Humans as Generalists

It is apparent to me that humans are by nature generalists rather than specialists. Yet, the way our society is structured forces people to become highly specialized. Since specialization is not really natural for people, specialization induces internal tension/stress. Simply stated, people are not very happy with their lives.

Why do I believe that people are generalists? Well, first off, it has a great deal to do with how the brain works. People do not remember details, but the gist of things. For example, if you watch a movie or read a book, you cannot quote it back word for word. But, you can summarize what the book or movie was about. When you talk to someone, you can remember what they said even if you can't remember every word. It seems that our brain discards details and retains a general gestalt meaning. Walter J. Freeman, a biochemist at Berkeley, has conducted extensive research on what he calls "information packets" and how information packets travel through the brain. Information packets travel through the brain in waves, and unnecessary information is discarded. In fact, Freeman argues that the true medium of the brain is not information, but meaning. This position is echoed by Brenda Dervin in her long years of research on sense making. Dervin claims that humans are innately sense making animals who may have gaps in their information that can be overcome by building bridges to information.

If people are indeed generalists as I suspect, then people will also have some innate tolerance for ambiguity. Indeed, I have a feeling that details overload the brain, do not stimulate the brain, and do not motivate people to act. If we design messages that leave some information out, then perhaps people fill in the gaps on their own, becoming more committed to the message and its meaning. And yet, we do not want people to be misinformed. If a message is ambiguous, then it is subject to more interpretations. If people misinterpret key information, then problems could arise. How do we ensure that people will engage a message and yet not misinterpret the intended meaning of that message?

Yet again, we seem to have a Goldilocks and the three bears type of situation. Too much information overloads the brain resulting in increased error (fatigue). Too little information results in increased error (multiple interpretations). There must be an optimal amount of information to reduce error while still maintaining people's interest. This balance can only be achieved through usability testing of messages.

However, one has probably asked one's self why education is so focused on details. I wish I had an answer to this. But, let's imagine for a minute an education system based on the idea of humans as generalists. The goals in such a system would be to help train people to synthesize, to take large quantities of information from a wide range of topics and reach some general conclusions. Given information (conditions) a, b, and c, d, e, what is the optimal solution to a problem? Why do you believe this is the optimal solution? Hmmm... this sounds a great deal like the Liberal Arts approach to education. An interdisciplinary approach. And yet, the Liberal Arts approach has not been good at marketing its worth. Odd, truly odd...