4 ms·

They're not mutually exclusive. You can learn a little bit of a lot of things on the path to "going deep" in a single topic. I believe this is how you end up wi

They're not mutually exclusive. You can learn a little bit of a lot of things on the path to "going deep" in a single topic. I believe this is how you end up with T-shaped skills: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills

vvanders 10y ago
That's great, another one of those things that I've never found the right term to articulate but lines up very well with my intuitive understanding. Going wide also has benefits as you'll stumble across things that have surprising application in the areas where you've gone deep.
- gregmac 10y ago
  The other aspect to look at is if you're only an expert in machine learning, every problem looks like it can be solved with machine learning.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
basseq 10y ago
Exactly this. It's about finding a balance: know enough about a specific topic that you're a go-to person ("an expert") and enough about other topics to understand the context and opportunities for your area of expertise. Too much focus and you can't see the forest for the trees. Too much general knowledge and you're a jack of all trades, master of none. Finally, note that "balance" is subjective. It's the balance that works for you and where you want to go. Deep, focused experts are valued. Generalists are valued. Find your niche.
superuser2 10y ago
My dad is quite fond of this adage from a journalism school professor in the 80s: "know all about one thing, a little about everything, and where to find the rest." "T-shaped skills" or whatever you want to call them + the capacity to learn is quite powerful.
- brachi 10y ago
  Agreed. Learning how to learn is vital, and certainly not easy.
rev_bird 10y ago
I'd love for this to be true, but I constantly find myself limited by time. I either have time to learn one thing really well or a little bit about a lot of stuff -- if I try to do both, I never end up getting the deep knowledge of the first thing.
antjanus 10y ago
A few years ago I gave a talk at a university discussing this very topic. My view is that you should focus more on an "arrow" shape: - become a senior with one topic (you don't have to be the ultimate master on this) - have mid-level skills on topics surrounding that one main skill - have a junior-level skillset on the outlying topics - have some knowledge of anything beyond that For example: a back-end developer should be really good at back-end development but they should have a very good understanding of the front-end, DevOps, and DB as well. They should have some rudimentary understanding of how UI/UX works and system administration as well. Beyond that, they should have basic ability to understand what's being discussed regarding product development, marketing, how the OS works on bare-metal, etc. etc. I feel like that makes a more well-rounded employee that has an easier time moving around their space, understanding their co-workers, and, worst comes to worst, shifting to a new topic when it becomes relevant.
startupdiscuss 10y ago
A lot of people have responded by recommending the T shape. I had never heard of it before. Why is the better than being n or m shaped (great at 2 things; fairly good at 3 things) and so on? It seems the point about the deep skill going obsolete still stands.
- Kinnard 10y ago
  If your one deep skill does go obsolete then being arrow-shaped better enables you to shift one of your mid-level skills to expert level, in which case you do become M-shaped . . . Personally I like the octagram !!!

vvanders 10y ago

That's great, another one of those things that I've never found the right term to articulate but lines up very well with my intuitive understanding. Going wide also has benefits as you'll stumble across things that have surprising application in the areas where you've gone deep.

gregmac 10y ago
The other aspect to look at is if you're only an expert in machine learning, every problem looks like it can be solved with machine learning.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument

basseq 10y ago

Exactly this. It's about finding a balance: know enough about a specific topic that you're a go-to person ("an expert") and enough about other topics to understand the context and opportunities for your area of expertise. Too much focus and you can't see the forest for the trees. Too much general knowledge and you're a jack of all trades, master of none. Finally, note that "balance" is subjective. It's the balance that works for you and where you want to go. Deep, focused experts are valued. Generalists are valued. Find your niche.

superuser2 10y ago

My dad is quite fond of this adage from a journalism school professor in the 80s: "know all about one thing, a little about everything, and where to find the rest." "T-shaped skills" or whatever you want to call them + the capacity to learn is quite powerful.

brachi 10y ago
Agreed. Learning how to learn is vital, and certainly not easy.

rev_bird 10y ago

I'd love for this to be true, but I constantly find myself limited by time. I either have time to learn one thing really well or a little bit about a lot of stuff -- if I try to do both, I never end up getting the deep knowledge of the first thing.

antjanus 10y ago

A few years ago I gave a talk at a university discussing this very topic. My view is that you should focus more on an "arrow" shape: - become a senior with one topic (you don't have to be the ultimate master on this) - have mid-level skills on topics surrounding that one main skill - have a junior-level skillset on the outlying topics - have some knowledge of anything beyond that For example: a back-end developer should be really good at back-end development but they should have a very good understanding of the front-end, DevOps, and DB as well. They should have some rudimentary understanding of how UI/UX works and system administration as well. Beyond that, they should have basic ability to understand what's being discussed regarding product development, marketing, how the OS works on bare-metal, etc. etc. I feel like that makes a more well-rounded employee that has an easier time moving around their space, understanding their co-workers, and, worst comes to worst, shifting to a new topic when it becomes relevant.

startupdiscuss 10y ago

A lot of people have responded by recommending the T shape. I had never heard of it before. Why is the better than being n or m shaped (great at 2 things; fairly good at 3 things) and so on? It seems the point about the deep skill going obsolete still stands.

Kinnard 10y ago
If your one deep skill does go obsolete then being arrow-shaped better enables you to shift one of your mid-level skills to expert level, in which case you do become M-shaped . . . Personally I like the octagram !!!