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. ;) )
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'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"
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
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...