Here is the full passage:
“Experts often recommend that people specialize in one field of work or research to maximize their chances of success. Yet our recently published research indicates that successful innovators take a broader path.
We looked at the careers of Nobel Prize winners, who are arguably among the most innovative people in the world. We found that they are unusually likely to be what we call “creative polymaths.” That is, they purposely integrate formal and informal expertise from widely varied disciplines to yield new and useful ideas and practices. In fact, the testimony of science laureates who were students of previous laureates suggests that creative polymathy is a skill that can be learned. We have written about some of these in our books “Discovering” and “Sparks of Genius.”
Many of these laureates discover problems by looking at topics in new ways, or they solve them by transferring skills, techniques and materials from one field to another. They often use conceptual tools such as making analogies, pattern recognition, body thinking, playacting and modeling. In one notable example, Alexis Carrel won his Nobel Prize in medicine in 1912 by adapting lace-making and embroidery techniques to transplant surgery."
I have an issue with two of the answers related to this question.
First Question
Why do the authors of the passage believe that creative polymathy is not necessarily an inborn trait?
- Students of award-winning professors went on to earn similar recognition themselves.
- The high number of Nobel Prize winners precludes the possibility of inherited genius.
- Creative polymaths are able to combine expertise from widely varying disciplines.
- Those who exhibit creative polymathy rely on other learned tools such as pattern recognition.
- A polymath is unlikely to rebuff conventional wisdom unless encouraged to do so.
Gregmat put the correct answer as (1). Their substantiation on the video was “In fact, the testimony of science laureates who were students of previous laureates suggests that creative polymathy is a skill that can be learned.” I think they have just misinterpreted what “testimony” means here. “testimony” means that WHAT THE STUDENTS SAID supports the idea that polymathy is learnt, rather than innate. IT DOES NOT mean that the EXISTENCE of the students is what supports it. Therefore Gregmat’s answer is wrong and the correct answer should be changed.
Second Question
It can be inferred that the most successful innovators at least occasionally rely on which of the following?
Select all that apply.
- Advice and training from other creative polymaths
- The honing of various techniques at the expense of others
- Knowledge acquired outside of academia or their profession
Similar issue here. Correct answers were (1) and (3). I understand and agree with (3). (1) stems from the same misinterpretation Gregmat had on the same sentence as before. He thinks that because the phrase means that the existence of the students, rather than the testimony of the students is what is supporting the idea that polymathy is a learnt skill, it must follow that the text is inferring that advice from other polymaths is relied on by successful innovators. If the text is interpreted correctly, then this box should be left unticked.