Intelligent Life magazine's "The Last Days of the Polymath":
"Carl Djerassi is a polymath. Strictly speaking that means he is someone who knows a lot about a lot. But Djerassi also passes a sterner test: he can do a lot, too. As a chemist (synthesising cortisone and helping invent the Pill); an art collector (he assembled one of the world's largest collections of works by Paul Klee); and an author (19 books and plays), he has accomplished more than enough for one lifetime.
....Just knowing about a lot of things has never been easier. Never before have dabblers been so free to paddle along the shore and dip into the first rock pool that catches the eye. If you have an urge to take off your shoes and test the water, countless specialists are ready to hold your hand.
And yet you will never get very deep. Depth is for monomaths - which is why experts so often seem to miss what really matters.... The question is whether [polymaths'] loss has affected the course of human thought. Polymaths possess something that monomaths do not. Time and again, innovations come from a fresh eye or from another discipline. Most scientists devote their careers to solving the everyday problems in their specialism. Everyone knows what they are and it takes ingenuity and perseverance to crack them. But breakthroughs - the sort of idea that opens up whole sets of new problems - often come from other fields."
Actually, there's plenty of opportunities for polymaths - just not in academia, with its deep "departmentalism".
They make great entrepreneurs, where odd knowledge mixes can lead to great ideas and unusual business approaches.
I see "polymathy" just as an effect, not a characteristic of any individual by himself. Since today it is very difficult to make breakthrough contributions in two or more areas of knowledge, among other things, because outsiders doesn't have the access to the cutting edge technology needed to carry out those studies, polymaths are rare.
From the fact that nature is at least partially understandable by the human mind, we can infer that there is some kind of inner structure. I think some individuals simply have a wider focus, that enables them, by analogy and other tools, to explore other corners of such, the same, framework; to walk on the beams and dodge the columns until they reach a new place.
It is some kind of wanderers of knowledge. The sad thing is that the it increases, the chances of getting lost do so too.
The point from where their journey begins is also a critical aspect: the case of Michael Ventris, deciphering lineal B is archetypal, because lineal B is written in drawings rather than letters. Another case would be Chemistry, which provides, in my opinion, a good base to understand human behavior. It is probably easier from there to excel in arts, especially, writting.
BTW, in some countries, heterogenous groups of scientifics are assembled some days per year to influence and be influenced. It might be a way to mitigate the lack of polymaths.
See, I actually disagree quite a bit, but it depends what 'pool' you're in.
Take Chemistry, for example. Pure chemistry research is rapidly dissipating. Most of it is being geared towards biochem (for breakthough DNA/RNA/protein/enzyme work) Geochem (oil/space exploration stuff) Physics-Chem (physics that utilizes chemistry), Chem-Engeneering, or some mix of the three (Physics-based Biochem was very big at my Grad school). Almost every instructor I've ever met collaborates with instructors outside of their field.
Now, there aren't a ton of literary, or Art Collector "chemists", but this is not a surprise.
1) These people have massive, 80hour(+) weeks if they want tenure. While I've known many who have bands, hobbies etc, most are limited by time. The ones who are most successful(most publicized) also tend devote the most time to the intricacies of their craft. People who broaden out beyond their research my be quite good, but don't break the same headlines.
2) Being an art collector costs a lot of money. Professors do not have a lot of money. Nor (after writing hundreds of pages of grants every year) do most find the compulsion to write a book, (unless they retire).
3) Even if a chemist were an "art collector", how would you know? It's not like the American public even pays attention to academic scientists. I'm sure the others in the department would know (conversationally) but that's about it.
Even if a chemist were an "art collector", how would you know?
And why would you care?
I think this fear is overwrought. True genius often comes by producing something that seems painfully obvious in retrospect. Like the slapchop. Not thats genius.