Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 133 posts

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#21

Post by crispinb »

snowwrestler wrote: post #10

Look, 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…

Indeed. There is a fair bit of incoherent conflation going on in this article. I'm definitely a generalist, yet somehow this has, to my dismay, failed to result in me being hailed as either polymath or genius.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#22

Post by jarfil »

snowwrestler wrote: post #10

Look, 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…

Also nowadays all domains have advanced so much that it's far more difficult to become highly proficient in more than a portion of a single one of them.

Still, generalist-like integrators are needed, but not at the cost of specialists.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#23

Post by Madmallard »

andyidsinga wrote: post #20
Madmallard wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could use more unicorns. Unicorns for everyone. They are more common than ever!

looking at population increase - if unicorns exist at all - big if :) - then there should be more in absolute terms.

it'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!

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#24

Post by keyle »

andyidsinga wrote: post #7

I 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 artic…

I think being a good polymath is always seeking knowledge and taking on a vast variety of small jobs.

Nothing is hard if you get going in it. And the best way to learn something is to have a problem to solve (that isn't too far fetched).

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#25

Post by TallGuyShort »

mitchtbaum wrote: post #9

I've never seen a school that teaches generalizing skills. To find one, that's a mystery.

It'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.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#26

Post by nordsieck »

snowwrestler wrote: post #10

Look, 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…

> Look, 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.

If you take this advice and tone it down a lot, it becomes both reasonable and good.

From Scott Adam's Career Advice [0]:

> But if you want something extraordinary, you have two paths:

> 1. Become the best at one specific thing.

> 2. Become very good (top 25%) at two or more things.

> The first strategy is difficult to the point of near impossibility. Few people will ever play in the NBA or make a platinum album. I don’t recommend anyone even try.

> The second strategy is fairly easy. Everyone has at least a few areas in which they could be in the top 25% with some effort. In my case, I can draw better than most people, but I’m hardly an artist. And I’m not any funnier than the average standup comedian who never makes it big, but I’m funnier than most people. The magic is that few people can draw well and write jokes. It’s the combination of the two that makes what I do so rare. And when you add in my business background, suddenly I had a topic that few cartoonists could hope to understand without living it.

___

0. https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/car...

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#27

Post by AstroChimpHam »

The 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.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#30

Post by pps43 »

taneq wrote: post #18
pps43 wrote: post #5

In 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.

You can still master 2-3 fields, if not to an international level. There are just far more fields to choose from now.

But can someone who knows only two or three fields out of so many that exist now be really called generalist?
Post reply on HN