The results of a long and interesting LinkedIn discussion:

We are conditioned to think of concepts such as “skill” and “talent” being specific to single fields and conferring little ability beyond the boundaries of those fields, when in actuality the boundaries are very arbitrarily drawn.

Children are all born polymathic. They must be, because there is simply so much in the world to learn: language, shape, quantity, motor function, reasoning, and causality among many other lessons. Even if brilliantly gifted at one of these, a child unable to use the rest would not thrive. The brain of a child is wired to learn as much – about as much – as possible, and for good reason.

Schooling supports this during the younger years. Primary education is modeled around establishing a foundational knowledge base in many areas. However, as one progresses further, the focus narrows, finally culminating in a borderline obsessive focus on a single narrow research question in a doctoral program.

Part of the problem at the root of this is the system of organic solidarity, in which everyone performs a single task and the pooled effort, coupled with a system of trade (money), keeps society functioning. Despite the negative aspects of this system, it is actually necessary for our current way of life, unless we wished to spend our days farming our own food. However, we do not have to take it to such a degree that everyone is expected to specialize in a single task. With the right combination of skills, individual workers would be more able to carry out both their own organic functions and those of others. Consequently, fewer workers would be required overall, less money would need to change hands, and the employers who hired broad workers would reap most of the profits. There’s an economic incentive; most simply have not yet realized it.

Another aspect of the problem, going back to education, is an emphasis on individual subjects rather than fostering general thought and creativity. Once the general reasoning ability is in place, it can be applied across many different subjects. I’ve thought of the intuition that comes with this as a more advanced level of “common sense”: because many areas of knowledge follow similar patterns, picking up on these patterns causes similar principles across many disciplines to become “obvious”.

However, because the reasoning taught in advanced education tends to end sharply at a disciplinary boundary (“cliff-shaped” rather than “hill-shaped”) without abstracting to general principles or crossing into other disciplines, the skills we acquire tend to also end at that boundary. This doesn’t indicate a deficiency or limitation of talent or ability, however – it merely represents the limits of one’s education and practice. However, it creates a fairly thorough image of talent or skill as a “single subject” phenomenon.

Even worse is the lack of a driving force for self-expression. I remember reading a study that surveyed the satisfaction levels of workers in demanding occupations, such as medicine and law. Those without a means of self-expression reported the least satisfaction of those in any occupation, while those with a means of self-expression reported the most satisfaction. In endless pursuit of answers that are correct or techniques that are proper, schools have left behind study of subjective, expressive, and creative problems, such as morality and autopsychoanalysis, and the result is a society that has forsaken humanity for a very narrow definition of competence, when in reality the two concepts are much broader and are in fact intertwined.

To resolve this final issue, I think we all need to go back to childhood in a sense… to the childhood sense of wonder and the desire to learn, create, and express. To make things not only because they are functional or profitable, but also because they are significant or bring joy to behold.