(no subject)
Today I read a very interesting piece about whether is is better to be a generalist or a specialist where creativity is concerned.
This actually made me feel pretty good. Why? Because I found out that something I had always considered to be a personal fault (my attraction to learning the next new thing at the expense of perfecting what I have already learned) actually has some value.
My life has taught me that to be REALLY good at something, you need to do that thing pretty much to the exclusion of everything else. At least it appeared that way to me since all the successful individuals I know do one thing, do it very well, and really don't do much of anything else.
I have tried to be this focused in my life but I can't ever seem to pull it off. Frankly, I get bored. Been there. Done that. Then..oooooh...shiny! How does THAT work???
Consequently, I know something about a wide range of topics (chaos theory, art, motorcycles, philosophy, religion, AI, music, psychology, talking animals...), and know how to do quite a few things - if not excellently at least not poorly (canning, gardening, various martial arts, juggling, weaving, playing guitar and flute, cooking...).
However, I realize that I will never be the best at anything. This has been a source of angst for me for much of my life.
Now I find out that I am what is considered to be a Generalist and (obviously) don't have much aptitude for being a Specialist. I also found out that generalists are good at the beginning stages of the creative process - the idea generation phases. This is good given my research interests in Creativity - a research area that is relatively unexamined by cognitive psychologists.
However, Specialists are better at the follow through and pushing those novel ideas to completion. Which is bad for me because a big part of science is publishing what you have discovered in the lab.
I'm not too good at this. I find that once I have discovered something in the lab I want to go on to discover the next thing. It is hard to get tenure and respect amongst your peers if you are an academic with no follow through.
Though the article is looking at the relative merits of each style in an either-or fashion, the author points out that he might be presenting a false dichotomy and acknowledges that we probably all fall somewhere on the same continuum. Some of us are closer to the generalist pole whereas others are closer to the specialist pole. He also acknowledges that where we fall on this dimension can vary depending on the domain of knowledge we are using and the context.
I guess this means that I need to find a way to move myself to the specialist pole when it comes to writing up my research.
It also means that I should embrace my generalist tendencies rather than trying to change them.
This actually made me feel pretty good. Why? Because I found out that something I had always considered to be a personal fault (my attraction to learning the next new thing at the expense of perfecting what I have already learned) actually has some value.
My life has taught me that to be REALLY good at something, you need to do that thing pretty much to the exclusion of everything else. At least it appeared that way to me since all the successful individuals I know do one thing, do it very well, and really don't do much of anything else.
I have tried to be this focused in my life but I can't ever seem to pull it off. Frankly, I get bored. Been there. Done that. Then..oooooh...shiny! How does THAT work???
Consequently, I know something about a wide range of topics (chaos theory, art, motorcycles, philosophy, religion, AI, music, psychology, talking animals...), and know how to do quite a few things - if not excellently at least not poorly (canning, gardening, various martial arts, juggling, weaving, playing guitar and flute, cooking...).
However, I realize that I will never be the best at anything. This has been a source of angst for me for much of my life.
Now I find out that I am what is considered to be a Generalist and (obviously) don't have much aptitude for being a Specialist. I also found out that generalists are good at the beginning stages of the creative process - the idea generation phases. This is good given my research interests in Creativity - a research area that is relatively unexamined by cognitive psychologists.
However, Specialists are better at the follow through and pushing those novel ideas to completion. Which is bad for me because a big part of science is publishing what you have discovered in the lab.
I'm not too good at this. I find that once I have discovered something in the lab I want to go on to discover the next thing. It is hard to get tenure and respect amongst your peers if you are an academic with no follow through.
Though the article is looking at the relative merits of each style in an either-or fashion, the author points out that he might be presenting a false dichotomy and acknowledges that we probably all fall somewhere on the same continuum. Some of us are closer to the generalist pole whereas others are closer to the specialist pole. He also acknowledges that where we fall on this dimension can vary depending on the domain of knowledge we are using and the context.
I guess this means that I need to find a way to move myself to the specialist pole when it comes to writing up my research.
It also means that I should embrace my generalist tendencies rather than trying to change them.