Hmm. I've heard it said that some people are natural generalists and others are natural specialists. That is, given the same amount of time, the generalist can understand, at reasonable depth, stuff from different domains and can synthesize them to achieve a "global" understanding, while the specialist is best at funneling deeply into one topic. I've also heard that if you are one of these types, you should not pretend to be the other.
Great philosophers are generalists, while great physicists are specialists.
There's a great push for people to become specialists, so generalists feel guilty, and in fact it might be best to specialize no matter which type you think you are, but, speaking idealistically, we should be free to choose either path without guilt.
One thing I was trying to say is that, instead of trying to become an expert in one narrow discipline, perhaps you can become an expert in the overall synthesis of several disciplines. You'd be an expert generalist :).
Specialization as a topic of mastery for a generalist?haydensphereJanuary 27 2005, 21:37:49 UTC
I wonder whether a true generalist might learn specialization in at least one field, to know what it feels like (and to understand how a potential collaborator -- the specialist -- operates).
Is this possible? Does it violate the spirit of generalism, or does it more fully realize it?
Re: Specialization as a topic of mastery for a generalist?self_referentFebruary 10 2005, 23:08:18 UTC
I'm sure it's possible, even valuable. But if you're better at broad synthesis than at absorbing and working with details, it might be rather painful to specialize.
Many highly intelligent people, such as yourself, find it difficult to specialize. Here are some quotes (are we allowed to quote external sources on livejournal blogs?) from an article about extremely intelligent people, from the November '99 issue of Esquire"It's easy, when you're interested in lots of things, to get
( ... )
Comments 5
I recommend reading the narrative late at night, out loud, with expression, before a lit candle. :-)
Then: which character speaks to you?
Reply
Hmm. I've heard it said that some people are natural generalists and others are natural specialists. That is, given the same amount of time, the generalist can understand, at reasonable depth, stuff from different domains and can synthesize them to achieve a "global" understanding, while the specialist is best at funneling deeply into one topic. I've also heard that if you are one of these types, you should not pretend to be the other.
Great philosophers are generalists, while great physicists are specialists.
There's a great push for people to become specialists, so generalists feel guilty, and in fact it might be best to specialize no matter which type you think you are, but, speaking idealistically, we should be free to choose either path without guilt.
End exploratory comment.
Reply
Reply
Is this possible? Does it violate the spirit of generalism, or does it more fully realize it?
Reply
Many highly intelligent people, such as yourself, find it difficult to specialize. Here are some quotes (are we allowed to quote external sources on livejournal blogs?) from an article about extremely intelligent people, from the November '99 issue of Esquire"It's easy, when you're interested in lots of things, to get ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment