Who is more adaptable to social competition, "specialists" or "generalists"?

Specialists are more adaptable to the society than generalists debate material \x0d\ We debated this issue a while ago, and here are some of my insights. \x0d\ Don't get entangled in what is a generalist or what is a specialist, or that must be good, seize the key to the problem "more" "adaptable" "modern society", from our current The reality of society on the issue, our country is now the most lack of senior technicians, which is the specialization it, the information there are a lot of will be on the House of 2002 debate content, the main thing is that you must convince yourself from the heart of the specialization than the generalist, because now there are many schools mention generalist, composite education, in fact, they are wrong. \x0d\ Basically, the development of society has brought about a clear division of labor, the clearer the division of labor, the finer the knowledge, so that specialization has become the need of society, then again, what is the use of generalists? Integration? To integrate what, integrate generalists or specialists, a company how many generalists, how many specialists, probably so, carefully study the content of the debate in 2002 is also good, the following is the \x0d\ Specialists more adapted to the social competition \x0d\ Generalist refers to the all-round development of the talent, he is a wide range of knowledge of various fields have been involved in the composite talent. Specialist is a person who has more professional knowledge and skill in a certain field of specialization based on a certain knowledge base. Discussion of generalist and specialist who is more adapted to social competition, we need to note that the generalist and specialist are two concepts with each other's strengths and weaknesses, and it is this that makes our debate meaningful. The two concepts have different emphases, one on versatility and the other on specialization. In between, there is the notion of multi-specialization or multi-specialization, but this should not be the focus of the debate; omnipotence without specialization is unrealistic, and specialization without specialization is not possible; in this discourse, omnipotence lies in breadth and specialization lies in depth. What we want to argue is that a deep understanding of a certain field of knowledge is more adaptable to social competition than a wide range of knowledge. Here we are not comparing the "many" with the "one", but the "all" with the "fine". The so-called adapt to social competition is to adapt to the needs of society. Adapt to the needs of society is more competitive talent. In today's age of information explosion, the demand for talents is getting higher and higher, we believe that specialists are more adaptable to social competition. \x0d\ Firstly, with the refinement of the division of labor in society, the knowledge structure corresponding to the division of labor is also becoming more and more detailed, so the profession is also developing in a more complex direction. The requirements for talents also tend to be refined, tend to be higher, so the requirement for specialization of talents is very obvious. \x0d\ Secondly, specialists with specialized knowledge and skills in a particular field will be more attractive than generalists. And within the composite cross-cutting field, the final research and realization is also implemented in a single field. Because individual assignments of generalists lack efficiency, the division of labor to focus on individual areas is more conducive to the realization of social values. \x0d\ Thirdly, the competition to adapt to society lies in adapting to the needs of society, while the relationship between talent and society is a two-way choice, generalists have a wide range of choices, but can only be chosen once, and there is uncertainty. "Opportunity everyone can meet, but not everyone can cash." Comprehensive and wide-ranging is only bragging capital. The modern society with its fine-grained division of labor requires highly sophisticated talents, that is, specialists. \x0d\\ In conclusion, we believe that specialists are better adapted to social competition. \x0d\ First of all, I think there is something wrong with your title itself. What does it mean to be a specialist and what does it mean to be a generalist? If you call yourself a generalist, then you must be able to do what a specialist can do, otherwise you can't call yourself a generalist. This is like Han Han and a good student to the college entrance examination, no matter what, the result must be that the good student got into the ideal university, and Han Han can only hold his obsession with the article to do the spring and autumn big dream, delusion that the principal is kind, come to a what free admission. This is not clear enough, all-round talent must be more adaptable to the competition of this society than specialization. Because, at least more than specialists have more stable psychological quality to withstand setbacks, there is no sound psychological quality, you will be very difficult to establish a foothold in this society. Imagine, an immobile to be depressed because of frustration, self-injury and self-mutilation of people, you can expect him to make better results, which is also in the Olympic Games repeatedly won gold medals in the Chinese team emphasized that the players have to maintain a good state of mind of the reason. \x0d\ I think the question posed by the opposing side has deviated from the center of the debate. According to you, people who are erudite must have good mental qualities while those who specialize have poor mental qualities. I'm afraid that's not something we can all agree on, is it? \x0d\ Besides, if Han Han's writing is good, wouldn't it be a good way out for him to write? As the saying goes, "There are three hundred and sixty-five trades and professions, and all of them are good at what they do," and that gives him a good way out. If he is really an expert in writing articles, then he should do a good job of it. Then he should do a good job as a "specialist". There are many literary scholars who can rely on writing to make a living in society, and if he really becomes a writing specialist. Then still need to squeeze "school" this wooden bridge? Specialization lies in specialization, and can be better adapted to society! \x0d\\ Modern society needs generalists or specialists? It depends on which of them is more capable of contributing to the healthy functioning and sustainable development of modern society. The so-called specialists are those who have more specialized knowledge and more proficient professional skills in a particular field of expertise. The so-called generalist is a person with a broad knowledge platform, rich knowledge reserves and multiple skills. Simply put, generalists have comprehensive knowledge, diverse skills, and a strong ability to adapt to change. \x0d\ Good! Talking about modern society, benign operation and sustainable development is the primary requirement of modern society. A high degree of division of labor is a distinctive feature of modern society. But a high degree of integration is even more of a primary emergent requirement of modern society. The division of labor in society creates fragmentation, but if the fragments created by fragmentation are not integrated, where can we find the benign operation and sustainable development of the whole society? Each step in the social division of labor brings with it a higher demand for integration. At this time, is it not necessary to have communication between different divisions of labor? Is there a need for integration between different disciplines? Who is better able to communicate between different divisions of labor than a generalist with a broad knowledge platform and a rich knowledge reserve or a specialist with only a single skill or knowledge? Who is better able to fully integrate between different disciplines? It is the generalist! Therefore, generalists are more necessary for the healthy operation and sustainable development of modern society! \x0d\ Secondly, let us look at the driving force behind the development of modern society - innovation. From the synthesis of ancient science, to the differentiation of modern science, to the new synthesis of today's science. The situation in which each discipline was walled off and organized in its own way no longer exists, and we see that each discipline communicates with each other, intermingles with each other, and penetrates into each other. And today's point of innovation is precisely in different ideas, different fields, different disciplines inter*, communication, integration, synthesis. So the broad caliber, thick foundation of the generalists are not more than those narrow caliber specialists have the ability to achieve innovation? So the breakthroughs and progress of modern society need generalists more. \x0d\ Again, let's look at a real problem in modern society - the high mobility of talent. Americans change jobs 7 to 8 times in a lifetime. With the continuous progress of China's market economy, industrial restructuring, and deepening of occupational restructuring, we find that cross-industry, cross-field talent flows more and more frequently. At this time, is a multi-skilled generalist better able to adapt to the changes of modern society than a specialist with only one skill? To summarize, we find that both from the macro-social point of view and from the micro-personal point of view, it can be proved that the modern society needs more generalists! \x0d\ Finally, I have two points to make: \x0d\ First, we say that every person has a specialized position, so we can't assume that a person, who has done the same job for a certain period of time, is a specialist, otherwise there would be no generalists in the world, right? \x0d\ Secondly, we say that every person has a dominant specialization, so we can't say that with a dominant specialization, that person is a specialist, otherwise there are no generalists in the world again. \x0d\ I. Awareness of the viewpoints of this party: \x0d\ Overall: \x0d\ In such rapidly changing social conditions nowadays, a broad-mouth, thick-based generalist is more adaptable to today's ever-changing social competition than a narrow-mouth specialist \x0d\. \x0d\\ Review: \x0d\ 1, talent: a person with a certain specialty. (97th edition of the Modern Chinese Dictionary, page 1060) \x0d\ 2, all-round talent: a person who is good at all aspects within a certain range. (97th edition of the modern Chinese dictionary 104 pages) He requires a broad knowledge base and a variety of skills, simply put, has a comprehensive knowledge, diversified skills, the use of change ability and so on. \x0d\ 3. Specialist: Specialized: concentrating on one thing or thing. (97 edition of the modern Chinese dictionary 1649 page) specialists that is, a professional field with more professional knowledge, more skilled professional skills of the talent. \x0d\ 4, more : an adverb requiring a relative comparison. \x0d\ 5, Adapt : Suitable for objective conditions or needs. (97th edition of the Modern Chinese Dictionary, page 1157) From the point of view of this debate, it means suitable for the competitive environment of contemporary society. \x0d\ 6. Social competition: weighing the benefits of extensive socializing against the disadvantages. \x0d\ Logical Preparation: \x0d\ This debate comparing generalists and specialists is more socially adapted, i.e. the comparison of the two has a default premise: that the subject, that is, the person, has become a person. And has become a generalist or a specialist. Therefore, we do not need to discuss here today the feasibility of whether a person can become a generalist or a specialist. \x0d\ Cutting analysis: \x0d\ 1, the requirements of social competition: to see who is better able to adapt to social competition, the main thing to see who is better able to keep pace with the advancement of society, the chances of being eliminated by the society is smaller. This requires that the overall quality of the competitor is better than others. \x0d\ 2, the characteristics of contemporary society: (1), society has a limited number of jobs, all-rounders can adapt to more positions than specialists. \x0d\\ (2), society has changeability and unpredictability, when society changes all-round talents can adapt to the changes better than specialists. \x0d\ (3) Society needs innovation. Today's innovations often come from cross-disciplines and fringe disciplines. Therefore, generalists are more innovative than specialists. \x0d\ (4), the division of labor in today's society is becoming more and more refined, which brings about a higher demand for human integration. In this respect, generalists have a clear advantage over specialists. \x0d\ Conclusion: \x0d\ Both all-rounders and specialists are talents, both are highly competitive in today's society, and both can make their due contribution to the society. However, in terms of social competitiveness, generalists have a stronger ability to adapt to the ever-changing requirements of social competition than specialists. \x0d\ 2. Speculation on the other side's argument: \x0d\ 1. The definition of all-round talent is too radical, interpreting all-round talent as being omnipotent in everything \x0d\ 2. The idea that specialists are more proficient than all-round talents in a particular specialized field and so are better adapted to the competition of society overlooks the characteristics of social competition and the requirements of adapting to social competition. \x0d\ 3, only see the social division of labor refinement, did not see the refinement brought about by the integration of higher requirements. \x0d\\ First defense argument stage \x0d\\ Positive 1: Hello everyone! Does modern society need generalists or specialists more? It depends on which of them is more capable of contributing to the sound operation and sustainable development of modern society. The so-called specialists are those who have more specialized knowledge and more proficient professional skills in a particular field of expertise. The so-called generalist is a person with a broad knowledge platform, rich knowledge reserves and multiple skills. Simply put, generalists have comprehensive knowledge, diverse skills, and a strong ability to adapt to change. \x0d\ Good! Talking about modern society, benign operation and sustainable development is the primary requirement of modern society. A high degree of division of labor is a distinctive feature of modern society. But a high degree of integration is even more of a primary emergent requirement of modern society. The division of labor in society creates fragmentation, but if the fragments created by fragmentation are not integrated, where can we find the benign operation and sustainable development of the whole society? Each step in the social division of labor brings with it a higher demand for integration. At this time, is it not necessary to have communication between different divisions of labor? Is there a need for integration between different disciplines? Who is better able to communicate between different divisions of labor than a generalist with a broad knowledge platform and a rich knowledge reserve or a specialist with only a single skill or knowledge? Who is better able to fully integrate between different disciplines? It is the generalist! Therefore, generalists are more necessary for the healthy operation and sustainable development of modern society! \x0d\ Secondly, let us look at the driving force behind the development of modern society - innovation. From the synthesis of ancient science, to the differentiation of modern science, to the new synthesis of today's science. The situation in which each discipline was walled off and organized in its own way no longer exists, and we see that each discipline communicates with each other, intermingles with each other, and penetrates into each other. And today's point of innovation is precisely in different ideas, different fields, different disciplines cross, communication, integration, synthesis. So is it not true that the generalists with wide caliber and thick foundation are more capable of realizing innovation than those specialists with narrow caliber? Therefore, the breakthroughs and progress of modern society need generalists more. \x0d\ Again, let's look at a real problem in modern society - the high mobility of talent. Americans change jobs 7 to 8 times in a lifetime. With the continuous progress of China's market economy, industrial restructuring, and deepening of occupational restructuring, we find that cross-industry, cross-field talent flows more and more frequently. At this time, is a multi-skilled generalist better able to adapt to the changes of modern society than a specialist with only one skill? To summarize, we find that both from the macro-social point of view and from the micro-personal point of view, it can be proved that the modern society needs more generalists! \x0d\ Finally, I have two points to make: \x0d\ First, we say that every person has a specialized position, so we can't assume that a person, who has done the same job for a certain period of time, is a specialist, otherwise there would be no generalists in the world, right? \x0d\ Secondly, we say that every person has a dominant specialty, so we can't say that with a dominant specialty, that person is a specialist, otherwise there are no generalists in the world again. \x0d\\ This two points are easily confused, please pay attention to the other side of the defense. Thank you! \x0d\\ Counterpoint 1: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and hello, judges! Our argument is that modern society needs specialists. First of all, I would like to thank the other side for defining generalists and specialists in a very good way. Only that our specialists are looked down upon by the other side. Our specialists are only specialized in one small field, but do not know anything else, and they are a narrow-caliber talent instead of a broad-based talent. Such a talent is not called a specialist. A specialist is a person who has made outstanding contributions in a certain field on the basis of a broad foundation, and only such a talent is called a talent! Otherwise, I am afraid that they cannot even be called "talents". Since we are comparing specialists and generalists today, we must know that there are relative advantages between specialists and generalists. A specialist is a person who specializes in a certain field, while a generalist is a person who is versatile in a number of fields. Both have relative advantages. The advantage of a specialist over a generalist is that his knowledge is more in-depth, and the disadvantage of a specialist over a generalist is that his knowledge is not as extensive as that of a generalist. It is only on the basis of such strengths and weaknesses that we can discuss what kind of talents are more needed in modern society. What kind of talents does modern society need more? Let us look at what are the characteristics of modern society. The other side of the debate made a good point that modern society is a big, big system, and modern society is a colorful giant system. \x0d\ First of all, the refinement of the division of labor reflects a finer presentation of the reality of the world, modern society shows diversity, complexity, willfulness and unpredictability. The division of labor requires specialization. A brief history of social development tells us that social development is spiraling upward, while the social division of labor is developing in the form of a canopy, so social development requires the expansion of reproduction, the expansion of reproduction requires the social division of labor, and the social division of labor directly requires specialization, which the other side of the debate has also seen. Then I say the second point, modern society requires division of labor, of course, also requires integration. Can't specialization lead to integration? We say that division of labor is not the same as division. Division of labor requires more effective cooperation. When we think of integration, the first thing that comes to mind is of course cooperation, and who is more efficient in cooperation? Of course, it is specialists. Modern society certainly needs specialists more. \x0d\ Third point, modern society is a knowledge explosion society, what are the characteristics of a knowledge explosion society? Professional knowledge is constantly enriched and deepened, which has a higher demand on a person's ability and energy invested in a certain field, I can't spend my whole life to the same several fields, then spend my whole life to be proficient in a field, specialists become the need and become inevitable. The argument of the opposing side in fact precisely illustrates the importance of specialization. We believe that modern society has an unprecedented desire for specialists, because only specialists can adapt to such social needs; because only specialists can promote this society to move forward, therefore, we believe that modern society needs specialists more than ever. Thank you! \x0d\\ Attacking Stage\x0d\ (A) \x0d\ 正二：First question, may I ask why the division of arts and sciences has been abolished in high school now? The college entrance exams have carried out a major and minor synthesis? \x0d\\ Counter 2: I don't think synthesis is a generalist trend, I do see so many undergraduate majors in your school, and I also see that your master's degree is also divided into more and more detailed, and your PhD? It's getting finer and finer! Therefore, we believe that the trend of education in modern society is not towards generalization, but towards specialization, a multi-functional specialization. \x0d\ Positive 2: The other side thinks that generalization is not a generalist, good! Like to talk about university education, let's talk about the university, why among the colleges and universities nowadays, the penetration of arts and sciences, the combination of science and technology, the popularity of the minor system, dual degree? \x0d\\ Opposite 2: How the minor system is carried out in your school, I am not very clear. I can describe the situation at Beiwai. Beiwai offers such minors as, for example: Human Aesthetics, Music Appreciation, and Western Art Appreciation. I learned Western aesthetics and human aesthetics, not that I want to use it to develop my English skills, but rather to cultivate my interest, broaden my horizons, and improve my appreciation of taste, so that I can have a very elegant, very good art appreciation break after a stressful day at work in the future. \x0d\\ Positive two: the other side of the defense is really rich enough knowledge, then the third question, please ask the other side of the defense, the model of generalist education, is not the development trend of today's education? \x0d\\ Positive 2: In fact, I'm sorry, generalist education is a mistranslation, the original English is Generalknowledge but a general education, the other side of the defense these two are completely different concepts. \x0d\\ Positive 2: The other apologist said that everyone is mistranslating, so is general education to train generalists? \x0d\\ Opposite 2: General education is to build a specialist who specializes in one discipline on the basis of having many facets of knowledge. He is a highly demanding specialist, and that's what our modern society needs. \x0d\ 正二：General education is to build a specialist, so why not call it specialized education? \x0d\ (ii) \x0d\ Anti II: May I ask if our education should endeavor to cultivate talents that are more in demand by our society? Yes or no! \x0d\\ Positive 2: Of course it is. \x0d\\ Anti II: I know you are a law student, so I would like to ask what kind of provision is made for the purpose of university education in Article 5 of China's Higher Education Law? \x0d\ positive 2: I remember that ** in the "7.1" speech, he said: "The purpose of university education is to promote the development of the students. I remember that in his speech on July 1, he said that college students should be trained to become high-quality talents with humanistic spirit, scientific literacy and innovation. \x0d\ Counter 2: Article 5 of China's Higher Education Law stipulates that university education is to cultivate innovative and practical high-level specialists. May I ask the other apologist what is the interpretation of this sentence? \x0d\\ Positive 2: May I ask the other side of the debate specialists are equal to experts? Although specialists have more knowledge and higher skills than generalists in their specialties, to do a good job in a specialized field, in modern society it is more necessary to communicate and coordinate, to integrate and innovate, to think holistically and grasp macroscopically, and this generalist is able to do a better job. \x0d\\ Counter 2: May I ask the other side of the defense, is a deep grasp of knowledge a necessary condition for breakthroughs and innovation here? \x0d\\ Counter 2: Yes, how can we break through and improve? It is to draw on and absorb other disciplines, you need to stand in the human race as a whole and grasp the macro thinking to be able to break through ah! Opponent's theoretical breakthroughs and technological innovations, modern society is not more and more in the intersection of disciplines and disciplines? Are there more and more gaps between disciplines? This is the innovation of the generalist. \x0d\ Counter 2: I would like to ask the other side of the debate, do I concentrate on being a generalist to be more sophisticated? Or do I spread out my time and energy to be a generalist to be more sophisticated? \x0d\ Positive 2: Is the other apologist going to talk to us about the issue of time and energy? That's confusing. ......\x0d\ (3) \x0d\ 正三：First question, the Japanese are worried about a generalist crisis in 2006, may I ask the other side of the debate how to understand this? \x0d\\ Opposite 3: I also know that Japan is the most developed region in the world in terms of vocational education, Japan's post-war reconstruction relies mainly on vocational education, they have the best vocational workers in the world ah! \x0d\\ Counter 3: Yes, there is a saying that has been widely circulated, called: synthesis is innovation, crossover is innovation, penetration is innovation. What the Japanese are worried about is precisely their own nationals' ability to innovate. So may I ask the other side of the debate, where do you think people's creative thinking comes from? \x0d\\ Anti-third: Creative thinking must be based on a thorough knowledge of the field, and if you don't know enough about the field, then how can you talk about innovation? \x0d\\ Positive 3: The other defense obviously avoided my question, so I'll ask the third question. May I ask the other apologist after joining the WTO what new requirements do you think have been put forward for our talents? \x0d\\ Opposite: Fortunately, the Vice Minister of Personnel has told us that there are two kinds of talents most needed in modern society. The first is WTO professionals and the second is professional technicians. I still understand this. \x0d\ 正三：So the last question, the division of labor in modern society is refined, but the refinement of the division of labor, is not highlighting the integration requirements? This is not only what the system can tell us, but also what the dialectic tells us. So may I ask the other side of the debate how specialization has adapted to this requirement? \x0d\ Anti 3: Indeed every time we say integration we necessarily think of cooperation, and can't specialists cooperate? Let's think about a collective, there are always such talents as those in charge of finance, those in charge of driving, those in charge of public relations to make up a company do we need all generalists? Then one CEO is enough. \x0d\ (4) \x0d\ Anti 3: May I ask if you and I, together, start a computer software company, would you tend to prefer hiring generalists or specialists? \x0d\\ Forth 3: I certainly look at if the person, his knowledge is synthesized, his skills are diversified, and his ability to adapt is strong, I think that's the most suitable person for me. \x0d\\ Anti-san: Okay, so that means we need generalists more. As the company grows in size, do we need to conform to the modern corporate system and hire more specialized people, or do we continue to hire generalists? \x0d\ Positive 3: The other apologist seems to be telling us that a generalist can't work together in the modern enterprise system, then I don't understand, a generalist he has a broader platform of knowledge. He can communicate better and cooperate with others. He can even step into management. Make me, a big company, better. Isn't that the definition of a generalist? \x0d\ Anti 3: Shouldn't a person pursue generalization? \x0d\\ Positive 3: I think a person should indeed pursue generalization, which is precisely what Marx's ultimate ideal tells us that people should be well-rounded. \x0d\ Counter 3: A vet, who would have treated all kinds of pet diseases, should he now learn to open up for people as well? This will make him more adaptable to the requirements of modern society and become a generalist! \x0d\ Positive 3: Does the other side think that a generalist is an all-knowing, all-powerful God? Today I'm building an airplane, tomorrow? I'll give the heart patient nothing to change a flap to build a bridge and so on, the other side of the debate on the generalist understanding is too radical. \x0d\\ The stage of attack and defense summary \x0d\ Positive 1: Hello everyone, I think first of all there is a concept to be clear, that is, what is brought by refinement? Simply applying systems theory we can tell that refinement brings about a higher demand for integration. (Takes out a piece of paper) This is a specific area of society, and like the other apologist said, now it's refined (tears up the paper). If what our society demands is not that they act as fragments, each in their own way, but that they integrate and **** together to function, then what is the first question? Is how to bring them together. Now it's refined (tearing up the paper again), now it's highly refined (tearing up the paper again). I ask again, if what this society demands is not that each fragment go its own way, but that they be integrated and **** the same role, then what is the preferred question? It's how to bring them together. Thank you! \x0d\ Now I'm going to parse the two issues that the other apologist said:\x0d\ First, the other apologist keeps telling me that "specializing in specialization" I'm surprised, I'm here today specifically to debate, and the other apologist told me, "You're specialized in debating. The other apologist told me, "You specialize in debating!" I'm going back to study tomorrow, and my opponent said, "You're an expert in studying!" I'm going to dinner tomorrow specifically, and the other debater told me, "You! Specialize in eating!" What's going on here? \x0d\ Now let's talk to everyone here about innovation again. We say that today's society talks about innovation where exactly does that newness appear? It is in those interdisciplinary, cross-field places, so please the other side of the debate to answer me positively, how your specialization is cross! Can you cross well? Well, this is the end of the summary, thank you for everyone here! Thank you! \x0d\ Counter 1: Thank you, President, I will now make a summary of the defense. I found that the other side of the first defense is very like to tear the paper, I can not afford to tear the paper, when this paper is Cai Lun alone, today this paper to lumberjacks, paper workers, various specialists to work together in order to do, the other side of the refinement of the analogy for the crack, split! Is this how our society is divided? The integration of our society is the cooperation of specialists, so as to achieve higher efficiency! Did you hear that, Mr. Opponent? \x0d\ Then I'll explain our problem: \x0d\ Our side has just raised the provisions of the Higher Education Act from the legal level, and explained the following advanced, specialized, and talented people according to the method of interpretation of our book. Advanced refers to highly sophisticated, specialized of course refers to professional, talent Well, as the name suggests or talent! That of course is a highly sophisticated specialists, the university training is not a highly sophisticated specialists, is it still a generalist? Of course not, and our defense has raised the issue of a two-person company, think about it, is there such an example in reality? There was Bill Gates and Paul Gates. Bill Gates and Paul Allen started a computer company. Ellen two people opened a computer company, this computer company now has today's best management talent, today's best software talent, today's best financial talent, he is the premier Microsoft, this is the role of specialization, this is not a generalist can be achieved, the other side of the generalist is just a dream, if we human beings are always in the generalist's dream of wandering in the words of the society can never get forward, so the modern society needs more of our specialists, so we need to be more of the same, we need to be more of the same. If we human beings always wander in the dream of generalists, the society will never move forward. Therefore, modern society needs our specialists more than anything else! Thank you!