Slashdot Mirror
Does the World Need Polymaths? (bbc.com)
Two hundred years ago, it was still possible for one person to be a leader in several different fields of inquiry. Today that is no longer the case. So is there a role in today's world for the polymath -- someone who knows a lot about a lot of things? From a report: Bobby Seagull's fist-pumping and natty dressing, and Eric Monkman's furrowed brow, flashing teeth, contorted facial expressions and vocal delivery -- like a fog horn with a hangover -- made these two young men the stars of the last University Challenge competition. [...] They're still recognised in the street. "People often ask me, do you intimidate people with your knowledge," says Monkman. "But the opposite is the case. I have wide knowledge but no deep expertise. I am intimidated by experts." Seagull, like Monkman, feels an intense pressure to specialise. They regard themselves as Jacks-of-all-Trades, without being master of one. "When I was young what I really wanted to do was know a lot about a lot," says Monkman. "Now I feel that if I want to make a novel contribution to society I need to know a great deal about one tiny thing." The belief that researchers need to specialise goes back at least two centuries. From the beginning of the 19th Century, research has primarily been the preserve of universities. Ever since, says Stefan Collini, Professor of Intellectual History and English Literature at Cambridge University, researchers have labels attached to them. "They're professor of this or that, and you get a much more self-conscious sense of the institutional divides between domains of knowledge."
Otherwise we get people who are VERY specialized in a singular field, but completely myopic.
Then they either:
a) don't see the connections between their field of study, and others -- kind of a silo effect
b) have a high level of expertise in one field, and can speak with authority on that topic, but foolishly believe that it carries over to everything else.
(this is also why liberal arts educations are a good thing, and STEM majors tend to be incredibly dull people. ;) )
The value of specialization is obvious to most people, but it seems that somewhere along the line people stopped thinking of the value that generalists bring.
Aside from general utility (the reason that you are more likely to carry a multitool with you than carrying a knife, even though the knife is much better at knifing), there is a more important thing:
Generalists are better able to see interconnections between disciplines, and how to leverage them.
Troubleshooters often need wide ranging interdisciplinary knowledge.
The most valuable people often have deep expertise in TWO fields, so you can apply the knowledge of one to the other. For instance, if you are very knowledgeable about both GPU programming and fluid dynamics, you are going to make a lot of money.
We invented the desktop computer and now people who aren't very good at arithmetic can use a spreadsheet to calculate sales growth. This has made it possible for less intelligent people to step into roles that they would not have been qualified for a few generations ago. The big thing that is now missing is a real comprehension of the tasks they are performing, the ability to look at the results the computer gives them and question if they really make sense. The first effect of this is increased entropy, things become less stable over time, things that used to work don't work quite as well (for example, headphone plugs and headphone jacks have been standardized for years, but changes in the configurations mean some headphones won't work with some jacks). The second effect is corruption, people realizing that there are some gaps in the numbers on paper, and they can exploit them for personal gain (for example Defense contracts in the 1980's, where a toilet see could cost thousands of dollars).
I'm in my 30s and have already had a large amount of success by having a little bit of math, computer science and engineering knowledge. I've received many awards for my work (even one from President Obama at the White House)... but I'm incredibly intimidated by my peers who all specialized in either math OR computer science OR engineering. While I'm always able to put the pieces together in a novel way... which solves interesting problems... I always feel out of my depth when it comes to conversation.
I'm currently back at school doing a PhD in yet another interdisciplinary field: Computational Science and Engineering. But this time I'm specializing in applying it to nuclear energy production. It feels good to specialize a bit and really learn something about _one_ field in particular. I still won't be the world's greatest nuclear engineer... but at least I can hold my own in conversations now.
In addition to just feeling like I don't know much I must admit that publishing is always difficult. Journals tend to be very specialized and deciding where to send my papers or even what audience to target can be tough.
That said: there are not too many generalists out there, so I know that my interdisciplinary skillset will always be valuable... you just have to push past that feeling of knowing "nothing"
"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!" - R. Heinlein
Never stop learning. Do not be afraid to try new things.
It may not work for everyone, but I had many job offers base on the fact that I have done a little bit of everything. One Manager that hired me specifically said that the offer was based on the fact that I could be flexible and move to many positions on their team if needed. (and did so)
However, utility player positions do not get the big paychecks. So eventually find something to focus on.
I am an expert and well accomplished in software engineering, digital circuit design, computer graphics, CPU architecture, and several other things. One time I had a recruiter tell me I should write one software and one hardware resume because companies won't believe that I could be good at both. Even after I'd had like 15 years of experience. It just shows you how cookie cutter hiring practices usually are.
On the other hand after I had been working as a professor for a while, these combos came in handy to get side work as an expert witness. I guess it's okay after your reach some level or amount of experience.
Decent generalists (competent in many areas in their specific field) are somewhat rare, let alone true polymaths (expert in several fields). That means they are hard to find and recruit, plus they are somewhat hard to test, so most HR depts avoid creating job openings for them like the plague. They'd prefer to hire 5 other guys to do the same job at much greater expense, if those 5 fit their cookie cutter job descriptions. Same goes for managers, they prefer to manage interchangable resources rather than people. (Yes, there are some managers and HR people I respect, but I have very little respect for these professions as they are generally taught and practised)
The exception seems to be working in innovation (which is not at all like thinking up cool shit with a bunch of other neck beards in a hipster office with a foosball table and an office cat, by the way). Being a generalist there can be a real asset, and a polymath even more so. But even in innovation (in larger organisations), it's not that often that the need for good generalists is recognized up front.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Issac Asimov ....