[croissants]

> When I first began to study polymaths, I was excited to see a template for a life I didn’t know I was living. But when I started to embrace the polymath identity, my inner critics appeared. I wondered whether I’m even qualified to write about polymaths, let alone call myself one.

Then why not just go on cultivating diverse interests -- which is really what this blog post is about, and which seems like a fine idea -- and sidestep all of this "polymath" business? Why make it harder by picking the grandest label you can find and then worrying about whether you qualify?

[notahacker]

Yep. Indeed you're better off not picking the grand label even if it perfectly suits you, because people are more likely to chuckle at your pomposity if you start describing yourself as one (see also self-described 'intellectuals', 'geniuses' and 'ninjas') than be impressed.

It doesn't help that for much of the post the author seems to conflate the concept of the Aristotle-type polymath making breakthroughs in multiple unrelated fields with standard career paths [engineer, manager, teacher, founder, advisor] and transferable career skills. All of which are entirely worth pursuing without the dubious label.

[Izkata]

Between this and that [0], it popped into my head that we should just go further and invent polymodal. Would specifically refer to the other comment's "only one thing" deep dive.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23808478