Is it better to be a generalist or a specialist? | Zach Jones | TEDxYouth@BrayfordPool
You should specialise, but you should keep your options open! Sound familiar? Zach thinks we need a modern day renaissance to meet the complex problems our society faces. Zach is an experimental artist who tries to push the boundaries of everything he works on. He'll turn his hand to anything, but his main passions are philosophy, writing music and engaging with new people and cultures.
After graduating from university just over a year ago Zach is hoping to be the change that he wants to see in the world. By motivating others to be the best that they can be, and reforming himself to be better every day, he hopes that we can all create a brighter future together. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
Пікірлер: 17
Who wouldn't love this? I love this indeed.
Love this
Well Explained!
great speech
A generalist can delve and dive deeper into several areas and become a specialist while a specialist in only one field is not very flexible and cannot keep up with the speed of time.
@davidrojas4687
Жыл бұрын
I doubt they can dive deeper into several areas, its incompatible with the word itself. It's not about feeling that you know its about what is expected from you and how much your peers know, and a lot of times is very high. With that being pointed out, it may be possible to do in new or unexplored field areas.
I love science
general and special are just words. im here at art training learning c++ for vfx. ai requires you to apply it to other fields of technology/medical/ astronomy, etc, so how is it specialization then? everything is plane science even art. its just that its a pyramid of steep complexity for a certain subjects and ease for other. you can learn biology faster than complex subjects like programming, for example.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Play at X1.25 speed. Thank me later.
@ryanclark1784
Жыл бұрын
Thank you
How does he define a polymath out of historical context? I'm afraid there are several fallacies and ambiguities in his examples. 1. We are cherry-picking examples out of context. Leonardo was one of the few success among many who tried. It's called "Law of large numbers". Same with the other examples. 2. While they contributed to different fields, those fields were in an infant stage, likely corresponding to what are beginner levels nowadays, or beginners/amateurs in recent times. If we consider them polymath, then anyone with a hobby and any polyglot is a polymath. 3a. There wasn't standardisation and communication within fields at the time of Leonardo and Young. One didn't have a strict methodology, didn't have to be hired, read thousands of previous publication, design an experiment, applly for funding, write a scientific paper and submit to a journal for peer- and format-review. At their time, no one would have looked at their work if it wasn't already commissioned. In fact, Leonardo was saved from financial issues by the King of France hiring him for his art, not for the science. 3b. Current "polymath" generally don't pursue their other interest professionally, unless they have a familiar or economical advantage, as being involved by relatives in another field or have money and to build a career in another field, such as actors becoming designers and musicians. 4. Applying the same in different context is not doing something different. If I'm a presenter and I present a topic of history and one of physics, that doesn't make me both a historian and a physician. Similarly, reading posts from different facebook or wikipedia pages doesn't mean I understand the topics, I can simply memorise them. The speaker could improve his speaking tone and logical connections.
@potatopahato3542
2 жыл бұрын
Well said.
@davidrojas4687
Жыл бұрын
You really get it
@lelouchlamperouge3077
Жыл бұрын
I'm a generalist. And yes, you're right.
@paulallenpatriarca
Ай бұрын
Thank you for this, it enlightened me