Podcast: Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS
If you’ve heard the terms multipotentialite and polymath thrown around, but can’t tell what sets them apart, you’re not alone.
These labels have different histories, for one thing.
And although they both describe people who display diverse talents and interests, there’s a massive difference between them.
Why does the difference matter?
Because you’re not just interested in a few things — you’re fascinated by everything.
In fact, your browser tabs are a hall of mirrors.
Your bookshelves look like an interdisciplinary battleground. You’ve filled notebooks, journal apps, and your brain with treasure troves of knowledge…
But then someone casually asks:
“So… what do you actually study? What did you learn?”
And just like that — your mind goes blank.
You’re not alone.
In fact, this problem has haunted some of the most brilliant, curious, and driven minds I’ve ever met — and I was once one of them.
That’s why we need to dig deeper when it comes to terms like “polymath” and “multipotentialite.”
As soon as you do, you’ll find that there’s no clear consensus on their meaning for good reason.
And few are brave enough to criticize the cultural narratives behind these terms, including whether or not they are truly empowering. Or just being used in the modern world as part of marketing products you don’t need.
That’s why today, I’m inviting you to dive deep with me to explore how these labels and concepts can inspire your own journey.
All while avoiding the dead-ends and traps of empty promises offered by what are sometimes nothing more than self-aggrandizing labels.
What is a Multipotentialite?
The short answer is that a multipotentialite displays key characteristics like:
- Broad interests and high curiosity in a variety of fields, from coding to painting and entrepreneurship, often mixing them together in unique ways.
- Adaptability for learning quickly and picking up skills in ways that rapidly solve problems before moving on to the next challenge.
- Flexibility, which may involve a lot of gig-style jobs or hybrid roles that allow for a lot of variety.
But where does the term first come from?
In my research, the idea of having potential for multiple skills comes from a 1972 book called Recognizing and Assisting Multipotential Youth.
In this book, authors Ronald H. Fredrickson and John Rothney explain that a multipotential person is:
Any individual who, when provided with an appropriate environment, can select and develop any number of competencies to a high level.
The book is a passionate appeal for both the educators, local governments and the state to identify and nurture students through what they call “enrichment.”
They list several recommended procedures, many of which include encouraging young people to engage in autodidact efforts outside of the traditional classroom setting.
These include:
- Participating in fairs, agricultural activities and contests
- Taking additional courses so they graduate early
- Working personally with teachers on enriched reading program
- Visiting professionals working in a variety of impressions
Multiplicity in the Mind
Next in history, we should also include Howard Gardner’s 1983 book, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.
If nothing else, the concept of being a multipotentialite owes Gardner a conceptual debt.
I feel this way because anyone who truly puts in the deliberate practice needed to learn new skills will need to exercise the different kinds of intelligence Gardner discussed. These include:
- Spatial
- Linguistic
- Logical
- Mathematical
- Kinesthetic
- Musical
- Intrapersonal and interpersonal
- Existential (in other words, the ability to ask certain kinds of ontological, philosophical questions)
Overall, Gardner suggests that if someone is going to fulfil their potential, they need to leverage multiple intelligences. That way, they can blend strengths like verbal fluency and multiple kinds of creativity to navigate a variety of pursuits.
Mainstream Attention for the Multipotentialite
In a 2015 TED Talk titled “Why Some of Us Don’t Have One True Calling,” Emilie Wapnick shifted the term to include people who thrive on diverse passions, resist specialization and weave their skills into a multifaceted career.
Wapnick has also addressed those who criticize the talk’s specialized use of the term in writing.
In essence, Wapnick argues that people should feel free to call themselves what they please. Plus, they should pay more attention to the meaning of the TEDx Talk, not the word “multipotentialite” itself.
I agree, but that doesn’t free the use of the term from some much-needed critical thinking.
But before we get into a deeper analysis of what might be driving this most recent use of multi-potentiality, let’s look at polymathy next.
What is a Polymath?
A polymath is someone who displays expertise across multiple fields.
Often, they are unrelated and we commonly discuss polymaths as if they are driven by insatiable curiosity.
Although curiosity is one of many polymathic personality traits, Peter Burke provides one of the most nuanced studies of exactly what this term has meant throughout history.
For example, in his book The Polymath: A cultural History from Leonardo da Vinci to Susan Sontag, he identifies:
- Passive polymaths
- Limited polymaths
- Clustered polymaths
- Serial polymaths
His suggestion is especially interesting because we sometimes automatically consider polymaths lifelong learners.
But as the limited polymath category shows, there have been many cases where people only needed to be polymathic for a certain period of time.
During the early days of metallurgy, for example, a person experimenting in this area might need to know a lot about mining and smelting. But as civilization developed, there came a day when individuals could focus almost entirely on casting.
In other words, some types of polymathy have to do with historical evolution and the development of particular fields. It’s not necessarily the case that the individuals involved had any special, inborn characteristics. They are simply responding to the need to develop their multiple-potentialities until that need passes.
The Two Main Categories of Polymath
If you wanted to boil the more general understanding of polymathy into two broad categories, Burke suggests using:
- Centripetal polymathy
- Centrifugal polymathy
Whereas a centrifugal polymath simply stacks one interest onto another without any special connection between them, the centripetal polymath has a unifying vision.
For example, someone like Elon Musk talks about populating space as a central unifying concept, but his activities appear more centrifugal to many critics.
He tells a great story, but a lot of what has developed appears to be ad hoc, made up as things go along. Walter Isaacson gives plenty of examples of this, such as the sudden appearance of the Boring Company on the menu.
The polymath Giordano Bruno, on the other hand, had a unifying vision based on around learning, memory and a view of the oneness of infinity. Nearly everything he did was connected to this unifying theme.
Multipotentialite vs Polymath: A Critical Perspective
Please don’t get me wrong in what I’m about to say.
I’m just practicing the analytical skills I learned while studying for my PhD and throughout my career. And I’m mostly going to point the finger at myself.
But when I heard Wapnick talk about choosing the term “multipotentialite” because labels like polymath and Renaissance person failed to resonate, etymological narcissism was the first thing that popped to mind.
Now, I just made up the term etymological narcissism (or at least, I can’t remember seeing it anywhere else). But Wapnick is very specific about pronouns, all while running a blog that intentionally markets a book called How to Be Everything.
The Real Problem with Multipotentialite as a Category
As an author myself, my narcissism is high. It has been ever since I was a kid, along with my cynicism and a high tendency to contradict just about everything I encounter.
According to a study called The Dark Cube: Dark Character Profiles and OCEAN, some people have high narcissism and low-agreeableness.
I’m not diagnosing anyone, but I am reflecting on my personal experience as someone who underwent psychoanalysis nearly twenty years ago in order to help me become more open.
As a result, I’ve become a better researcher and that’s why I went looking for the history of the term multipotentialite.
That’s when I found Fredrickson and Rothney’s book about multipotential youth.
No, Wapnick isn’t at all presenting the term multipotentialite as an original creation.
But the whole issue of assigning new terms and arguing for the right to own them without facing criticism makes me think of when Tony Buzan reportedly established trademarks for the term mind map. As of the time I’m writing this, I cannot find a trademark number for mind map in the UK related to any person or organization.
Don’t get me wrong. I loved Buzan, but as I wrote years ago about mind mapping, no one owns this term. Buzan did amazing work in popularizing a particular means of using round structures on paper to help with thinking and memory.
But if anyone gets credit for inventing that, it’s Ramon Llull with his memory wheels. And even then, the basic idea is much older.
My feeling is that there’s a fallacy of false attribution at play that lends itself to the problem of narcissism. So although I agree with Wapnick that focusing on the terms themselves is futile, by insisting on a special definition for multipotentialite, it’s almost as if there’s a rush deeper into the problem of categorizing things. Not a way out.
That’s why I find the book title How to Be Everything confronting. Even Buzan said that the rules will set you free. But when there are no rules and you can call yourself anything and be anything, meaning crumbles.
A Devastating Blow for the Meaning of “Polymath”?
Although the term “polymath” has a ton of historical weight, it’s not immune to critique.
For one thing, the ideals of the Renaissance Man not only feel unattainable. They don’t really exist, and you’d be right if you felt the urge to dismiss the idea completely.
Time and again, Burke shows how the idea of the polymath is historically determined. And when it comes to the medieval and Renaissance eras, he describes a paradox.
People like Robert Fludd could claim to know everything. But that’s only because there weren’t that many books you needed to cover.
By the same token, it was harder to travel in order to cover all of the extent books. So even though we can talk about our contemporary ideas about human psychology in terms of openness, a person also had to want to travel. They also needed to have the financial means to do and often the social network needed to meet people who owned various knowledge resources.
Indeed, you could be the most curious person in the world. But if you didn’t have a letter of introduction from a powerful person, you didn’t just waltz into the library of Saint-Victor of Paris. You had to know someone, and that’s exactly how Giordano Bruno managed to access it during his lifetime.
Key Differences Between Multipotenialite and Polymath as Learning Types
Putting my critical thinking aside, let’s assume that these terms are both equally valid.
The main differences between the two learning styles boil down to the following.
Learning Style
According to Wapnick, multipotentialites learn quickly and rapidly become functional in the skills they need to complete projects.
Although the examples Wapnick gives strike me as surface learning, that doesn’t mean there isn’t understanding.
It’s just that polymaths typically go far beyond learning just enough to implement. There’s usually mastery involved a depth of learning that is refined over decades.
In my experience, for example, I studied and taught for years before earning a Mercator guest professor grant. I played in multiple bands before being good enough to go on tour with The Outside. And I wrote multiple full-length books, a dissertation and several journal articles before a single one of my titles stood a chance on the market.
Then there’s the countless hours I’ve poured into learning how to run a website. That skill is related to my success on YouTube, but video is its own realm of speciality and I’ve spent years on everything related to crafting presentations and delivering specifically for the screen.
In other words, polymathic learning is iterative and expertise compounds based on foundations that are established in multiple foundations and built thoroughly.
So although a multipotenialite might code a website on the same day they produce a some graphics, a polymath might have the depth of knowledge needed to innovate a completely new programming paradigm – and the entrepreneurial skills enough to start a completely new business around it.
Interests
Wapnick argues that multipotentialites shift their multiple interests around based on opportunities as they arise. For this reason, I wonder why Wapnick hasn’t been drawn to the term autodidact as an alternative to polymath.
After all, Wapnick is talking about how lots of people operate in the current gig-economy. Side-hustles and short-term projects aren’t necessarily interests, though I suppose it helps if a person can make themselves interested enough to get something done to a reasonable standard.
Mastery drives the polymath, however. There’s typically long-term strategy involved, particularly aimed at solving specific problems.
Benjamin Franklin’s work in science, politics and publishing all focused on solving specific problems. He put in the depth of study needed to address the complexities involved in each.
Dealing with Obstacles
Multipotentialites may struggle with challenges like indecision. As Fredrickson and Rothney point out in their 1972 book, a problem for students with multiple potentials is that society pressures them to pick one thing.
Nothing has changed in our world, and it was definitely that way in the past. Many medieval schools required students to focus specifically on the Trivium and Quadrivium, eliminating decision-anxiety altogether.
If we take Fredrickson and Rothney’s description as our foundation, a main problem for people of potential is that they don’t like to feel isolated.
Polymaths, on the other hand, often embrace isolation. If anything, a common theme amongst the most inspiring polymaths is how challenging it is for them to work with others.
A polymath might find it extraordinarily difficult to learn something just to complete a quick job for someone. Anything that takes time from their passions might frustrate them – including their own projects.
That sounds funny, but many people have noted how easily da Vinci dropped various projects he was working on throughout his career. It’s not that he failed at some of them. He deliberately set them aside.
The Mastery Fallacy
Many people mistakenly believe that polymaths do everything perfectly.
This is absolutely incorrect. Most of them only manage to reach higher levels of mastery because they embrace mistakes and analyze them. Doing so is one of the key steps to follow if you want to become a polymath yourself.
Multipotentialites have the advantage here because they priortize competence and a spirit of exploration over depth.
If you’re happy with dabbling without developing synthesis, them assuming the multipotentialite label could serve you well.
But will acting that way provide you with with the true versatility Wapnick suggests?
I’d like to say that it’s completely up to you. But if we’re going to have meaning in our words and in this world, I suggest you grapple with the topic deeply.
In fact, you might want to study meaning itself to a polymathic standard of mastery.
How to Become a Multipotentialite or Polymath
Frankly, I’m not sure the idea of becoming a multipotentialite stacks up. It sounds to me more like a fancy way of saying one is a “free spirit.”
But if you want to use that term, it seems like all you have to do is:
- Explore lots of hobbies, side projects and various skills without pressuring yourself to commit to any of them. Lots of platforms like Udemy, Skillshare and Coursera cater to such outcomes.
- Network across multiple fields. As suggested in Recognizing and Assisting Multipotential Youth, go to lots of job fairs and visit a variety of professionals in multiple fields.
- Set short-term goals. Focus on functional skills for specific projects (like learning Photoshop).
Starting Out as a Polymath
Albeit challenging, the basics of polymathy couldn’t be simpler:
- Commit to depth in 2-3 fields and dedicate years to mastering them.
- Read foundational texts and take courses from the best experts you can find (even if they are snooze-inducing, it is possible to deal with boring topics).
- Keep a journal to help synthesize ideas across the fields you’re studying.
- Even if you prefer isolation, seek and invest in mentors. They will help guide your learning.
Either way, avoid the traps of self-labeling for validation.
As mentioned, I had problems with this habit when I was younger. I share the whole story of how I broke out of it in The Victorious Mind.
Yes, I admit that the book’s title is just another label, and sounds just as self-aggrandizing as How to Become Anything.
The difference is that I’m concerned for learners who wind up thinking that shallow exploration without accountability will truly fulfil them or make them feel like they are “everything.”
Always embrace your strengths, but stay critical of any claim that massive result without putting in some serious work.
Speaking of putting in some effort, feel free to take my free course on using the Memory Palace technique to rapidly remember anything as you engage in either learning approach.
It gives you four video tutorials and three worksheets.
I don’t skim on the details, so prepare for depth.
The focus here is on depth and rigorous skill-building when it comes to how you remember what you learn.
I hope you found this analysis of these two terms useful and as a fan of critical thinking, I look forward to your views and experiences related to what we learners call ourselves and the nature of accomplishment.
