Editing Polymath (section)

=== Robert Root-Bernstein and colleagues ===
[[Robert Root-Bernstein]] is considered the principal responsible for rekindling interest in polymathy in the scientific community.<ref>Shavinina, L. (2013). How to develop innovators? Innovation education for the gifted1. ''Gifted Education International'', ''29''(1), 54–68.</ref><ref name=":1">Sriraman, B. (2009). Mathematical paradoxes as pathways into beliefs and polymathy: An experimental inquiry. ''ZDM'', ''41''(1–2), 29–38.</ref> His works emphasize the contrast between the polymath and two other types: the specialist and the dilettante. The specialist demonstrates depth but lacks breadth of knowledge. The dilettante demonstrates superficial breadth but tends to acquire skills merely "for their own sake without regard to understanding the broader applications or implications and without integrating it".<ref name="auto1">R. Root-Bernstein, 2009</ref>{{rp|857}} Conversely, the polymath is a person with a level of expertise that is able to "put a significant amount of time and effort into their avocations and find ways to use their multiple interests to inform their vocations".<ref name=":2">Root-Bernstein, R. (2015). Arts and crafts as adjuncts to STEM education to foster creativity in gifted and talented students. ''Asia Pacific Education Review'', ''16''(2), 203–212.</ref>{{rp|857}}<ref>Root-Bernstein, R. (2009). Multiple giftedness in adults: The case of polymaths. In ''International handbook on giftedness'' (pp. 853–870). Springer, Dordrecht.</ref><ref name=":3">Root-Bernstein, R. (2003). The art of innovation: Polymaths and universality of the creative process. In ''The international handbook on innovation'' (pp. 267–278).</ref><ref name=":4">Root-Bernstein, R., Allen, L., Beach, L., Bhadula, R., Fast, J., Hosey, C., ... & Podufaly, A. (2008). Arts foster scientific success: Avocations of nobel, national academy, royal society, and sigma xi members. ''Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology'', ''1''(2), 51–63.</ref><ref>Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2011). ''Life stages of creativity''.</ref>

A key point in the work of Root-Bernstein and colleagues is the argument in favor of the universality of the creative process. That is, although creative products, such as a painting, a mathematical model or a poem, can be domain-specific, at the level of the creative process, the mental tools that lead to the generation of creative ideas are the same, be it in the arts or science.<ref name=":3" /> These mental tools are sometimes called intuitive tools of thinking. It is therefore not surprising that many of the most innovative scientists have serious hobbies or interests in artistic activities, and that some of the most innovative artists have an interest or hobbies in the sciences.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":4" /><ref>Root‐Bernstein, R. S., Bernstein, M., & Gamier, H. (1993). Identification of scientists making long‐term, high‐impact contributions, with notes on their methods of working. ''Creativity Research Journal'', ''6''(4), 329–343.</ref><ref>Root-Bernstein, R. S., Bernstein, M., & Garnier, H. (1995). Correlations between avocations, scientific style, work habits, and professional impact of scientists. ''Creativity Research Journal'', ''8''(2), 115–137.</ref>

Root-Bernstein and colleagues' research is an important counterpoint to the claim by some psychologists that creativity is a domain-specific phenomenon. Through their research, Root-Bernstein and colleagues conclude that there are certain comprehensive thinking skills and tools that cross the barrier of different domains and can foster creative thinking: "[creativity researchers] who discuss integrating ideas from diverse fields as the basis of creative giftedness ask not 'who is creative?' but 'what is the basis of creative thinking?' From the polymathy perspective, giftedness is the ability to combine disparate (or even apparently contradictory) ideas, sets of problems, skills, talents, and knowledge in novel and useful ways. Polymathy is therefore the main source of any individual's creative potential".<ref name="auto1"/>{{rp|857}} In "Life Stages of Creativity", Robert and Michèle Root-Bernstein suggest six typologies of creative life stages. These typologies are based on real creative production records first published by Root-Bernstein, Bernstein, and Garnier (1993).

* Type 1 represents people who specialize in developing one major talent early in life (e.g., prodigies) and successfully exploit that talent exclusively for the rest of their lives. 
* Type 2 individuals explore a range of different creative activities (e.g., through worldplay or a variety of hobbies) and then settle on exploiting one of these for the rest of their lives. 
* Type 3 people are polymathic from the outset and manage to juggle multiple careers simultaneously so that their creativity pattern is constantly varied. 
* Type 4 creators are recognized early for one major talent (e.g., math or music) but go on to explore additional creative outlets, diversifying their productivity with age. 
* Type 5 creators devote themselves serially to one creative field after another. 
* Type 6 people develop diversified creative skills early and then, like Type 5 individuals, explore these serially, one at a time.

Finally, his studies suggest that understanding polymathy and learning from polymathic exemplars can help structure a new model of education that better promotes creativity and innovation: "we must focus education on principles, methods, and skills that will serve them [students] in learning and creating across many disciplines, multiple careers, and succeeding life stages".<ref>Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2017). People, passions, problems: The role of creative exemplars in teaching for creativity. In ''Creative contradictions in education'' (pp. 143–164). Springer, Cham.</ref>{{rp|161}}