[bean-sprugget]

But, it seems like there are more polymaths in the past than now - more people who were extremely smart, even if the general intelligence of people nowadays has increased. I think being a "casual" polymath is the important part: like the article mentions, you'd need a deep understanding of a subject to actually have it's interdisciplinary benefits. I think with the Internet today, it's easy to see so many interesting hobbies and topics, which takes time and effort away from just pursuing one or a few things really in depth.

[gilleain]

Presumably (am not an expert in this!) because the barrier to entry in a field of knowledge was lower in the past. As in, at one point you could read all there was to know about a subject.

Also, there was more 'low hanging fruit' in the past. No one is impressed now if you reinvent the calculus. So it used to be easier to have major discoveries in multiple fields.

Finally, the whole idea of different areas of knowledge is relatively modern. The 'sciences' used to include astrology, for example. Even the distinction between biblical studies and observation of the natural world was vague at some point.

[smogcutter]

In the past in order to be a dilettante you generally needed to be one of the idle rich - that gets you the trifecta of time, resources, and lack of pressure to produce anything worthwhile. Today all you need is an internet connection.

[watwut]

Why do you think there were more people who were extremely smart? It does not seem that way to me.

Plus, there is also effect of us glorifying past people more then contemporary people.