About "The Neo-Generalist"

Eventually, I took the time to read The Neo-Generalist: Where You Go is Who You Are by Richard Martin and Kenneth Mikkelsen. I have been obsessed with the meaning of Expertise, having deep and broad skills for a while so I was very eager to read it. In this post, I want to write about the book and the idea of Neo-Generalism.

The book description on Amazon was intriguing enough to convince me to read the book: “Have you encountered difficulties describing what you do to other people? Have you ever labeled yourself in order to be understood?” My answer is a big YES. If your answer is yes as well, do not hesitate to read the book. You will not regret it.

The basic idea of the book is the Neo-Generalists. These people live in different worlds in their private lives (having multiple nationalities, living in different countries or even continents over time), social lives (belonging to different cultural, religious or ethnical groups), and professional lives (working in science, art, humanities or medicine). They are life-long learners who do not stick to an industry, specialty, role or any other label. They learn according to the context they are in to bring new ideas and facilitate change. Learning happens very naturally by the rhythm of the mind and the heart, nurturing a journey of self-actualization. A journey more important than the destination.

The book is right to the point and has a spiral structure: You learn about the ideas, examples and stories in different layers. As you go further, you will connect the dots and finish the puzzle for yourself. The narrative was coherent so I could understand the authors easily. The reading was also a relief because I felt connected to a community of people who do exist and do live on earth.

 I am a believer in the idea of Neo-Generalism so I do not have much to challenge about the book. I just add my comments and recommendations as follows:

1- The book implies that the interviewees knew they are Neo-Generalists from the beginning. The idea of their discovery is not discussed. At least for me, it was not easy. First, when I was 18 preparing to enter university, I did not know what I am going to become but it seemed very normal considering my limited experiences. Now at the age of 32, I am not that much different. However, it does not seem normal anymore. The normality decreases over time and it is frightening, even after accepting yourself as a Neo-Generalist or any other name you call yourself. Have you ever listened to gays describing their experiences of feeling different? It is a similar feeling.

What adds to the bad feeling is hiding the Neo-Generalists from the public. They rarely show up in TV talks. The hyper-specialists won the game.

In primary school, I wrote Dr. X on my notebook. Yes Dr. X the ophthalmologist

Believe it or not, it is a horror story. The conversation has an unintended connotation: If you did not have a clear vision in primary school, do not expect yourself to become anybody important. We all know that it is not always true but we tolerate the lack of data about the other half silently.

Second, the age of 32 is a time that many people have reached the pinnacle of their professions. For example, athletes have won their gold medals and some are thinking of retirement. As a result, being different costs feeling less rewarded and less accomplished.

2- Before the era of hyper-specialism, many great thinkers, philosophers,… were Neo-Generalists all over the world. In my country, Iran (more precisely the Greater Iran), we had great thinker-philosopher-scientists who practiced theology in line with the literature, mathematics, geometry, etc. In fact, the thirst for understanding expanded itself into any possible area. Math, geometry and astronomy were seen as a way of divine sublimation and a gateway to reach God. The goal was to penetrate into any area to understand the world, learn about the God, the human being and the existence. These people were sometimes called Hakim. I quote from the Wikipedia Page for Hakim:

Hakīm was also used more generally during the Islamic Golden Age to refer to polymath scholars who were knowledgeable in religion, medicine, the sciences, and Islamic philosophy.

Some of the prominent examples are Ibn Sina, Abū Ray?ān al-Bīrūnī and Omar Khayyam. They were extraordinary geniuses who left a rich heritage for human beings. You will be amazed by the breadth and depth of their ideas and knowledge in an incredibly broad area. In fact, we have become hyper-specialized in modern times and we learn about the world less systematically and less meaningfully.

They are many examples in the western world as well. The book mentioned Marie Curie, Winston Churchill, Charles Handy and others but I am sure there are hundreds and thousands of Neo-Generalists in the history. These are some of the people that I know: Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll…

Having all this information in hand, I do not know why the polymath tendencies are filtered in introducing people. These tendencies are often associated with the time these people lived in, how immature the sciences were at the time and how easy it was to penetrate into different areas. I do not think so. I believe it is our inclination to distort the facts to match what we appreciate today, whether right or wrong.

I think the authors can write about these two concepts in book revisions.