This week, I published the podcast with Matteo Smerlak. One concept Matteo mentioned during our discussion was the "survival of the flattest," an idea that made me think how this evolutionary principle applies to education in our modern societies.
The well-known principle of "survival of the fittest" argues that in a stable environment, organisms best adapted to their surroundings outlive others. However, when the environment changes dramatically, these "specialists" find themselves ill-equipped to cope. In contrast, the more generalist or "flat" variations, though not optimized for any single environment, possess a range of minor adaptations that help them survive and thrive amidst swift, tumultuous change. Roughly speaking, "survival of the flattest" works when the world changes rapidly.
As we discussed this, I couldn't help but draw parallels with the world of science, technology, and education. Consider our ever-evolving technological landscape. The speed of change often seems overwhelming, leading to debates about our ability to adapt. When applying the "fit" and "flat" strategies to cognitive skills, the comparison is intriguing.
Some people specialize in a particular discipline or skill set, honing their expertise to a fine point. This is a winning strategy - as long as the field's evolution is gradual. But when a paradigm shift happens, specialization can be more of a burden than a benefit. Sometimes, this burden of previous knowledge even hinders the further progress. This phenomenon was described in Max Planck‘s autobiography and is colloquially paraphrased as
"Science progresses one funeral at a time."
A broader scope and generalist skills, in contrast, ensure one remains relevant after a rapid paradigm shift. Thus survival of the flattest and survival of the fittest clearly translate to education, science and technology as two education strategies that could be more or less advantageous under varying circumstances.
So, which one of these education strategies is more beneficial right now? To answer this question we fist need to decide how fast is our modern technology changing the world. Don’t rush with the answer yet. This thought-provoking piece argues that the pace of change isn't as high as we tend to think. Among the myriad technological sectors, it's primarily information technology that maintains an exponential growth trajectory. If we are slowing down, then classical specialized education is the way to go. However, the world might change as artificial intelligence proliferates applied sciences finally brining enough computational power to speed them up. How should our education system change then?
If we assume that that rapid technological progress does promote "survival of the flattest" in the job market, there are some clear adjustments to our education systems that we need to make. Moreover, we have a convenient historic example as a case study. The Industrial Revolution rapidly changed the markets and societies but was also the catalyst for the belief that every child should receive a broad basic education. The world was changing fast, so the society educated the kids to be ready for a variety of jobs to pick from. Our current paradigm shift may not be as swift as we perceive, but it should likely carry a similar dynamic: the need for continuous, diverse education. If the world is changing faster then generations replace each other, we need to educate people throughout their lives, not once. If the change is proliferating and transforming a variety of fields, we need people to have a broad and diverse set of interests.
To flourish in a rapidly changing tech environment, societies must cultivate their citizens to be "flat" - adaptable, prepared, and versatile. I believe the following generalist cognitive skills are the keys to this: critical thinking, reasoning, understanding statistics, plus a broad spectrum of intellectual interests. As recent years have starkly illustrated, these abilities are far from universal in our societies. We hardly know probability, mix up causes and effects and have habit to outsource critical thinking to others, hoping they could do the thinking instead of us.
It's time to rethink our approach to education, unless we want to be a society of cognitive dinosaurs.