Plato republic II vs Charlie Munger
Plato kind of set the stage for division labour by Adam smith, that’s so interesting because the Republic is something that has existed for so long. It seems like we are taking pre-existing concepts and saying it in a more polished way. The republic says that everyone should doone job and one job. This has been the trend we are taking into the knowledge age as well but now we are seeing a little bit more nuance with this idea.
I watched a TED talk a couple years ago that talked about how generalists that specialize later in their career tend to make more money than those that specialize early on. The reason I find this believable is because the generalists would have a wider array of experience to draw on verses the specialists. One thing I do struggle to articulate is the scope of generalists and specialist, in essence are we measuring specificity by number of hours worked on something? At what point is the generalists becoming a specialists and when is it a good idea to specialize.
Charlie Munger provides a great explanation of this in Poor Charlie’s Almanack. He proposes that one should know the main ideas in all the sciences specifically the ones you are not trained in, and ones not directly taught in school. The reason Adam smith’s division of labour is fantastic is because it’s labour, its doing the same thing over and over and over again. It doesn’t change, and the more times you do it, the better you get at it. For example driving, I’m sure everyone had a sensory overload when driving for the first time, but now people are texting, scrolling, and keeping a conversation while driving. The reason division of labour doesn’t apply so well with knowledge work is because it is not a complex environment, it’s like you’re going from a bicycle, to a car, to a semi-truck, to a airplane. The main purpose is still to move from A to B, but the controls are much different. This is where you have to think about how everything fits together. If you’ve ever made anything for people, you know that you can’t rely on the masses thinking rationally. It’s like telling all your friends to work out, something that’s clearly rational but their interests may lie in something else. I definitely botched the example but what I’m trying to say is that when you are in the real world doing something the formulas don’t work, you need to think about all the different things, and specifically all the different incentives involved. It’s hard to think about all these different things if you have only one specific mode of operating. As Charlie would say, you would have a man with a hammer tendency, to a man with only a hammer, everyone problem looks like a nail. Trying to live in this complex world like that, would be to be a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest.
What I’m trying to say is division of labour works better when it is a complex task in a simple environment, an environment that doesn’t change, and the output and input are predictable. This is not the case with knowledge work, specifically the type of work that will change the world, dividing each segment amongst people is not going to solve any complex task in a chaotic environment without each discipline knowing the others on a general level.
What I’m not saying is to be a generalist forever, but to not ignore the principles that affect your discipline. Charlie Munger advocates for constantly learning things outside your domain, using any organizational ethos that works.
Another thing I realized too was that my writing was dry because my brain wasn’t really getting any new interesting information. Now that I’m reading the Republic it’s like the thing between my ears is working again.
Take all of this with a grain of salt obviously.
Shoutout Gurmehar for this photo. I’ve been staying put in Edmonton