4 ms·

This is a difference between driving discipline into your child to do something and nurturing them because they enjoy it. Teaching your kid that discipline pays

This is a difference between driving discipline into your child to do something and nurturing them because they enjoy it. Teaching your kid that discipline pays off, show them what the superstars of their subject can achieve if they have the self discipline to drive themselves and then just support them in their pursuit of that. If their pursuit wanes, that's okay. It doesn't mean you should run them into the ground about it. Move onto whatever they're currently interest in and nurture that. Let them be kids and help them to get the most they can out of their interests. Find ways to keep it fascinating and fun for them and wanting to learn more, but when there comes a time they want to move onto something else, that's okay too. I believe your child should be as well rounded or as focused as they feel the need to be. The world needs generalists and it needs specialists. The Yo-Yo Mas, Tiger Woods' and Michael Phelps' of this world may be superstars, but they needed a team of generalists coordinating their rise to stardom; Your child may be a generalist, the glue that holds everything together and the oil that makes the machine work. The one who can make sense of the chaos of the world around them and bring order and harmony. There is great value in that too. You can't say the well rounded are any more or less worthy or worthless than the superstars. All are needed and all are as valuable as one another. The smallest pin in a watch as as important as the largest cog, but without a drive mechanism or hands, the piece is worthless. It is only when all the parts come together in concert that it is worth something. Each of the parts is a specialist at what they do, doing one thing extremely well; each a vital piece of the puzzle. But it takes the watchmaker, the generalist who understands the value of all the pieces together, who has the skill (and a lot of patience) to bring them together as a whole that makes the result something useful.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago
It doesn't mean you should run them into the ground about it. Of course not, is there any evidence that doing so has a net positive return? Why even discuss that point? You can't say the well rounded are any more or less worthy or worthless than the superstars. All are needed and all are as valuable as one another. Disagree. You can replace the generalist performing a function on this "machine" and still have the same result. Not so for the superstar. But it takes the watchmaker, the generalist who understands the value of all the pieces together, who has the skill (and a lot of patience) to bring them together as a whole that makes the result something useful. While that all feels good and makes us all think we are beautiful snowflakes with real positive contributions that make an impact, the reality seems to not comply. Of course the idea that any one input is equally important than all other parts is not a falsifiable contention. To wit: If the CTO (specialist) left our company it would fail basically immediately with no one able to come in and replace him. If I the CEO (generalist) left there are tons of people who could come in and run it probably as well. This is an example of something most people in this community have probably experienced at one time of another and proves my point. We as a community think we can augment this by requiring clean code standards with comments and distribute code so that individuals aren't irreplaceable but in fact it is often still the case.
- balabaster 12y ago
  Without all the pieces the watchmaker is just some guy with the knowledge to make watches. Without a watchmaker, the pieces are all just pieces. It takes all of them coming together to become a watch. All of the pieces may be replaceable, but nevertheless, all make a valuable contribution. Which watchmaker do you go to for your watch? The one that has the reputation for making the best watches - the best generalist. Just because someone is a generalist, doesn't mean they're not the best at what they do. Steve Wozniak - Technical genius, Systems Engineer, Specialist. Arguably as important in Apple's success as Jobs. Without Woz, there was no product. It was his know-how that gave Apple life. Steve Jobs - CEO, Salesman spectulaire, Visionary, Generalist. Exiled from his own company. Replaceable? The board of directors clearly thought so. Could anyone have done as good a job? Who knows. What we do know is that the previous management did a shitty job and in a very just turn of events, Jobs turned out to be fucking awesome at it. Kudos to him. Could any engineer than Woz have built the product Jobs asked for? Quite probably. I'm sure there were other capable engineers out there if Wozniak had declined or not been available. It took Jobs more generalized abilities to direct Woz's talents and get a product to market. Would Jobs have made a success of his life without Wozniak? Would Wozniak have still been a successful computer genius without Jobs? There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that either of them would have made it. Both technically replaceable, but each as irreplaceable as the other in the creation of Apple. It took both to make that magic happen.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

It doesn't mean you should run them into the ground about it. Of course not, is there any evidence that doing so has a net positive return? Why even discuss that point? You can't say the well rounded are any more or less worthy or worthless than the superstars. All are needed and all are as valuable as one another. Disagree. You can replace the generalist performing a function on this "machine" and still have the same result. Not so for the superstar. But it takes the watchmaker, the generalist who understands the value of all the pieces together, who has the skill (and a lot of patience) to bring them together as a whole that makes the result something useful. While that all feels good and makes us all think we are beautiful snowflakes with real positive contributions that make an impact, the reality seems to not comply. Of course the idea that any one input is equally important than all other parts is not a falsifiable contention. To wit: If the CTO (specialist) left our company it would fail basically immediately with no one able to come in and replace him. If I the CEO (generalist) left there are tons of people who could come in and run it probably as well. This is an example of something most people in this community have probably experienced at one time of another and proves my point. We as a community think we can augment this by requiring clean code standards with comments and distribute code so that individuals aren't irreplaceable but in fact it is often still the case.

balabaster 12y ago
Without all the pieces the watchmaker is just some guy with the knowledge to make watches. Without a watchmaker, the pieces are all just pieces. It takes all of them coming together to become a watch. All of the pieces may be replaceable, but nevertheless, all make a valuable contribution. Which watchmaker do you go to for your watch? The one that has the reputation for making the best watches - the best generalist. Just because someone is a generalist, doesn't mean they're not the best at what they do. Steve Wozniak - Technical genius, Systems Engineer, Specialist. Arguably as important in Apple's success as Jobs. Without Woz, there was no product. It was his know-how that gave Apple life. Steve Jobs - CEO, Salesman spectulaire, Visionary, Generalist. Exiled from his own company. Replaceable? The board of directors clearly thought so. Could anyone have done as good a job? Who knows. What we do know is that the previous management did a shitty job and in a very just turn of events, Jobs turned out to be fucking awesome at it. Kudos to him. Could any engineer than Woz have built the product Jobs asked for? Quite probably. I'm sure there were other capable engineers out there if Wozniak had declined or not been available. It took Jobs more generalized abilities to direct Woz's talents and get a product to market. Would Jobs have made a success of his life without Wozniak? Would Wozniak have still been a successful computer genius without Jobs? There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that either of them would have made it. Both technically replaceable, but each as irreplaceable as the other in the creation of Apple. It took both to make that magic happen.