Sunday thought re the psychology of “generalism”/specialism, breadth/depth, not just in e.g. Medicine, but life.
We are most of us specialists in life, given modern
economics. Division of labor is a great
source of wealth, but also of “knowledge production.”
Yet, we all see specialists who are expert in their niche,
and know little outside of that particular world. i.e. Specializing can be distorting. This might be heightened today, but is likely
as old as the beginning of civilization (as opposed to hunter/gatherer
societies?). If memory serves this is Allan
Bloom’s interpretation of Eryximachus’ speech in the Symposium.
One necessarily sees the world through the methods,
concerns, and magnified concentration of one’s specialty. To use a trivial example, I know few
cardiologists over 40 who do not themselves take a statin, regardless of lipids
or family history. Other examples are likely easy to think of.
But, as in Eryxcimachus’ speech, there is also a tendency to
see one’s niche everywhere, apply one’s knowledge inappropriately to the wider
world. Further, to assume if one is
bright here, one’s opinion simply translates to there, with very little work.
Since we are most of specialists, one remedy may be to try
to develop the habits of a lifelong general education; to work to understand
other fields more deeply, on their own terms.
On the other hand, but relatedly, the danger of “a little
knowledge” is the tendency to think this is adequate. The generalist might mistakenly think reading
one book/article, etc. leads to an understanding of the area. Trial lawyers who try complex cases –
specialists in the courtroom, generalists in knowing about various part of
life, industries, etc. – sometimes fall prey to this. They need to be bright enough to understand
the issues at hand, which can lead to an overconfidence in one’s real
understanding of the field. So, while
specializing can distort how one sees the world, “generalizing” tends to
simplify, flatten, misunderstand without self-awareness.
Every specialist knows this when they hear an outsider
discuss their own area of specialization.
It is at best 85% accurate. Even
the best non-M.D.s discussing clinical Medicine to the ear of a physician? At best an approximation, and typically
worse. In which case, if one recalls
this as a specialist, the specializing itself can be a guard against hubris
regarding other areas of specialization.
So, while specializing can distort and “generalizing”
can be overconfident in its understanding, can they also tend to correct each
other, if one guards against the pitfalls, if one addresses this
specialist/generalist psychology with care and humility?
Might the best thing for the specialist be more general
knowledge -- but also vice versa?
