The debate "Whom wud u choose a specialization or master of all and jack of none agree for specialization" was started by
September 2, 2015, 12:35 pm.
By the way, Maharshi is disagreeing with this statement.
14 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Lane posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
posted the first argument on this debate as an agreeing part.
sloanstar1000, gouthamabi, dotdotdot, Lane and 10 visitors agree.
Maharshi, amtvj, djuanstewart, rebecca14, ganeshbhat, kungnangxx, athinus and 14 visitors disagree.
Nice question. I'd choose a specialization because i'm thinking about it in the scope of all society... if everyone was a master of all, then the value of finding a person who knows his numbers is 0 because everyone knows their numbers. If everyone in society chose something to specialize in, then the value of each skill goes way up. A psychiatrist is more preferred to a pediatrician when dealing with mental health due to the fact that the psychiatrist specifically specializes in mental health. If doctors didn't specialize in certain disciplines, the quality of the care provided would probably go down too. A woodcarver who has also learned how to make glass, how to prescribe proper medications, and how to teach will probably provide less quality woodcarvings than a woodcarver who's sole job is to carve wood. He will have more experience and provide better quality. Therefore, specializations should be more preferable for society because the value of the skill will remain high and the quality provided will be better.