Slashdot Mirror
The Modern Day Renaissance Man
Kilrah_il writes "The Not Exactly Rocket Science blog has an interesting piece about Erez Lieberman Aiden, a scientist that is frequently hopping from one field to another, including 'molecular biology, linguistics, physics, engineering and mathematics.' This is in contrast to the prevailing trend of specializing in a specific field. 'I think a huge amount of invention is recognizing that A and B go together really well, putting them together and getting something better. The limiting step is knowing that A and B exist. And that's the big disadvantage that one has as a specialist – you gradually lose sight of the things that are around. I feel I just get to see more,' Aiden said. The post shows how failure to map antibodies led to an important discovery of the 3D folding of DNA and how the study of irregular verbs created a new scientific field."
Yes, generalists are important for the reasons stated in the blurb. But specialists provide grist for the mill of generalists - you can only investigate different combinations of known components for so long.
Jumping from field to field to pursue your passion sounds great, but unfortunately, most of us need to work. I think most geeks would opt to become a "Renaissance Man" given enough funds. :)
Contrary to Robert Heinlein, specialization is not for insects. Especially in fields where not one single person can have all the details.
This doesn't mean education other than the field of study is pointless. It is important to know something about biology, nuclear physics, math, and other items. However, trying to do a career as a jack of all trades means that one ends up a commodity, competing without any real advantages.
Specialization keeps people employed. For example, I know guys still doing SAP Basis administration. Unless the company they work for wants to completely chunk most of its internal workings, those guys are not going anywhere.
A balance needs to be reached. Being a one trick pony is bad. So is a jack of all trades. So, it doesn't hurt to always keep versed in multiple items. So, if SAP gets phased out, one can always use cross skills learned from Basis administration as a DBA. If the DBA game doesn't work out, there is always development.
Hardly a renaissance man... ...unless he's also good at painting, sculpture and anal sex.
He knows it's better to give than receive.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
IDEO has a really good philosophy about the type of people they hire to work in their firm. They refer to these types of people as T-shaped People. T-shaped People have a broad understanding of almost everything, but there's one thing that they are pretty darned good at. That allows some who is an experienced and knowledgeable engineer to innovate and collaborate with designers, programmers, fine artists, psychologists, or anyone one else in their team, and as the article states, that it allows them to innovate better because they understand more about the world around them.
So basically a T-shaped person is a hybrid between a specialist and a generalist. You do need people who have a deep understanding of one subject to get stuff done, but a broad understanding of everything else to communicate with people who have deep knowledge in their own field.
Robert Heinlein put it best:
"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."
Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
Why would it be objectively better for people to be either specialists or generalists? Not only is there room for both but both are required to keep the world going.
...I'm looking forward to reading about edible plants in my region, organic farming techniques, and the status of women in former Soviet republics.
It seems that you are trying to create a farm labored by women from Eastern Europe at minimum wage, perhaps even a cult. Need some help with that?
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
...frequently hopping from one field to another, including 'molecular biology, linguistics, physics, engineering and mathematics.
Huh. That's exactly how I browse Wikipedia.
I've made edits to articles in all of those fields. Does that make me a Renaissance Surfer or something? ;)
Reminds me of a short story by Isaac Asimov called 'The Dead Past'. A society that directs its specialists can control its development.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
The article makes a good argument, but most of the times a generalist will get either unfocused on a specific problem cause of the lack of specialization, or more commonly, just not being understood. The latter is very, very important for a person like Aiden to be successful. And when he is successful, great things are guaranteed to happen. And that's why he's right in his argument.
For example, I've been from theoretical physics, to oncology and medical imaging, to aerospace/control systems, to database design and financial systems, to lingustic/taxonomic systems, to photogrammetry, cinematography and data communications.... Most problems [of today] are pattern-based, and having a "deep dive" into all many subjects allows one to identify those patterns where as a specialist cannot. In real-world terms, a specialist can get/explain a problem under controlled conditions, under his/her terms (which isn't the real world). A generalist can explain/solve the problem in the real world, but may not be able to determine the underlying properties in order to optimize it or make it better [understood]. Imagine explaining how to optimize a web service to a post-doc's experiment in order for him to rewrite his output from matlab into a good json format in order to leverage multiple computers to get his calculations right, on time, for a time critical NRT simulation. A lot gets lost in the communication.
It's nice to figure out E=mc^2, but to get a nuclear reactor working requires a larger set of interdisciplinary skills.
And 99% of the time there's no way to explain solutions to other generalists and specialists cause, a. other generalists lack of domain knowledge (from not taking as deep a dive into subjects) and b. specialists have a specific mind set and limited nomenclature in explaining things. That's why specialists are more valued in society today, they can explain their "craft" to the point a group of folks can understand it. Hence, it's typical for generalists to be less valued (i.e. none of the glory).
If (what I call) a "deep-dive generalist" is understood, a lot of progress, epiphany, and invention will likely be the outcome. Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, and Carl Sagan come to mind.
For a lucid argument on the need for generalists, read "Critical Path" by R. Buckminster Fuller.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Disregard the sexual requirement (it's optional, actually), and the AC has a point. The Renaissance Man of the Renaissance was not just a general scientist but also an artist and probably a philosopher.
As someone who holds both a BS in Computer Science (minor in Philosophy) and a BFA in Illustration (minor in Digital Media), I have a rather obvious personal bias that tells me that such people are highly valuable. Not that the employers I encounter seem to share that opinion.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
i can return the favor
grasp your chest, point at the sky, and profess your love to a woman a child or a country
there, you've died gallantly
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There are a ton of specialists, ranging from clearly incompetent or mediocre to acceptable professionals that aren't that good or specialized. Or that smart. There are some "generalists" out there that can clearly dominate multiple fields and put a lot of specialists to shame, but the usual trend is to shun "generalists" because they usually know as much or more than you do of your field, and it has taken them a lot less time to learn the same as you. Smart specialists are the exception, not the norm.
Yes I could be called a sort of generalist, in the sense that I work in multiple fields, and can beat most average "specialists" on those fields. I like to work on different things, and I like to learn and experiment. I also can understand that, in some areas of expertise, you really need to dedicate your life to it to actually be an expert, but most fields arent that demanding. And yes, I know too well how this notion can upsets some "specialists".
From my personal experience, I think the problem starts with the education system, it lowers the bar so the people with most learning difficulties can keep up, and dumbing down those more capable. It would be beneficial if the most capable students could get advanced classes, because they usually grow up to being unable to process and retain relevant amounts of information.
As ceo of a small company, I probably wouldn't hire someone like me, but not because the lack of "career specialty".I think that good generalists are difficult to manage, and are allways looking for the next challenge and get somewhat bored easily when the novelty wears off. They would be a perfect fit for a company with a big R&D department, not only because they could bounce ideas with the actual specialists, but because the interdisciplinary knowledge could be an important asset to the department.
...someone who frequently hopped from discipline to discipline invented frequency hopping.
Their they're doing there hair.
Specialists hated his meddling when it challenged them. But specialists often fall in to lock step with incorrect theories for reasons that have more to do with the politics of career advancement rather than good science. (Look at the history of the theory of plate tectonics.) Generalists don't have the vested interest in succumbing to peer pressure that specialists do and so are free to explore whatever avenues of thought they think might be fruitful, free of the worry of achieving prominence in any given field.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.