Whole body:
In this rapidly changing social condition, the generalist with wide caliber and thick foundation is stronger than the specialist with narrow caliber.
Can better adapt to today's rapidly changing social competition.
Examination questions:
1, talent: a person with a certain specialty. (Modern Chinese Dictionary, 97th edition, p. 1060)
2. All-rounder: A talented person who is excellent in all aspects within a certain range. (Modern Chinese Dictionary, 97th Edition, page 104) He requires extensive knowledge reserve and various skills. In short, he has the characteristics of comprehensive knowledge, diverse skills and strong ability to use and change.
3. Expertise: Expertise: Focus on one thing or one thing. (Modern Chinese Dictionary, 97th Edition, p. 1649) A professional refers to a person who has more professional knowledge and more skilled professional skills in a certain professional field.
4. Geng: adverb, which needs relative comparison.
5. Adaptability: Suitable for objective conditions or needs. (Modern Chinese Dictionary, 97th edition, page 1 157) From this point of view, it is a competitive environment suitable for contemporary society.
6. Social competition: Compare and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of extensive social communication.
Logical preparation:
There is a default premise about the argument that generalists or experts are more suitable for society, that is, the comparison between them: that is, the subject, that is, people, has become useful people. And became a generalist or expert. Therefore, we don't need to discuss the feasibility of whether a person can become a generalist or a specialist here today.
Cut-in analysis:
1. Requirements of social competition: See who can better adapt to social competition. Mainly to see who can better keep up with the pace of social progress, and the chances of being eliminated by society are even smaller. This requires the comprehensive quality of competitors to be stronger than others.
2, the characteristics of contemporary society:
(1), social posts are limited, and generalists can adapt to more posts than specialists.
(2) The society is changeable and unpredictable. When society changes, generalists are more adaptable than professionals.
(3) Society needs innovation. Today's innovations often come from interdisciplinary and marginal disciplines. Therefore, generalists have more innovative advantages than professionals.
(4) The division of labor in today's society is getting finer and finer, which brings higher requirements for people's integration. In this respect, generalists have obvious advantages over professionals.
Summary number:
All-rounders and professionals are talented people. In today's fierce competition, they can all make due contributions to society. But as far as the competitiveness of society is concerned, generalists have stronger adaptability than professionals and can better adapt to the requirements of social competition and changes.
Second, guess the other side's argument:
1, the definition of all-rounder is extreme, and it is understood as a person who knows everything.
2. It is considered that professionals are more proficient in a certain field than generalists, so they can better adapt to social competition and ignore the characteristics and requirements of social competition.
3. I only see the refinement of social division of labor, but I don't see the higher requirements for integration brought by refinement.
Professionals are more adaptable to the competition in modern society.
First, the other party told us first that generalists have a broader vision than professionals. Then I don't understand why when it comes to generalists, they are open-minded and unconstrained, and when it comes to professionals, they are narrow-minded and rigid. What's wrong with professionals? There's an old saying in China: Go up a storey still higher, and you'll be poor for thousands of miles. Professionals who stand higher than generalists in a particular field will naturally see further!
Second, the other party said that modern society needs integration, all talents can be integrated but professionals can't, and all talents are more suitable for social competition. Then I don't understand. Why can't professionals fit in? The cooperation between professionals can make the integration more efficient and avoid the waste of social resources. Have you seen the cartoon Transformers? You are a hand, I am a foot, and together you are a big MAC!
Thirdly, the other side argues that the society is constantly changing and everyone can hold many different positions. Two questions. One, you said the generalist did a good job. Why did you change your job? Is it because you can't compete with professionals in that position The competition here is nothing more than the competition between suitable positions and professionals. How did it end? Second, does it mean strong competitiveness? Elephants in the circus can do arithmetic! Can elephants be competitive in mathematics? The neighbor's parrot can also say a few words about the other friend. Can I compare with you here?
Fourthly, another debater also talked about interdisciplinary subjects, and marginal subjects produced innovation. However, we say that innovation is not a simple game of one plus one equals three, and it is not the close contact between this discipline and that discipline that can generate inspiration! As we argued, innovation is closely related to doubt. Only by studying this major with great spirit can you know what innovation is needed, how to innovate and what to do after innovation. In short, innovation needs professional knowledge!
All-rounder refers to a compound talent who has one dominant major and is proficient in many other majors at the same time. And professionals refer to professionals who have more professional knowledge in a certain professional field. It depends on who can better adapt to social competition, mainly on who is less likely to be eliminated by society. Below I will elaborate our views from the following two aspects:
First, there are limited jobs in society.
As we all know, when everything is always saturated, society cannot provide jobs indefinitely, so our jobs are limited. Let's make an analogy (take out a chart after two debates). The generalists we are talking about are equivalent to omnivores here, while the experts are equivalent to carnivores or herbivores. When food resources are in short supply, which animal can better adapt to the competition in nature? There is no doubt that the answer is omnivores. From the picture, we can know that omnivores have more choices. The same is true of our all-rounders, who have more choices in social competition and will certainly adapt to social competition.
Second, society is changeable and unpredictable.
The ups and downs of the 20th century, ups and downs, no one expected that from the agricultural age to the industrial age and then to the information age, everything changed so fast, who can predict the society of 2 1 century? What happened in this information age is even more horrible, with great fluctuations, great bankruptcy and great circulation ... dazzling for a while and dazzling for a while. I would like to ask another debater: how can we stand in today's rapidly changing and unpredictable society? Obviously, the only reliable way is to learn more, be more experts and be versatile.
Finally, I have three points to add:
First, what we are talking about today is the adaptability of talents, so don't talk too much about the needs of society. Because society is unpredictable, what society needs today is to engage in nuclear weapons, and what it needs tomorrow may be talents who can defend against computer viruses.
Secondly, we say that everyone has a special post, so we can't think that a person who has done the same job in a certain period of time is a professional, otherwise there will be no all-rounder in the world.
Third, we say that everyone has an advantage major, and we can't say that with an advantage major, this person is a specialist, otherwise there will be no all-rounder in the world.
Examples of generalists being more adaptable to social competition than professionals.
The specialization of the legal profession in Hong Kong is a great revelation: most lawyers only focus on a certain kind of legal services, such as some are in charge of criminal cases and some are in charge of marriage (such as divorce), but during the years from 1994 to 1997, the most people focused on the sale of houses, because at the peak of the property market in Hong Kong at that time, lawyers could get considerable remuneration when buying and selling. In addition, a lawyer who is better at legal handling of real estate transactions has been hired. However, after the financial turmoil, property prices fell sharply and the transaction volume also decreased. For the remaining transactions, due to the low property prices, the lawyer's fees have also decreased accordingly (calculated as% of the property prices), and many law firms specializing in property transactions have closed down. This is the result of specialization.
enterprise
Enterprises are not only specialized in producing a certain product.
Let's look at global enterprises. Which big enterprise specializes in making a certain product? No. Even some clothing manufacturers have to constantly develop new markets, new brands and new styles. Designers must also understand the preferences of different cultures, the rise and fall of trends and the profits of business. Therefore, many famous designers themselves will have all kinds of knowledge, such as architecture, music, painting, history and so on. If an enterprise only makes one product, it will have to close its business as long as the social demand changes. On the contrary, if he can develop horizontally, focus on the original products of the enterprise, constantly develop peripheral products, and then develop into another series of goods, and continue to develop, he can always be linked with the society and the market, and he can also remain competitive.
Enterprises are like this, especially talents. When the economy is good, a professional may get a corresponding return, because the company has abundant funds and doesn't care about one or two more people; But when the economy is poor, when the company wants to remove some employees and cut costs, the first thing is professionals, because he is only responsible for some of them, but his salary will certainly not be less than others. Imagine that I take care of two top professionals and hire a generalist to take care of their affairs with 80% of one's salary. Do you think this is good for the company? If you think this generalist can only do 80% of those two majors, no problem. I will hire three all-rounders with the salary of two professionals. Do you think two professionals or three all-rounders will bring more efficiency if you simply use mathematics to calculate? On the contrary, an all-rounder has better job opportunities even when the economy is in recession. What about professionals? Needless to say. Therefore, in this era, generalists can adapt to social competition better than professionals.
The top management of EA, a big game company, is a graduate of a famous American business school, but at the same time, he is also a gamer and has a good knowledge and understanding of games. Only in this way can he lead the company to keep pace with the times in market sales and game quality, which not only makes the game get considerable returns in various sales areas, but also makes gamers in various regions praise the quality of its products.
On the contrary, Orange, a game company in Taiwan Province Province, started as a paradise selling in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, but it only focused on game talents, ignoring the market sales and the incomprehension of players in different regions, so Paradise was a fiasco in the United States, another game was called a junk game in Japan, and Giants has now become a free game in Taiwan Province and Hong Kong. The company went public at the hottest time, and its share price has been rising, but now it is falling. Fortunately, orange has been recruiting business talents for many years before it can be retained. However, its vitality has been greatly damaged, which is the shortcoming of incompleteness.
society
Social posts are limited, professionals will inevitably hang themselves from a tree, and all talents can adapt to social changes more quickly. After all, learning takes time, and opportunities only belong to those who are ready at any time. This seems to be a justified reason. But we have stepped out of the era of simple mechanized mass production. Don't the employees you hire understand the overall situation and division of labor and cooperation?
The cruelty of competition makes everyone feel a sense of crisis. One more technology means one more capital, while knowledge is interlinked, and each technology is actually complementary. Even if you only use one technology now, a wide knowledge base will make you better use and apply that technology and make you more creative. Society needs innovation. Today's innovations often come from interdisciplinary and marginal disciplines. Therefore, generalists have more innovative advantages than professionals.
As the saying goes: multi-skills don't drag you down. Society needs people with broad knowledge platforms. We need to adapt to society. Everything is good for society. People with broad caliber and strong foundation have strong innovation ability. A generalist is more adaptable to social competition. Only a generalist can deal with all aspects of society. Only when they are like a duck to water in the tide of society can they easily cope with difficult problems and learn more.
Compared with experts, generalists have a wide range of knowledge and a high degree of knowledge integration. In addition, in his knowledge structure, there are various professional knowledge and skills that support the core competitiveness. Extensive knowledge does not mean omnipotence, on the contrary, he has the conditions to achieve everything; In order to reach the top professional level in a certain aspect, he must first ensure that he has a broad knowledge base. The development of contemporary society is changing with each passing day, the requirements for talents are getting stricter and stricter, and the power of knowledge is getting more and more shocking!
The so-called women are afraid of marrying the wrong person, and men are afraid of entering the wrong line. Don't we have one more choice and one more opportunity to adapt to the development of modern society? Social division of labor is definitely not that one person can only do this, but that one person can do this as long as he has the ability. Or is it limited to his skills? So isn't seeking knowledge more suitable for the needs of society than seeking expertise?
Let's take a look at a realistic problem in modern society-the frequent flow of talents. Americans have to change jobs seven or eight times in their lives. With the continuous progress of China's market economy and the deepening of industrial structure adjustment and professional structure adjustment, we find that the flow of talents across industries and fields is becoming more and more frequent. At this time, is a generalist with multiple skills more adaptable to the changes of modern society than a generalist with only one skill?
You know, with the rapid development of modern society, the requirements for personal talents have become higher and higher. People with only one skill are no longer needed by society. I also ask the other party to take a closer look at the recruitment market. If two people have the same skills and one of them has other skills, who do you think the boss will be more willing to hire? If the same salary is changed to all-rounder, I believe such people will be more competitive!
Let's take a look at our college students. People with double degrees have broader space and development prospects in job hunting. In their spare time, college students are more willing to study things outside their major, such as English computer, and so on. They will know that only one skill is not enough. Real talents must be knowledgeable. If they only have one skill, they will not be able to adapt to the social changes of social development and will be eliminated more quickly.
system
As far as learning is concerned, the education system in modern society is increasingly advocating all-round development. From primary school to university, teaching all subjects at the same time is to cultivate compound talents. It can't be ignored that due to the deficiency of the university system itself, a considerable number of university graduates are only compound talents in form. If you ask liberal arts students what "uniform motion" means, or ask science and engineering students to talk about Shakespeare and his plays, you may not get an accurate answer. Please don't say that they don't need to know these things. Obviously, these "partial experts" have entered the social division of labor, and they can't communicate with people in other industries at all. Without communication, their knowledge will be exhausted sooner or later. What about personal development?
National demand
What our country needs now is multilateral talents, internationalization and economy. Don't talk business with others, bring experts in all fields! Are you going to negotiate or fight? People know you are poor when they look at you. You can't lose! !
You study math. You have worked in a company for two years, and the boss wants to promote you to manager. But you only know math, but you know nothing about management. How can I be a manager? On the contrary, all players can serve.
In middle school, who do you think is more likely to enter the university, a person who is good at all subjects or a person who is outstanding in only one subject? After going to college, do you think a person who only focuses on one subject and has performed in both disciplines and campus activities can become a talent needed by society?
At work, do you think a person who only knows one thing and a person who knows everything can be closer to the market and adapt to market changes?
"There are blocks that can be floated across the river; If you have ten or a hundred boards, you can build a bridge to cross the river; There are thousands of boards, and you can build a boat and ride the wind and waves. " Then, why don't we use all kinds of knowledge weapons to build a big ship to ride the wind and waves? !
Attack:
1。 As we all know, in 2 1 the most expensive thing in the world is talents, and the talents most needed by society are actually compound talents. What does the other person know?
3。 What is the highest education in the world? Why a doctor and not a specialist? . . )
(Note) 1. Is compound talent equal to all-rounder? Compound talents refer to people with high professional and technical experience and related skills, please note that they are related skills. In other words, it is a multifunctional or multifunctional. His related skills are all for the core specialty. Is this kind of person a generalist? In fact, compound talents, generalists and specialties are not a parallel concept, and a specialty is a specialty. Be versatile and don't be confused!
2. Undergraduate master's degree, the major should be refined in many directions, and the doctor should also be refined. Is the doctor a doctor because of his knowledge or because of his major?
Attack:
1. The strongest person in the world is an expert. Why experts and not the whole family?
2. Does the trend of detailed division of labor and specialized production make the world need more professionals or generalists?
3. Complementary professionals and professionals can be combined into an all-round superman through cooperation, but the combination of all-round talents will only lose all meaning. What is the explanation?
4. Is it a specialist or an all-rounder that leads the development of various disciplines?
What's the point of social competition ~ ~ The tide rises and falls, 30 years in the east and 30 years in the west ~ ~ How can you conclude that the trend is your so-called specialty? When we no longer hear the saying that "dry wine can't be sold" in hutongs, there is no legend of swordsman, and we no longer yearn for an iron horse. The society is replacing horses with races, and grinding scissors has become a collection of old computers. We understand that the financial tide has passed and the IT boom is coming. Are you still sleeping in a fixed fantasy, longing for charity from others, complaining about "not giving me time" and busy with things that others no longer need?
1, (the other party) is the strongest in a certain respect, which may not be the most suitable for social competition, but he must be more competitive than his all-rounder in this respect!
(Offensive) is only better than others in this respect, but it is obviously limited in other aspects. Society doesn't just want talents on one hand. If it competes in society, it is not enough for it to have this choice.
Does singleness represent professionals and generalists? If you don't put your heart and soul into it, you can't be an expert or an all-rounder, which is meaningless to the argument.
A generalist is more suitable for social competition. In today's society, people still like all-round talents, euphemistically called playing with comprehensive strength. In this utilitarian society, generalists are more likely to find jobs or even get promoted, but in many high-tech industries, they still need professionals, but they can only do grass-roots work, and the real decision-makers are generalists, who are much better in interpersonal relationships and social experience, which makes them suitable for leadership. Therefore, there are many fields where laymen lead experts, and the ideas of experts are not taken seriously. Many fields abroad are relatively backward, experts are not popular, few people learn and few talents. So far, there is no Nobel Prize winner in China. Sadly.
Nowadays, many things involve many aspects of knowledge. A generalist will consider everything when doing things, and natural things will be done well in the end.
A professional is often confined to his own professional field, and his consideration of things will be limited and not so extensive, so he is called a nerd.
Under the ever-changing social conditions, generalists with broad caliber and solid foundation can adapt to the ever-changing social competition better than professionals with narrow caliber. Requirements of social competition: to see who can better adapt to social competition, mainly depends on who can keep up with the pace of social progress and have less chance of being eliminated by society. This requires the comprehensive quality of competitors to be stronger than others.
A generalist is better than an expert.
Most of the division of labor is not as important as we thought when we were studying.
A person's comprehensive quality and accomplishment determine how long a person can walk, including your dabbling in other knowledge fields; Including your moral cultivation; Including your attitude and methods to solve difficulties; Including your learning ability and so on.
It is hard to imagine what a professional who only knows one aspect can bring to a company or unit.
People are social people. People must first adapt to society when they are alive. To adapt to this society, you must fully understand it. It's hard to imagine what help people who know something can bring to the collective in their work.
There is no denying the knowledge of professionals themselves, but for people in a society, especially students, your existing knowledge is only a fraction of your future career. Your comprehensive quality, your ability to learn new knowledge, and your way and attitude to deal with difficulties are your greatest assets.
Facts have proved that a high-quality generalist will bring more added value to the collective. Although it seems that everything he does is amateur, after a long time, he will become the center of the group, and everyone will know one thing, that is, who to look for if something goes wrong; And a professional who sticks to the existing one will always be a migrant worker, not a core figure.
Generally speaking, generalists are managers and experts are managed. Professionals do better than generalists in the same thing, but what about all closely related things? There is no doubt that they will all do better. One hundred things, one hundred professionals do, each can make satisfactory results, but who needs to integrate? In other words, if all 100 people do it, the result of everything may be similar, but the efficiency is far less than the previous one.
In terms of practical development, the field of talents is not entirely about this person's major, and many people should pay attention to comprehensive quality.
Society is a cruel place where geniuses live. On the other hand, as a boss, he needs not only professionals, but also talents in many fields, so that his career will be brought into a deeper field by all-rounders. As a professional, he can only stop at one limitation, and he can only serve all-rounders. It is not enough to have a major in today's society, but also to accept a lot. It can only be said that it is even more so if professionals are promoted to all-rounders.
What we are talking about today is the focus of social competition, so we should judge the focus of this topic according to the needs of society. As a professional, your social competition will come from a lot of job competition in your professional field, which is limited; But the social competition as an all-rounder comes from all walks of life, and he doesn't need to be wonderful about a certain major; He just needs to know how to schedule; Know how to absorb and accept; Know how to adapt to the requirements of society and so on. In contrast, professionals can only work for all-rounders.
As far as social competition is concerned, generalists are more in line with the conditions of social competition. Because society is constantly developing and generalists are constantly learning in many directions, the probability of being eliminated by society is much smaller than that of professionals. As a professional, there are several or even more people competing with you for this position. However, the number of professionals in professional positions is limited, and as an all-rounder, the positions he can compete for are unlimited, and he can develop in many fields and compete with others. The final key of this debate lies in: "All-rounder needed by society" is more qualified than professionals ~ What all-rounder? According to the interpretation of the Han dynasty, it is like this: 1. Refers to a person who can develop in an all-round way In terms of literary talent and military strategy, it always refers to literary talent and military skills. 2. refers to having all kinds of talents. The explanation of experts in Han dynasty is: specialized talents who are proficient in a certain subject.
So now we have to see whether all-rounders can better adapt to social competition or professionals can better adapt to social competition. As the saying goes, "It is better to have a million dollars at home than a skill in hand." As long as you have certain skills, you can't live a carefree life. So what I want to say here is that the "one skill" here cannot be regarded as a professional, nor can it be said that it can better adapt to social competition. It can only be said that this skill is powerless and can have the capital to live. This has nothing to do with adapting to social competition, and it has nothing to do with the topic of our debate.
All-rounders are more adaptable to society, which is my opinion. As we all know, modern society is a pluralistic society and a society with fierce market competition. It has been said that professionals will not be easily eliminated because they are experts, but those who are often eliminated are unskilled and cannot be called "talents". However, the diversity of society makes it necessary for talents in cutting-edge positions to know more knowledge in order to give full play to their expertise. A generalist is naturally versatile. A generalist is proficient not only in one subject, but also in many subjects. Only in this way can he be considered a generalist. In fact, the opposing party has repeatedly believed that a generalist is the kind of person who knows everything but nothing. It seems that I can understand that I have learned everything but nothing. If so, then I can say that such a person is not a talent, let alone a generalist. At least, to be a generalist, you must first be a talent. Since you are a talent, you must have certain skills to become a talent. Therefore, we have to say that "all-rounder" is a talent who is proficient in a variety of occupations. As for proficiency, naturally it can't reach the level of professionals, but its degree of specialization should at least reach the level of talents. Strictly speaking, there is no generalist, because this society is not like ancient times, and the so-called generalist is a generalist. To become a generalist, modern people should not only involve most knowledge fields, but also master most knowledge and reach professional level. So how can such professionals not adapt to social competition?
Let's lower the discussion a little. If a serious patient with head injury in a car accident comes to the hospital, we can see what an embarrassing situation it is. Ophthalmic surgery is the Department of Ophthalmology, Otolaryngology, Oral Skin and Neurology. It is a small operating table, but there are many professors operating there. If you are not careful, you may be confused. If you change to a generalist, it is quite convenient to manage.
The division of labor is refined and the talents are specialized, so it is much more complicated to do things. If there is a generalist, it will be much easier for a patient to be managed by a generalist and be fully responsible. Unfortunately, there are few generalists. If there are several generalists in this society, it is certain that generalists will inevitably replace professionals and engage in more industries.
On the other hand, there is a view that the combination of professionals and professionals can make breakthroughs in some areas of integration. What an absurd theory. Take literature and the Internet for example. A person who is proficient in literature but knows almost nothing about the Internet wants to build a website, hoping that people who are proficient in the Internet can help. Those who are proficient in the internet know little about profound literature, but they dabble in Neo-Confucianism. So how do such professionals communicate with each other? This combination is very dry, and the communication between two people is like casting pearls before swine. How simple it would be if there were people who were proficient in internet and literature to deal with this kind of thing!
Professionals are needed in many fields, but generalists are scarce in society and there are too many professionals. But how many generalists are there in this society? What's more, the all-rounder is almost equivalent to the sum of many professionals. If professionals adapt to social competition, then the all-rounder who comes from the sum of several professionals can better adapt to social competition.
With the development of society, there are many uncertain factors affecting production and life. If one day, as professionals, because there is no need for talents in this field, how can those professionals adapt to the competition in society? Only people with a variety of professional skills can make more use of social competition in such a society with too many uncertainties. Of course, it is undeniable that professionals are the talents needed by today's society, but generalists are more suitable for social competition. A generalist is more adaptable to society.
The fierce competition in society is not limited to a few special fields, and professionals are relatively passive. Only when people need it, can all-round talents be at ease in many places. Generalists have more opportunities to show and more opportunities than professionals.
A simple example is also a real example. Both A and B are good at marketing, and their abilities are similar. Among them, B is also good at music, art and sports. Suppose you were the boss, who would you choose? B, of course, because B not only has good working ability, but also can be used in the literature competition of employees in the same industry every year. Why not choose B? So, can you say that professionals are better than generalists? In the first step of work, a loss!
In my opinion, all-rounder refers to a compound talent who has one dominant major and is proficient in many other majors at the same time. And professionals refer to professionals who have more professional knowledge in a certain professional field. A generalist is more suitable for modern society. How can we stand in today's rapidly changing and unpredictable society? Obviously, the only way is to learn more, be more experts and be versatile.
As far as employment is concerned, when everything is always saturated, society cannot provide jobs indefinitely, so our jobs are limited. A generalist has more choices in social competition, and he will be more adaptable to social competition.
This is the information of the debate we played two days ago. I hope I can help you. But this is mainly my view on "all-rounder". The topic of our debate is "Who is more suitable for social competition".