The hidden science of biology vs. Specialty Syndrome – Observer

The word “tudólogo” has gained momentum in our vocabulary, and it already appears in the dictionary Online Prepiram. The definition is attributed to “a person who comments or gives opinions on any topic as if he were an expert on each of these topics”. After not studying its inception, it is self-evident to understand that this new term came about as a result of the great diversity of topics covered in some of the one-person commentary spaces in our media. After all, speaking openly about topics as diverse as public health, international politics, public finances, or football may raise legitimate doubts about a commenter’s ability to control everything.

This kind of objective diversity goes against the increasing trend of specialization demonstrated by mankind, reflecting ever greater social integration and interdependence. The “everyone for himself” logic was abandoned with the rise of societies, allowing their members to focus on providing a specific need – such as protecting or feeding the group – and relying on others for others. In contrast, economics shows us that specialization can extend to countries as the “theory of comparative advantage” attributed to the British economist David Ricardo, in the nineteenth century, describes it very well. This theory tells us that every country should specialize in producing goods whose opportunity cost is lower than others, and obtaining the remaining goods through international trade.

Having said this, I do not intend to convey that economics has a monopoly on explaining this and other scientific phenomena, or that economists will be the only ones who have championed the virtues of specialization. Author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in the words of his legendary character, has argued that anyone should focus on acquiring only information that may be necessary. When Dr. Watson meets Sherlock Holmes, in the book A study in cochineal – Study in red In the Portuguese version – we witnessed his bewilderment when he realized that the brilliant investigator was unaware that the Earth is revolving around the sun. Faced with Watson’s astonishment, Sherlock Holmes argued that he viewed the human brain as a function that, if muddled so much knowledge, made it difficult to find what was convenient. As such, anything that was not useful to your daily life was easily forgotten.

A very similar logic has been observed in the business world, as companies try to focus on their line of work and subcontract everything else to other entities – like cleaning, meal services, accounting, or marketing. Even within their businesses, companies tend to focus on the products and customers that generate the most profits, as explained in Richard Koch. Principle 80/20In search of greater efficiency and profitability. Likewise, the jobs assigned to each employee are very specific and focus on small sectors of the company’s activity. If we look at several professional job assignments, we will see the term “specialist (…)”. We can conclude that a dogma Fordism With proven results in worker productivity, it is still present today, both in the factory and in the office.

In light of the obvious merits of specialization, the big question that arises is whether we are undergoing an over-division of knowledge into small, limited domains. Ortega Y Gasset criticized this same fact in Collective rebellion (1929), a comparison between the increasing specialization of scholars and the belief that science is one and not the sum of several different branches. The Spanish philosopher lamented that scholars were proud to perfect their small segment of knowledge – which was of little value when separated from the rest – while neglecting all the enormous knowledge that was excluded. He concluded by saying that society has more and more scholars, less educated and less educated, a phenomenon that contributed to the emergence of the “collective man”.

I do not share the remarkable pessimism of Ortega Y Gasset, for his perception of the progress resulting from this method of conducting research, I acknowledge that humans have abandoned a better understanding of the world in order to become champions of a particular discipline. Many of us, whether they are college students or they are, embody this vision from a limited perspective in which we try to focus on topics in our fields of study, thereby reducing the teaching and learning of others. As a result, our horizons become increasingly narrower and when we engage in a conversation in an unfamiliar territory, we either remain silent or try to pull it toward more comfortable topics. Perhaps this will help explain the importance of football or other “collective” topics as topics that allow a protracted conversation to develop, while issues of physics, history, medicine or economics are of limited participation.

And if we look at the job market, we see something very similar. We train experts in sales, accounting or engineering who will try to do well in your area, but will be less vulnerable to the challenges of others. They may maximize their team’s production, but in a way that does not improve company results due to the difficulty they face in framing their participation in operations involving other areas for which they do not have an appropriate understanding. These challenges make it imperative to have professionals who know how the contributions of different structures fit into common goals. Good managers, as well as good leaders, must master a large variety of processes and competencies, and in no way can they be limited to their field of specialization.

But more important than emphasizing this interest at the level of the hierarchy of companies or countries, it must be presented to each individual in order to be able to better understand the reality around him. In this sense, if there was a study scholar who studies the topics carefully and is interested in imparting diverse knowledge to the people who pursue his comment space, I would not deserve a refusal on my part. A priori. After all, it may even contribute to spreading relevant information that would otherwise be inaccessible to many. In a society with intense everyday professional life, it is positive to be able to acquire a wide range of concepts in ‘focused form’. It is indisputable that specialization has been and remains a key to discovering new knowledge and innovations, but it can push us towards a greater fragmentation of knowledge. If the Todos scholars – or whatever else they want to contact you – can help their listeners / readers anchor the different parts of an integrated reading of reality, then they will have an equally important purpose.