Wednesday marks two years since the beginning of our Covid policy environment in the UK. So around this time two years ago I was in a meeting with other management in UAL discussing the minimum number of people we needed to keep running courses. It was sort of unbelievable, I was just swept up in the things that needed to be done; threat modelling, expectation management, rewriting the entire structure of the programme to go online in a few weeks’ time. I think at the time we were all gushing about how quick everyone was, everyone just came together and got the whole thing going – it didn’t even feel like a crisis.
I’m publishing this at the end of the day instead of first thing. I’m still getting used to my new routine. After three months off – properly off – my brain is still sluggish and a bit scattered. At the same time as going back to work I’m also learning an entire new organisation so there’s interference on the line.
I’ve been following some ongoing discussions about generalism. It’s one of those things that pops up on LinkedIn all the time and there’s a couple of chat threads where it’s talked about. Being a generalist seems to be something that folks are quick to jump on. I can understand the value; calling oneself a generalist presents a more accessible form of interdisciplinariness that has a little less of an academic tinge to it. It implies an open-ness to learn and explore and challenge yourself and others, traits that are highly valuable. But something about it slides genuinely close to charlatanism. It’s noticeably similar to when a lot of people appointed themselves ‘polymath’ in their Twitter bios a few years ago. In other words, it’s easy to claim being a generalist and very hard to disprove or evidence.
I am a bit of a technocrat so I tend to, perhaps wrongly, respect qualified expertise above general breadth of experience. For instance: It’s very difficult for someone to evidence expertise on epidemiology or nuclear science (as we’ve seen people rush to do in recent current events) but relatively easy to just say you’re a generalist and by extension an expert in both epidemiology and nuclear science. Suddenly the feeds are full of people with twenty year old design degrees musing on nuclear containment policy and R numbers using the cover of generalism.
It’s something to muse further on I think. Like anything I can very much see the benefits and appeal – especially in my current work – but the bombast by which power over knowledge is thrown around can be (four episodes deep into The Dropout) dangerous.
Short Stuff
- Radha MIstry on the Near Future Laboratory podcast. She talks about her journey from architect to futurist. Firstly, having met a lot of new folks recently I’m always amazed about the diversity of people’s experience leading to where they are. I just stayed in London my entire adult life and did design while all these people are travelling and experimenting. (I suppose I was experimenting but not er professionally). Secondly, I am increasingly enjoying other people’s stories as a podcast format.
- Five ways AI is saving wildlife. Yes it’s bombastic and I’m sure it’s more complicated but it’s always worth remembering that Ai has a genuine application in specific circumstances and some of these projects are super interesting.
- Kyle McDonald has revisited and deepened the math on the cost of Ethereum transactions.
- I know I keep saying I’ll stop but here’s Concoda on why crypto is fast becoming a dystopia.
- Jay Springett has some new/old writing on Solarpunk out.
Bit fragmented this week, and a day late. Like I said, still some interference settling into a new routine. Love you.