> I apologize if I seemed particularly uncharitable, and I think you may well be right that I thought you were advocating for greater depth of knowledge than y

> I apologize if I seemed particularly uncharitable, and I think you may well be right that I thought you were advocating for greater depth of knowledge than you were. No need, it wasn't really meant to be directed toward your comment specifically. I just referenced that negative misinterpretations are inferred when the comment is grey as a way to remind people that it's not likely someone would advocate such caricatures. > Startup founders don't refute my suggestion that there's a cognitive limitation involved, since they're relatively rare and may well have greater capacity to be the generalists that you're proposing. You're right, and I thought of this when I used that example. But by the same token, we can take it out a level further: professional software developers have already shown themselves as having higher-than-average cognitive abilities, because the truth is that the average human doesn't have the cognitive capacity to become a professional software developer. If they did, we'd all be paid much worse. How far off are founders from professional software engineers? How far off are professional software engineers from the median of adults? How much additional cognitive load is required to be operational in a handful of extra platform components, especially if all those components run the same type of hardware? All good questions that I don't think either of us have ready answers for. The other thing is that even if this is out of reach for the "average developer", it wouldn't mean that it's not an ideal to strive toward, or necessarily even unrealistic in all cases. > You go on to give non-computer examples of generalists and specialists, yet you don't address how it is that specialists are (admittedly only imoplicitly) ok there but not in computer tech. Specialists should exist -- as external reference points in consulting groups. If you want your life's mission to be building SQL queries, join a database consultancy and deal only with the SQL problems that your clients couldn't figure out on their own and decided they needed to pay $$$ to solve. If SQL and database design is truly your passion, you'll be much happier this way than you would be as a staff DBA redesigning the same rote EAV schema for Generic Business App #29, working slavishly to finish the code for that report that Important Boss #14 needs on his desk ASAP. Creating a referral-style economy creates a lot more room in the marketplace for specialist consulting groups and gives more specialists greater reward (monetary and emotional). It simultaneously allows "generalists" to stay focused on the big picture of building and maintaining a robust and prudent system overall. I think it's worthwhile to consider how generalist v. specialist operates in other knowledge fields, and what lessons we can take from that. I am confident that a generalist ethos is for the best, but I'm not sure we'll get there without better cultural underpinnings, so I'm not making these statements purely out of self-righteousness (maybe only like 80% ;) ). This dialogue has already been informative and has helped me refine my ideas and hopefully learn to present them somewhat better. Thanks! :)