[irremediable]

To be honest with you, I think this problem is less about open-mindedness and more about the increased depth in which we've studied most fields. There's been a huge increase in the number of academics in these fields, and a lot of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.

There still are some polymaths, but it's hard for them to make as fundamental a contribution in fields that have already existed for a long(ish) time.

[lutusp]

> There still are some polymaths, but it's hard for them to make as fundamental a contribution in fields that have already existed for a long(ish) time.

Yes, but it misses the fact that polymaths historically have solved that problem by creating new fields. Richard P. Feynman, as one example, lectured on nanomaterials and nanodevices decades before the technology existed to make his ideas practical. Einstein shaped relativity theory about four decades before there was any way to confirm (in detail) its theses or apply it to practical problems.

[marcosdumay]

Fields today are too well defined for that.

Just try making a grad work by joining knowledge from two separated field - nobody ever understands what you say. You lose most of your time in the basics, and people are mostly unable to build over what you created.

[jnazario]

your comments reminds me of this, which was posted here on HN some time ago when it first came out. "The Last Days of the Polymath"

http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/edward-carr/last-days...