4 ms·
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 proficien
by 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 agoBeing 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 agoYeh no offense to Comrade Putin but his KGB Career dint reach the heights.
- objectivetruth 7y agoOr 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 agoHe 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?