misterbs1

True. Attitude is key, and mastering one subject does not give anyone the right to be recognized for his or her knowledge of all subjects--it would be rather stupid to recognize someone for something that he or she does not possess. Interesting topic and perspective.

Builder

Thanks for your comment Bruce. My point was that many people who are experts in one field assume themselves to deserve recognition for their knowledge in others--call it hubris or arrogance--when in fact they lack such knowledge. That assumption is wrong and can be dangerous. I believe the kind of person you refer to is called a polymath. It's the attitude of the person who has expertise in one field but assumes he deserves automatic acceptance for his limited knowledge and utterances in other fields that bothers me. Even a polymath may be less knowledgeable than a grade nine dropout on subjects outside his areas of expertise--in fact, very often is. Mastering one subject does not give anyone the right to be recognized for his or her knowledge of all subjects.

misterbs1

Mr. Allin, I would heartily concur with your thesis--stated in the conclusion of this piece--and have no desire to detract from it in the least. But, I have a bit of a problem with some of the steps you took to arrive at your destination. Some of my reaction is admittedly quite subjective...some not so. Sure, van Gogh was eccentric--perhaps even totally insane. You quote him as saying that the master of one thing--who understands one thing well--has insight into and understanding of many things. van Gogh did not say that the master of one thing is the MASTER of ALL things. There are people who possess the capacity to engage in such a broad range of function that, to one who lacks such capacity, may seem quite accomplished in many endeavors. There are also some people (from street bums to rocket scientists) who--even though they devote themselves to their "vocation," certainly are not snobs and DO have special insight. I am a bit surprised that you attempt to link van Gogh's creative expression with material success. It may be that Vincent just couldn't hack it in the "real world." Fortunately (or not) he had at least one family member who perceived greatness in Vincent's work and kept him alive long enough to leave us with evidence of Vincent's creative genius. There is little doubt that Vincent's genius would have been useless in a setting where survival skills were needed. But, we will never know. John Forbes Nash, Jr. wrote his greatest works in the 1940's and early 1950s and then proceeded to lapse into a supposed paranoid-schizophrenic funk for a couple of decades. I wouldn't want Nash working on my car or performing surgery on me, but it is difficult to argue with his Nobel Prize winning (40+ years AFTER his published works) mathematical skills. It is amazing that he did not die as a result of some of the barbaric treatment he received while institutionalized because of his mental illness. If he HAD died, should we apply the "van Gogh success test" to Nash? Would his contributions to math, and economics, and politics, and games all be for naught just because he didn't "pay the bills" while he was sick? I think not. Besides this "exception" I agree with the assertions you make here. It all makes me wonder how the human race survived for all those eons without such a high degree of specialization. Specialist snobbery is real, and it can be problematic. Let's not allow it to make us arbitrarily dismiss genius. There are some among us who are masters of one or more things, and do have insight into others. Thanks for the stimulus!