Generalists are Better than Specialists - Generally

In his book "Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World" David Epstein makes the case (quite convincingly and robustly) that people with general skills tend to do better in life than specialists, across the board. The exceptions (which are always insightful) are areas where tasks are competitive and feedback is instant (golf, surgery, for example). Contrast with a sport like tennis where a generalist does much better (Roger Federer was a multisport athlete when young, Tiger Woods was highly specialised from the age of 2!!!).

You can watch an interview with Epstein here:

Epstein explains "sampling time" in the context of career psychology and sport, which is the idea people do better when they have time to sample lots of possible career options and disciplines, to be more well-rounded before choosing a narrow specialization, or not specializing at all.

Here's the lead up to my complaint: Epstein is asked in the interview to explain the anxiety of generalists who constantly worry they are going to be out-competed by specialists. Why then are generalists so riddled with anxiety? "What," Dan Pink asks, "do you think makes people uneasy about the sampling period, about zig-zagging, about saying there isn't a big goal and a straight line path to it?" Epstein responds with some blather about the "knowledge economy" and in the past when work was more repetitive it did make more sense to specialize, and how a generalist in a high knowledge discipline like science will look a lot like a specialist when placed in a different context like say sports journalism --- suddenly working at Sports Illustrated the former generalist Earth science and astronomer becomes the resident science expert.

Here's my complaint: while what Epstein said is true, it misses the most important human dimension involved in the stress and pressure and anxiety young people have, the pressure to find a specialization, the perceived need to be competitive. The problem is not the "knowledge economy", the real problem is the structure of free market capitalism, profit motives and neoliberal oppressions, and the gradual erosion of social safety nets and buffers. Young people these days are being increasingly forced by student debt and narrow degree specialties to choose a career before they can possibly hope to know what will suit their talent and temperament best. This is one of side-effects of the evils of neoliberalism, incarnated in the systemic structures of our work and education systems.

For what it's worth, I'd have a solution to all this, which involves heavy use of the public purse (aka. MMT deficit spending principles) to support greater freedom in learning and freedom in the work place. We need to eliminate all business "bosses" and transition a majority of society towards worker cooperative businesses, where work is more like play, or at least more cooperative less competitive, and a sharing and learning experience rather than a profit seeking and tawdry competitive experience.

If you cannot do the research and reading and just basic introspection to see why a cooperative economy would be more peaceful, more generous, more prosperous, more fair, less socially darwinist, then I guess I cannot help you enjoy being more of a generalist.

Join a worker cooperative for your next job, forgo the higher salary at a corporation where you'll be working for yet another boss just like the old boss.