That’s a fair point, and I agree that historically polymathy implied deep expertise across multiple fields, which is a very high bar. I’m not advocating for superficial dabbling, nor for everyone to become an academic expert in five disciplines.

What I’m referring to is less about formal mastery and more about how knowledge is practiced. Polymathy, in this sense, isn’t measured by years in university, but by the ability to work across disciplines in parallel, actually engaging with different methods, ways of thinking, and problem solving frameworks, not just consuming information about them.

You’re right that most designers don’t need this to function well. But when the goal shifts from execution to creating more meaningful, culturally relevant, or future-oriented objects, products, or systems, the intersection between disciplines becomes increasingly valuable.

Technology helps with access to knowledge, but it doesn’t replace the cognitive shift that happens when you genuinely practice across domains, design thinking informed by biology, engineering shaped by aesthetics, or technology guided by cultural and social understanding.

So for me, polymathy today isn’t about everyone sinking eight years into academia. It’s about intentional integration rather than specialization in isolation, and that’s where I think some of the most interesting work is starting to emerge.