[daretorant]

You’ve likely heard the saying: “A jack of all trades is a master of none.” It warns against the futility of pursuing too many disciplines. Be a specialist, or you’ll be nothing.

It may surprise you to learn there’s actually an extended version: “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one.” With a subtle addition, its meaning becomes inverted to tout the benefits of being a polymath (a.k.a. generalist).

Why is the former so common, and the latter so unknown?

The answer lies in modern society’s preference for specialization. This essay explores how specialization limits workers’ freedom, how the polymath approach can offer a reprieve, and my own learnings exploring a multitude of pursuits.

[nkozyra]

I think it's a mistake to call a polymath a generalist. The concept of a polymath is predicated on top notch knowledge and skill at multiple disciplines.

Generalist implies breadth but not depth.

[ralphstodomingo]

That too was my only gripe with the article - solid and engaging writing, but I was wincing every time polymath was mentioned. I feel like you could substitute most uses of the word with just 'generalist' and the article would have held together just as well.

[kevinskii]

Please make it clear that you’re quoting the piece. Your entire comment is a literal copy/paste of the first few paragraphs.

[daretorant]

Apologies, will definitely do that in future submissions!