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

11–20 of 133 posts

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#11

Post by dwd »

I 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.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#12

Post by dancek »

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…

My 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.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#13

Post by andyidsinga »

Amazonerh wrote: post #8
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…

"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.

good 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" :)

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#15

Post by Madmallard »

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…

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

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#16

Post by dancek »

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…

I do think there's still the point that we're wasting our geniuses by making them specialists.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#17

Post by Barrin92 »

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…

that 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.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#18

Post by taneq »

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.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#20

Post by andyidsinga »

Madmallard wrote: post #15
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…

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.
Post reply on HN