Are the days of Da Vinci dead? Is it possible to, at once, be a world-class painter, engineer, scientist, and more?
“No way. Those times are long gone. Nothing was discovered then. Now the best you can do is pick your field and master it.”
The devout specialist is fond of labeling the impetuous learner–Da Vinci
and Ben Franklin being just two forgotten examples–”jack of all trades,
master of none.” The chorus unites: In the modern world, it is he who
specializes who survives and thrives. There is no place for Renaissance
men or women. Starry-eyed amateurs.
Is it true? I don’t think so. Here are the top five
reasons why being a “jack of all trades,” what I prefer to call a
“generalist,” is making a comeback:
5) “Jack of all trades, master of none” is an artificial pairing.
It is entirely possible to be a jack of all trades, master of many.
How? Specialists overestimate the time needed to “master” a skill and
confuse “master” with “perfect”…
Generalists recognize that the 80/20 principle applies to skills: 20%
of a language’s vocabulary will enable you to communicate and
understand at least 80%, 20% of a dance like tango (lead and footwork)
separates the novice from the pro, 20% of the moves in a sport account
for 80% of the scoring, etc. Is this settling for mediocre?
Not at all. Generalists take the condensed study up to, but not
beyond, the point of rapidly diminishing returns. There is perhaps a 5%
comprehension difference between the focused generalist who studies
Japanese systematically for 2 years vs. the specialist who studies
Japanese for 10 with the lack of urgency typical of those who claim that
something “takes a lifetime to learn.” Hogwash. Based on my experience
and research, it is possible to become world-class in almost any skill
within one year.
4) In a world of dogmatic specialists, it’s the generalist who ends up running the show.
Is the CEO a better accountant than the CFO or CPA? Was Steve Jobs a
better programmer than top coders at Apple? No, but he had a broad range
of skills and saw the unseen interconnectedness. As technology becomes a
commodity with the democratization of information, it’s the big-picture
generalists who will predict, innovate, and rise to power fastest.
There is a reason military “generals” are called such.
3) Boredom is failure.
In a first-world economy where we have the physical necessities covered with even low-class income, Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs
drives us to need more for any measure of comparative “success.” Lack
of intellectual stimulation, not superlative material wealth, is what
drives us to depression and emotional bankruptcy. Generalizing and
experimenting prevents this, while over-specialization guarantees it.
2) Diversity of intellectual playgrounds breeds confidence instead of fear of the unknown.
It also breeds empathy with the broadest range of human conditions
and appreciation of the broadest range of human accomplishments. The
alternative is the defensive xenophobia and smugness uniquely common to
those whose identities are defined by their job title or single skill,
which they pursue out of obligation and not enjoyment.
1) It’s more fun, in the most serious existential sense.
The jack of all trades maximizes his number of peak experiences in
life and learns to enjoy the pursuit of excellence unrelated to material
gain, all while finding the few things he is truly uniquely suited to
dominate.
The specialist who imprisons himself in self-inflicted
one-dimensionality — pursuing and impossible perfection — spends decades
stagnant or making imperceptible incremental improvements while the
curious generalist consistently measures improvement in quantum leaps.
It is only the latter who enjoys the process of pursuing excellence.
—
Don’t put on experiential blinders in the name of specializing. It’s
both unnecessary and crippling. Those who label you a “jack of all
trades, master of none” are seldom satisfied with themselves.
Why take their advice?
Here is a description of the incredible Alfred Lee Loomis, a
generalist of the highest order who changed the course of World War II
with his private science experiments, here taken from the incredible
portrait of his life, Tuxedo Park:
Loomis did not conform to the conventional measure of a great
scientist. He was too complex to categorize — financier, philanthropist,
society figure, physicist, inventor, amateur, dilettante — a
contradiction in terms.
Be too complex to categorize.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário