Is the age of polymath over?

>John von Neumann
>He made major contributions to a number of fields, including mathematics (foundations of mathematics, functional analysis, ergodic theory, geometry, topology, and numerical analysis), physics (quantum mechanics, hydrodynamics, and quantum statistical mechanics), economics (game theory), computing (Von Neumann architecture, linear programming, self-replicating machines, stochastic computing), and statistics.

Seems like specialization is the name of the game. These days you can be a theoretical physicists but have no understanding in basic electronics and how to solder a wire, or vice versa you can be an electrical engineer but doesn't know how electron propagates through the wire nor numerically solve an ordinary differential equations

Other urls found in this thread:

books.google.com.br/books?id=pmPaAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=von neumann johnny envied this because he could never be irrational himself&source=bl&ots=xst7kJLVSj&sig=Gyin1ROfYLEqWRvhCta36pTq1zk&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit2KuG3c7RAhVLkZAKHaxNDHkQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=von neumann johnny envied this because he could never be irrational himself&f=false
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

it was over even in his time, he was an aberration. most of us including me are too brainlet to be able to be polymaths in this day in age. there is just too much to know in any given topic let alone field let alone subject.

Socrates and Plato was also polymaths, but they're both wrong on almost everything related to natural sciences

Only if you're a brainlet. Even an iq in the low 180s should suffice for a broad and deep understanding of the world.

t. brainlet

Name one decent modern polymath after John von Neumann. Even people like Richard Feynman had a horse blinders on and thrive just in one aspect of physics, rather than being a contributor in wide variety of fields.

He was by far the brightest mind of his time

that's not being a polymath. those are all related, einstein.

I was joking, dumbass. Polymaths are incredibly rare as time goes on simply because the exponential increase in information about each specific field. In the 17th century there were many polymaths because we knew little enough that a man could acquaint himself with the basics of every field in a rather short time. Gettig proficient (aka good ebough to do research) at every branch of mathematics and physics would probably take multiple lifetimes now for the vast majority of people.

>can you be good at several subjects

no

the fields are too big at this point.

you can be mediocre at a lot of them though.