In my mind a generalist is someone who e.g. knows quant finance up to hedge fund snuff and knows how to configure wsgi/asgi servers with nginx; can read and rebate legal documentation and use an SMT solver. I don't feel that anyone who hasn't eg watched the recent Jordan Peterson/Slavoj Zizek debate and has a working understanding of Ripser and UMAP can call himself a generalist.
I watched that debate and found it a tedious rehashing of tired old talking points and straw men criticisms of Capitalism/Marxism. To use that in any way of a yardstick of intellectual depth seems odd.
The first hour was Jordan Peterson making a hacky point that capitalism is good and communism's not and Zizek doing Keith Jarret-type improv touching on a thousand topics. Then in the actual debate rounds Zizek got Jordan Peterson to agree with him.
It was an actual debate. There was a winner and not in the sense of a rap battle. The loser was happy to have had it.
Why is the term "generalist" so tightly constrained in your mind?
When I get bored I rewrite my cv and maybe skill up a bit on my own time (or at work) and re-emerge as a new xxx
I’ve gone from support to ops to development to ops to development to devops and I can tell you that I am 100 times more valuable in any role than someone who has specialised for ten years in the same role.
Being a generalist rules, embrace it and get with it just decide what you want to do next and make it happen.
YOU WILL BE AWESOME AT IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE LOTS :) it