In Praise of Generalists
December 5, 2019
If you were to win a Nobel Prize in science, you would surely be one of the brightest minds of your generation, a scholar of international fame, and among the most accomplished researchers ever to have lived. But according to a study from Michigan State University, you would also be four times more likely to play a musical instrument, 17 times more likely to paint, and 25 times more likely to perform an acting or singing role on stage than the average scientist. While undoubtedly devoted to their craft, Nobel laureates in science do not appear to be single-minded professionals with no interests outside of a narrow field, but rather deeply creative individuals who can apply their skills to interest in both the arts and sciences alike.
This may seem like the unnatural achievement of some higher-order beings (to be sure, Nobel winners are an impressive lot), but journalist and author David Epstein suggests otherwise. His book Range—recommended to me this summer by a discerning colleague—explores the career trajectories of significant business leaders, athletes, scientists, artists, and inventors. In this investigation, Epstein finds that the key to success in numerous fields seems to be an inclination to dabble in an array of interests and to express curiosity about a variety of disciplines and practices. He emphasizes that for every prodigy like Tiger Woods—whose childhood was built around the acquisition of a narrow and specialized skill set—there are likely more Roger Federers, who was a fairly regular kid who played around with a number of sports (with modest results) before turning to tennis and becoming the world’s best player.
“The key to success in numerous fields seems to be an inclination to dabble in an array of interests and to express curiosity about a variety of disciplines and practices.”
For me, the lessons here are about variety, flexibility, and patience. It can be so easy for parents—and I certainly speak from experience here--to assume that their kids are “falling behind” if they have not deeply committed to an intellectual, athletic, or artistic passion at a young age. Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with children choosing to dedicate themselves to something that they love, or with adults encouraging those children to practice their sport, instrument, coding, or creative writing. But in the name of healthy childhoods and happy parenting, we would do well to heed Epstein’s observation that early promise is no guarantor of later genius, and that a prematurely narrowed focus can leave children fragile in mindset and inflexible in the face of novel challenges. Rather than levy “jack of all trades, master of none” as an insult, we can instead recognize that “generalists,” as Epstein calls them, may be actively nurturing their curiosity, creating intellectual connections across disciplines and fields, and developing the grit to pursue their own interests despite social conventions calling for specialization.
Learning to paint will not automatically win you a Nobel Prize in chemistry, and not every kid who dabbles in a host of different sports will eventually become a tennis hall-of-famer. And Epstein is surely not advocating for a childhood of indifference and irresponsibility, where commitments are quickly shed and practice is disdained. But all of us who care for children can give ourselves a break if our kids tend to be more dilettantish than accomplished in the early going. Epstein’s research suggests that in the long run, generalists who have learned to be flexible, experimental, and innovative with their significant activities will be able to make connections, find solutions, and thrive at a time where creativity, resilience, and curiosity are essential to living well. While the pace of contemporary life might discourage us, we can be confident that there is still ample room for the late bloomer in our world.