
Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists - aytekin
https://medium.com/swlh/why-the-world-needs-deep-generalists-not-specialists-b7c32e223c70
======
snowwrestler
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 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.

~~~
nordsieck
> 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...](https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/career-
advice.html)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Thing is, it doesn't seem to pay, at least in the employment market.

Employers want specialists, and pay for them. If your CV is two or three
distinct things (I don't mean a selection of languages, or front and back end
dev here, I mean distinct skills like say programming and accountancy) it's
very unlikely to get you a better salary.

In fact if you've diverged from a straight specialism throughout your career
it's probable you'll be punished with a lower salary, and problems getting
hired in the first place. Expect a lot of challenging interview questions as
to why you haven't followed a straight line from junior, through senior into
project management (which of course is a different skill, making this even
more inconsistent).

I'm sure those same disparate skills could be _hugely_ useful if you're
starting a business or startup, but for employment it's likely to make life
harder, even though many employers would benefit just as much from your
increased breadth of perspective.

So outside a few rare employers, and a few lucky applicants, I don't think
there's much out there for generalists, sadly.

~~~
joshvm
> Employers want specialists, and pay for them. If your CV is two or three
> distinct things (I don't mean a selection of languages, or front and back
> end dev here, I mean distinct skills like say programming and accountancy)
> it's very unlikely to get you a better salary.

This really depends on your employer and your definition of specialist. There
are jobs where following a very straight career path would be a disadvantage:
you might be perceived as a boring candidate who would potentially struggle if
given work outside their domain. I think it's fair to say that, generally,
breadth is valued more at smaller companies where people have to multi-task.

In academia it's much easier to do well as an inter-disciplinary researcher
than it is to try and be the best in a single field. The obvious killer combo
right now is machine learning for X, where X is a field which does not have a
strong grounding in computer science. Hacker news gives a very skewed view on
the world, as if everyone is up to date with the latest developments in deep
learning. In reality, most people in academia are pretty unaware of what's
possible, or don't have the technical skills (or grad students with them) to
make use of it. This is _currently_ true even for maths-heavy fields like
physics, which you may find surprising - I certainly do. Now is a really good
time to get on the ladder.

You also need to consider job satisfaction. People who are pretty good at
several things may be bored with a single track career, and no amount of money
will make up for that.

~~~
WalterSear
> I think it's fair to say that, generally, breadth is valued more at smaller
> companies where people have to multi-task.

IME, not at all during the hiring process. And only rarely later.

~~~
kartickv
Is your experience with companies that could make use of your other skill? If
you understand accounting, and you're applying to a company that makes
photography apps, that won't be given much value.

~~~
WalterSear
Obviously if your skills aren't relevant, they aren't going to be used.

IMHO, this is mostly due to the nature of the industry I am in (software).
Hiring engineers is difficult, and only done when there are specific needs to
fill - particularly at small companies, that can't afford to think too far
ahead, or afield.

~~~
kartickv
I was asking if you've found your other skills ignored even when you could
explain to the company how they're relevant for them. For example, if you can
do accounting, and you're applying to work at a company like Tally that makes
accounting software, and you explain to them how your accounting skills are an
added reason to hire you, have they, in your experience, still ignored those
skills?

~~~
WalterSear
Yes.

------
CapitalistCartr
“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
Have 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.

~~~
dasmoth
My 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.

~~~
afarrell
Sure, and its useful as an _opener_ to the discussion of when to specialize
and when not to. But it isn't an _answer_ to the discussion.

------
pps43
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.

~~~
alehul
So 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
To 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.

~~~
alehul
While it's necessary to possess a substantial amount of knowledge, I would
argue that people who are older and have even more knowledge in the field are
usually too accepting of the current information to question it enough to
change it.

Einstein started working on general relativity at 28, and Heisenberg published
the uncertainty principle at 26. While Planck and Born were older for their
most famed work (late 30s?), they were still relatively young.

I would argue that this seems to show that there is some higher likelihood in
a scientific epiphany at a young age, when you've yet to accept information as
undoubtedly true, and instead are questioning it as you're learning.

------
crispinb
Where by 'the world' he means 'the economy', whose neurotic demands for ever
greater consumption are precisely what 'the world' does not need.

~~~
codyb
I 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
I'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
> Knowing, as we do, that an ever-expanding economy leads to global collapse

what?

~~~
undersuit
Our 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
I 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)

------
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.

------
andyidsinga
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 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
"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.

~~~
em-bee
you 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.

------
qwerty456127
Being 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.

~~~
Nasrudith
Personally 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
Quite right, an area where you also see this is consulting.

~~~
qwerty456127
Consulting is not an "area". You are supposed to specialize in some area and
accumulate specialized expertize in it first before you can become a
consultant anybody would be interested to consult to. Isn't this so?

------
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.

------
tw1010
Eric 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.

------
nraynaud
I 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.

------
inetsee
The article mentions Google's Code University. According to its web page "The
University Consortium is no longer actively maintained."

------
purplezooey
Generalists are the first ones to be laid off. Eventually there is cost
cutting and management says, "what does that guy do again?".

------
ohiovr
It takes 50,000 hours of productive practice to master a trade or study. Who
has the time to accomplish three of these?

~~~
Aperson4321
Some 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.

------
mikorym
A 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".

------
issa
I'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.

------
rvn1045
I 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.

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

~~~
TallGuyShort
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.

~~~
em-bee
in 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
A 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.

------
mathattack
Don’t we need both?

------
nraynaud
Good luck selling yourself if you go this route.

~~~
ohiovr
I know this is true from my own experience.

~~~
nraynaud
me too, so I just tell people that I know node.js :/

~~~
jacobush
Which is true regardless of your current knowledge of the subject, when you
compare against the hordes of people who claim the same.

You likely can pick up node.js baseline knowledge in a week.

