

To generalise or specialise? - hhm
http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/jan-apr08/generalists/index.html

======
jd
Interesting study that leads to a mundane/obvious conclusion. In the final
paragraph it says:

    
    
       These results go against some long held beliefs [...]
       that societies require specialisation to be productive
       and efficient. However, D'Orazio thinks that, at least 
       for biological purposes, the new model will set a
       standard for future work.
    

In the cookie shop example -- wouldn't you say that an employee who can both
make and sell cookies is still very specialized? Two specializations perhaps,
but specialized nonetheless. Even if you don't take the second order benefits
(that having several specializations leads to better insight/productivity in
both tasks) into account any model that claims that specializing in one single
thing is the optimal division of labor is clearly wrong.

In math-speak: the commonly held belief is that for any society without
division of labor you can get to a better/more productive society by
introducing some version of division of labor. The belief was never that for
any society you can get a more productive society by increasing the division
of labor. (Obviously false because specialization itself bears a cost
[education, etc] and the marginal benefit of additional specialization
decreases the more specialized somebody is, therefore there must be a point
where additional specialization is actually harmful instead of beneficial.
This contradicts the claim that specialization is unconditionally good.)

Mathematical model: nice.

New or counter intuitive results: not as far as I can tell.

