Generalist vs. Specialist 該當通才還是專才呢 — 跨領域專才

In this post, I want to share a dilemma that has actually bothered me for years. It was only until recently that I had a satisfactory answer to it. The question is actually quite a cliche:

“Should one be a generalist or a specialist to have a better chance of success?”

An argument in support of being specialists is the numbers of each. One can always find several successful specialists in any given field, but hardly name successful specialists else than Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Young, and Benjamin Franklin. Therefore, it seems intuitive that becoming a specialist is far easier.

However, there are still some arguments against specialists in modern society.

1. Increasing competition: Here is an example: 90 of all the scientists that ever lived are alive today (competitors for a Nobel Prize have been a hundred times more than it was initially awarded). This trend applies to any well-established fields. What’s worse, not only is the number of competitors faced increase, but Globalization has also brought more severe competition as channels for competition have significantly increased.

2. Rise of computers: A famous theory is that it takes 10000 hours of practice for a person to become a specialist in one field. Therefore, computers, with high speed of acquiring information, powerful computations, and proficient operations, are and will increasingly be threatening the positions of human specialists.

3. Interdisciplinary problems: There have always been and will arguably be more problems that require interdisciplinary knowledge and efforts, such as the development of medical devices, the innovation of transportation, the legislation of economic policies. These problems are the Achille’s heel for specialists in any particular field.

Solution

Here, a solution to the three issues is introduced. That is becoming the combination of a generalist and a specialist — an interdisciplinary specialist. By doing so, a person essentially creates a new field rather than competing in a well-established field where the number of competitors is already high. Moreover, this creativity, which is the biggest weakness of computers, provides a person with an overwhelming advantage against the virtual competitors. Lastly, the person attains the capability to solve interdisciplinary issues.

However, if becoming a specialist in one field is already difficult as it requires abundant time and effort, according to the 10000-hour rule, how is it even practical to become a specialist in multiple fields? The answer is: becoming an interdisciplinary specialist does not require being a specialist in any of these disciplines. Here is proof using a mathematical approach.

If success in one field is defined as being the top 1%, to succeed at an intersection of two fields, one only needs to be the top 10% in each, assuming the acquisition of skill sets in the two fields are independent events(0.1x0.1=0.01). To succeed at an intersection of three fields, one only needs to be the top 22% in each field (0.²²³=0.01)!

Moreover, because the acquisitions of skill sets in different fields, all requiring accumulations of practice, are usually rather exclusive than independent, one’s ranking in an intersection of multiple fields can be even higher than calculated with the previous model!

Therefore, expertise in multiple fields is not required for an interdisciplinary expert. For example, to be an expert gerontologist, one needs to know medicine, psychology, and demography, but not necessarily be a licensed doctor, a counseling psychologist, or a Ph.D. in sociology. Instead, he needs to possess the insight to connect the dots.

How to be an Interdisciplinary Specialist

However, if the accumulation of skill sets and experiences in different fields is a relatively exclusive event, how does one find an optimal approach to it? Let’s first see an analogy in team sports: Championship teams are seldom teams of multiple individual superstars, but teams of leaders and role players with clear roles, members mutually compatible, and coaches with sophisticated strategies. Likewise, to make 1+1>2 in interdisciplinary scenarios, one needs to set a clear direction, select complementary and mutually-facilitatory areas, and constantly evaluates and polishes the plan. Since all interdisciplinary combinations are unique, there is no universal template, but individualized blueprints according to one’s talent, interest, and working habits.

After all, an interdisciplinary specialist is even more specialized than typical specialists.

Post Script

Becoming an interdisciplinary specialist is a reasonable strategy for me, and probably many others, in our era. However, I am absolutely not persuading everyone to select this pathway. Instead, everyone should find his niche in the spectrum between generalists and specialists.

For me, the selection of interdisciplinarity is not intrinsic, but the result of different inspirations after I faced the dilemma between broadness and deepness. Among them, the biggest influence is from my undergraduate school, the University of Rochester, which is renowned for its flexible curriculum. It grants me the freedom to pursue an Interdepartmental Engineering and Biology dual degree, and, moreover, the mindset of finding my own niche instead of following the established pathways, which has become a doctrine in my following career.

這次來聊一個我自己成長過程中反覆思索的問題，也是直到近半年我才有了令自己滿意的答案。

“該成為通才還是專才，比較容易成功呢？”

從定量觀測的角度，專才是無庸置疑的選擇，畢竟我們可以在每個專門領域中，列舉出數個該領域成功的佼佼者，然而綜觀人類文明，卻僅有李奧納多·達文西、托馬斯·楊、班傑明·富蘭克林的極少數通才被載入史書。

然而專才真的比較有優勢嗎？在21世紀的社會，事態似乎有些變化。

1. 日益加劇的行內競爭：一個驚人的數據揭示：人類史上超過90%的科學家是在世人物（現今的諾貝爾獎，競爭人數是創獎時的百倍）。這個成長模型各個發展成熟的領域皆套用。更難的是，不單是競爭人數的指數型上漲，全球化造成了競爭管道的激增，使得各領域內競爭皆極速加劇。

2. 電腦的強勢挑戰：許多人都聽過一萬小時定律，其宣稱一個人要鑽精單一領域的知識或技能，至少要付出一萬小時的訓練。相較之下，電腦擁有著高速資料傳輸、強大運算能力、與精準技術操作，它正不斷地挑戰人類專才們的地位。

3. 單一領域的天花板：越來越多的難題，需要匯集多領域才可解決（醫療器材的研發、運輸工具的革新、經濟政策的制定……繁不及載），而單一領域的專才，則缺乏解決此類問題的視野廣度。

解法：成為跨領域專才

一個可以彌補以上的三個短板的方法，則是取通才與專才的交集，成為跨領域的專才：透過融合不同領域，創造屬於自己的一片領域。如此一來，就不必再已飽和的市場競爭，同時也為自己打造了電腦最欠缺的能力 — 創新力，並突破單一領域的天花板。

然而，光是要成為一個領域的專才，便要砸下一萬小時的重本，那麼要成為跨領域的專才，豈不是加倍困難？

其實不然，因為一個跨領域的專才，並不需要是任一組成領域的專才。就讓我以數學的角度來論證。

假設的專才門檻為單一個領域前1%，如果要成為Ａ領域專才，顯然必須要達到該領域前1%。然而，如果要成為跨Ａ、Ｂ領域的專才呢？先假定Ａ、Ｂ領域技能的獲取是獨立事件，那麼條件僅是成為各別領域的前10%(0.1x0.1=0.01)。如果要成為跨Ａ、Ｂ、Ｃ三領域的專才呢？則只要是各別領域的前22% (0.22³=0.01)!

更何況，由於技能的累積需要時間成本，鑽精不同領域更接近互斥而非獨立事件，所以一位在Ａ、Ｂ領域個是前10%的人，在Ａ、Ｂ之交集領域的排名，必然是比上述的前1％更頂尖。

舉個實際例子說明，在我跟朋友詣昕論及這個課題時，他便提到了他所在的成大醫學院，設立的老年學研究所。而一個老年學專家，必須具備醫學、心理學、人口學等專業知識，但是他不必須具有臨床醫生執照、不必須是心理諮商師、也不必須是社會學博士，他所需要的是融合這些專業的大局觀思維。

如何成為跨領域專才

既然跨領域的能力累積具互斥性，該如何最大化它的效率呢？喜歡觀看球類運動的朋友必然了解，每年奪冠的球隊，往往不是手握最多個人能力頂尖的巨星，而是主力與角色球員分工明確、彼此兼容性好、教練戰術一流。由此類比，如何將跨領域結合發揮1+1>2的效應，我認為需要構建明確的目標方向、挑選相輔相成的領域、且反覆思量制定計劃。而實際上的操作，則須依個人的興趣、專長、思維模式來客製化訂定，並沒有一套現成的成功模板可以直接套用。

跨領域的專才，將比單領域專才更“專”、更稀少。

後話

跨領域專才這個方向，是我認為在這個時代，對我自己、也可能是對很多人的最佳解，卻決計不是也不該套用於每個人身上。在通才與專才的光譜上，最重要的是找到自己的落腳點。

而我會選擇跨領域專才這個落腳點，則是在我學習路程上，陷入深度跟廣度的兩難後，受到許多不同人事物的啟發。其中影響我最深的便是我大學就讀的University of Rochester，我們學校以自由的課綱著稱，這個環境讓我得以選擇Interdepartmental Engineering與Biology雙主修這樣特殊的跨領域結合，而不必照著既定的專業路線直走。

最近因為到清華大學工作的緣故，我發現了清大的理學院跟工學院都有雙專長學士班的特殊制度。我個人是很欣賞這制度，雖然可以見得有其短板，現今也不是熱門的選項，但讓學生有更多元的選擇，對台灣社會想必有所助益。

歡迎任何異同的想法留言交流，如果你覺得這個觀點值得被更多人看見，也請不吝轉發，謝謝！