The Renaissance Ideal Revisited

Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one.
OLD RHYME

In 1984, a movie came out called The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. It is a dreadful movie and not worth watching. Cult devotees will scorch my ass for this criticism, but this essay is not about the film. I mention the movie because of the title character. Buckaroo Banzai is a Renaissance Man. He is a polymath. Buckaroo is neurosurgeon, a particle physicist, a rock star, and a race car driver. He is tops in all these fields.

Buckaroo made an impression on me as a kid because it was my first introduction to the world of polymaths. The only thing is that it is a small world. For Buckaroo Banzai, it is a purely fictional world. You can't be tops in all these fields of endeavor. You can be a generalist or a specialist, but you can't be both.

The problem with the Renaissance Ideal is an old one. There is only so much time, money, and energy at your disposal. I remember one of my bosses who was a triathlete as well as a corporate guy. He was a single guy who began as a gym rat but decided to take up triathlon. Needless to say he was in good shape. The problem was that by becoming a triathlete he ended up sucking at both triathlon and his work. He took a promotion to pay for his new hobby with the increased salary. He chafed at the time constraints. His boss hated his guts because he showed little dedication to the job because of his "avocation." And he was not that impressive as a triathlete. In short, he was crushed by his own unrealistic ambitions. I don't mean to denigrate the guy since he strived to achieve something. I admire anyone who would try such a thing. But he could not pull it off not because of a character defect but simply as a consequence of scarce time and resources.

Ambition has to be tempered by the reality of time, money, and energy. My triathlete friend could have gone back to being just a gym rat with no problem. Or he could have taken up just one of his disciplines such as running or cycling and pursued that to greater success. I was also friends with a cross country mountain biker who was damn good because he worked subsistence jobs and lived like a pauper and had a bike shop sponsorship. But the answer to the dilemma is the same. You have to simplify.

It is my contention that polymaths do not exist. A polymath properly defined is someone who demonstrates expertise in multiple unrelated fields. People who claim polymathic status engage in slippery definitions of the term "expert." I can be an expert in both drinking beer and eating potato chips, but these are not entirely unrelated fields nor are they even true fields of endeavor. When it comes to being both a top neurosurgeon and a particle physicist, that ain't happening. You simply can't occupy two peaks of endeavor at the same time. Even in related fields like road cycling and mountain biking, the champion in one is almost never the champion in the other. Lance Armstrong came close.

During the Renaissance, men like Leonardo could be experts in multiple fields because those fields weren't that developed. Those same men today would be considered generalists. When you consider that the typical engineering undergrad has a storehouse of knowledge that would dwarf Leonardo's understanding, you begin to appreciate how far we have come in human endeavors. It is also helpful to realize that Leonardo accomplished little in his life except to put down his ambitions in his notebooks.

It is relatively easy to know things in a variety of fields and be competent in various activities. This is the life of the generalist or the "jack of all trades." Most people are generalists. They can drive a car, cook a meal, care for a sick loved one, and hold down a job. But they are not race car drivers, chefs, doctors, or what have you. Even a specialist is a generalist in everything else he or she does.

The more appropriate term for people who have a broad range of knowledge and pursue various interests is not "polymath" but "philomath." A philomath is simply one who loves learning. This term definitely applies to myself as I have interests in music, history, art, literature, and so much more that I drown in all of it. But I'm not good at anything. I know a lot about economics, but I am not an economist. Basically, I read a lot on a variety of subjects. My only talent is as a writer. It is the only thing I am good at, and this collection of knowledge is simply raw material for my writing. Writers and especially journalists are people who take a keen interest in the world around them.

The problem with reading so much and so widely is that I am always tempted to jump into some field of endeavor. I remember reading Paul Theroux back in the 90's and wanting to become a sea kayaker like him because I read The Happy Isles of Oceania. But I got over that without buying a boat. I just don't have time or money for that shit.

This leads us to the hobbyist. The hobbyist is the dabbler. He does various things on the side. Even Theroux paddles as a hobby. But I frown on various hobbies especially those involving the purchase of a bunch of shit. Whenever I buy something, I also consider having to move it around, store it, etc. This is accumulation and clutter. But I am digressing.

I read so much about so many people in different worlds that I want to do the same things they do. When I read Taleb, I want to become a trader, polyglot, a mathematician, or what have you. When I read Chouinard, I want to become a fly fisherman, a rock climber, a surfer, and a businessman. When I listen to Jimmy Buffett, I want to fly seaplanes, strum guitars, write songs, and what have you. When I watch an episode of House, I want to go to medical school. There is so much to do and be that you end up regretting that you only have one life to do it all in.

The appeal of the Renaissance Man is that he does it all. He triples and quadruples a single life. The reality is that this man does not exist, and this feat cannot be accomplished. You can go learn seven languages, but by the time you get to number seven, you will have started forgetting the other six. And anyone who knows seven languages fluently is not going to win a Nobel prize in physics. These limiting factors came into play when I read about how Jimmy Buffett was going to get around to learning Spanish "someday." I think knowing how to fly and play guitar is pretty damn impressive.

I have replaced my Renaissance ideal with a blue collar model that is more realistic. In all my various jobs, I have discovered many who were jacks of all trades. This wasn't the product of ambition but necessity. Consider the farmer who ends up learning a great deal about hydraulics, diesel mechanics, horticulture, meteorology, etc. The fact is that most blue collar jobs are not specialties at all. Blue collar workers are generalists who might throw their weight in a particular direction. I think of Edgar Hansen on Deadliest Catch who runs the deck, fixes the engine and hydraulics, and does the odd bit of metal fabrication to keep the ship running. That's a lot of hats to wear. Edgar is always talking of quitting, and I wonder what he would do. But that is easy. He can transition to being a welder or a mechanic that doesn't require weeks at sea.

All of this has been churning in my head for awhile. Is it better to simplify? Is it better to specialize? What should your ambitions be? Here are some points I have reached firmness on:

-Polymaths don't exist.

They are either dreamers like Leonardo, undistinguished generalists, or career switchers who excelled in one specialty which they abandoned for another specialty. You can't be the master of everything. You can be the master of one thing and perhaps dabble in a few others. Anyone who claims polymath status is straining the definition of the term.

-Specialization is risky.

Being really good at one thing can be a very lucrative endeavor. Unfortunately, what do you do when your fastball slows down at age 40? What do you do the rest of the year when you're not selling Christmas trees? Generalization allows flexibility and adaptability.

-Temper ambition.

Time, money, and energy are limiting factors. Even an immortal billionaire is limited to 24 hours in a day and has to sleep. As such, you can be the jack of all trades or the master of one. Both strategies bow to reality. It is when you try to be the master of three that everything falls apart.

The bottom line is that the Renaissance Ideal is dead to me now. You can be a generalist or specialist, but you can't be both. And both have their benefits and deficits. But like the quotation said, ". . .though oftimes better than master of one." This suggests that the generalist approach is the better of the two.

Posted in: