> Thank you Graham.
> Happy to discuss any of the themes raised in my
> article! To the community: what are your
> experiences regarding 'specialisation' in
> education and workplace? Any 'unsung' polymaths we
> should know about? How can we change this system?
I believe specialization is leading inexorably toward the extinction of the human race. Total human knowledge has exploded to the point where no individual is capable of learning more than a tiny percent of it so most people with two brain cells to rub together are trained to become a specialist. Meanwhile there is almost no one who can see the big picture and this problem is especially severe in industry where not even the right hand knows what the left is doing so money being stashed in one pocket is flowing out another ever faster. Inefficiency and counterproductivity eat up more resources than fixed costs. Bosses don't know what's going on on the shop floor and wouldn't understand it anyway. Even "systems analysts" see only the nuts and bolts of production and raw materials and not the costs, human equations, or effects of trends and processes. Nobody seems to see unintended consequences before or after the fact. These problems used to be regulated by the fact that the competent (those who obtain good results) were promoted. Now doing anything at all is risky and promotion is based on not results or intentions but talking a good game. Being a nephew is most important and an educated specialist is second. Then you talk a good game all the way to the top. Competence and results are irrelevant.
There is no hard and fast definition of "polymath". Individuals vary in the same ways as the general population. But there are some commonalities like polymaths don't accept anything at face value; everything must be examined and tested. They usually show signs at a young age and skepticism is one of those signs. Most polymaths are interested in the nature of knowledge and metaphysics. Intelligence isn't really a prerequisite.
I've long been a proponent of training some individuals as "generalists" or even as "nexialists". This should be pretty easy since before three years of age many people show a proclivity to this sort of thinking anyway. They really need encouragement more than anything along with frequent references to metaphysics. Rather than teaching dry facts and figures or even simple answers in mathematics, teach how various things are interrelated and test them on what connections they themselves can see.
I believe we're headed toward a "tower of babel" event caused by a lack of individuals who can see how everything fits together. It simply isn't sufficient to have a propaganda machine that tells us what to buy, how to vote, and who to like on facebook. We have one "bubble" after another held up by mass behavior and it's merely a matter of time until one we need, one that is fundamental to life, civilization, or the economy busts.
There are other things that can be done such as building a standardized "scientific" language in which philosophical ideas can be hashed out. At this time each philosopher must start nearly at square one because the past greats aren't always comprehensible. Many philosophers can be downright enigmatic yet still very insightful.
I find your work most impressive and will watch attentively.
|Welcoming Waqas Ahmed our Author of the Month for November 2019||1760||Graham Hancock||05-Nov-19 09:21|
|Re: Welcoming Waqas Ahmed our Author of the Month for November 2019||274||Waqas||05-Nov-19 15:59|
|Re: Welcoming Waqas Ahmed our Author of the Month for November 2019||233||PB Bytes||10-Nov-19 17:39|
|Re: Welcoming Waqas Ahmed our Author of the Month for November 2019||273||Waqas||26-Nov-19 21:40|
|Re: Welcoming Waqas Ahmed our Author of the Month for November 2019||224||cladking||18-Nov-19 01:25|
|Re: Welcoming Waqas Ahmed our Author of the Month for November 2019||243||cladking||18-Nov-19 01:29|
|Re: Welcoming Waqas Ahmed our Author of the Month for November 2019||178||Pegi Eyers||18-Feb-20 02:00|