Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists
1–10 of 133 posts
Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists
#2The article mentions Google's Code University. According to its web page "The University Consortium is no longer actively maintained."
Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists
#3Where by 'the world' he means 'the economy', whose neurotic demands for ever greater consumption are precisely what 'the world' does not need.
Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists
#4[deleted]
Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists
#5In 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.
Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists
#6Confirmation bias is real and documented.
Most people find it hard to accept only a few people can really be that smart.
Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists
#7I 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??
Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists
#8I 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…
"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.
Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists
#9I've never seen a school that teaches generalizing skills. To find one, that's a mystery.
Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists
#10Look, 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.