4 ms·

It's better to be decent in a lot of areas than to be great in one area and terrible in another. If A, B, C, D is how much value you provide in different areas,

It's better to be decent in a lot of areas than to be great in one area and terrible in another. If A, B, C, D is how much value you provide in different areas, you should try to maximize ln(A)+ln(B)+ln(C)+ln(D) rather than A+B+C+D. Also see "Law of diminishing returns", "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." In creative fields nobody knows what they're doing and most time and money is wasted. It's often as important to think about what thing to do as doing the thing. You will most likely provide great value to your company/work a few days of the year (the days where you implement some feature your customer really needs or where you fix some potential or ongoing big production problem) and most days you will provide break-even or negative value. Also see "Impostor syndrome". Always automate manual or boring processes. Do not think too much about ROI calculations, they don't work because productivity in creative fields is very non-linear. Instant feedback is very important for concentration and morale. If you're prone to anxiety, saving money and building skills allows you to act without fear of major setbacks. And most of the time it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

archsurface 5y ago
"It's better to be decent in a lot of areas than to be great in one area and terrible in another." - I disagree with this more the older I get.
- B-Con 5y ago
  In today's world, almost all jobs are moving more and more toward specialization. Being great at something is how you work and make a difference. You can outsource many of your weaknesses, from the mundane (ex, spelling: spellcheckers) to the complex (ex, accounting: hire an accountant). In contrast, my mental model is that it is only worth knowing a little or a lot. The middle ground is only useful when you are filling a gap. * If you know a little, you know enough to reason about the topic and identify how you can outsource your needs. eg, you know enough about accounting to pick and manage an accountant. * If you know a lot, that's your value add and you can provide that service. Where if if you know a "medium amount"... * you still need to outsource to an expert most of the time * or you can't find the right set of expertise to outsource to and you must fill the gap yourself.
  - Kaibeezy 5y ago
    My experience is the exact opposite. As a well-educated generalist, I’ve been able to drop into a number of different fields and find great opportunities. By gaining “medium” competence in multiple areas, I have repeatedly been the only person in town who could bring three or four competencies together for a task. I think one of the most obvious ways “jobs are moving” is towards self-sufficiency and small, flexible teams that can jump into new and rapidly changing situations. Generalists wanted!
    - Jensson 5y ago
      And how much does that pay? Being a generalist typically doesn't pay unless you do it as a manager. Compare that to a specialist in some domain in software engineering who make $500k a year. Companies looking for generalists tend to not pay a lot, they do it so they can hire fewer people and save money, paying a lot would go against that.
      - Kaibeezy 5y ago
        Mostly OK. I’ve done solo consulting and started up a few things. It’s never been about maximizing income, which always seemed to have too steep a price for my taste, rather about personal freedom and flexibility. My early observation was that if you have a particularly valuable skill, you can easily find yourself on the clock in 6-minute increments and/or under someone else’s thumb. As an inventor/promoter or solo consultant (entrepreneur, I guess) it’s possible to find a sweet spot where the money is enough and the pressure is minimized. I suppose a specialist could do that too, with help from an agent.
      - warble 5y ago
        As an engineering generalist I have more opportunity and get paid better than most.
    - warble 5y ago
      Agreed - being a specialist in my experience is far too limiting. I'm pretty good in a more than a few things, and have passing experience in a lot more. I can always find good paying work that interests me.
- lljk_kennedy 5y ago
  https://fs.blog/multiplicative-systems/ https://fs.blog/multiplicative-systems/ is a compelling view on this.
  - rolisz 5y ago
    But that's more like saying don't suck completely at anything, not necessarily be decent at all the things.
- behnamoh 5y ago
  Me too. I feel like part of my identity depends on the things that I'm really good at. At the end of the day, I can safely tell myself I'm the best damn expert in my field and that's enough to give me peace of mind.
- sigotirandolas 5y ago
  It's certainly not a one-size-fits-all kind of model, and there are indeed a lot of cases where being really good at one thing makes the difference. What I'm suggesting is not that you should simultaneously learn to program, do accounting, lay bricks and repair shoes - but rather let's say that if you are a programmer, you should not only be good at backend programming, but also know a decent bit about frontend programming, server ops and team communications, and not be terrible at UI design, spreadsheets, and customer communications. And there's nothing wrong with being a specialist - but I find that generally good teams need at least someone that can bridge across areas, even if that's not you. Also, it's often easy or natural enough to not be terrible at something that you may not realize how bad things could be.
- mclightning 5y ago
  I am here with you on this one. I have been a programmer since I was 13, that made me a generalist developer who likes to jump into many different things, because building stuff was my "toy", my entertainment. And every toy gets old. I am almost 30 now. I feel it gets tougher to be a generalist as any industry matures. Take Frontend / Backend development, versus Web Developer of the past. Frontend Development alone has become more complicated than the total mental load a Web Developer would endure delivering both backend and frontend. In that moment, as a generalist, as suggested above, you find yourself without a foundation, but rather crumbling ground. You better know how to fly.
  - warble 5y ago
    If the job is too big for one person, then yeah you probably break out into more specialized teams, but I don't see frontend/backend being too much for one person to understand and do good work on. Some systems are just too big for one person to make meaningful progress towards in a reasonable amount of time.
robocat 5y ago
From: https://amaca.substack.com/p/how-to-become-a-millionaire-without https://amaca.substack.com/p/how-to-become-a-millionaire-wit... “Specialise in something that every company likes a lot. Avoid niche tech, go for huge popular things (eg. AWS, JS, Python, React).” Not disagreeing, specialisation is for bald apes. I know too many people with great technical chops, but they are held back from reaching their goals by other non-technical skill deficiencies.
j7ake 5y ago
Many scenarios the optimisation is exp(A) + exp(B) … in which case the expert wins over the generalist. For example, being a fraction of a second slower at running is the difference between a career in running versus needing a side job to make ends meet. I would say choose to be expert over the generalist for the big break throughs.
majani 5y ago
It is also more practical to aim to be top 20% in many areas than top 1% in one area. There are often genetic barriers and ridiculous sacrifices to being top 1% but top 20% is doable for someone with average genetics who just works hard without sacrificing everything else

archsurface 5y ago

"It's better to be decent in a lot of areas than to be great in one area and terrible in another." - I disagree with this more the older I get.

B-Con 5y ago
In today's world, almost all jobs are moving more and more toward specialization. Being great at something is how you work and make a difference. You can outsource many of your weaknesses, from the mundane (ex, spelling: spellcheckers) to the complex (ex, accounting: hire an accountant). In contrast, my mental model is that it is only worth knowing a little or a lot. The middle ground is only useful when you are filling a gap. * If you know a little, you know enough to reason about the topic and identify how you can outsource your needs. eg, you know enough about accounting to pick and manage an accountant. * If you know a lot, that's your value add and you can provide that service. Where if if you know a "medium amount"... * you still need to outsource to an expert most of the time * or you can't find the right set of expertise to outsource to and you must fill the gap yourself.
- Kaibeezy 5y ago
  My experience is the exact opposite. As a well-educated generalist, I’ve been able to drop into a number of different fields and find great opportunities. By gaining “medium” competence in multiple areas, I have repeatedly been the only person in town who could bring three or four competencies together for a task. I think one of the most obvious ways “jobs are moving” is towards self-sufficiency and small, flexible teams that can jump into new and rapidly changing situations. Generalists wanted!
  - Jensson 5y ago
    And how much does that pay? Being a generalist typically doesn't pay unless you do it as a manager. Compare that to a specialist in some domain in software engineering who make $500k a year. Companies looking for generalists tend to not pay a lot, they do it so they can hire fewer people and save money, paying a lot would go against that.
    - Kaibeezy 5y ago
      Mostly OK. I’ve done solo consulting and started up a few things. It’s never been about maximizing income, which always seemed to have too steep a price for my taste, rather about personal freedom and flexibility. My early observation was that if you have a particularly valuable skill, you can easily find yourself on the clock in 6-minute increments and/or under someone else’s thumb. As an inventor/promoter or solo consultant (entrepreneur, I guess) it’s possible to find a sweet spot where the money is enough and the pressure is minimized. I suppose a specialist could do that too, with help from an agent.
    - warble 5y ago
      As an engineering generalist I have more opportunity and get paid better than most.
  - warble 5y ago
    Agreed - being a specialist in my experience is far too limiting. I'm pretty good in a more than a few things, and have passing experience in a lot more. I can always find good paying work that interests me.
lljk_kennedy 5y ago
https://fs.blog/multiplicative-systems/ https://fs.blog/multiplicative-systems/ is a compelling view on this.
- rolisz 5y ago
  But that's more like saying don't suck completely at anything, not necessarily be decent at all the things.
behnamoh 5y ago
Me too. I feel like part of my identity depends on the things that I'm really good at. At the end of the day, I can safely tell myself I'm the best damn expert in my field and that's enough to give me peace of mind.
sigotirandolas 5y ago
It's certainly not a one-size-fits-all kind of model, and there are indeed a lot of cases where being really good at one thing makes the difference. What I'm suggesting is not that you should simultaneously learn to program, do accounting, lay bricks and repair shoes - but rather let's say that if you are a programmer, you should not only be good at backend programming, but also know a decent bit about frontend programming, server ops and team communications, and not be terrible at UI design, spreadsheets, and customer communications. And there's nothing wrong with being a specialist - but I find that generally good teams need at least someone that can bridge across areas, even if that's not you. Also, it's often easy or natural enough to not be terrible at something that you may not realize how bad things could be.
mclightning 5y ago
I am here with you on this one. I have been a programmer since I was 13, that made me a generalist developer who likes to jump into many different things, because building stuff was my "toy", my entertainment. And every toy gets old. I am almost 30 now. I feel it gets tougher to be a generalist as any industry matures. Take Frontend / Backend development, versus Web Developer of the past. Frontend Development alone has become more complicated than the total mental load a Web Developer would endure delivering both backend and frontend. In that moment, as a generalist, as suggested above, you find yourself without a foundation, but rather crumbling ground. You better know how to fly.
- warble 5y ago
  If the job is too big for one person, then yeah you probably break out into more specialized teams, but I don't see frontend/backend being too much for one person to understand and do good work on. Some systems are just too big for one person to make meaningful progress towards in a reasonable amount of time.

robocat 5y ago

From: https://amaca.substack.com/p/how-to-become-a-millionaire-without https://amaca.substack.com/p/how-to-become-a-millionaire-wit... “Specialise in something that every company likes a lot. Avoid niche tech, go for huge popular things (eg. AWS, JS, Python, React).” Not disagreeing, specialisation is for bald apes. I know too many people with great technical chops, but they are held back from reaching their goals by other non-technical skill deficiencies.

j7ake 5y ago

Many scenarios the optimisation is exp(A) + exp(B) … in which case the expert wins over the generalist. For example, being a fraction of a second slower at running is the difference between a career in running versus needing a side job to make ends meet. I would say choose to be expert over the generalist for the big break throughs.

majani 5y ago

It is also more practical to aim to be top 20% in many areas than top 1% in one area. There are often genetic barriers and ridiculous sacrifices to being top 1% but top 20% is doable for someone with average genetics who just works hard without sacrificing everything else