Polymaths For the Win, or Generalists over Specialists

I have long been convinced that people who know a little bit about a lot of things are positioned to be more creative. The multiple perspectives and wide experience gives them much to draw from when crafting approaches to problems. I like to think I have broad knowledge, but know that compared to most creatives, I am more of a specialist than I might desire to be.

That all said, this talk from Mr. Bechtel hit home in a few ways. It supported my thinking that it is better to be a generalist than a specialist, primarily because his argument is that AI is our specialist now. Always by our side, ready with an answer all the time. Even though it might have the questionable accuracy of Cliff Clavin, it is always there and ready to help.

What AI does not have is the ability to see broadly across disciplines for new ideas that are a mash-up of existing concepts. Many examples from history bear this out — the invention of GPS was a combination of several unrelated technologies; the first person to conduct vascular surgery was inspired by embroidery; the printing press was a combination of wine grape pressing and coin stamping.

The future favors dot connectors over dot perfecters. […] Specialization has been a reliable path to reaching par with best practices. Cross pollination is the key to creating next practices.

It’s worth watching at 1.25 speed. People who are specialists are not useless, but those with broader knowledge can do better at creating bigger ideas. And specialists will be needed, no doubt, to execute those big ideas. But we all must admit, too, that in the age of AI, we need less specialization and more cross discipline exploration.