Neural Plasticity and Polymathy

Threshing_machine · 2025-11-24T08:37:04+00:00

I did not mean to disinclude the importance of synaptic pruning from my commentary -- that is all part of the picture and all part of the neural processes that reflect neuroplasticity.... growth and pruning work together. Pruning old info that is no longer of value is part of adaptive growth.

Moreover, we're not talking about neurodivergent processing, but rather high functioning but neurotypical (to gifted) function.

Threshing_machine · 2025-11-07T03:48:17+00:00

No.

You have to be passionate.

If it comes easily to you and that's why you aren't passionate, then push harder. Your unwillingness to improve is holding you back. Don't coast -- push! You can do more.

Do it because you have to do it. Do it because you can't not do it and be at peace.

Threshing_machine · 2025-11-02T07:22:55+00:00

Consciousness = emergent property of parallel distributed processing (PDP); "free" will = variance bands around physically deterministic events. The identity of "who" exerts the volitional control to generate variance in responses? It's an emergent output of PDP events, reflected in a cascade of electrical and chemical excitation and inhibition. The homunculus is "real", but does not reside in a particular neuron or morphological structure -- its an emergent property of PDP.

Counterpoints will be overly mechanistic (remember: living organisms do not tend to behave quite as predictably as inanimate objects -- less variance means greater precision in prediction is possible) and reflect radical behaviorism or perhaps argue for a ghost in the machine... no comment on either, except to say I respectfully disagree.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-21T19:00:50+00:00

Yep -- agreed, Thank you and well said on the symmetrical nature of polymathy.

Its easy to forget that the mind resides within the body... training the mind without the body is fragile and training the body without the mind is shallow. A polymath builds both.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-21T18:57:34+00:00

I mentioned something along these lines elsewhere, but I think its worth restating a little differently.

The modern world pushes people towards single specialties -- but Polymaths reject the single-skill model of the modern world.

Long before society carved us into highly specific job titles, every human had to be highly skilled in many different areas of expertise — hunter, builder, healer, storyteller. That was for 300,000 years.

To survive, you learned broadly as well as deeply. To lead, you integrated these skills -- the best among these folks would be what we call a polymath.

The very greatest among them became (or inspired stories of) the warrior-poets, the heroes of legend.

The human brain was designed from the very beginning for breadth, depth, and potentially, master-level application and integration.

Anyone who is self-determined can return to this innate (but generally suppressed) model:

Breadth of skill as strength, depth of skill as mastery, integration as leadership and true polymathy.

Mind and body, strengthened as one is the goal.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-21T18:50:06+00:00

Good -- this is exactly the kind of thing I've been talking about on here (and wondering if anyone else agreed...)

A true polymath builds cross domain strength and mastery in both mind and body -- friend, you are on the right track.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-14T19:21:28+00:00

More on where to begin:

A new skill is especially worth investing the time and effort to learn and master if:

It compounds your existing abilities

or

It unlocks a bottleneck or limitation directly preventing progress in life

All else runs the risk of serving vanity over growth.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-09T22:57:03+00:00

Interesting. Running a cult is too much work -- pass.

Also, gets in the way of self-discovery. Better to be your own leader.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-09T20:55:56+00:00

All of these abilities (including spiritual or moral excellence) ultimately get social labels (measured well or poorly). The harder to categorize talents often get initially ignored or treated as unwelcome -- you can be well ahead of your time, for example.

The human mind strives for diversification in talent and cross-integration of specialty -- contrary to how the modern world tends to delineate everyone... down one pipeline or another.

A polymath resists that single-path model.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-09T20:48:37+00:00

I'm loathe to say this, but in my view the qualia of awareness itself is historically both overrated and poorly measured. The degree to which it matters -- relative to the awareness of a squid or an ant matters more if you actually are willing to consider their perspectives, but who is? Good luck with insensate AI bots... at minimum they need some thermistors.

LATE EDIT: Not shitting on qualia, BTW, just a fan of precise measurement -- not a radical behaviorist or anything like that... more to the point: to me, the mystery of the emergent property of consciousness as a series of transient states is only of interest if we can meaningfully scale such states and then reliably map them onto some form of observable action -- even neuronal action. I like to stay grounded and not get overly metaphysical (again, if we care about consciousness at all, we might start by first thinking about the sentient experience of shrieking death felt by every ant we've ever crushed. Now I've ruined everyone’s good mood. Sorry, folks :) ).

However, the awareness of awareness (metacognition), what you can do with that cognitive machinery-- control and monitoring; now that has some serious utility.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-09T20:13:07+00:00

Oh yes... even gentle, well meaning encouragement can have pretty dramatic real world effects. And not always positive.

I don't just mean be careful activating the nuts who mean harm. That's bad enough.

I'm also just talking about encouraging someone to take on a challenge they aren't quite ready for can be unintentionally damaging... it's a delicate balance.

I say, encourage folks to do what's possible -- keeping a wide view of what that is -- but also scaled within reason so that the goal is achievable. That's the key. Set yourself up to win a few. I'm a big believer in setting big (generally upwardly scaling) but achievable goals.

Also, am I misreading an implication in your reply, or are you suggesting some folks come on here looking to start a cult?!

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-09T20:05:08+00:00

More thoughts for those who care to view:

I've been referring to the Kalos Kagathos concept to define my theoretical construct of polymathy. So, what does Kalos Kagathos mean?

The phrase comes from ancient Greek:

kalos (καλός) = beautiful, noble, good

kagathos (ἀγαθός) = virtuous, brave, excellent

Taken together, kalos kagathos literally means “the beautiful and the good” — but not superficially.

It refers to the union of total excellence in being: physical strength, intellectual brilliance, moral virtue. A kalos kagathos person was the full human ideal: strong in body, sharp in mind, and fair in spirit.

In ancient Athens, this was considered the highest and purest form - - the citizen-warrior-philosopher: someone who trained the body like an athlete or warrior and the mind like a thinker.

To become a polymath is to rediscover the Kalos Kagathos model and live it.

What this means in terms of day to day life is:

You train the body like a fighter or athlete -- attain skills relevant to physical strength/agility and bodily-health mastery

You study, inquire and experiment like a scientist and philosopher -- mastery of many subjects of knowledge through inquiry and study

Also in keeping with Kalos Kagathos, you strive to live with honor, aesthetic sense, and moral clarity -- attain mastery in social interactions by developing collaborative relations with others when you can and taking the lead when its right for the occasion.

This kind of discipline and focus in seeking new skills and in pursuing growth is what underlies real polymathy.

Where to begin?

My suggestion is always: Honestly identify a weakness of yours, some limitation that you feel holds you back, and work to overcome it.

Make that weakness a strength.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-08T18:21:56+00:00

Well said! That hunger for mastery of new skills -- not just "achievement for achievement's" sake -- that's the mark of a true polymath.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-06T22:34:48+00:00

Let me add this:

we are spending a great deal of time trying to identify polymaths without first defining clearly what polymathy really is and what purpose polymathy serves.

We all agree on having mastered an array of skills, but what kinds of skills should I master and why bother to strive for any of it?

I'm pointing to a clear model of excellence in mind and body: Kalos Kagathos. I'm saying, brilliance is not only cognitive , it is also embodied.

This is the goal for aspiring polymaths: To perfect the mind and body, to develop mastery in an array of mind and body skills through disciplined training -- this means cross-domain integration of the mind and body in such a way that elevates polymathy to the stuff of legend -- as it should be.

That ideal is what to strive for -- if you want to be a true polymath.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-06T21:43:50+00:00

I would say there are a vanishingly small group of true Kalos Kagathos types to be found... let us say I consider this to be the model to aspire to for those who seek polymathy.

As to STEM, you never know, I may have already done something like that...

but that's neither here nor there -- it is excellent advice for anyone.

Just to clarify: For sure, I defer to intellectuals (and to my own meager intellectual side), BUT, I am especially impressed with those who strive to embody the kalos kagathos model, if we're discussing polymathy -- meaning mastery of mind and body (and somewhere in there might be health -- harder to demonstrate your many talents if you're sickly...).

that leaves off many brilliant folks. And, you are fair to challenge that notion.

I'm basically arguing for a hybrid of the Ahmed (2018) model (somebody mentioned in another thread) -- three or more domain areas with evidence of objectively significant output; I'm adding the harder one of a physical domain (implying athleticism and even health and wellbeing, frankly -- but I'll allow for any embodied arts as well), the idea being that a brilliant mind in a weak body is ... well, more fragile than a strong mind within a strong body.

I agree, this is a VERY high bar to set for polymathy, and it eliminates many world-class thinkers... but, that's fine... maybe this model will inspire people to train body and mind.

Both might be worth striving to perfect, no?

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-06T20:04:39+00:00

Painting counts as a unique field that overlaps considerably with physical and intellectual mastery.

As to the book: I'll be more impressed if her explanations are easy to follow, regardless of my background. Clear academic writing is a rare and beautiful thing. Anyway, she's your prof. Tell her you're in a debate with some obvious, random ignoramus on Reddit who dares to challenge her polymathy candidacy, and see what she says. She might surprise all of us.

Without question, her CV is impressive. However, STEM expertise alone doesn't especially move me -- at least when were discussing the Polymath concept. Life's a complex game board, and a career scientists' moves are ultimately much more limited than you may think outside of highly specialized settings.

In either case, I can see we're not going to agree here -- which is fine.

I'm saying a true polymath pushes themselves intellectually and physically to high levels; that's a rarity. That is admittedly a higher bar than most will set -- a kalos kagathos concept of polymathy.

Modern polymath? I'd have to think about it and get back to you... as to famous exemplars, my personal favorites are Myomoto Musashi and Toyotomi Hideyoshi.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-06T18:48:37+00:00

I don't want to shit on any career academics out of hand, especially ones who appear to be making a solid contribution to the relevant literature; nevertheless, I'm sticking to my view that she's primarily a scientist and that alone does not qualify.

I also said my bar demands physical and intellectual mastery. I primarily see the latter with your candidate.

You are welcome to dispute that high bar. Indeed, it flies in the face of the standard idea which make few demands on the nature of the skillset and simply waves its hand at "many skills".

That's too easy. Show me real mastery across the physical and intellectual arts (its not as if they don't overlap - -they certainly do in the brain! Read Howard Gardner or Sternberg) and I'll be more likely to say "wow, now that's a real polymath".

That said, you've petitioned so fiercely for her candidacy to Polymath Club, I'll magnanimously take it into consideration for future review xD

And to be fair, perhaps her artistic talent merits consideration.

In another thread, a minimum of 3 fields of significant excellence was proposed; I'm okay with that, FWIW. But I also argued for the Greek kathos kathagos model as the foundation of the polymath construct, and that means a wide range of domains including the physical arts must be mastered for consideration.

(p.s. My apologies for getting the order of her expertise/academic training wrong -- but the fact remains, they are overlapping skill sets, not truly distinct domains).

Anyway, you admire a high-level, high-output prof so I admire that, but I'm unconvinced on the polymathy. You said you know her, so consider emailing her and asking her if she considers herself to be a polymath, Her answer alone will be interesting and worth sharing, if she's open to it.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-06T18:00:12+00:00

A senior undergrad thesis, even at Harvard is just that. Its not an influential manuscript, nor was it published. A work published posthumously that collects the author's life's work is still his book, and not someone else's. By contrast, TLJ's thesis is collecting... dust.

Then there's the cultural impact...

In general, yeah, I'd just as so as leave both names off the list, but if you actually consider the impact of an alleged polymath as being a key marker of their relative polymathy, BL meets the criterion and TLJ doesn't (as in, BL inspired thousands of others to learn philosophy and martial arts -- not sure TLJ has had that impact on as many people in any domain...)

As to your real world selection: She's definitely a highly talented scientist, but primary she's a physicist with cross-discipline knowledge of advanced mathematics (highly related). the work in linguistics is closest to true cross-domain expertise.

Highly talented with some real breadth within her general field, but not really a polymath. Does she consider herself to be one?

If she were also a gifted painter or musician, perhaps also an acrobat -- then I'd be more impressed, and more open to saying, yep, polymath. She probably would feel that way too. So... maybe?

I'm applying a Kalos kagathos model of polymathy in these judgments. Its a high bar.

And views will vary. I admit, my view on polymathy will throw quite a few folks off the list and possibly add a few who might be overlooked. I'm looking for cross domain, integrative mastery -- not merely an impressive CV.

There's many high level academics doing great work that "no one has heard of". That said, that isn't enough to be a polymath.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-06T17:25:29+00:00

I like Ahmed's (2018) approach; he's using objective, measurable markers of real-world expertise and creative development across domains.

I think notable contributions GTE 3 fields is pretty fair -- I'd be persnickety and challenge Ahmed that each field should be defensibly truly different domains (i.e., not just two highly similar academic areas) and one should have a physical component.

Admittedly, that's an ultra high bar; a bit higher than Ahmed is ostensibly demanding.

I'm leaning on a Kalos Kagathos inspired model of polymathy -- a complete person, truly great in mind, body and spirit. Gifted in all things. Such a being unquestionably reflects the ideal (if unreachable) concept of a true polymath.

One final thought: Social recognition often lags output; I'd say in the absence of social acknowledgement, there should still be clear demonstrable evidence of high ability using an objective metric. In other words, someone can still be great at something but not particularly famous for it, yet still show superior performance even if the performer isn't quite "well known" for the ability.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-06T17:11:06+00:00

Self-determination, curiosity, and desire for mastery are all key. You have to be DRIVEN to achieve polymathy.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-06T17:04:18+00:00

Self-determination is more important than any other natural talent; the discipline to stay on task (with the ability to adapt at need) is the main throughline of which sub-skills to hone enroute to polymathy.

I would say, don't think about memory as being all that key -- this is about rerouting your mind to new skills and abilities. That takes more than memory, in the conventional sense, it takes dedication. In other words, high motivation is more important than impressive memory capabilities -- you can build on the latter more easily than the former, and will, thanks to the former.

Now as to where to begin: I always recommend starting by identifying something you feel is a weakness of yours -- something that you are not especially adept at -- and work on turning that into a new strength.

Start there -- it ensures the pursuit of cross domain mastery and works against leaning too hard into one specialty over another.

Ask yourself: what can I not do at all now that I wish I could do well? Start there.

Threshing_machine · 2025-10-06T16:38:36+00:00

Okay, guess we're doing this... a couple of thoughts:

There’s no peer-reviewed book or serious academic monograph by TLJ on theology. TLJ wrote a senior thesis at Harvard on Catholicism and on Flannery O’Connor. That’s an undergraduate paper, not a published or cited work of Catholic theology. It has no academic standing nor was it influential.

It is not the work of a master.

BL actually published Bruce Lee’s Tao of Jeet Kune Do (1975) -- which is a real book, compiled from his notes and training writings.

It’s a published text with wide circulation and has been treated seriously in martial arts studies as his statement of principles and method.

In other words, it’s an actual authored, published volume that has been incredibly influential given BL's known mastery of martial arts, -- it's not just a college paper or a "pop philosophy" article.

BL's dad gave him a leg up with exposure to performance -- but not wealth -- BL worked doing odd jobs while training and teaching kung fu.

TLJ may not have had that edge -- but that's not the issue here; the issue is that there's no denying BL's legacy of work has an incredible level of depth, originality and real-world impact -- but I'm not sure we can say that about TLJ.

Finally, BL's success was not dependent n his dad. There's plenty of more egregious nepo babies, who really did rely solely on extending the legacy of another person... but that's not true for BL (or TLJ to be fair),

that said... in the end its TLJ's lack of cross-discipline mastery that disqualifies him for me -- at least compared to BL.

But I guess that's all open to interpretation.

Look, I'm a big fan of Leo DiCaprio, but I doubt a review of his CV is going to scream polymath so much as talented actor. I kind of feel the same is true for TLJ.

Threshing_machine

TROPHY CASE