Where Are the World's Greatest Holistic and Interdisciplinary Thinkers to Help Create a Brighter Future?

A discussion article. Part of The Thinking Upgrade.

‍

What would become possible if we brought together people with an exceptional ability to see connections, question assumptions and understand how different parts of life affect one another – and gave them meaningful opportunities to help shape our future?

If we want a brighter, fairer, more prosperous, joyful, united and sustainable world, the quality of our thinking deserves serious attention. So does the way we connect it.

We organise knowledge into subjects, universities into departments, governments into ministries and organisations into functions. These divisions help us develop expertise and allocate responsibility. Yet the world we are trying to understand does not operate in separate compartments.

A decision about housing is also a decision about health, family life, transport, energy, nature and opportunity. A decision about education shapes far more than employment. A decision about technology can change relationships, power, security, resource consumption and how we understand ourselves.

Who is helping us see these connections before decisions are made? Who is considering the whole while others concentrate on their part? And how much influence do those people actually have?

Holistic thinkers seek to understand something in its wider context: the relationships, environments, dependencies and consequences that shape it. They ask what lies beyond the immediate problem and what might be missing from the picture.

Interdisciplinary thinkers bring knowledge and methods from different fields into conversation. They might connect economics with psychology, engineering with ecology, or education with philosophy and neuroscience. Their contribution goes beyond gathering different opinions: they work to integrate insights into a more useful understanding of the problem and its possible solutions.

These abilities complement deep specialist knowledge. No individual can know everything, and breadth without rigour can produce confident but misleading conclusions. The strongest thinkers recognise the limits of their understanding, draw on relevant expertise and remain willing to revise their views.

Their value lies partly in knowing which questions to ask, whose knowledge is needed and where one explanation is insufficient.

Consider what it means to create prosperity. We could concentrate on increasing production, investment and consumption. But what kind of prosperity are we creating if people have little time for their children, communities become less connected, work damages wellbeing or the natural foundations of future prosperity are depleted?

A holistic discussion would ask about the distribution of opportunity, the quality and purpose of work, the health of ecosystems, unpaid care, financial security and the freedom to enjoy life. It would examine what we choose to measure – and what those measures leave invisible.

It would also ask difficult questions about trade-offs. Some choices bring real benefits and real costs. Who receives each? Over what period? Could we design a better option? Which costs are we passing to people elsewhere or to generations who cannot yet speak for themselves?

This is why holistic and interdisciplinary thinking matters so much to the future we say we want.

A ‘brighter future’ requires imagination informed by an understanding of what is possible and what could go wrong. A ‘fairer future’ requires us to see how rules, institutions and starting circumstances combine to open doors for some people and close them for others. A ‘more prosperous future’ requires us to understand how value is created, shared and sustained.

A ‘more joyful future’ asks us to take relationships, belonging, creativity, play, beauty and time seriously. A ‘more united future’ requires the ability to understand different experiences and beliefs, find common interests and work through disagreement without requiring everyone to think alike. A ‘sustainable future’ requires us to connect human ambitions with the living systems and finite resources on which our lives depend.

These ambitions affect one another. Our task is to understand how they can reinforce one another, where they conflict and what choices we are prepared to make.

Imagine applying this thinking to the design of a town.

How many homes are needed, and who can afford them? Those questions matter. So do the questions that connect them to everyday life. Can children move around safely? Can older and disabled people participate fully? Where will people meet, learn, work and spend time in nature? What will the buildings consume throughout their lives? How will the town respond to heat, flooding and changing needs? Will its design encourage connection or isolation? How will the town generate and use energy? How will it create value and opportunity?

Answering well would bring together architects, engineers, ecologists, economists, health professionals, transport planners, local businesses and residents. Someone would also need to help them examine the relationships between their contributions, resolve competing priorities and test the overall design.

That same need exists when we reimagine a school, a company, a food system or the leadership of a country.

But where are the people who can help us do this exceptionally well?

Some may be in universities, research institutes, public services and businesses. Others may be teachers, clinicians, artists, entrepreneurs, community organisers or people whose lives have required them to navigate several systems at once.

Some may have impressive qualifications. Others may possess insight that formal credentials fail to capture. Some may be young people asking questions that established professionals have stopped asking. Others may bring decades of experience across cultures, occupations and generations.

How much thinking are we overlooking because the person offering it lacks the expected job title, speaks differently, challenges familiar assumptions or lives far from established centres of influence?

The word ‘greatest’ deserves examination too. Fame, confidence, intelligence, eloquence and seniority do not automatically establish the quality of someone's thinking. A compelling account of the world can still be wrong.

We should look at how people reason, use evidence, handle uncertainty and respond to challenge. Can they move between the wider picture and the practical detail? Can they represent opposing views fairly? Do they notice whose interests are absent? Can they translate complex ideas into choices that people can understand and test?

And do they improve the thinking of those around them?

Perhaps the most valuable thinker in a room is sometimes the person who helps everyone else see more clearly.

Finding such people is only part of the challenge. We also need to ask whether our institutions make effective use of them.

What happens when an insight crosses departmental boundaries but no one owns the combined outcome? When preventing a problem requires one organisation to invest while another receives the benefit? When a proposal challenges the incentives, assumptions or business model of those deciding whether to support it?

Inviting a broad thinker to give a speech is relatively easy. Giving serious consideration to conclusions that might change budgets, priorities or established power is harder.

What if governments, organisations and communities created ongoing forums where specialists, skilled integrators and people directly affected by decisions worked together on clearly defined challenges?

These groups would need a practical connection to decision-making: access to relevant information, clear questions, the ability to test proposals and a transparent account of what was accepted, rejected or changed, and why. Their recommendations should face scrutiny. Expertise should inform democratic choices while leaving elected representatives accountable for the decisions they make.

They would also need ways to act and learn. Trying to understand every connection before doing anything can become another form of paralysis. Good holistic thinking identifies the relationships that matter most, makes uncertainty visible and supports proportionate action, followed by observation and adaptation.

‍

We could develop these capabilities much earlier in life.

What if young people regularly explored questions that crossed subject boundaries? How would you improve the place you live? What makes a good life? How could we meet human needs while helping nature flourish? What might an invention change beyond its intended purpose?

Such questions could bring science, mathematics, history, art, ethics and practical experience together. They could help young people learn to investigate, listen, reason, imagine, collaborate and revise their ideas – and recognise that a useful answer may require several kinds of knowledge.

Adults need opportunities to practise this too. So do boards, executive teams, policymakers and the people responsible for educating future generations.

AI partners could support this work by helping us explore unfamiliar fields, compare arguments, identify possible dependencies and examine alternative scenarios. Their contributions would still need scrutiny: generated connections can be misleading, evidence can be misrepresented and human priorities cannot be settled by technical output alone. Their usefulness would depend on how thoughtfully we combine them with expertise, lived experience and accountable human judgement.

‍

Ultimately, we need to build our collective capacity to think across boundaries. Exceptional individuals can make an enormous contribution, but no small group can hold the whole world's knowledge, experiences and aspirations.

The invitation is therefore both ambitious and personal.

Who are the people already helping us understand the wider picture? Who have we overlooked? How could we connect them, support them and give their work a meaningful route into action? And what could each of us do to become more curious about the connections beyond our own experience and expertise?

If we want to create a brighter, fairer, more prosperous, joyful, united and sustainable future, are we bringing together the quality and diversity of thinking that such a future deserves?

And if we are not, what are we prepared to change?

‍

Thanks for reading.

Best,

Rob

‍

Developed by Rob Frost from his thinking and ideas, with drafting and refinement support from his AI Partner.

‍

‍