5 ms·

Read a couple of books by Barbara sher: Refuse to choose [0] She calls people like us "Scanners" and claims that our diversity of interests is not a weakness,

Read a couple of books by Barbara sher: Refuse to choose [0] She calls people like us "Scanners" and claims that our diversity of interests is not a weakness, but a strength. Then goes on techniques to make this skill work for us. [0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594863032/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594863032/

giantg2 5y ago
I might have to check this out. Im skeptical of it being a strength in today's world. So far, it seems to only be a weakness for me.
- langsoul-com 5y ago
  I think it works best if you have a core field. The cross discipline knowledge would prevent group think and result in more original ideas.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Yeah, and in my experience management only wants people who think the same way they do.
- JetAlone 5y ago
  It's a weakness unless you succeed in synthesizing ideas and intuitions very fast into something unique and high quality.
  - risyachka 5y ago
    Extra knowledge can't possibly be a weakness.
    - crispyambulance 5y ago
      If you frame it as just "extra knowledge" then, sure, it's not a weakness. The problem is when extra knowledge is acquired at the expense of deeper focus (knowledge) in another area.
      - risyachka 5y ago
        >> The problem is when extra knowledge is acquired at the expense of deeper focus (knowledge) in another area. How it this a problem? It is just another way.
        giantg2 5y ago
        Just as an example, if you look at tech job postings you'll see that they almost all want someone who is an expert - mostly senior level, have a core tech listed in the title (eg Senior React Engineer at Company X). I rarely see any truly general roles posted. People want "T" or Pi shaped devs, nobody wants a "-" shaped dev. As a dev with 10 years experience and a masters who has not been allowed to specialize due to language/stack/project/product context switching, I can anecdotally say that generalists are not valued and that this breadth of learning generally prevents specialization. I am only a midlevel and make under $100k in a moderate-high COL area.
        prewett 5y ago
        Being a generalist is beneficial in freelancing, since it gives you demonstrated skill in lots of areas. The more areas, the more projects you "qualify" for, since clients want assurance that you can jump right in and be productive. (Also, "getting up to speed quickly in a new language/codebase/whatever" is a useful skill in freelancing, since that is a clear need) I think people hiring employees frequently don't realize that they need generalists and instead act like they are hiring permanent contractors.
        JetAlone 5y ago
        You've made the strongest case I've seen for some knowledge flexibility by bringing up tech freelancing, but this generalization is still ensconced in tech specialism. The last two posts have lost sight of the bigger picture. The conversation began with the OP talking about wide cross-disciplinary pursuits. "A couple of years back I started dabbling in the social sciences and humanities (my background is in ecology / evolutionary biology), and became interested in one discipline after another. From psychology to history of science to anthropology and sociology, to economics and politics, to philosophy and religious studies and cultural studies, etc." My post was a reply to a response to "Refuse to Choose" and the concept of a "Scanner", someone who is looking at many different disciplines that do not all immediately relate to one another. And my original post was to the effect of "Yes, being a scanner is a weakness if you can't synthesize your cross disciplinary knowledge into extremely valuable non-obvious insights and/or awe-inspiring products". Basically, think of ideas as being distanced apart from each other. Some of them are in your head, others in mine, some are in a book, or a movie. If we are specialists working together on a project, then to access and synthesize ideas that exist in both our heads we need to have a meeting, which takes significant time. To access it from media, we're going to need to consume media and study, which takes even more time. A helpful analogy would be the memory hierarchy if you know a bit about computer architecture. But, if many different ideas exist already, only in one person's head, no meetings are needed. They can just work, synthesizing as they go. That is where the "Scanner" emerges from their cocoon and inverts what has been up to then a weakness sapping the ability to excel in one field, instead becoming what one might call "A Renaissance Man".
- edrxty 5y ago
  I fall into this group. I've so far found it to be a strength (mostly). R&D/prototype style work benefits highly from having generalists around. Most normal people just don't have a lot of breadth in terms of knowing what else is out there or what's been done outside of a narrowly defined field. 95% of the time you'll be greeted with a "huh...interesting" and no follow up, but in my experience that remaining 5% can be pretty awesome when you stumble upon something that solves a problem in a way nobody else imagined.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "R&D/prototype style work" That sounds great, but it also sounds rare and potentially low paid.
    - throwaway6734 5y ago
      I work in a similar role and it was a pita to get and involved luck. They're definitely rare, but not low paid
    - edrxty 5y ago
      I work embedded so pretty much everything falls into R&D in the field. Like obviously stay away from maintenance projects but most new development is a science project in my experience.
- crispyambulance 5y ago
  It definitely can be a weakness and some of us are just wired this way. When it comes to the job market I think it's important, for those of us who are generalists, to NOT attempt to compete in fields where there are massive numbers of candidates all aiming for the same kinds of jobs. In any "hot career track" one would be competing against others who are much more narrowly focused. There's always going to be someone who is more capable and has gained more achievement in any particular activity "silo". Ironically, generalists do much better in niche jobs where they can apply peculiar combinations of skills. The hard part is these jobs are hard to find, and worse, the situation can be miserable for generalists early in their career.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
codazoda 5y ago
I just ordered this book and wrote a blog post about it because the _description_ spoke to me. Which kinda proves the point, I guess. I have been lucky enough to turn my passion into a successful software career working for someone else but I’ve always wanted to be self employed. https://joeldare.com/im-a-scanner https://joeldare.com/im-a-scanner
ZephyrBlu 5y ago
It's only a strength if you have a strong base and a way to tie things together. Being interested in a bunch of disparate fields is not in itself useful. In fact for most people it's probably completely useless, because you're going to suck at everything. Ex: OP wants to read "textbooks to learn basic concepts" and "swim in their ideas". That doesn't equal competence. However, if you have strong expertise in a particular field and can find a way to utilize the ideas/learnings from a different field you're interested in then it might be useful. Big if though.
- staticautomatic 5y ago
  I find it super helpful in applied social science research.
- Llamamoe 5y ago
  I find that exposure to a broad range of concepts expands cognitive breadth and the set of things one can quickly comprehend exponentially, even in /complete/ absence of expertise or competence. Single-field people tend to be hilariously bad at diffuse reasoning relative to what you'd expect from a person that competent.
  - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
    Ok, but if you want to operationalize "cognitive breadth" and being able to "quickly comprehend" you need to actually be good at something. No one is going to pat you on the head for learning the basics of a field 10x faster than someone else because the basics have very little value by themselves. I say all of this as someone who is very curious and likes learning about new things.
    - sdenton4 5y ago
      A really important step is getting really good at /something/. Once you've done that, it's much easier to hit a similar level of competence in new areas a bit faster. A big part of being good at something is really mastering the fundamentals. I tend to think it's possible to turn 'master the fundamentals' into a kind of transferable skill. Another big part of mastery is pattern recognition, which develops from sheer experience. To some extent, learning to recognize important types of patterns is also a transferable skill.
lawn 5y ago
The book "Range" is another good one on the same theme.
616c 5y ago
Wow, I have struggled with OP's sentiments about how they get engrossed in too many things. Thanks for such a cool book rec, I will add it to the pile but seriously prioritize reading it. It'd be nice to feel good about this compulsion I have, but I often dread it drags me down. Great to see writing about it, and something not negative like you say!
user_7832 5y ago
I hope OP (and other "scanners") sees this - it might be worth knowing that you may have ADHD, especially if you also heavily procrastinate, are messy/disorganized and always run late. There is much more than I can type in a single comment but if someone wants more info I can try and help.
- samh748 5y ago
  Thanks for bringing that up. I actually posted another Ask HN about that because of your thread :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30952648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30952648
- dghughes 5y ago
  As much as I'd like to be a "Scanner" I think ADHD describes me more accurately. Procrastination is my entire identity but also being interested in ten things at once. But on the flip side I went back to school and for a project of minimum required 3,000 words I wrote 20,000 word. I do know a person with valid diagnosed ADHD and they seem far more erratic than me so I hope I only have a low to mild version. It could be genetic too my Mom's sister's children are all doctors but one of them or some of them don't use their degrees and work manual labour jobs. Maybe I have that but to a lesser degree due to procrastination and my environment.
  - samh748 5y ago
    I was wondering if I had ADHD as well, but I never "overdo" my homework, like what you've described and what I've heard some ADHD people talk about. I talk more about my thought patterns and behaviors in another Ask HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30952648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30952648 Would love for you to take a look if you don't mind :)
  - user_7832 5y ago
    It can (and often I'd guess) is both! The author of the book also apparently has ADHD (I suspect I have it too). I'd recommend going to a doc and starting out with CBT/DBT therapy and/or meds.
- 5y ago
amerkhalid 5y ago
It is a great book. It gave me permission to pursue different fields & hobbies without feeling guilt about abandoning them later. It suggested also various ways to pursue your interests. Some people are serial scanners, they get into one thing at a time. Ben franklin was like that. Then there are some who are able to manage their schedules and pursue multiple interests at the same time. There might be more types of scanners that I cannot recall but another type was scanners with one core interest and then various interests around it. This is what works for me, programming is my core interest and luckily pays well to let me pursue my other hobbies. Over years, I have had various hobbies and learned so many things. I feel I can find a common hobby/interest with almost anyone now.

giantg2 5y ago

I might have to check this out. Im skeptical of it being a strength in today's world. So far, it seems to only be a weakness for me.

langsoul-com 5y ago
I think it works best if you have a core field. The cross discipline knowledge would prevent group think and result in more original ideas.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Yeah, and in my experience management only wants people who think the same way they do.
JetAlone 5y ago
It's a weakness unless you succeed in synthesizing ideas and intuitions very fast into something unique and high quality.
- risyachka 5y ago
  Extra knowledge can't possibly be a weakness.
  - crispyambulance 5y ago
    If you frame it as just "extra knowledge" then, sure, it's not a weakness. The problem is when extra knowledge is acquired at the expense of deeper focus (knowledge) in another area.
    - risyachka 5y ago
      >> The problem is when extra knowledge is acquired at the expense of deeper focus (knowledge) in another area. How it this a problem? It is just another way.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Just as an example, if you look at tech job postings you'll see that they almost all want someone who is an expert - mostly senior level, have a core tech listed in the title (eg Senior React Engineer at Company X). I rarely see any truly general roles posted. People want "T" or Pi shaped devs, nobody wants a "-" shaped dev. As a dev with 10 years experience and a masters who has not been allowed to specialize due to language/stack/project/product context switching, I can anecdotally say that generalists are not valued and that this breadth of learning generally prevents specialization. I am only a midlevel and make under $100k in a moderate-high COL area.
        prewett 5y ago
        Being a generalist is beneficial in freelancing, since it gives you demonstrated skill in lots of areas. The more areas, the more projects you "qualify" for, since clients want assurance that you can jump right in and be productive. (Also, "getting up to speed quickly in a new language/codebase/whatever" is a useful skill in freelancing, since that is a clear need) I think people hiring employees frequently don't realize that they need generalists and instead act like they are hiring permanent contractors.
        JetAlone 5y ago
        You've made the strongest case I've seen for some knowledge flexibility by bringing up tech freelancing, but this generalization is still ensconced in tech specialism. The last two posts have lost sight of the bigger picture. The conversation began with the OP talking about wide cross-disciplinary pursuits. "A couple of years back I started dabbling in the social sciences and humanities (my background is in ecology / evolutionary biology), and became interested in one discipline after another. From psychology to history of science to anthropology and sociology, to economics and politics, to philosophy and religious studies and cultural studies, etc." My post was a reply to a response to "Refuse to Choose" and the concept of a "Scanner", someone who is looking at many different disciplines that do not all immediately relate to one another. And my original post was to the effect of "Yes, being a scanner is a weakness if you can't synthesize your cross disciplinary knowledge into extremely valuable non-obvious insights and/or awe-inspiring products". Basically, think of ideas as being distanced apart from each other. Some of them are in your head, others in mine, some are in a book, or a movie. If we are specialists working together on a project, then to access and synthesize ideas that exist in both our heads we need to have a meeting, which takes significant time. To access it from media, we're going to need to consume media and study, which takes even more time. A helpful analogy would be the memory hierarchy if you know a bit about computer architecture. But, if many different ideas exist already, only in one person's head, no meetings are needed. They can just work, synthesizing as they go. That is where the "Scanner" emerges from their cocoon and inverts what has been up to then a weakness sapping the ability to excel in one field, instead becoming what one might call "A Renaissance Man".
edrxty 5y ago
I fall into this group. I've so far found it to be a strength (mostly). R&D/prototype style work benefits highly from having generalists around. Most normal people just don't have a lot of breadth in terms of knowing what else is out there or what's been done outside of a narrowly defined field. 95% of the time you'll be greeted with a "huh...interesting" and no follow up, but in my experience that remaining 5% can be pretty awesome when you stumble upon something that solves a problem in a way nobody else imagined.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "R&D/prototype style work" That sounds great, but it also sounds rare and potentially low paid.
  - throwaway6734 5y ago
    I work in a similar role and it was a pita to get and involved luck. They're definitely rare, but not low paid
  - edrxty 5y ago
    I work embedded so pretty much everything falls into R&D in the field. Like obviously stay away from maintenance projects but most new development is a science project in my experience.
crispyambulance 5y ago
It definitely can be a weakness and some of us are just wired this way. When it comes to the job market I think it's important, for those of us who are generalists, to NOT attempt to compete in fields where there are massive numbers of candidates all aiming for the same kinds of jobs. In any "hot career track" one would be competing against others who are much more narrowly focused. There's always going to be someone who is more capable and has gained more achievement in any particular activity "silo". Ironically, generalists do much better in niche jobs where they can apply peculiar combinations of skills. The hard part is these jobs are hard to find, and worse, the situation can be miserable for generalists early in their career.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

codazoda 5y ago

I just ordered this book and wrote a blog post about it because the _description_ spoke to me. Which kinda proves the point, I guess. I have been lucky enough to turn my passion into a successful software career working for someone else but I’ve always wanted to be self employed. https://joeldare.com/im-a-scanner https://joeldare.com/im-a-scanner

ZephyrBlu 5y ago

It's only a strength if you have a strong base and a way to tie things together. Being interested in a bunch of disparate fields is not in itself useful. In fact for most people it's probably completely useless, because you're going to suck at everything. Ex: OP wants to read "textbooks to learn basic concepts" and "swim in their ideas". That doesn't equal competence. However, if you have strong expertise in a particular field and can find a way to utilize the ideas/learnings from a different field you're interested in then it might be useful. Big if though.

staticautomatic 5y ago
I find it super helpful in applied social science research.
Llamamoe 5y ago
I find that exposure to a broad range of concepts expands cognitive breadth and the set of things one can quickly comprehend exponentially, even in /complete/ absence of expertise or competence. Single-field people tend to be hilariously bad at diffuse reasoning relative to what you'd expect from a person that competent.
- ZephyrBlu 5y ago
  Ok, but if you want to operationalize "cognitive breadth" and being able to "quickly comprehend" you need to actually be good at something. No one is going to pat you on the head for learning the basics of a field 10x faster than someone else because the basics have very little value by themselves. I say all of this as someone who is very curious and likes learning about new things.
  - sdenton4 5y ago
    A really important step is getting really good at /something/. Once you've done that, it's much easier to hit a similar level of competence in new areas a bit faster. A big part of being good at something is really mastering the fundamentals. I tend to think it's possible to turn 'master the fundamentals' into a kind of transferable skill. Another big part of mastery is pattern recognition, which develops from sheer experience. To some extent, learning to recognize important types of patterns is also a transferable skill.

lawn 5y ago

The book "Range" is another good one on the same theme.

616c 5y ago

Wow, I have struggled with OP's sentiments about how they get engrossed in too many things. Thanks for such a cool book rec, I will add it to the pile but seriously prioritize reading it. It'd be nice to feel good about this compulsion I have, but I often dread it drags me down. Great to see writing about it, and something not negative like you say!

user_7832 5y ago

I hope OP (and other "scanners") sees this - it might be worth knowing that you may have ADHD, especially if you also heavily procrastinate, are messy/disorganized and always run late. There is much more than I can type in a single comment but if someone wants more info I can try and help.

samh748 5y ago
Thanks for bringing that up. I actually posted another Ask HN about that because of your thread :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30952648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30952648
dghughes 5y ago
As much as I'd like to be a "Scanner" I think ADHD describes me more accurately. Procrastination is my entire identity but also being interested in ten things at once. But on the flip side I went back to school and for a project of minimum required 3,000 words I wrote 20,000 word. I do know a person with valid diagnosed ADHD and they seem far more erratic than me so I hope I only have a low to mild version. It could be genetic too my Mom's sister's children are all doctors but one of them or some of them don't use their degrees and work manual labour jobs. Maybe I have that but to a lesser degree due to procrastination and my environment.
- samh748 5y ago
  I was wondering if I had ADHD as well, but I never "overdo" my homework, like what you've described and what I've heard some ADHD people talk about. I talk more about my thought patterns and behaviors in another Ask HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30952648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30952648 Would love for you to take a look if you don't mind :)
- user_7832 5y ago
  It can (and often I'd guess) is both! The author of the book also apparently has ADHD (I suspect I have it too). I'd recommend going to a doc and starting out with CBT/DBT therapy and/or meds.
5y ago

amerkhalid 5y ago

It is a great book. It gave me permission to pursue different fields & hobbies without feeling guilt about abandoning them later. It suggested also various ways to pursue your interests. Some people are serial scanners, they get into one thing at a time. Ben franklin was like that. Then there are some who are able to manage their schedules and pursue multiple interests at the same time. There might be more types of scanners that I cannot recall but another type was scanners with one core interest and then various interests around it. This is what works for me, programming is my core interest and luckily pays well to let me pursue my other hobbies. Over years, I have had various hobbies and learned so many things. I feel I can find a common hobby/interest with almost anyone now.