4 ms·
> Generalists are typically far better at motivating the relevance of a problem/situation and filtering out the important details from the unimportant. Couldn'
by rmrfstar 6y ago
> Generalists are typically far better at motivating the relevance of a problem/situation and filtering out the important details from the unimportant.
Couldn't agree more.
John von Neumann is a perfect example. His colleagues would often lament his unwillingness to adopt a narrow specialty, but I think it was his wide range that allowed him to maintain the passion that made him so effective. [1]
[1] http://paulgraham.com/genius.html http://paulgraham.com/genius.html
- croissants 6y agoWell yeah, given the choice between specializing in one area and acquiring specialist-level expertise in a bunch of areas before you're 40 (which is what von Neumann did -- look at all of the sections in his Wikipedia page [1]!), it's better to do the second one. But most people are choosing between specializing in one or maybe two areas and having very-sub-specialist-level expertise in more. von Neumann's not an example of that kind of generalist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann
- hackerfromthefu 6y agoI think this illuminates the difference that makes the difference here. A polymath is actually good at many things, not just has an opinion about them. This takes an unusual level of ability. In other words a generalist is not a polymath, because the polymath is better at the generalised abilities. That's what felt wrong about the article, it was conflating unusually talented polymaths with the ubiquitous averagely talented internet pundits :p