22 ms·
Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists
- inetsee 8y agoThe article mentions Google's Code University. According to its web page "The University Consortium is no longer actively maintained."
- crispinb 8y agoWhere by 'the world' he means 'the economy', whose neurotic demands for ever greater consumption are precisely what 'the world' does not need.
- codyb 8y agoI mean... good luck finding a system of self organization for seven billion people which doesn't involve people trying to better their situation in some way? I mean I appreciate the sentiment, but 'the economy' might also be what's needed to tip us towards renewables (as people will want cheaper energy, and jobs making it possible). And can it really be neurotic when it's the culmination of seven billion individuals actions? Doesn't neurotic imply an inherit interest in self? And can you blame the poor for wishing for a better life? I'm just not sure there's much to this comment besides a "holier than thou" vibe.
- crispinb 8y agoI'm quite happy to admit (it's kind of self-evident) that criticism is easier than building. It's a known known now that our economy does end in catastrophe - the collapse of ecosystems (on which all life, ours included, depend) is happening apace, is entirely well-documented, and barely starts to be addressed by shifts to renewables. That's mostly limited to power generation, and in any case climate collapse is only one amongst thousands of ecosystem challenges. Knowing, as we do, that an ever-expanding economy leads to global collapse doesn't imply that we know the fix. I don't. Personally I doubt there is one. I think nothing in H. Sapiens' evolutionary inheritance empowers it with the attributes necessary to manage a global civilisation. > besides a "holier than thou" vibe. If you get that vibe from me, that's just my inadequate communication. I'm neither claiming to live better personally (which is anyway just more consumerist narcissism), nor to have a blueprint for a sustainable global civilisation (which would make me a towering genius). The only claim I'd make here is that I'm not in denial about physical reality (which economists and most business people are). > And can you blame the poor for wishing for a better life? The poor aren't the problem. The rich are. Adequate food and shelter could be achieved without trashing our home. Endless expansion of consumption cannot. > can it really be neurotic when it's the culmination of seven billion individuals actions It's not. There's such a thing as culture - human 'individual' actions have systemic causes. A culture of ever-increasing consumption is neurotic. It replaces the essential (functioning ecosystems) for the trivial (expanding consumer consumption).
- friedman23 8y ago> Knowing, as we do, that an ever-expanding economy leads to global collapse what?
- undersuit 8y agoOur world economy can't keep growing. Resources must be extracted and consumed to facilitate the movement of wealth. We must eventually stop, even the gray goo replicators run out of resources once they convert the planet to themselves.
- crispinb 8y agoI agree your conclusion is undeniable, but I don't think conceptualising endless growth as mere 'resource' consumption quite captures the danger & tragedy of the physical processes involved. 'Economic'(1) growth, in real physical terms (forget the fake virtual world of the economist), is the transfer of matter and energy from our world's self-sustaining complex systems to crude, temporary, early-stage technological ones. It is the transfer of entropy to the complex evolved systems on which we depend, causing their dynamically stable states, developed over millenia, to break down. These living systems are dying, everywhere on the planet. Our extremely fragile global civilisation will not last long as crises of our home's destruction start to roll in. Look at the convulsions caused in Europe by the feeblest of mini-crises in 2015. Far more is to come, and the consequences will be expanding waves of ever more intense wars and collapses of what passes for cooperation between nations. We've allowed the propaganda of endless economic growth, fictionally severed from physics, chemistry, and biology, to be broadcast without challenge by corporate capitalists for too long to pull back now. People believe in it. It is religion (and by far the most dangerous fundamentalism in history). I think it's a done deal now. (1) scare quotes intended here because the 'economy' is a Platonic fiction cooked up by fluffy-minded business folks & economists to make it seem like money floats, untethered, beyond physical reality. But it doesn't. Reality is coming back to bite them, and, unfortunately, all of us (where "us" includes the more-than-human world)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pps43 8y agoIn times of Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and (to a lesser extent) Benjamin Franklin one person could learn a significant portion of total scientific knowledge. That's no longer the case. There could be no more deep generalists.
- taneq 8y agoYou can still master 2-3 fields, if not to an international level. There are just far more fields to choose from now.
- pps43 8y agoBut can someone who knows only two or three fields out of so many that exist now be really called generalist?
- overgard 8y agoI think you’re kinda stuck on scientific fields though. I imagine it’s hard to know all of physics and chemistry for example; but I imagine you could simultaneously be say an excellent painter and also an excellent fiction writer, etc.
- alehul 8y agoSo true. There's two types of research; one that builds upon prior knowledge to new conclusions, and another that undermines everything previous to be incorrect or incomplete. The first is done by your average PhD in Physics, for example, while the latter was Einstein and then Heisenberg, Planck, and Born. While someone can be successful in the latter kind (undermining previous knowledge) through a fresh new hypothesis, the former kind of research, and the more common kind, requires understanding everything prior and reaching the current point of knowledge in that field. It's become increasingly hard, as evidenced by the increasing number of years of education it takes to master a subject.
- gus_massa 8y agoTo undermine previos knowledge you need to understand everything prior and reaching the current point of knowledge in that field, even more than if you want to make some incremental discovery. Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck, and Born had a deep knowledge of the current state of Physics at their time.
- primeblue 8y agoConfirmation bias is real and documented. Most people find it hard to accept only a few people can really be that smart.
- andyidsinga 8y agoI like to think of myself as somewhat of a polymath in tech - enjoying and doing decent work in a variety of types of software at all different layers. I also enjoy other things that I would put myself squarely in the hobbyist side: small engine repair, metal and woodwork, plumbing etc. So how would one determine if someone has 3 "top 1%" skill level (per the article)? I suppose the answer is in 2nd half of the article? Two types of more reasonably defined polymaths emerge - pick three skills and achieve a certain level of output in a reasonable time: apprentice level 4% input, 64% output, 10 months journeyman level 10% input, 80% output, 48 months. thoughts??
- Amazonerh 8y ago"Polymath in tech" is by nature not in line with the article IMHO. Let's assume you are a tech expert, now try to be a master chef or PhD in sociology or Olympic gold medalist in rowing etc I think the article mentions people who are able to master at complete different fields.
- andyidsinga 8y agogood points - completely different fields is sort of key to the article's points edit: btw - when I read your first sentence - I was like "ah shit...duh" :)
- em-bee 8y agoyou are right, but there is a paralell. when it comes to hiring programmers i prefer people who are good at programming in general and at least familiar with two or more languages. because those who are very good at only one language and have never touched another will have a hard time learning a second language, and, will also have a hard time getting to expert level because they will miss out on that additional pwrspective that other ways of doing things provide. same goes for knowing multiple web frameworks like angular and react for example, to be even more specific. greetings, eMBee.
- dancek 8y agoMy first thought on the requirement of reaching the top 1% was that it's unrealistic to achieve in three very different fields. But after some careful consideration it might actually be possible for quite a lot of people. What does it take to be a top 1% programmer? If you're smarter than most people, probably less than 20 years. Do that three times in different fields (and keep up with the other fields while learning a new one) and you're a polymath before 80. Be still a lot smarter, you can do it before 50. It's just that only some people are capable of reaching top 1% in their field to begin with. And of those capable, most won't because they change fields before they reach it or they have other priorities, etc. And the few people that do reach top 1% tend to be passionate enough to keep at it for the rest of their lives, and it's usually lucrative enough to try reaching an even higher level at that point. I like your definition of a reasonable polymath and it's my goal to be one. Most of us can't be da Vinci. Still, I hope we will see more of the true, strict, history-changing polymaths.
- mitchtbaum 8y agoI've never seen a school that teaches generalizing skills. To find one, that's a mystery.
- peterwwillis 8y agoCollege ?
- TallGuyShort 8y agoIt's limited to the general concept of the computer industry, but I did a degree in IT and several professors saw the focus as being "integration". You basically did a CS minor, plus classes in electronics, signals, web dev, databases, operating systems, etc. Projects have a heavy emphasis on communication, project management, etc. My peers ended up very quickly becoming programmers along-side CS grads, managers of various kinds, founders, IT personnel, tech support, hardware designers, etc.
- em-bee 8y agoin my university, we were allowed to pick any minor with a computer science major because they believed that computer science can be applied to everywhere. this was in the 90s when many universities required.that compter science be paired with math or a few other selected fields. turning that into a CS minor with the same sentiment would be an evolution of that approach. greetings, eMBee.
- TallGuyShort 8y agoA lot of the data science community was pushing statistics minors with some other major (or vice versa) for a while. I know that field is generally a bit over-hyped from an employment perspective to begin with, but I think that makes a lot of sense.
- dboreham 8y agoTry Scotland. It used to be a thing there.
- snowwrestler 8y agoLook, this essay is ridiculous. It starts by citing Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Benjamin Franklin, and then delivers silly things like this definition of a "generalist": > Someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set. Then proceeds with: > Despite the world’s immense need for polymaths, these individuals seem to be quite rare. That’s because society promotes specialization over generalization No, it's because the thing you're talking about is a "genius" not a "generalist." I agree that the world would benefit from more legendary geniuses like Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Francis Crick, or Richard Feynman! I do not agree that this opinion is novel, insightful, useful, or worth an essay.
- Madmallard 8y agoWe could use more unicorns. Unicorns for everyone. They are more common than ever!
- andyidsinga 8y agolooking at population increase - if unicorns exist at all - big if :) - then there should be more in absolute terms.
- Madmallard 8y agoit's true and with the increasing connectness then that means they can contribute more readily as well! Gotta get all those unicorns hiding in east asia to save the planet!
- dancek 8y agoI do think there's still the point that we're wasting our geniuses by making them specialists.
- Barrin92 8y agothat aside I think the question whether we need more generalists (of the non-genius sort) or specialists is a very important one. And I would say that this is probably a good idea because it seems like most valuable knowledge (and with the most benefit) is increasingly found between disciplines rather than in any single given discipline. There is huge potential in bioinformatics, applying quantitative methods to urban planning, technology assisted design and so forth, all of which requires combination of very different sets of traits.
- dwd 8y agoI believe the key is to never specialise in one thing for too long. You can always come back to something but you need to diversify your interests over time. First I can't imagine any of the polymaths simultanenously working day to day at a deep level across multiple fields. We don't seem to be able to multitask that well. However, I have a theory (so take with a grain of salt) that when we focus strongly on a task our brains rewire our neurons to optimise to use particular patterns for that situation. When you switch to a different field or spend time on a hobby your brain switches again as the previous patterns may not apply. It seems the breakthroughs come when the patterns from one field do apply to the new one. You may have been working on it forever but it took that change and the rewire to properly see it differently.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AstroChimpHam 8y agoThe author focuses on the generalists who did great things, but ignores the specialists who do important work, and speaks nothing of the many jack-of-all-trades who can’t find a job because their knowledge isn’t deep enough in any valuable area. If anything, most of the people I’ve seen not hired and let go has been due to not enough specialized knowledge, and this preventing them from being effective. The software engineer unemployment rate in the US is something like 1.6%. Engineers who specialize in self-driving cars get paid absurd amounts because there aren’t enough of them. We need more specialists, not generalists. If they’re specialists in more than one thing, that’s even better, but it’s not the main problem.
- nraynaud 8y agoGood luck selling yourself if you go this route.
- ohiovr 8y agoI know this is true from my own experience.
- nraynaud 8y agome too, so I just tell people that I know node.js :/
- Nasrudith 8y agoTechnically better than betting on a specialty that becomes reduced to uselessness such that professing knowledge in it is practically shameful but it still sucks.
- tw1010 8y agoEric Weinstein just needs to teach the world how to self-teach yourself anything. He's given plenty proof he's managed to do it himself, and he says he knows the secret. But I still eagerly await him to explicitly describe the polymath recipe.
- qwerty456127 8y agoBeing a generalist by nature makes it very hard to build a successful career. I'm a generalist and what I see is the society is built around specialization.
- abootstrapper 8y agoIMOP the best profession for a generalist is entrepreneurship. Not that entrepreneurship doesn't entail its own hardships though.
- qwerty456127 8y agoPerhaps but entrepreneurship sounds quite fearsome for people that neither feel really sociable (and I doubt many generalists do) nor have a serious financial capital they can risk safely.
- rhizome 8y agoTestify, brother!
- Nasrudith 8y agoPersonally I think being a generalist is ironically is effectively the same niche as yet another specialization. It sounds nonsensical and contradictory at first glance but makes some sense. If you are able to do everything equally well you will likely be out-competed in any given field by specialists (barring say a generally applicable approach flat out being better like an engineer designing tools which can outperform master craftsmen in both volume and precision). However if there is a task which requires broad knowledge (say integration) or it is just more efficient or otherwise better for the current scaling due to the costs of trying to maintain a stable of appropriate specialists it is a niche where a generalist will win out. We usually see a general practitioner first instead of heading straight for a dermatologist about a rash.
- pjmlp 8y agoQuite right, an area where you also see this is consulting.
- ohiovr 8y agoIt takes 50,000 hours of productive practice to master a trade or study. Who has the time to accomplish three of these?
- Aperson4321 8y agoSome people learn fast, very very fast, and they might get so fascinated by something that they have no choice but to try to learn certain things. It can feel like suffocating not to try to learn that amazing looking something, and it can be so much fun when the learning is so fast. So for some people its less about time and more about accidentally learning multiple subjects.
- mathattack 8y agoDon’t we need both?
- purplezooey 8y agoGeneralists are the first ones to be laid off. Eventually there is cost cutting and management says, "what does that guy do again?".
- issa 8y agoI'm not sure how useful this article is, but I think the idea that combining multiple disciplines can lead to breakthroughs is hardly controversial. It's certainly great for startups and for the whole "software is eating the world" thing.
- CapitalistCartr 8y ago“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” --Robert Heinlein
- afarrell 8y agoHave you ever tried to plan an invasion? Like, actually done a net assessment of a scenario in detail accounting for terrain, equipment, training, intelligence, logistics, and all the other things that go into a military encounter? It is time-consuming and hard. So is efficiently butchering a hog. So is learning to program well. Changing diapers and pitching manure? Not so much. Dying gallantly? Only get to practice that once, so how would you get good at it? People throw this quote around because it is fun to imagine yourself as a supremely Competent Man in all these domains. Indeed, it makes for excellent fiction—-but it is just that, fiction. When you actually start trying to seriously think about investing in specialized skills like military science, this quote quickly reveals itself to have not made any distinction between life skills that the average person should have and things which require years of study.
- friedman23 8y agoThe quote is tongue in cheek, you should have probably gotten that on plan an invasion.
- PavlovsCat 8y agoIt's simply not to be taken that literally but that doesn't make it tongue in cheek. Write some poetry, it helps understanding what others write.
- dasmoth 8y agoMy father started butchering lambs based on reading a book, and using tools already around the house (he might have bought a cleaver, but pretty sure that was after he'd done the first few). The first one took quite a while, but worked out fine. Did he ever get as efficient as someone who does it every day? Of course not. But it's very definitely a learnable skill. I do agree that the invasion is a bit of an outlier, although even in that case there are questions of scale. I've always loved that quote, but my reading is: on top of the everyday things, it's worth picking up several skills which require some deep study. No, you won't get them all, but having several -- and being open to learning something new if a good opportunity arises -- is valuable.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rvn1045 8y agoI don't see how someone conciously chooses different domains and becomes good at them. this isint a strategy that can be followed. what ends up happenning with people who are pretty good at a lot of things is that - they start doing something because they find it interesting, then they get bored and move onto something else that catches their interest.
- mikorym 8y agoA category theory studies the general form of many familiar structures. A category theorist's publications are however usually starkly specific. What is the point of this article then? Maybe it is popular, cheap reading like Malcolm Gladwell and something in the line of "career advice".
- nraynaud 8y agoI think there is an issue of power/money. If you have power or money you can call yourself a generalist and hire the experts in the various fields you want to assemble. For the generalist not in a position of power, the dynamic is really different, people won’t hire you to read a book or increase your knowledge on something else during office hours, either you have to be independently wealthy or use family time.