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."
A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one.
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. ;) )
I believe that I fit the description of polymath (I really know a lot about many things), but since I'm not exactly human so I do not know if my case counts.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
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.
I work for a television production studio. I started as a straightforward programmer out of college doing some graphics programs. That was over 20 years ago, and as technology evolved (and my "specialty" of programming silicon graphics workstations went by the wayside), I ended up writing tools and utilities for a variety of departments, requiring me to learn specific details about how different aspects television production works. Now I actually do very little programming, and when I do it's a different language depending on whether I'm writing a stand-alone interface, web services, and each graphics system has it's own scripting (even if they use VBS or Python, they all end up being different). I do handle the technical parts of AR, and I work with graphics operators to help them get data from 3rd parties; I have rigged up studio lighting and monitoring to be triggered by external events... I would say HR doesn't have a clue about it - my managers and the VP of my department are well aware, though.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I majored in Math and Minored in Philosophy, at first. I ended up taking more Philosophy than I did Math and getting 2 degrees. Liberal Arts has morphed into something else today though. You can get a Liberal Arts degree without ever taking Ethics, Logic, or even more than an "Intro" class to Philosophy at most schools.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
My breadth of specific technical knowledge is what makes me valuable to my company. I'm not saying I can't be replaced, I'm saying my unique set of knowledge that covers several different needed areas would make it difficult. That makes my "specialty" the broad range of things I can do. That specific breadth makes me valuable to my company... but unfortunately, only to my company.
Yep, good systems engineers for example may not have the depth of knowledge the guy implementing the software has, but they know enough to put the pieces together in the right order.
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.
Here is the thing, I like learning. I'm now in my 50's and still learning things daily. A lot of things, about a lot of topics. I am not really an expert in any one thing, but I do know a lot about a lot of different areas. Science, politics/law, computers/electronics, art, mechanics and so on.
I think what one knows is almost as important how deep. Broad knowledge over a wide range of areas allows one to see connections that others just can't see. I have a rare condition, and when I was told, I read everything I could on the subject. Everything. I'm not a doctor, but at least I can converse with my doctor, about my condition, and ask questions that need asking. Hell even knowing I don't know something, I can ask the question "Is there anything I should be asking, that I am not".
But learning, life long hard edge learning is the key. Most people stop learning, and just "do" whatever they know. I get that, it is comforting place to be satisfied. I just know I am not wired that way.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Of course we need polymaths, they're the only ones who can open the Chamber of Secrets!
I might have mis-read the summary...
good systems engineers know all the default and most common fault conditions of the systems they build/maintain.
*Great* systems engineers know all that and most of the less common fault conditions *and* know how to provide accurate debug data & questions to the developers such that an answer has a high probability of being the one you needed.
a.k.a. asking the right question.
It was something that I fought with all the damn time when I was at my former employer. SIs asked shotgun questions and provided no debug data, then bitched when we didn't answer the question "correctly". The good ones usually got their answers in half a day because they gave a debug dump, clear description of the problem & what was expected, and dead perfect reproduction steps.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Being master of something doesn't mean you are the very best in the world of that field, there is only one best.
Traditionally, in the trades a master is a person who is formally recognized by his/her peers to be equivalent enough in skill to join their ranks.
A master's degree is the obvious equivalent to this. And there are numerous people who have gone beyond this and possess PhD's in multiple fields. A Doctor of Philosophy is an important distinction and indicates that you have contributed to a field in some way.
If you contributed to multiple fields in a way that is recognized by the other leads of the field, I believe that is quite a fair qualification to be called a Polymath.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
HR departments don't. I got hired for one job.
However my breadth of knowledge is what kept me employed through layoffs. Having an engineer that can be a technician is cheaper during crunch time than an engineer and a technician. Two is obviously better, but in a furlough the guillotine comes down where it does.
It also helps to make friends across different parts of the company. IT likes me because unlike most of my engineering peers I know the basics. It means when I ask for something done on the side I have a better chance of getting it.
Further to this, I was having a discussion about this sort of thing in the cafeteria a while back. We were talking about how primary/secondary education should look, and I was saying how learning to parrot back specific knowledge was pretty useless, cause the google-web voice could do it better. They should be learning/practicing about learning (and synthesis) itself. How to gather and use available resources whatever the topic. etc. etc.
I opined as how I was pretty handy at google and could become an instant pseudo expert on whatever topic as needed, from fixing my bike's pneumatic disk brakes to the etiology, presentation, and different recommendations for treatments of shoulder ligament partial-thickness tears, to different takes on the phenomenon and meaning of quantum decoherence. etc. etc.
So one colleague now greets me as "Hey, It's instant-pseudo-expert" guy! I guess I had that coming.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Betteridge's law of headlines fails for the first time...
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...
It's good to hear that there are still HR departments who acknowledge the utility of this sort of talent.
Lots of companies value this. I highlight my own cross-competencies on my resume, and in interviews I tend to point out examples of how my knowledge in one area has enhanced my work in different, apparently unrelated areas. It never fails to impress.
We once had some cosmetology students visit our Astronomy lab on an open day. I guess they didn't read Cosmology and Stellar Modelling correctly.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
I prefer the term Renaissance Man from a time when luminaries dabbled in everything. Having a broad range of knowledge makes you a better leader because you don't get tunnel vision. It allows you to see connections between various subjects and to come up with ideas that are greater than the parts. If deeper knowledge is required, you hire someone who has that particular skill.