17 ms·

Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World

• desireco42 7y ago
  I am just listening to 'Art of Manlines' podcast where this topic is discussed. There is a lot here to take in. You should read yourself, I wanted to bring one point that seemed to stick out to me. He mentions Tiger Woods vs. Roger Federer as two ways how you get to greatness. I don't think they are taking into account that maybe both of them are excellent athletes and that whether they started in childhood like Tiger Woods, or after dabbling in different sports like Federer, both thrived once they got into where their talents were. Also, both have strong parents that pushed them, even if Federer mom didn't want him to play tennis, she is a tennis coach. Anyhow, I don't think this take into account innate talents enough.
  • pier25 7y ago
    I'd like to add that "innate talents" are probably fundamental brain skills. I work in education and there is a strong tendency to now focus on developing cognitive skills which help you to learn something instead of learning something and hoping that this will develop the cognitive skills. I guess with sports or other mechanical skills (playing an instrument?) it must be a similar thing.
• ncmncm 7y ago
  Money quote: “I am a polymath. You are a generalist. He is a dilettante.”
  • ybalkind 7y ago
    Brilliant
  • moate 7y ago
    I feel like with so many people suffering from Impostor syndrome these days, it's probably "I am a dilettante. He is a polymath".
  • rkangel 7y ago
    Yes Minister calls these 'irregular verbs': "I give confidential briefings, you leak, he has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act" "I have an independent mind, You are eccentric, He is round the twist." Apparently Yes Minister isn't the origin of the concept though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation
• js8 7y ago
  All of us can only recognize expertise up to a certain depth. Beyond that, experts seem to be the same. So if you have broader knowledge, you will appear to know more. And in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is a king.
  • Frost1x 7y ago
    In my opinion, I think most humans strive to be generalists but our economic system typically incentivizes specialists. It makes sense because from a systems perspective, the more specialized a component in my system is, the more efficiently it will perform its task leading to potential overall efficiency improvements. Assuming that machine doesn't need to adapt/evolve much or that specialized components for future adaptions are easy to obtain, it's a net positive effect. Businesses are no different than such a system (of people and their processes) so businesses reward specialist labor more because that labor rewards them more by supplying low cost solutions to consumers. Trying to find rewarding positions for generalists these days can be quite the challenge. Unfortunately, I find this approach sort of flies in the face of human nature or perhaps just my nature and anecdotes. I enjoy digging down into subjects and fields well beyond a surface skim, but I find digging to the depths gives me little satisfaction. I start to get a bit of diminishing returns of enjoyment as the more depth I desire, time investment begins to increase (in a non-linear fashion). I would also add that in many areas I've studied, you reach a point where the information and knowledge is no longer certain and then various opinions begin to branch out from experts in the field and I find this is usually a good stopping point. As such, most subjects reach a point where I decide it's time for something new: I've learned many of the important aspects and if I need them at some point or have new found interest, I have a great starting point.
    • icebraining 7y ago
      I think this might just be your personal preferences; I know quite a few people who are happy to focus on something very specific for years. To them, "the point where the information and knowledge is no longer certain" is where things become interesting, not where they stop.
    • js8 7y ago
• skadamat 7y ago
  I personally think this article is kind of silly. Ultimately, depending on the field, you probably need to be T-shaped in some way - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills Deep in 1 or 2 important areas, and broader in others. It's a bit hard to be scientific about career trajectories too. Maybe Roger Federer could have been EVEN greater if he had committed to tennis even earlier? I think it also matters a lot the type of career market you're in and that can be hard to define. https://medium.com/the-unstudent/career-markets-82fb42694869 https://medium.com/the-unstudent/career-markets-82fb42694869 In a winner-take-all market, the criteria by which you succeed is quite narrowly defined & agreed upon and there are very limited slots. It's then a matter of optimizing for those criteria (e.g. publication quality in universities or TV screenwriting). In an auction market, there's many different approaches and criteria (e.g. VC investing, design, software engineering) and lots of ways to create new kinds of positions. The creator of Dilbert (Scott Adams) chronicled his journey being in auction market (writing cartoons): "It’s unlikely that any average student can develop a world-class skill in one particular area. But it’s easy to learn how to do several different things fairly well. I succeeded as a cartoonist with negligible art talent, some basic writing skills, an ordinary sense of humor and a bit of experience in the business world. The “Dilbert” comic is a combination of all four skills. The world has plenty of better artists, smarter writers, funnier humorists and more experienced business people. The rare part is that each of those modest skills is collected in one person. That’s how value is created. " Is it possible some of the allure of being a polymath and a generalist a bit of confirmation bias? I empathize with the worry over increased specialization, so a book with the message "specialists suffer, generalists win" feels very good.
  • Silhouette 7y ago
    Ultimately, depending on the field, you probably need to be T-shaped in some way Indeed, in technical fields such as those we often discuss on HN, it is almost impossible for anyone beyond novice experience levels not to have greater depth of skill and understanding in some areas but also to pick up general knowledge and basic skills across a much broader range of areas. I'm not a big fan of the T metaphor specifically, because I think it misleadingly suggests than an individual will only develop much greater skills and knowledge in a single area or perhaps closely related areas, but the underlying premise makes sense: there isn't really any such thing as a pure specialist in technical work, because you are inevitably exposed to many related areas even if your focus is on one specific aspect.
• hliyan 7y ago
  I'm still reading the article, but I stopped halfway to point this out: Remember the ‘10,000 Hours’ Rule for Success? Forget About It They should not have said that. I don't know whether 10K is the actual number, but I got good at two things that I was never naturally good at, simply through years of brute force repetition: coding and writing. I was never a born hacker -- I struggled with Visual Basic when I was 21. But 15 years and maybe 300,000 lines of code later, I have an extremely high degree of proficiency in both C++ and JavaScript, with a good level of proficiency in Java, Python and Golang. I was extremely bad at writing. So much so my fingers used to sweat when I came to the essay section of any test. But after about a decade of keeping a personal journal, I would like to think I write rather well. Anecdotal yes, but speaking personally, I would not discount the 10,000 hours concept.
  • icebraining 7y ago
    Unlike what this review seems to imply, the author of the book doesn't actually discount that concept - he says it's true for a certain kind of activity, one with reliable feedback, such as programming. Quote from the interview I linked: "The way that chess works makes it what's called a kind learning environment. So, these are terms used by psychologist Robin Hogarth. And what a kind learning environment is, is one where patterns recur; ideally a situation is constrained--so, a chessboard with very rigid rules and a literal board is very constrained; and, importantly, every time you do something you get feedback that is totally obvious--all the information is available, the feedback is quick, and it is 100% accurate. Right? And this is chess. And this is golf. You do something: all the information is available; you see the consequences. The consequences are completely immediate and accurate. And you adjust accordingly. And in these kinds of kind learning environments, if you are cognitively engaged you get better just by doing the activity. On the opposite end of the spectrum are wicked learning environments. And this is a spectrum, from kind to wicked. Wicked learning environments: often some information is hidden. Even when it isn't, feedback may be delayed. It may be infrequent. It may be nonexistent. And it maybe be partly accurate, or inaccurate in many of the cases. So, the most wicked learning environments will reinforce the wrong types of behavior."
    • piker 7y ago
• heisenbit 7y ago
  This is very simplistic thinking that neglects demand. Markets tend to favor specialists (and specialized companies). Selling yourself as a generalist is challenging as differentiation is inherently difficult. Given opportunities and resources generalists may outperform but such positions are rare and access is often gated by check for specialization.
  • hobofan 7y ago
    For employment relationships, yes. For freelance, I would say it's quite the opposite, where you have a much bigger pool of gigs you can accept as a generalist. And if you are in full-on mercenary mode, it also allows you to capitalize a lot better on hype-topics, where as a good generalist you can ramp up on the required skills pretty quickly.
• yantrams 7y ago
  On a somewhat related note, I often wonder why Poincare is still considered the last of the Universalists/Generalists. I believe Von Neumann would be a strong contender to that title.
  • shdh 7y ago
    Von Neumann was definitely a modern polymath
• nullwasamistake 7y ago
  These feel-good articles resonate with everyone and lack substance. "Why you are awesome, and how to be more awesome" is the siren song of tech industry best sellers. These articles are the horoscopes of HN
• scarface74 7y ago
  I’ve found that it is best to specialize early in your career but at some point you’re going to hit a ceiling and then it’s better to be a generalist for more architectural and leadership roles - even if you want to stay hands on. It really helps in consulting (true consulting not staff augmentation) to be a generalist.
• thrower123 7y ago
  I read too much Heinlein at a formative age, but this quote from Time Enough for Love always struck me: > A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. Most things are possible for most people to do if they bother and take an interest in it. Quite often people will just throw up their hands and claim they can't do something, rather than rolling up their sleeves and giving it a go.
• icebraining 7y ago
  I prefer the Econtalk interview with the author: http://www.econtalk.org/david-epstein-on-mastery-specialization-and-range/ http://www.econtalk.org/david-epstein-on-mastery-specializat... (there's a transcription below, if you prefer reading)
• Invictus0 7y ago
  I think the Federer and Woods anecdote is not really pertinent. A true generalist doesn't want to be the best; they just want to achieve above average proficiency, or below average mastery. Examining people like Putin, Leibniz or Ben Franklin might be more worthwhile.
  • sitkack 7y ago
    Being the best seems more about Ego, when being good enough seems more about optimization. My sweet spot is knowing enough to be able to evaluate the fitness function, once that happens the feedback loop is complete.
  • majos 7y ago
    > Putin What? Politics as much aside as possible, why put him next to Leibniz and Ben Franklin?
    • C1sc0cat 7y ago
      Yeh no offense to Comrade Putin but his KGB Career dint reach the heights.
      • objectivetruth 7y ago
        Or you could argue that out of all of the thousands of global KGB officers in the 80s, his career (oligarchical emperor and possibly richest man on Earth) ended up the best. :-)
    • Invictus0 7y ago
      He is a lawyer, bilingual speaker, master of 2 martial arts, intelligence agent, prolific outdoorsman, and president. He also sings, paints, and plays the piano. Is this not enough to qualify someone as a generalist?
• claudiulodro 7y ago
  I disagree. Look at the post-college careers of General Studies majors compared to any specialized major. Our current society rewards specialization and niching. Dabbling is low-risk/low-reward; specialization is high-risk/high-reward.
  • Jtsummers 7y ago
    General Studies major is the one people take when they hopped between other majors for too long. Often never achieving any real depth beyond sophomore level in any subject. They're dabblers, not generalists. Generalists actually achieve competency in several fields. Dabblers don't.
  • throwayEngineer 7y ago
    Academia is not the real world, and they always seem to be struggling to be Useful. A generalist who can program, market, and run a business is likely going to be better at making good decisions over someone with only 1 of those skills. Forget about Academia for a moment.
    • claudiulodro 7y ago
      Decisions about what? The low-hanging-fruit software companies have already been built; the most successful new software companies are all about a specific vertical, and this requires specialization. Trivially, yes it would be best to be 100% expert in programming, 100% expert in marketing, 100% expert in business, and 100% expert in whatever the business domain is, but that isn't feasible. That's why most new start ups have a founding team, not a founding superperson.
      • goobynight 7y ago
        I'm not buying it. What companies are you thinking of? I feel like I will either find them seeking out a generalist for some subset of their workload or a company that is just as young and valuable that hires massive numbers of generalists (e.g. Uber, Postmates/Doordash, WeWork)
  • 7y ago
• TheRealPomax 7y ago
  It is unfortunate that it's not even surprising that the NYTimes no longer requires writers to actually know the real meaning of sayings they invoke. Nor that editors don't catch misuse anymore. "Folk wisdom holds the trade-off between breadth and depth to be a cruel one: “jack-of-all-trades, master of none” [...]". Cool, cool... the saying continues, though: “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one”.
  • rifung 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_all_trades,_master_of_none https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_all_trades,_master_of_... seems to imply they are correct and you are wrong actually. Or at least the one you use is not the original.
    • TheRealPomax 7y ago
      yep, that's been the conclusion so far, but you don't get to delete you comments after it's become a thread, and you don't even get to edit it after a few hours, so that comment is there to stay, apparently.
  • danielg6 7y ago
    I’ve never heard your extended version before. I wonder how common it is versus what you’re criticizing...
    • TheRealPomax 7y ago
      A fair thing to wonder, but then you might also not know the actual original is just ""Jack of all trades" without the "master of none", part, which got added much later and completely changed whatever the original meaning was.
      • danielg6 7y ago
        Uhh... no? I knew that. My point was that _you_ were wrongly criticizing the reporter for not knowing the “original” meaning of a phrase. _You_ were wrong about your extended version being original and you’re also wrong about it being common. I was trying to be nice and let you know you were wrong by using the phrase “I wonder...” I wasn’t actually “wondering” lol. Based on your recent comment, it seems like you were offended or maybe you just don’t understand how these things work at all.
• apo 7y ago
  > Which leads to a caveat. Miranda is a very talented fellow; so are most of the other “high fliers” who crop up in “Range.” What worries me is that this emphasis — what social scientists call “restriction of range” — might skew Epstein’s moral just a bit. I'm surprised that Dunning-Kruger wasn't mentioned here. High-flier generalists are especially vulnerable to self-deception. Their charisma, and the adulation it generates, conceals the consequences of weak understanding of specific topics. This species of generalist is very vulnerable to being blindsided by nuances readily apparent to those who have taken the time and effort to master a topic. The Dunning-Kruger generalist tends to end up in a position of power, often with disastrous consequences. The current US administration's cabinet is full of them, for example.
  • gdubs 7y ago
    The Dunning-Kruger effect would apply just as much to a specialist as it would a generalist. No matter how specialized one gets, there’s always the possible cognitive bias that they think they know more than they do. There’s also the risk of tunnel vision and compartmentalization, where the specialist, unaware of of relevant information existing in some other silo continues to try to fit round pegs into square holes.
    • Snoozle 7y ago
      You could even argue that the Dunning-Kruger effect applies MORE to specialists than generalists, as generalists are already approaching problems as if they don't have as much experience as a specialist and are more likely to research and learn as part of the problem solving process instead of assume that they are already experts at this and make a mistake.
      • gdubs 7y ago
        So true. It’s the feeling of, “the more I learn the more I realize I don’t know.”
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
• agbell 7y ago
  Is he questioning the findings of Anders Ericsson or saying that they don't apply in certain cases. I read his previous book and it was interesting and also a bit of an assault on Ericsson work, arguing that in Olympic sports, the best are so good that genetics triumphs. You can spend years getting better at swimming but if you don't have an elongated torso and long reach it won't matter.
• Snoozle 7y ago
  I feel strongly about this topic because I'm at the point in my career where I've done several different positions instead of getting better at one and I'm wondering if I made a mistake. I started off in the software field as a developer. I've been in the software field for almost 10 years but I've only actually spent two years as a full time developer. I've also done project management, product management, marketing, customer support, and management. I find myself struggling to fill one of those individual roles because I don't have the same level of experience as those who have dedicated themselves to those for the full ten years. I'm currently a VP of Engineering for a small company. I know most would probably say that I've made it, but I'm looking for my next opportunity and struggling. It's hard to get a job at a larger (200+ employee) company as each role filled is expected to be specialized and focused. At a smaller company or startup, though, I kick the crap out of anyone else applying because I know so much more about the business in general and can wear many different hats. In addition, I feel a strong benefit is that my experience enhances my ability in each other role. For instance, if I'm working on a marketing email campaign, I can use my developer skills to pull relevant data from the application that helps me focus my targeting. If I'm developing, I will specifically build small helpful tools for customer support and marketing departments because I already know what they want and they don't know they can have it. It takes a small amount of time but provides a big value. I would probably also have a leg up on starting my own business compared to someone who has a deep specialized knowledge of enterprise level applications but no idea how to put together a customer support and good user experience. Still, we are always looking at the greener grass, and there are times when I wish I could just apply for a senior developer role at a larger company and focus on one thing. Somehow, I don't think that my lack of React experience will be made up for by letting them know that I will be able to directly interact with the customers or set up marketing campaigns. They already have 5+ people doing those things.
  • notduncansmith 7y ago
    From my experience job-seeking and hiring, it depends entirely on the culture created by the founders/chiefs, which in turn depends on their own style of skill cultivation. If they are generalists, they will likely value their ability as generalists and that of others, same for specialists. I have specialized in programming, but I am definitely a generalist, and all my best fits (including my current employer) have been working under and alongside fellow generalists at small companies. I specifically say small companies because there aren’t already teams of specialists and even the one or two existing specialists will usually appreciate anyone’s interest/help.
• gdubs 7y ago
  Perhaps the most apt example here would be Steve Jobs whose broad range of interests in things like typography, design, and computing, came together into something greater than the sum of its parts. The “intersection of technology and the liberal arts.”
  • hliyan 7y ago
    Or, to use a more dated example, like "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"...
  • rchaud 7y ago
    The Jobs case is instructive also because it was this exact lack of focus that got him fired from Apple the first time. Remember him wanting the factory machinery painted bright white? It served no engineering or business purpose, he just thought it looked nicer. How different might his story have been if Toy Story bombed, Pixar went bust and he never came back to Apple? Specialist v Generalist is an interesting discussion for sure, but looking at personalities in isolation and ignoring the environmental variables aren't going to help average people decide where on the spectrum they want to end up.
• gitgud 7y ago
  It's strange how the "Jack of all trades" phrase changed over time. The original phrase was: "Jack of all traits, Master of none, Still better than a master of one" The original phrase is much more against specialisation, however omitting the last two lines makes it almost belittle generalization... The meaning of the phrase has basically reversed over the years. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_all_trades,_master_of_none https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_all_trades,_master_of_...
  • duxup 7y ago
    It certainly cycles back and forth. In this day and age where hiring managers filter folks based on alphabet soup lists of tech and hum and haw over not 8 years of one of the dozen things and ... it's not even a thing it's a just file format ... and they can't stop using Java and JavaScript interchangeably damn it! sigh It's easy to get frustrated by the demands folks have for ... both.
  • lil-scamp 7y ago
    I love learning how the English language has evolved. Public service announcement: If you're into this stuff-check out the Allusionist Podcast: https://www.theallusionist.org/listen https://www.theallusionist.org/listen It's full of fun stories like these. One of my favorite language nuggets—the word "guys" is an eponym—most historians trace it back Guy Fawkes.
  • _o-O-o_ 7y ago
    There's even more ways you could twist the original: - Jack of all trades and master of one - Jack of all trades and master of all - Master of all trades and jack of none - Jack of all trades and master of some
  • qrian 7y ago
    > "Still better than a master of one" is a recent addendum to the phrase. Your wikipedia link says the last line is not included in the original phrase
  • lowbloodsugar 7y ago
    In the reference you cite, it says ""Still better than a master of one" is a recent addendum to the phrase." Whereas it says "Jack of all trades, master of none" (without your recent addition) is from 1721. See also https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/jack-of-all-trades.html https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/jack-of-all-trades.html
• baby_wipe 7y ago
  Here's the recent EconTalk episode with the author. http://www.econtalk.org/david-epstein-on-mastery-specialization-and-range/ http://www.econtalk.org/david-epstein-on-mastery-specializat...
• blackbrokkoli 7y ago
  I don't think the fields and people used as examples for the point are well chosen. Sports is very unique because it is a lot more physical than intellectual compared to just about anything else. Meaning there are completely different aspects at play when it comes to being top brass. Prominence in arts and music seems to only be loosely correlated to the raw skill itself. Cue everyone's favorite meme about modern paintings which are just lines. This means for the average reader this seems not really relevant at all, because there is no proof you can project anything from these people right and wrongdoings to "normal" careers. How to become a top notch wind turbine mechanic? How can I become "that embedded systems guy"? Until someone got more on that, I'm sticking to the 10000 hour thing with a breath and depth that feels right to me...
• Balgair 7y ago
  Good interview with the author here: https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/generalist-specialist-david-epstein-interview/ https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/generalist-specialis...
• rb808 7y ago
  I dont like when they dont define the subject. eg if you're a "fullstack developer" are you a generalist or a specialist? If you're an artist who does some web design work are you a generalist or a specialist?
  • varjag 7y ago
    You are a web (or app) developer, definitely a specialist.
• qwerty456127 7y ago
  I'm a generalist, I hate specializing and it feels like a curse rather than a triumph. I have reasonable general understanding of a huge spectrum of topics but little skill of actually applying most of them. I feel excited about everything and pain about concentrating on a single. Every time I start doing something I feel like I hate doing it instead of learning about something else. The sense of not having enough time to learn everything almost puts me in panic. I tend to attribute this to ADHD. Small doses of desoxyn (meth) help a lot (and nothing else helps) but you can't get it legally outside the US. Every employer wants a specialist and I can't blame them.
  • wuliwong 7y ago
    To me, a generalist is someone who does have skill in application not just knowledge about topics. At least in my world of software engineering for the internet.
  • natalyarostova 7y ago
    It would be really strange if a high dosage of dexedrine didn't at least get you 80-90% of desoxyn.
    • qwerty456127 7y ago
      I'll read about it and try to get some to give it a try (never heard of it before). Thanks!
      • qwerty456127 7y ago
        Googled it, it's just dextroamphetamine. 1. you can't get it legally where I live either (concerta-ritalin and a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (only gives me anxiety) I can't remember the name of are the only thing doctors can prescribe) 2. I've tried it illegally and it didn't help - it indeed calms me down (feel so serene) and helps to concentrate but... on listening/watching/reading only, not on doing (while desoxyn concentrates me on doing and I stop wanting to learn).
  • slothtrop 7y ago
• ryeguy_24 7y ago
  I wouldn't really call Roger Federer a generalist. He's the number one tennis player on the planet and specializes in tennis more than anyone under the sun. Maybe as a kid he played other sports but don't we all? I don't think this generalist concept was fully explored in this article. That being said, I frequently worry about this concept of generalist vs specialist and which will yield a better or more impactful career. Despite the negative connotation of the word "generalist", I do believe people that have wide skillsets with some specialty are pretty valuable. But I think it depends on what you want to do and what you want to impact. For inventing a new medication, maybe a speciality is a way to achieve that. For starting a business, maybe generalist is the better toolset. I think it's ok to be either, I just wish I could be both. :)
  • TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > For inventing a new medication, maybe a speciality is a way to achieve that. For starting a business, maybe generalist is the better toolset. I feel that for any end result, you can define the concept of overspecialization. Taking the medication example - you likely want a specialist in biochemistry involved, but if said specialist is actually a specialist of a particular metabolic pathway, they may arrive at a partial solution, and miss the insights that come from being aware of other pathways and how they interact. Some problems (and I suspect biology already has plenty of them) may also be tricky in the sense that they simultaneously require breadth and depth that's near-impossible for one person to have simultaneously. Those problems will need a mix of extreme specialists with some "less deep" specialists.
• temp129038 7y ago
  Triumph is a strong word. I personally enjoy being a generalist (have been an analyst, PM, and dev), but in my experience companies frown upon it and they will try to put you in jr roles despite having experience in various areas. On the other hand, I think my propensity to want to do a lot of things is probably my brain telling me that I shouldn't be joining a company or take a role where specialization is valued more highly than not.
• chiefalchemist 7y ago
  > Remember the ‘10,000 Hours’ Rule for Success? No, I do not. Because there never was such a thing. What there was/is a rule of thumb to say it takes 10,000 hours to be "expertly proficient" at something - which is not to be confused with being successful. In other words, putting in 10k hours does not mean you'll play in the Premier League or star in a Hollywood film. It simple means that if you ever hope to do either you'll have to put in at least 10,000 hours. The media wonders why some of us are so critical of them. Yet they constantly fail to do their job properly. It's a miracle more of us aren't more critical of their monkey see monkey do approach to publishing.
  • justnotworthit 7y ago
    After listeningt to Epstein's conversation on Econtalk, I don't quite recognize this article's accuracy to his beliefs. HN linked to a blog post about having a strong bias against books that are made by journalists who aren't experts in the field. I find pop psychology books by journalists with this "anecdote/study/lesson" formula tiring.
• totalperspectiv 7y ago
  I'm curious if anyone here has thoughts on 'Operating Manuel for Spaceship Earth' in this context. A quote that has tuck with me for a long time is 'specialization precludes comprehensive thinking.' I generally agree with this, and have tried to be a generalist to the degree that it is allowed in today's workforce.
• chiefalchemist 7y ago
  The headline is misleading. What makes Generalists more valuable is the rate of change. That is, as change increases, the ability to adapt is essential. It's not the (less valuable) skills you had, but your ability to pick up new skills (that's more valuable).
• yelloweyes 7y ago
  I mean... the world needs specialists. Would you trust some random generalist to design the airplane you're going to fly in?
  • 1-6 7y ago
    The world needs generalists to govern specialists (but not in the way the US government operates).
  • marcosdumay 7y ago
    Would you trust people with no general knowledge to design something composed of many different mechanical, aerodynamic, electrical, electronic and human systems? Specialist programmers see no problem on reading values from an unreliable sensor and overriding the pilots decisions if the values are bad.
• tabtab 7y ago
  Specialization gets you started so you can afford a family and home. Generalization gets you into upper management.
  • 1-6 7y ago
    And stay there until you get pushed out of the org. It's better to stay specialized as long as you can to avoid upper management.
    • tabtab 7y ago
      Many techies reach a point where they go: "Oh crap, now I have to move into management." More money but less fun.
• netwanderer3 7y ago
  I believe the common value of being a generalist comes from the fact that you might be less prone to being biased or locked in a tunnel vision when evaluating a situation, since generalists would typically have a more complete world view under various angles and multiple lens. Specialists are often biased with their specialized knowledge and would only know how to apply it even when trying to solve problems outside of their expertise. As they said, when all you have is a hammer then everything you see becomes a nail. The second law of thermodynamics indicates that our modern world will only become increasingly more chaos, which certainly seems to have been the case so far, therefore possessing the ability to assess the world with an unbiased mindset and under such clarity can be a huge advantage. Though the most important value from being a generalist probably comes from getting around the diminishing returns effect. We are approaching a state where it’s becoming harder and harder to generate new knowledge in any particular single field, and yet the possibility and potential to combine existing knowledge between various different fields are rarely explored and still widely open. Most people only specialize in a single track of expertise, they are either a doctor, a mechanic, or a fisherman, but they are rarely both. Those who possess knowledge of any two industries and are able to effectively combine them together will have the potential to generate a completely new piece of valuable information. This in turn will lead to more creative ideas and innovations. In a world where everything becomes increasingly saturated, this is probably the reason why being a polymath or a generalist is going to become much more desirable in the near future.
  • drawkbox 7y ago
    I agree with this, it is good for skillsets to cross pollinate and it makes you better at both. Another divide is development and design, those that can do that produce amazing products. You see this more in the gaming or interactive space but it makes you less biased and understanding of the problem points, and best parts of both verticals. Specialization over generalization is why lots of large software sucks today and small companies or startups win, they employ more generalists, design/develop crossovers and full stack product focused t-shaped employees. When teams are huge, specialized and care is removed. The chaos of more communication channels (N(N-1)/2) encourages just staying in your lane rather than viewing the big picture. Small teams with generalists are where the best products are made due to everyone going beyond their lanes/channels and viewing the big picture. I think generalization is best in startups or small groups including gaming/interactive especially with hyperfocus on a product. Making the product good in all aspects, and caring about them, from design to development, presentation to production, and especially maintenance and iterative growth. Once that is established, teams can grow and specialize, but innovation and creative growth is harder.
• 1qazxsw23edc 7y ago
  This is opposite of what I'm experiencing in the job market. As an example, I'm looking for a data scientist job and as you might guess, it is a very broad field. So, I thought I would learn the basics of machine learning, deep learning, required maths and programming and then I would search for the job and in whatever field I'll get the job like Natural language processing, computer vision, supply chain analytics, time series analysis, etc. , I would learn that and specialize in that field. But when I started looking for job every start-up wanted that I know current state-of-the-art techniques of their field, which is simply not possible as each start-up specialize in a different set of techniques, for example, some want deep learning, some statistics, some time series analysis, some big data processing frameworks like Apache Spark, some recommendation system and so on and so forth. As a result, I'm still searching for a job and somewhat have lost passion for data science. So, the only learning that I got from going through this process is whatever field you choose, you have to specialize in that field to have a great career.
  • nostrademons 7y ago
    The somewhat counterintuitive solution to this is to first figure out what interests you, learn a lot about it, and then go look for the organization out there that needs that particular skillset. Or as Venkatesh Rao put it [1]: "First become a key, then go look for a lock." Yes, there's risk in that, and no, there's no guarantee that whatever you specialize in will be useful to someone. But the advantage is that you're basically guaranteed to love your job, because you chose the job yourself and then just pitched a lot of corporations to see who was offering it. There's also a self-respect boost to being in the driver's seat and thinking of your career in terms of which organization gets to be lucky enough to have you work for them. [1] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2018/03/29/the-key-to-act-two/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2018/03/29/the-key-to-act-two/
  • lpcrealmadrid 7y ago
    How we define “basics” is important. We have to earn the generalist label - the generalist has his own form of specialization. From what I’ve seen, the successful generalist’s command over the basics is so strong that you wonder why they never specialized deeper. The generalist has a good mental map of the territory and solves problems very proficiently, though perhaps not as quickly or rigorously as someone more specialized in a specific sliver of the problem domain. (anecdotal from my own journey learning how to program and initially feeling frustrated by the lack of market for generalists)
• thanatropism 7y ago
  I'm remaking my CV in preparation for a possible shakeup after years in the same job and keep hemming and hawing about the word "generalist". So many people are "hummingbirds" (they come in touch with this and that flower and cross-pollinate) that call themselves generalists. I'm more of a "bites deep into whatever problem is thrown his way". "Polymath" would be a better fit but it's a bit self-aggrandizing.
• codesushi42 7y ago
  From my own experience, being a generalist gives you more job mobility. I've gone from web frontend, to server side, to Android and iOS frontend, to mobile infra, now to ML. And keeping things varied keeps me from burning out. However, specialization will move you further in your lob ladder at a faster pace. The risk is if you specialize in the wrong area, and then that area becomes stale. You'll have a harder time switching to something else.
• 40acres 7y ago
  The ideal worker in today's economy is "T" shaped ('shallow' knowledge in many areas, deep in a specific area) with the ability to move the "fulcrum" of that "T" based on market needs. The class of 2019 will probably have a career of 45+ years, the economy is only going to get more dynamic and winner take all in my view -- your domain focus will probably have to change every ~8-12 years. As a programmer, I feel like we have great flexibility in this regard. You can work on mobile, you can work on the cloud, or the web.. in banking, semiconductors.. insurance.. hell, even for government if things get tight.
• linux_devil 7y ago
  Podcast link : https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/generalist-specialist-david-epstein-interview/ https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/generalist-specialis...
• jackcosgrove 7y ago
  I think being a specialist vs a generalist, from the perspective of earning power, is a question of risk and reward. There is a bias in favor of specialization for the economy as a whole. This is why specialists get paid more (engineering major vs English major), in general. However, I consider this a riskier path since specialization is more likely to lead to earlier obsolescence. Thus I would say that there is a bias in favor of being a generalist for the individual, since it keeps more options open. Being a generalist is the safer path, since you can move around more easily, and you're less likely to fall off the top of the hedonic treadmill and lose motivation. You need to balance specialization - to maximize earnings now - with being a generalist - to maximize earnings later - according to your own risk preferences and external demand for various skills. It is possible to be safe as a specialist if you specialize in something that is in demand for your entire life (such as surgery), and it is possible to be such a generalist that your career never takes off. That said, as in most things, I think the middle way between extremes is the best way, for the most people.
• twic 7y ago
  Specialists flourish in such “kind” learning environments, where patterns recur and feedback is quick and accurate. By contrast, generalists flourish in “wicked” learning environments, where patterns are harder to discern and feedback is delayed and/or inaccurate. This is sort of like the switch in thinking in AI in the '70s (?) where it became clear that teaching computers to get better and better and playing chess or deducing propositions was never going to produce intelligence, and that we were going to have to teach them to see and move around on their own instead.
  • leblancfg 7y ago
    Great point. Something to be said about complete & perfect information[0] for some pursuits, vs imperfect and incomplete information for others. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_information
• lordnacho 7y ago
  Not sure we should be surprised: Most people aren't specialists. If they're the academic type, they studied a bunch of things. If they're sporty, they played a bunch of sports. If musical, they tried a bunch of instruments. You can get pretty good at a number of things without being top of the field. But you don't have to be top of the field to be chosen to do the vast majority of jobs. Golf vs Tennis: Golfers have won stuff in their late 40s. You're competing with a huge field of experienced people. Tennis players tend to bow out a fair bit sooner, so it makes sense that someone who didn't pour all their energy into it specifically could compete. There's also a question of whether there are specific intransferables in each sport, but I'll leave that to experts.
• danj 7y ago
  I would argue that from my experience generalization is not welcomed at all. I'm a founder for 3 companies (in order of starting: ran its course, successful exit, wound down). I have a huge array of skills that I have learned but because I've been a founder and kind of have to have been involved in everything my skills are too general. What's worse is that there seems to be a real push back against serial founders who are looking to transition from founding companies to working for another company. I've A/B tested my resume with changing my latest startup title from Founder to Product Manager and even though the job requirements state extensive startup experience required, being a founder gets rejected for not having the relevant experience, whilst being a Product Manager I get to the next round as my experience matches what they are looking for. All in all it's becoming a rather depressing affair.
  • davidivadavid 7y ago
    That has more to do with HR laziness and keyword sniping. Want to hire a product manager? Does the person have "product management" somewhere in their resume? Good. If not, pass. That's how crude the process can get, and that's how it's practiced in plenty of places.
    • warp_factor 7y ago
      Which as a generalist I find very interesting. I have been in startups at which I was a tech lead but also a Product manager. Depending on what I would want to do next I would put one or another on my resume.
• mcguire 7y ago
  "Let’s say, as a crude approximation, that Success = talent + practice + luck. Those who are richly endowed with talent [or luck] may find it easy to excel in multiple domains, to be Renaissance men and women, to be decathletes of life. (The example of Leonardo da Vinci comes to mind.) The rest of us, however, must lean heavily on the practice part of the equation. If success is what we’re aiming at, then perhaps we should seek out the “kindest” learning environment open to us and give it our all. If, on the other hand, we want to live well by sampling a smorgasbord of human goods — learning a bit of quantum mechanics, running a marathon, playing viola in an amateur string quartet, fighting for local justice — then we might be doomed to fall short of transcendent achievement." Have a lot of salt on hand when getting advice from the successful and famous.
• rayraegah 7y ago
  Generalist here went from engineering to design and psychology [0] to psychology and anthropology [1]. Lately been eyeballing economics and political science. When I started, I just couldn't see myself doing the same thing for the rest of my life and I branched out. I took opportunities that presented itself and the ones where I was thrown into (thank you mentors). I did try to specialize in engineering but I went from embedded systems to GUI to front-end to back-end to data (mining/analysis/visualization) to systems design to (developer) operations then ML and technical management. I just can't help but be attracted to the next thing but I don't stick around long enough to be absorbed by it. I usually start the 'next' thing as a side project or side gig. If it becomes interesting enough I change my main role to it. In a way I've become a specialist at being a generalist. Fear of the unknown doesn't frighten me, it excites me. Somehow I've come to love chaos and making sense of it. Few people and companies bet on this behaviour of mine and we both walked away with satisfaction and wealth. But life as a generalist hasn't been easy. I've had to deal with imposter syndrome often. Always ended up learning on the job. It wasn't just jobs/career though... I find myself relocating to new country or continent once every two years. Financially it's a nightmare but its a price I'm willing to pay. [0] https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/13276/rayraegah https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/13276/rayraegah [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19712234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19712234
• phkahler 7y ago
  I'd advocate doing both. Be a generalist but specialize in something.
• 8bitsrule 7y ago
  If you must specialize in something, try to be sure first that it isn't something that might go away. (This includes many techish things!) Which means that you must have a general-enough idea of how permanent some skillset is likely to be. Getting paid to do what you enjoy doing most is great ... until innovation wipes out the demand. Another danger: over-specialization. You might not want to become an expert in Company A's gear unless those skills will port to openings at B,C and D. Sure they'll love you today, but will they love you tomorrow?
• HeraldEmbar 7y ago
  As I understand it, the "Do 10,000 hours" idea is about achieving expertise. It doesn't mean that you had to have to started specializing and achieving that expertise when you were 3 years old. So I think that the premise of the article, though not necessarily that of the book itself, is a straw-dog argument.
• vinayms 7y ago
  There are two kinds of generalists - those who think they are and those who actually are. The distinguishing feature of the latter is that they are polymaths in the making, a journeyman polymath if you will. They have sufficient depth in multiple fields and produce works that demand attention, whatever that might be. The former, on the other hand, is just a bits and pieces guy living in delusion who doesn't know anything beyond elementary knowledge in his "fields of expertise". To use a cricketing analogy, since 'tis the season, people like Richards, Tendulkar and Kallis are true alrounders (generalists) whereas people like Robin Singh, Madan Lal and Andy Bichel are just bits and pieces guys who are useful on that odd day when specialists and generalists are having a bad day.
• Vizarddesky 7y ago
  I have not read this book but based on the article, I feel the concepts in Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers > This book. Relationships do not prove causality, but David tries to with the stories of Van Gogh and Tiger Woods and Federer? The examples in the article leave me frustrated because professional artists and sports icons are not a repeatable success. Using those people as examples of success is bad data. I don't comment, this article bugged me for some reason. My takeaways are: Specialization matters, how you find 'your thing' is up to you. And figure it out well before you turn 40, unless you are Van Gogh.
• JVIDEL 7y ago
  I feel this at odds with my personal experience, and I am a generalist
• ThePirateofOz 7y ago
  "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Lazarus Long (Time Enough For Love, Robert Heinlein)