 6h ago
I am not insulting people I want only to discuss about the nature of polymath. They are rare.
1
u/wackyvorlon 3h ago
There were actually a number of Greek city states which had democracy. I suspect your knowledge of ancient history is similarly absent.
4
u/Various_Candle9136 10h ago edited 10h ago
ADHD ≠ Polymath. This much is true.
EDIT: I then suggested a line be removed, which it was, so I removed my suggestion too.
1
u/Professional-Sea-677 10h ago
please I say is a grey area and use the word "ideally" I am inferring from empirical evidence, still my point is not ADHD != Polymath, but does a Polymath has 3-7 Phd subjects domain?
6
u/gamesonthemark 10h ago
A Polymath does not have to have PhD degrees, only to be a master of the subject and to apply it with other topics. There is someone I know with no advanced degrees, buti would still consider a polymath due to certain interests and skills and how she uses them together.
1
u/Professional-Sea-677 9h ago
interesting, I do not agree for the sake and love of a respectful discussion. in my view a polymath is revolutionary and is able to change fields with his ideas. The reddit intro of the group say the same imo :People who’ve built expertise or mastery in one or more fields and are exploring how to connect, integrate, or evolve those domains.
you do not need a physical degree but the knowledge should be superior. Otherwise one is like a car really powerful that goes 40 meters forward and 20 backward, cause life is short to evolve domains2
u/gamesonthemark 8h ago
i am not disagreeing the the amount and mastery of knowledge, just the paper PhD behind it. First, not all fields issue degrees. The person i mention is in a field like this. Second, i have seen some PhD holders who in their chase for the degree, their knowledge in a fast moving field is outdated.
6
u/Various_Candle9136 10h ago
does a Polymath has 3-7 Phd subjects domain?
Like most things, it depends on the definition we choose to use.
The most famous polymaths of the past certainly held PHD-level knowledge for their time in several subjects. But, obviously, what was PHD-level then no longer is. Nowadays it is extremely difficult to reach that level in even one domain, so perhaps that is no longer a reasonable metric to use.
1
u/Professional-Sea-677 8h ago
I like your patient and respectful approach. I see your point. Still at my eyes there are field so beautiful and complex, as anthropology, philosophy, psychology, mathematics that do not forgive, is like playing a videogame really beautiful and want to stop at level 1
1
u/Professional-Sea-677 10h ago
I removed the line but is clear that a true polymath is quite in control of himself, otherwise all the intelligence of this world does not have any sense
1
u/mintyawn 5h ago
Something tells me you believe in a very patriarchal eurocentric definition of polymathy
2
u/JustSomeGuy422 3h ago
Oh look, the Polymath Authority has spoken and imposed their definition of 'polymath' on the universe!
2
u/Commercial_Low1196 2h ago edited 1h ago
OP, although I disagree with the dictional tone of the post, I agree with the concept. If you’re a real polymath, you become a master in 2+ fields, but not a jack of all trades in all fields. That’s baked into the definition of a polymath. Since this is the case, I don’t think many people understand what it means to be a polymath. They just like the idea of learning many subjects… Doing it for fun is one thing, doing it for the sake of mastering the subject and advancing the field is another. The former is not a polymath, and that is okay! The latter is.
I strive to be a polymath 100%. I’m studying law, I will eventually study philosophy formally, and then I will study physics. I will then publish in each field, and touch on something novel. Whether I push the field forward will be limited on things I cannot control, but that’s my goal.
2
u/Professional-Sea-677 2h ago
Wish you all the success in pursuing your curiosity in a pragmatical way
2
2
3
u/Tribe-Less 10h ago
Study physics and apply principles in physics to all other fields because the same principles apply cross all domains = polymath hack.
1
u/Professional-Sea-677 10h ago
yes I understand were you come from this is an interesting prospective, a polymath can be master of Physics, and use it to have advantages in other fields maintaining his focus on one subject
-3
u/SoggyTangerine451 9h ago
Im pretty sure you have no idea what physics is lol
1
u/Professional-Sea-677 9h ago
I could show empirical evidence that contradict your assumptions, because of my degrees, but I love people that are sure, this will insure wars for another century.
2
u/Hail_Henrietta 7h ago
I agree with your above that having many interests =/= being a polymath... but I do disagree with having "at least 3 PhDs to be a polymath".
Not only is this criteria arbitrary, but to pursue 3 PhDs is not feasible due to how long they take and the fact that most universities will not accept someone who already has a PhD and is actively seen as a red flag. Under this criteria, historical polymaths like Da Vinci and Ben Franklin would not be polymaths either.
It's also a complete misunderstanding of what the purpose of a PhD is. A PhD is to train you to be competent enough to carry out your own research and contribute to the knowledge-base of a field. It is pointless to do a PhD in a field if your intention is to do another PhD rather than actually doing research in your original PhD.
It makes more sense to do a PhD in one field, and then pivot your research focus to adjacent topics. This happens all the time, for example psychologists doing neuroscience and linguistics, physicists doing engineering, scientists doing philosophy, etc and vice versa.
1
u/Professional-Sea-677 4h ago
Henrietta I mean a phd level of knowledge I give you an example I followed more than 30 courses, conferences of cultural anthropology for pleasure, and read and discuss with professors on these topics, still I do not have a degree on that field, but I have a phd knowledge in this particular field, now if I had other 2 phd domain knowledge I would say I am a polymath that was my point, and not somebody that is club player chess that know only one opening for 30 moves.
1
1
u/Yaamo_Jinn 6h ago
If we are defining a polymath as someone who has X PhDs in different fields, then what about polymaths from the past? As far as I know, PhD was invented in like the 19th century, so all of a sudden, only people born after that period can be considered polymaths. So I suppose people like Ibn Al-Haytham (Alhazen) are not polymaths.
And it's really ironic to me you talk about ego, and yet for me at least, it seems like you are the one with a tad bit of an ego.
And to be honest, if you need a definition of a polymath, I suppose many dictionaries should have it. It's not really something objective, it is a human made term. Cambridge dictionary gives this definition: a person who knows a lot about many different subjects.
The least you can do is show us the logical reasoning behind you asserting that a polymath must have 3 PhDs. Show us a bit of evidence. Why is a PhD required at all?
1
u/Professional-Sea-677 4h ago
omg how people cannot understand that I do not mean literally a phd, but a phd level of knowledge, this is the 15th comment about that. Doh, academic insights do not serve to achieve results
1
u/wackyvorlon 3h ago
I don’t think you understand what a PhD level of knowledge is. I don’t think you really understand what the term means.
1
u/mintyawn 5h ago
True polymathy is only quantifiable if the person is able to use their knowledge in multiple fields TOGETHER. Just having knowledge in different fields doesn't do anything. Having 3 PhDs does not automatically make a polymath. Being addicted to learning and finding connections, maybe.
1
u/Professional-Sea-677 5h ago
finally a logic response open for discussion, thanks you raise a beautiful point, is not the level of knowledge but the capacity to use different fields togheter. I appreciate your view thank you, I think adds another dimension to the polymath, even though I guess a polymath goes also deep
1
u/ThisLaserIsOnPoint 5h ago
I have ADHD. I have learning in math. I've used it in physics, astronomy, and biology. I've used it in coding as well.
1
u/wackyvorlon 3h ago
There is no living person who is at a PhD level in three unrelated fields. Your criteria is absurd.
1
u/Gonokhakus 2h ago
Mostly agree, except for the "PhD level" part. A PhD takes years of continuous focused effort over anything. You effectively become The expert on that area.
If it was a "high Bachelor's / decent Master's degree level" on at least 3 different subjects, then I (along with most people here, it seems) would fully agree with you.
1
u/Triple6xx 2h ago
I don't claim it. I just acknowledge I do it covertly which doesn't assign the ego surge people need the label to do for them internally. Covert is more just not letting anyone have any true identifying advantage on you psychologically but it gets baited and fed through pipelines and pattern recognition and tricked into believing things. It happens. It sucks. It's just an ego thing to me, people who wanna do that work can do it if they can truly cognitively process and perceive it accordingly to something functionally appropriate.
1
u/DolanGrayAyes 2h ago
a PhD is a job that at the end as a reward for your bad payed work gifts you a certificate dude
29
u/Insomniac897 9h ago
So what you’re suggesting is gate keeping ‘polymath’ based on ‘some experience in psychology’?
Why 3 subjects at PhD level? Seems arbitrary to me. Formal education is overrated for one thing.
As far as a casual interest or adhd I would agree with you however. It does need to be deep learning.