You know what they call people perfect at one thing? PhDs. Like Leonidas. Who is a great computer scientist, but can't code himself out of a wet paper bag, and is an obnoxious prat to boot. I'd much rather be a generalist than a specialist. Specialists are boring. They know one thing, and are (a) useless when confronted with anything not in their area of specialization, and (b) attempt to map every problem as a special case of their area of expertise. Have you ever tried driving a screw with a ball-peen hammer?
But then, as a generalist, there is never a place for you. There is always someone better qualified than you, and there is rarely places for your specific set of reasonable, but not phonominal skills. Your never thought of as an expert of anything, so you're never consulted or requested or appriciated.
As a rather happy generalist, I have to say that I disagree...generalists have more fun, and because they can combine different skillsets, they have more opportunities to make places for themselves.
When I was on a retreat with my department, I looked around at one point and realised that I was in a room with two Nobel laureates and a dozen full professors watching baseball on TV. I was probably the only person without a Ph.D in the room, and I was the only one sitting there reading a book (it was a book on the biology of aging.) I realised that these people sitting around me were good at one thing, and one thing only, and when they weren't doing it, they were pretty brain-dead. I'd rather be me.
I think some of my answer depends on exactly how these are defined. Does "Perfect at a few things" mean I totally suck at anything else I try? Does "Good at lots of things" mean that I'm only mediocre, not great, and not horrible? I think if I had to put in my own choice, it would be "good enough at a lot of things." That is, I can do most things to an ability level that I am satisfied with (and could improve with time/practice), even if I'm not necessarily better than everybody else.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
flatlanders
no subject
Date: 2002-11-29 08:27 pm (UTC)I'd much rather be a generalist than a specialist. Specialists are boring. They know one thing, and are (a) useless when confronted with anything not in their area of specialization, and (b) attempt to map every problem as a special case of their area of expertise. Have you ever tried driving a screw with a ball-peen hammer?
no subject
Date: 2002-11-29 08:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-11-30 11:50 am (UTC)When I was on a retreat with my department, I looked around at one point and realised that I was in a room with two Nobel laureates and a dozen full professors watching baseball on TV. I was probably the only person without a Ph.D in the room, and I was the only one sitting there reading a book (it was a book on the biology of aging.) I realised that these people sitting around me were good at one thing, and one thing only, and when they weren't doing it, they were pretty brain-dead. I'd rather be me.
no subject
Date: 2002-11-29 11:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-11-30 07:56 am (UTC)I guess that's not very likely, though.