4 ms·

As a side note, don't make the mistake of assuming that you have to choose between being really good at one thing or being acceptable at many things. It's poss

As a side note, don't make the mistake of assuming that you have to choose between being really good at one thing or being acceptable at many things. It's possible to be really good at many things.

tokenadult 15y ago
It's possible to be really good at many things. What are some of the many things that you have seen one person be really good at at the same time? After edit: thanks for the kind reply, but I kind of thought from your original comment (parent to this comment) that you had a more recent example than Da Vinci in mind. What living persons are there who are conspicuously really good at many things? http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/course/6/6.055/readings/ericsson-charness-am-psychologist.pdf http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/course/6/6.055/readi...
- techiferous 15y ago
  Just think about your typical polymath like da Vinci. Sometimes people can be really good at many things, and if they assume that they can only be really good at one thing, they may not even try to be really good at many things. So my main point is: don't assume from the beginning that you can't do many things well, or it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- k_shehadeh 15y ago
  It really depends on what you mean by really good. I agree that you can't be really good at many things - but only relative to yourself. Meaning that if I (personally) practice Skill A for a week versus practicing Skills A,B and C in the same week I would almost certainly be better at Skill A. But if you work on Skills A,B and C for a week and another dude works on Skill A for a week there's no guarantee that you're going to be worse than him. Depends on smarts, I guess. I guess it's academic but inexplicably interesting to me.
- barry-cotter 15y ago
  Carl Djerassi, Cosma Shalizi, Tyler Cowen, Richard Feynman, John von Neumann. Djerassi was a Stanford chemist and has multiple works of fiction published, Shalizi is a physicist/statistician/sociologist, Cowen is an economist/public intellectual, neither Feynman nor Vonneumann need introduction. http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/edward-carr/last-days-polymath http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/edward-carr/last-days...
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - yters 15y ago
    Michael Crichton comes to mind too.
- nordsieck 15y ago
  I think your objection is a good one. Horizontal scaling in humans has low efficiency, so it's usually best to max out the benefits of vertical scaling first. That being said, Scott Adams' career advice[1] seems pretty solid. In short, it is usually just as useful to be competent at three different things as to be extremely good at one thing. [1] http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/career-advice.html http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/care...

As a side note, don't make the mistake of assuming that you have to choose between being really good at one thing or being acceptable at many things. It's possible to be really good at many things.

tokenadult 15y ago

It's possible to be really good at many things. What are some of the many things that you have seen one person be really good at at the same time? After edit: thanks for the kind reply, but I kind of thought from your original comment (parent to this comment) that you had a more recent example than Da Vinci in mind. What living persons are there who are conspicuously really good at many things? http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/course/6/6.055/readings/ericsson-charness-am-psychologist.pdf http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/course/6/6.055/readi...

techiferous 15y ago
Just think about your typical polymath like da Vinci. Sometimes people can be really good at many things, and if they assume that they can only be really good at one thing, they may not even try to be really good at many things. So my main point is: don't assume from the beginning that you can't do many things well, or it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
k_shehadeh 15y ago
It really depends on what you mean by really good. I agree that you can't be really good at many things - but only relative to yourself. Meaning that if I (personally) practice Skill A for a week versus practicing Skills A,B and C in the same week I would almost certainly be better at Skill A. But if you work on Skills A,B and C for a week and another dude works on Skill A for a week there's no guarantee that you're going to be worse than him. Depends on smarts, I guess. I guess it's academic but inexplicably interesting to me.
barry-cotter 15y ago
Carl Djerassi, Cosma Shalizi, Tyler Cowen, Richard Feynman, John von Neumann. Djerassi was a Stanford chemist and has multiple works of fiction published, Shalizi is a physicist/statistician/sociologist, Cowen is an economist/public intellectual, neither Feynman nor Vonneumann need introduction. http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/edward-carr/last-days-polymath http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/edward-carr/last-days...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- yters 15y ago
  Michael Crichton comes to mind too.
nordsieck 15y ago
I think your objection is a good one. Horizontal scaling in humans has low efficiency, so it's usually best to max out the benefits of vertical scaling first. That being said, Scott Adams' career advice[1] seems pretty solid. In short, it is usually just as useful to be competent at three different things as to be extremely good at one thing. [1] http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/career-advice.html http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/care...