Comments on: In Praise of Generalists. http://candaceshaw.ca/in-praise-of-generalists/ Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:19:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Candace http://candaceshaw.ca/in-praise-of-generalists/comment-page-1/#comment-241 Candace Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:07:04 +0000 http://candaceshaw.ca/?p=913#comment-241 I think I should have written this article more clearly; I may go in and do some editing. I'm not anti-specialist. But I know people who put their head down, their blinders on, and focus on <em>the thing that they do</em> to the exclusion of pretty much all else. Like social skills, or hobbies, or interests. And I do find that they atrophy. I'm not saying they don't achieve some neato things first, but the people that do things that inspire and excite me generally do so by making connections between things that people haven't made connections between yet (oh syntax, my old enemy). I think people should certainly pick a thing, or a couple of things, and focus on them; but they need to occasionally engage with people outside of their discipline in order to grow beyond their own limits. I'm a generalist to a fault; I never pick a thing, and so I'm pretty good at all kinds fo things, but never really good at any one thing. It makes me more useful, but more difficult to initially find a use for. Oooh, another good example is when some Geologists started talking to some Archaeologists about the ancient site at Delphi - the Archs had long been convinced that there was no freaking way that gas actually issued from a fissure in the earth, but to the Geos, it was obvious that Delphi was on a great big honkin' fault line, and when they worked together they proved that the Pythia (the oracle) was most likely inhaling small amounts of Nitrous Oxide, and overturned like, 80 years of academic denial of the sources, validated a lot of what Plutarch had written, etc. ( a good book about it is The Oracle by William J. Broad, which was so exciting a read that I couldn't put it down, which sounds like, 'way dorky, but it's true). Oooh, and in<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_full_learning_from_the_gecko_s_tail.html" rel="nofollow"> this TED talk</a> Robert Full talks about cross-disciplinary work to move Biology forward (it's a really Biology-centric way of expressing it, but really he's moving engineering forward equally). I think the focus (especially in academia) has been on specializing, but that you need a healthy blend of generalist and specialist to really move things forward in any serious way. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, but sometimes birds dive to catch fish and fish jump into the air to catch bugs. Getting out of your element might provide you with a tasty dinner! I think I should have written this article more clearly; I may go in and do some editing.
I’m not anti-specialist. But I know people who put their head down, their blinders on, and focus on the thing that they do to the exclusion of pretty much all else. Like social skills, or hobbies, or interests. And I do find that they atrophy. I’m not saying they don’t achieve some neato things first, but the people that do things that inspire and excite me generally do so by making connections between things that people haven’t made connections between yet (oh syntax, my old enemy).
I think people should certainly pick a thing, or a couple of things, and focus on them; but they need to occasionally engage with people outside of their discipline in order to grow beyond their own limits. I’m a generalist to a fault; I never pick a thing, and so I’m pretty good at all kinds fo things, but never really good at any one thing. It makes me more useful, but more difficult to initially find a use for.

Oooh, another good example is when some Geologists started talking to some Archaeologists about the ancient site at Delphi – the Archs had long been convinced that there was no freaking way that gas actually issued from a fissure in the earth, but to the Geos, it was obvious that Delphi was on a great big honkin’ fault line, and when they worked together they proved that the Pythia (the oracle) was most likely inhaling small amounts of Nitrous Oxide, and overturned like, 80 years of academic denial of the sources, validated a lot of what Plutarch had written, etc. ( a good book about it is The Oracle by William J. Broad, which was so exciting a read that I couldn’t put it down, which sounds like, ‘way dorky, but it’s true).

Oooh, and in this TED talk Robert Full talks about cross-disciplinary work to move Biology forward (it’s a really Biology-centric way of expressing it, but really he’s moving engineering forward equally).

I think the focus (especially in academia) has been on specializing, but that you need a healthy blend of generalist and specialist to really move things forward in any serious way.

Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, but sometimes birds dive to catch fish and fish jump into the air to catch bugs. Getting out of your element might provide you with a tasty dinner!

]]> By: David Newland http://candaceshaw.ca/in-praise-of-generalists/comment-page-1/#comment-240 David Newland Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:19:19 +0000 http://candaceshaw.ca/?p=913#comment-240 Yay, bathos! How else could we possibly refer to the dizzying lurch from Genghis Khan to The Golden Girls? I think you're right in praising generalism - someone I very much admire reminded me that the root of "dilettante" is "diletto," meaning delight - but I'm concerned with the notion that a specialist somehow dwindles or atrophies. I'm with Blake here: "To see a World in a grain of sand, And Heaven in a wild flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour." And I don't think you can do that without being still, and engaging with infinite depth rather than limitless breadth. Yay, bathos!

How else could we possibly refer to the dizzying lurch from Genghis Khan to The Golden Girls?

I think you’re right in praising generalism – someone I very much admire reminded me that the root of “dilettante” is “diletto,” meaning delight – but I’m concerned with the notion that a specialist somehow dwindles or atrophies.

I’m with Blake here:

“To see a World in a grain of sand,
And Heaven in a wild flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.”

And I don’t think you can do that without being still, and engaging with infinite depth rather than limitless breadth.

]]>