
Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World - gerbilly
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/books/review/david-epstein-range.html
======
Snoozle
I feel strongly about this topic because I'm at the point in my career where
I've done several different positions instead of getting better at one and I'm
wondering if I made a mistake.

I started off in the software field as a developer. I've been in the software
field for almost 10 years but I've only actually spent two years as a full
time developer. I've also done project management, product management,
marketing, customer support, and management. I find myself struggling to fill
one of those individual roles because I don't have the same level of
experience as those who have dedicated themselves to those for the full ten
years.

I'm currently a VP of Engineering for a small company. I know most would
probably say that I've made it, but I'm looking for my next opportunity and
struggling. It's hard to get a job at a larger (200+ employee) company as each
role filled is expected to be specialized and focused. At a smaller company or
startup, though, I kick the crap out of anyone else applying because I know so
much more about the business in general and can wear many different hats.

In addition, I feel a strong benefit is that my experience enhances my ability
in each other role. For instance, if I'm working on a marketing email
campaign, I can use my developer skills to pull relevant data from the
application that helps me focus my targeting. If I'm developing, I will
specifically build small helpful tools for customer support and marketing
departments because I already know what they want and they don't know they can
have it. It takes a small amount of time but provides a big value.

I would probably also have a leg up on starting my own business compared to
someone who has a deep specialized knowledge of enterprise level applications
but no idea how to put together a customer support and good user experience.

Still, we are always looking at the greener grass, and there are times when I
wish I could just apply for a senior developer role at a larger company and
focus on one thing. Somehow, I don't think that my lack of React experience
will be made up for by letting them know that I will be able to directly
interact with the customers or set up marketing campaigns. They already have
5+ people doing those things.

~~~
dasil003
Those generalist qualities can be very valuable at a large company, if you can
handle the politics. Main thing is you probably will have a hard time going in
through the front door as there are generally too many gatekeepers filling
checkboxes. You need to go through the hiring manager or leadership recruiting
directly to be able to tell your story to people who will get it.

~~~
notduncansmith
This is great advice. Generalists have to engender a high degree of trust
before they are considered reliable for some set of tasks, and if no one at
the company knows you then it will be hard for you to demonstrate your skill
set effectively. Telling the story of how you got those skills to management
(and having good references to back it up) is pretty much the only way to gain
that trust without already being in their network.

~~~
supercanuck
this. so. much.

I am a consultant, and i go through this process every new project. It isn't
just getting a new job, its about new projects too at the same company.

------
hliyan
I'm still reading the article, but I stopped halfway to point this out:

 _Remember the ‘10,000 Hours’ Rule for Success? Forget About It_

They should _not_ have said that. I don't know whether 10K is the actual
number, but I got good at two things that I was never naturally good at,
simply through years of brute force repetition: coding and writing.

I was never a born hacker -- I struggled with Visual Basic when I was 21. But
15 years and maybe 300,000 lines of code later, I have an extremely high
degree of proficiency in both C++ and JavaScript, with a good level of
proficiency in Java, Python and Golang. I was extremely bad at writing. So
much so my fingers used to sweat when I came to the essay section of any test.
But after about a decade of keeping a personal journal, I would like to think
I write rather well.

Anecdotal yes, but speaking personally, I would not discount the 10,000 hours
concept.

~~~
dev_dull
The 10k rule is falling out of social favor nowadays, as are most systems of
thinking that suggest success requires hard work and (most importantly)
persistence.

~~~
pdimitar
"If hard work pays off, show me a rich donkey."

Persistence will make you a master in a skill -- and you can do it almost
subconsciously afterwards.

It doesn't give you a broader culture and overview of the world though. Or at
least, it rarely does.

~~~
dev_dull
> _”If hard work pays off, show me a rich donkey. "_

What a weird analogy, as if spending all night pointlessly digging hole in
your background correlates with wealth. Though I think if you did have the
grit to do that you will find success in many endeavors.

It takes hard work to go from nothing to something. People doing the hard work
are not confused about what’s meaningful.

~~~
MadWombat
"What a weird analogy"

Not sure why you find it weird. There are a lot of hard working people out
there. And very few of them ever go "from nothing to something" as you put it.

~~~
dev_dull
I don’t know where the concept of meaningless physical and mentally hard work
— regardless of its effect or purpose — is somehow guaranteed to produce
wealth comes from. I don’t know anyone who believes that.

~~~
pdimitar
You don't, but here in Eastern Europe most of the working people I know
absolutely believe exactly that.

Around here "work smart, not hard" is a mind-blowing revelation for many. And
it bears repeating since people forget it regularly.

------
skadamat
I personally think this article is kind of silly. Ultimately, depending on the
field, you probably need to be T-shaped in some way -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills)
Deep in 1 or 2 important areas, and broader in others. It's a bit hard to be
scientific about career trajectories too. Maybe Roger Federer could have been
EVEN greater if he had committed to tennis even earlier?

I think it also matters a lot the type of career market you're in and that can
be hard to define.

[https://medium.com/the-unstudent/career-
markets-82fb42694869](https://medium.com/the-unstudent/career-
markets-82fb42694869)

In a winner-take-all market, the criteria by which you succeed is quite
narrowly defined & agreed upon and there are very limited slots. It's then a
matter of optimizing for those criteria (e.g. publication quality in
universities or TV screenwriting). In an auction market, there's many
different approaches and criteria (e.g. VC investing, design, software
engineering) and lots of ways to create new kinds of positions. The creator of
Dilbert (Scott Adams) chronicled his journey being in auction market (writing
cartoons):

"It’s unlikely that any average student can develop a world-class skill in one
particular area. But it’s easy to learn how to do several different things
fairly well. I succeeded as a cartoonist with negligible art talent, some
basic writing skills, an ordinary sense of humor and a bit of experience in
the business world. The “Dilbert” comic is a combination of all four skills.
The world has plenty of better artists, smarter writers, funnier humorists and
more experienced business people. The rare part is that each of those modest
skills is collected in one person. That’s how value is created. "

Is it possible some of the allure of being a polymath and a generalist a bit
of confirmation bias? I empathize with the worry over increased
specialization, so a book with the message "specialists suffer, generalists
win" feels very good.

~~~
ducktypegoose
I think this point resonates. There are often a lot of commonalities between
traits and having a breadth of understanding often affords more insight into a
particular, but it will always be valuable to have a true mastery of a select
few. at risk of alienating others in the conversation I'd like to make a point
about a game called DotA. Extremely difficult with a high skill ceiling, the
game pits teams of players against one another in asymmetrical battle with 126
characters, each with distinct abilities. There is a prevailing wisdom that
the game is dauntingly unaccessible because, "to understand DotA you have to
play a few games with every hero." On the other hand to play well you need to
specialize on a particular hero and role. However every hero has a select
group of counter-heroes, which have abilities that are particularly strong
against a given. Therefore the best players in DotA have an understanding of
all heroes, but they specialize in a small pool of 4 or 5. There are people
who are very good at playing a single hero, but they can be completely shut-
down with a counter. Maybe I'm just a little over-invested in a silly game,
but I think it draws a powerful analogue to life.

~~~
Konnstann
In league of legends, there is a concept of "one-tricking", where you have a
mastery of one champion, and use that mastery to win, rather than game
knowledge and good macro play. Interestingly enough while the top ranks are
full of these players, they very rarely make it into the professional scene.

~~~
pdimitar
I know plenty of 18-25 y/o people and I am giggling when they use the term
"one-trick pony" for their narrow-minded colleagues (or bosses). I am glad
they are smart and are not easily impressed. Critical thinking is important.

Personally I feel that some of the gaming lingo fits _really_ well in the real
world but it might be just me.

~~~
h2odragon
"one trick pony" is somewhat older lingo than electronic games i think

~~~
Pete_D
Online Etymology Dictionary claims: "The figurative one-trick pony is 1897,
American English, in reference to circus acts."

[https://www.etymonline.com/word/pony#etymonline_v_17634](https://www.etymonline.com/word/pony#etymonline_v_17634)

------
js8
All of us can only recognize expertise up to a certain depth. Beyond that,
experts seem to be the same. So if you have broader knowledge, you will appear
to know more.

And in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is a king.

~~~
Frost1x
In my opinion, I think most humans strive to be generalists but our economic
system typically incentivizes specialists. It makes sense because from a
systems perspective, the more specialized a component in my system is, the
more efficiently it will perform its task leading to potential overall
efficiency improvements. Assuming that machine doesn't need to adapt/evolve
much or that specialized components for future adaptions are easy to obtain,
it's a net positive effect. Businesses are no different than such a system (of
people and their processes) so businesses reward specialist labor more because
that labor rewards them more by supplying low cost solutions to consumers.
Trying to find rewarding positions for generalists these days can be quite the
challenge.

Unfortunately, I find this approach sort of flies in the face of human nature
or perhaps just my nature and anecdotes. I enjoy digging down into subjects
and fields well beyond a surface skim, but I find digging to the depths gives
me little satisfaction. I start to get a bit of diminishing returns of
enjoyment as the more depth I desire, time investment begins to increase (in a
non-linear fashion). I would also add that in many areas I've studied, you
reach a point where the information and knowledge is no longer certain and
then various opinions begin to branch out from experts in the field and I find
this is usually a good stopping point.

As such, most subjects reach a point where I decide it's time for something
new: I've learned many of the important aspects and if I need them at some
point or have new found interest, I have a great starting point.

~~~
FartyMcFarter
> businesses reward specialist labor more

This is a false premise, at least when stated so generally.

Look at Google, a company that is known for compensating workers quite well.
They mostly hire generalist software engineers, which I think is due to a
combination of reasons:

\- Google is a big established company where a lot of the work is not the
sexiest in the industry. This means that people don't necessarily want to
stick around in the same team forever. This means people need to switch teams
every few years in order to keep their job interesting, which is much easier
for a generalist.

\- Generalists can specialize and go back to different work later if it makes
sense. It's harder for people starting out as specialists to do this.

\- There's uncertainty as to what projects will be available to work on in the
future. This means that specific kinds of specialists may not always be
needed.

\- Many teams aren't big enough to contain all the specialists you might need
for the project. Having people who can wear many hats solves this problem.

~~~
ryandrake
And even if you are a specialist hired at one of these big companies, you will
often be doing generalist work. I’ve heard more than a few FAANG software
engineers say, “I have a Ph.D in [specialized field] and spend all my time
plumbing protobufs from one API to another!”

------
qwerty456127
I'm a generalist, I hate specializing and it feels like a curse rather than a
triumph. I have reasonable general understanding of a huge spectrum of topics
but little skill of actually applying most of them. I feel excited about
everything and pain about concentrating on a single. Every time I start doing
something I feel like I hate doing it instead of learning about something
else. The sense of not having enough time to learn everything almost puts me
in panic. I tend to attribute this to ADHD. Small doses of desoxyn (meth) help
a lot (and nothing else helps) but you can't get it legally outside the US.
Every employer wants a specialist and I can't blame them.

~~~
freeflight
> Small doses of desoxyn (meth) help a lot (and nothing else helps) but you
> can't get it legally outside the US.

Be very careful with this. I've been in the same boat but it's not one you can
ride forever, the older you get the bigger the physical toll this is gonna
take on your body.

Consider looking for an alternative that isn't as "hard", cannabis can be that
once you found a good strain for you (Sativa weighted hybrids) and a reliable
supplier for it.

Sadly that's pretty much impossible if you ain't living in a place where it's
legalized. Illegal drug suppliers are rarely known for the consistency of
their products.

~~~
qwerty456127
Don't worry. I know how to do it the proper way an don't do it anyway.

I've once gotten 2 grams of pure crystals rather than pills, done a lot of
research (the "limitless" movie inspires to invest in such a research first,
reddit and quora are great places to start), experimented a lot (with
practices and supplements to take to protect the body from the bad things it
does and mitigate tolerance growth) and came to the point when I could
marathon for a week without sleeping without even having hangover once I stop.
The feelable negative results were (after I've found a proper way) almost none
but over-concentration (narrowed mental view), disregulated blood sugar and
butt ache caused by 22x7 concentrated working sitting on a chair. Nevertheless
I stopped and don't use it and my actual working dose I used on some occasions
(but the experiments) to concentrate for hours was almost homeopathic - 3
minuscule sand-like specks a day. I've even helped some addicts to quit
gracefully.

As for weed (which isn't legal at my location either yet quite easy to get
with little or no risk of prosecution - people use to smoke in the streets and
cops walking by don't care) I've tried smoking it (in tiny doses, my body is
very sensitive to all the substances) regularly for some time but didn't
really like it and now I don't even know where to get it (as well as any other
illegal substances, the dealers I knew have vanished over time as I was an
extremely infrequent buyer and I don't bother to look for new). It made my
mind a way less sharp, some strains made me sleepy, some strains made me
crazy, the only thing the weed actually was great with for me was sex.

If you happen to know particularly good strain names I'd love to know too,
however. I once met a guy who offered 9 different strains and I haven't bought
any just because I didn't knew which I could like.

BTW the only thing other than meth that used to help was 1/4 pill of xanax
(especially stacked with sunifiram). But it's almost impossible to get. I was
lucky to get 4 pills once so I could take it 12 times and leave a pill for for
a rainy day. I've also tried bromozepam but it doesn't do the job for me.

~~~
freeflight
The thing is that the human body suffers just as much from wear and tear like
anything else, and if you have ADHD then this can affect you even worse due to
a proneness for repetitive physical behaviors due to stimming.

Crystal puts a lot of these behaviors into overdrive without you even
noticing, regardless of how much you do to alleviate the side-effects, they
will still take their toll.

I'm now in my mid 30's, and even tho I haven't done a lot of crystal in my
life (probably 3 grams max, I never needed much because the effects were super
strong even in tiny doses) I'm now at a point where even the smallest dose
will give me troubles with my jaw bones and (otherwise healthy) teeth simply
due to the wear and tear of the induced teeth gnawing, it's not something I
can or want to do anymore.

For a cannabis alternative, you might want to take a look here [0]. Just be
aware that even with a list like that, you will still need to experiment
because these effects can vary greatly from individual to individual, so you
need to figure out what works best for you.

A good addition to that is CBD oil orally taken when taking a tolerance break
(every 3 weeks I take a 1-week break) and can also serve as a life-saver if
you ever end up with some strain giving you anxiety/too much of a psychotic
high.

As a general rule: Sativas are on the more active end, Indicas are usually the
ones sending you to sleep, hybrids can be anything between them.

You might also want to consider a different method of application than smoking
if those effects ain't doing it for you. Vaping is healthier and surfaces the
effects differently, the same holds true for edibles. Canacaps are not that
difficult to prepare, it's just cannabis infused oil put in capsules, but can
be very effective (long duration) and you can use them without everybody
around you instantly smelling it.

Tho, always be careful with edible dosing, even experienced "stoners"
regularly underestimate the potency of edibles.

Take care and I hope there's something useful here that will help you find a
more natural remedy to keep you productive and healthy.

[0] [https://www.leafly.com/news/strains-products/best-
cannabis-s...](https://www.leafly.com/news/strains-products/best-cannabis-
strains-for-focus-and-addadhd)

~~~
qwerty456127
> teeth gnawing

Just wanted to say this: supplement [a lot of] magnesium and chew bubble gum
:-)

Thanks for the answer and the link.

------
ncmncm
Money quote: “I am a polymath. You are a generalist. He is a dilettante.”

~~~
rkangel
Yes Minister calls these 'irregular verbs':

"I give confidential briefings, you leak, he has been charged under section 2a
of the Official Secrets Act"

"I have an independent mind, You are eccentric, He is round the twist."

Apparently Yes Minister isn't the origin of the concept though:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation)

------
1qazxsw23edc
This is opposite of what I'm experiencing in the job market.

As an example, I'm looking for a data scientist job and as you might guess, it
is a very broad field. So, I thought I would learn the basics of machine
learning, deep learning, required maths and programming and then I would
search for the job and in whatever field I'll get the job like Natural
language processing, computer vision, supply chain analytics, time series
analysis, etc. , I would learn that and specialize in that field. But when I
started looking for job every start-up wanted that I know current state-of-
the-art techniques of their field, which is simply not possible as each start-
up specialize in a different set of techniques, for example, some want deep
learning, some statistics, some time series analysis, some big data processing
frameworks like Apache Spark, some recommendation system and so on and so
forth. As a result, I'm still searching for a job and somewhat have lost
passion for data science.

So, the only learning that I got from going through this process is whatever
field you choose, you have to specialize in that field to have a great career.

~~~
nostrademons
The somewhat counterintuitive solution to this is to first figure out what
interests _you_ , learn a lot about it, and then go look for the organization
out there that needs that particular skillset. Or as Venkatesh Rao put it [1]:

"First become a key, then go look for a lock."

Yes, there's risk in that, and no, there's no guarantee that whatever you
specialize in will be useful to someone. But the advantage is that you're
basically guaranteed to love your job, because you chose the job yourself and
then just pitched a lot of corporations to see who was offering it. There's
also a self-respect boost to being in the driver's seat and thinking of your
career in terms of which organization gets to be lucky enough to have you work
for them.

[1] [https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2018/03/29/the-key-to-act-
two/](https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2018/03/29/the-key-to-act-two/)

------
rayraegah
Generalist here went from engineering to design and psychology [0] to
psychology and anthropology [1]. Lately been eyeballing economics and
political science.

When I started, I just couldn't see myself doing the same thing for the rest
of my life and I branched out. I took opportunities that presented itself and
the ones where I was thrown into (thank you mentors). I did try to specialize
in engineering but I went from embedded systems to GUI to front-end to back-
end to data (mining/analysis/visualization) to systems design to (developer)
operations then ML and technical management. I just can't help but be
attracted to the next thing but I don't stick around long enough to be
absorbed by it.

I usually start the 'next' thing as a side project or side gig. If it becomes
interesting enough I change my main role to it. In a way I've become a
specialist at being a generalist.

Fear of the unknown doesn't frighten me, it excites me. Somehow I've come to
love chaos and making sense of it. Few people and companies bet on this
behaviour of mine and we both walked away with satisfaction and wealth. But
life as a generalist hasn't been easy. I've had to deal with imposter syndrome
often. Always ended up learning on the job.

It wasn't just jobs/career though... I find myself relocating to new country
or continent once every two years. Financially it's a nightmare but its a
price I'm willing to pay.

[0]
[https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/13276/rayraegah](https://ux.stackexchange.com/users/13276/rayraegah)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19712234](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19712234)

------
thrower123
I read too much Heinlein at a formative age, but this quote from _Time Enough
for Love_ always struck me:

> A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
> hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build
> a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate,
> act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a
> computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
> Specialization is for insects.

Most things are possible for most people to do if they bother and take an
interest in it. Quite often people will just throw up their hands and claim
they can't do something, rather than rolling up their sleeves and giving it a
go.

------
netwanderer3
I believe the common value of being a generalist comes from the fact that you
might be less prone to being biased or locked in a tunnel vision when
evaluating a situation, since generalists would typically have a more complete
world view under various angles and multiple lens. Specialists are often
biased with their specialized knowledge and would only know how to apply it
even when trying to solve problems outside of their expertise. As they said,
when all you have is a hammer then everything you see becomes a nail.

The second law of thermodynamics indicates that our modern world will only
become increasingly more chaos, which certainly seems to have been the case so
far, therefore possessing the ability to assess the world with an unbiased
mindset and under such clarity can be a huge advantage.

Though the most important value from being a generalist probably comes from
getting around the diminishing returns effect. We are approaching a state
where it’s becoming harder and harder to generate new knowledge in any
particular single field, and yet the possibility and potential to combine
existing knowledge between various different fields are rarely explored and
still widely open.

Most people only specialize in a single track of expertise, they are either a
doctor, a mechanic, or a fisherman, but they are rarely both. Those who
possess knowledge of any two industries and are able to effectively combine
them together will have the potential to generate a completely new piece of
valuable information. This in turn will lead to more creative ideas and
innovations. In a world where everything becomes increasingly saturated, this
is probably the reason why being a polymath or a generalist is going to become
much more desirable in the near future.

~~~
drawkbox
I agree with this, it is good for skillsets to cross pollinate and it makes
you better at both.

Another divide is development and design, those that can do that produce
amazing products. You see this more in the gaming or interactive space but it
makes you less biased and understanding of the problem points, and best parts
of both verticals.

Specialization over generalization is why lots of large software sucks today
and small companies or startups win, they employ more generalists,
design/develop crossovers and full stack product focused t-shaped employees.
When teams are huge, specialized and care is removed. The chaos of more
communication channels (N(N-1)/2) encourages just staying in your lane rather
than viewing the big picture. Small teams with generalists are where the best
products are made due to everyone going beyond their lanes/channels and
viewing the big picture.

I think generalization is best in startups or small groups including
gaming/interactive especially with hyperfocus on a product. Making the product
good in all aspects, and caring about them, from design to development,
presentation to production, and especially maintenance and iterative growth.
Once that is established, teams can grow and specialize, but innovation and
creative growth is harder.

------
blackbrokkoli
I don't think the fields and people used as examples for the point are well
chosen.

Sports is very unique because it is a lot more physical than intellectual
compared to just about anything else. Meaning there are completely different
aspects at play when it comes to being top brass.

Prominence in arts and music seems to only be loosely correlated to the raw
skill itself. Cue everyone's favorite meme about modern paintings which are
just lines.

This means for the average reader this seems not really relevant at all,
because there is no proof you can project anything from these people right and
wrongdoings to "normal" careers. How to become a top notch wind turbine
mechanic? How can I become "that embedded systems guy"? Until someone got more
on that, I'm sticking to the 10000 hour thing with a breath and depth that
feels right to me...

------
desireco42
I am just listening to 'Art of Manlines' podcast where this topic is
discussed. There is a lot here to take in. You should read yourself, I wanted
to bring one point that seemed to stick out to me.

He mentions Tiger Woods vs. Roger Federer as two ways how you get to
greatness. I don't think they are taking into account that maybe both of them
are excellent athletes and that whether they started in childhood like Tiger
Woods, or after dabbling in different sports like Federer, both thrived once
they got into where their talents were.

Also, both have strong parents that pushed them, even if Federer mom didn't
want him to play tennis, she is a tennis coach.

Anyhow, I don't think this take into account innate talents enough.

~~~
pier25
I'd like to add that "innate talents" are probably fundamental brain skills.

I work in education and there is a strong tendency to now focus on developing
cognitive skills which help you to learn something instead of learning
something and hoping that this will develop the cognitive skills.

I guess with sports or other mechanical skills (playing an instrument?) it
must be a similar thing.

------
nullwasamistake
These feel-good articles resonate with everyone and lack substance. "Why you
are awesome, and how to be more awesome" is the siren song of tech industry
best sellers. These articles are the horoscopes of HN

------
temp129038
Triumph is a strong word. I personally enjoy being a generalist (have been an
analyst, PM, and dev), but in my experience companies frown upon it and they
will try to put you in jr roles despite having experience in various areas. On
the other hand, I think my propensity to _want_ to do a lot of things is
probably my brain telling me that I shouldn't be joining a company or take a
role where specialization is valued more highly than not.

------
jackcosgrove
I think being a specialist vs a generalist, from the perspective of earning
power, is a question of risk and reward.

There is a bias in favor of specialization for the economy _as a whole_. This
is why specialists get paid more (engineering major vs English major), in
general. However, I consider this a riskier path since specialization is more
likely to lead to earlier obsolescence. Thus I would say that there is a bias
in favor of being a generalist _for the individual_ , since it keeps more
options open. Being a generalist is the safer path, since you can move around
more easily, and you're less likely to fall off the top of the hedonic
treadmill and lose motivation.

You need to balance specialization - to maximize earnings now - with being a
generalist - to maximize earnings later - according to your own risk
preferences and external demand for various skills. It _is_ possible to be
safe as a specialist if you specialize in something that is in demand for your
entire life (such as surgery), and it _is_ possible to be such a generalist
that your career never takes off.

That said, as in most things, I think the middle way between extremes is the
best way, for the most people.

------
agbell
Is he questioning the findings of Anders Ericsson or saying that they don't
apply in certain cases. I read his previous book and it was interesting and
also a bit of an assault on Ericsson work, arguing that in Olympic sports, the
best are so good that genetics triumphs. You can spend years getting better at
swimming but if you don't have an elongated torso and long reach it won't
matter.

------
gdubs
Perhaps the most apt example here would be Steve Jobs whose broad range of
interests in things like typography, design, and computing, came together into
something greater than the sum of its parts.

The “intersection of technology and the liberal arts.”

~~~
hliyan
Or, to use a more dated example, like "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance"...

------
rb808
I dont like when they dont define the subject. eg if you're a "fullstack
developer" are you a generalist or a specialist? If you're an artist who does
some web design work are you a generalist or a specialist?

~~~
varjag
You are a web (or app) developer, definitely a specialist.

------
twic
_Specialists flourish in such “kind” learning environments, where patterns
recur and feedback is quick and accurate. By contrast, generalists flourish in
“wicked” learning environments, where patterns are harder to discern and
feedback is delayed and /or inaccurate._

This is _sort of_ like the switch in thinking in AI in the '70s (?) where it
became clear that teaching computers to get better and better and playing
chess or deducing propositions was never going to produce intelligence, and
that we were going to have to teach them to see and move around on their own
instead.

~~~
leblancfg
Great point. Something to be said about complete & perfect information[0] for
some pursuits, vs imperfect and incomplete information for others.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_information](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_information)

------
danj
I would argue that from my experience generalization is not welcomed at all.
I'm a founder for 3 companies (in order of starting: ran its course,
successful exit, wound down). I have a huge array of skills that I have
learned but because I've been a founder and kind of have to have been involved
in everything my skills are too general.

What's worse is that there seems to be a real push back against serial
founders who are looking to transition from founding companies to working for
another company. I've A/B tested my resume with changing my latest startup
title from Founder to Product Manager and even though the job requirements
state extensive startup experience required, being a founder gets rejected for
not having the relevant experience, whilst being a Product Manager I get to
the next round as my experience matches what they are looking for.

All in all it's becoming a rather depressing affair.

~~~
davidivadavid
That has more to do with HR laziness and keyword sniping. Want to hire a
product manager? Does the person have "product management" somewhere in their
resume? Good. If not, pass. That's how crude the process can get, and that's
how it's practiced in plenty of places.

~~~
warp_factor
Which as a generalist I find very interesting. I have been in startups at
which I was a tech lead but also a Product manager. Depending on what I would
want to do next I would put one or another on my resume.

------
mcguire
" _Let’s say, as a crude approximation, that Success = talent + practice +
luck. Those who are richly endowed with talent_ [or luck] _may find it easy to
excel in multiple domains, to be Renaissance men and women, to be decathletes
of life. (The example of Leonardo da Vinci comes to mind.) The rest of us,
however, must lean heavily on the practice part of the equation. If success is
what we’re aiming at, then perhaps we should seek out the “kindest” learning
environment open to us and give it our all. If, on the other hand, we want to
live well by sampling a smorgasbord of human goods — learning a bit of quantum
mechanics, running a marathon, playing viola in an amateur string quartet,
fighting for local justice — then we might be doomed to fall short of
transcendent achievement._ "

Have _a lot_ of salt on hand when getting advice from the successful and
famous.

------
ryeguy_24
I wouldn't really call Roger Federer a generalist. He's the number one tennis
player on the planet and specializes in tennis more than anyone under the sun.
Maybe as a kid he played other sports but don't we all? I don't think this
generalist concept was fully explored in this article.

That being said, I frequently worry about this concept of generalist vs
specialist and which will yield a better or more impactful career. Despite the
negative connotation of the word "generalist", I do believe people that have
wide skillsets with some specialty are pretty valuable. But I think it depends
on what you want to do and what you want to impact. For inventing a new
medication, maybe a speciality is a way to achieve that. For starting a
business, maybe generalist is the better toolset.

I think it's ok to be either, I just wish I could be both. :)

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _For inventing a new medication, maybe a speciality is a way to achieve
> that. For starting a business, maybe generalist is the better toolset._

I feel that for any end result, you can define the concept of
_overspecialization_. Taking the medication example - you likely want a
specialist in biochemistry involved, but if said specialist is actually a
specialist of a particular metabolic pathway, they may arrive at a partial
solution, and miss the insights that come from being aware of other pathways
and how they interact.

Some problems (and I suspect biology already has plenty of them) may also be
tricky in the sense that they simultaneously require breadth and depth that's
near-impossible for one person to have simultaneously. Those problems will
need a mix of extreme specialists with some "less deep" specialists.

------
icebraining
I prefer the Econtalk interview with the author:
[http://www.econtalk.org/david-epstein-on-mastery-
specializat...](http://www.econtalk.org/david-epstein-on-mastery-
specialization-and-range/) (there's a transcription below, if you prefer
reading)

------
vinayms
There are two kinds of generalists - those who think they are and those who
actually are.

The distinguishing feature of the latter is that they are polymaths in the
making, a journeyman polymath if you will. They have sufficient depth in
multiple fields and produce works that demand attention, whatever that might
be. The former, on the other hand, is just a bits and pieces guy living in
delusion who doesn't know anything beyond elementary knowledge in his "fields
of expertise".

To use a cricketing analogy, since 'tis the season, people like Richards,
Tendulkar and Kallis are true alrounders (generalists) whereas people like
Robin Singh, Madan Lal and Andy Bichel are just bits and pieces guys who are
useful on that odd day when specialists and generalists are having a bad day.

------
lordnacho
Not sure we should be surprised:

Most people aren't specialists. If they're the academic type, they studied a
bunch of things. If they're sporty, they played a bunch of sports. If musical,
they tried a bunch of instruments.

You can get pretty good at a number of things without being top of the field.
But you don't have to be top of the field to be chosen to do the vast majority
of jobs.

Golf vs Tennis: Golfers have won stuff in their late 40s. You're competing
with a huge field of experienced people. Tennis players tend to bow out a fair
bit sooner, so it makes sense that someone who didn't pour all their energy
into it specifically could compete. There's also a question of whether there
are specific intransferables in each sport, but I'll leave that to experts.

------
baby_wipe
Here's the recent EconTalk episode with the author.

[http://www.econtalk.org/david-epstein-on-mastery-
specializat...](http://www.econtalk.org/david-epstein-on-mastery-
specialization-and-range/)

------
Vizarddesky
I have not read this book but based on the article, I feel the concepts in
Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers > This book. Relationships do not prove causality,
but David tries to with the stories of Van Gogh and Tiger Woods and Federer?
The examples in the article leave me frustrated because professional artists
and sports icons are not a repeatable success. Using those people as examples
of success is bad data. I don't comment, this article bugged me for some
reason. My takeaways are: Specialization matters, how you find 'your thing' is
up to you. And figure it out well before you turn 40, unless you are Van Gogh.

------
40acres
The ideal worker in today's economy is "T" shaped ('shallow' knowledge in many
areas, deep in a specific area) with the ability to move the "fulcrum" of that
"T" based on market needs.

The class of 2019 will probably have a career of 45+ years, the economy is
only going to get more dynamic and winner take all in my view -- your domain
focus will probably have to change every ~8-12 years.

As a programmer, I feel like we have great flexibility in this regard. You can
work on mobile, you can work on the cloud, or the web.. in banking,
semiconductors.. insurance.. hell, even for government if things get tight.

------
8bitsrule
If you _must_ specialize in something, try to be sure first that it isn't
something that might go away. (This includes many techish things!)

Which means that you must have a general-enough idea of how permanent some
skillset is likely to be. Getting paid to do what you enjoy doing most is
great ... until innovation wipes out the demand.

Another danger: over-specialization. You might not want to become an expert in
Company A's gear unless those skills will port to openings at B,C and D.

Sure they'll love you today, but will they love you tomorrow?

------
ThePirateofOz
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a
wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization
is for insects."

\-- Lazarus Long (Time Enough For Love, Robert Heinlein)

------
thanatropism
I'm remaking my CV in preparation for a possible shakeup after years in the
same job and keep hemming and hawing about the word "generalist". So many
people are "hummingbirds" (they come in touch with this and that flower and
cross-pollinate) that call themselves generalists. I'm more of a "bites deep
into whatever problem is thrown his way".

"Polymath" would be a better fit but it's a bit self-aggrandizing.

------
totalperspectiv
I'm curious if anyone here has thoughts on 'Operating Manuel for Spaceship
Earth' in this context. A quote that has tuck with me for a long time is
'specialization precludes comprehensive thinking.' I generally agree with
this, and have tried to be a generalist to the degree that it is allowed in
today's workforce.

------
heisenbit
This is very simplistic thinking that neglects demand. Markets tend to favor
specialists (and specialized companies). Selling yourself as a generalist is
challenging as differentiation is inherently difficult.

Given opportunities and resources generalists may outperform but such
positions are rare and access is often gated by check for specialization.

~~~
hobofan
For employment relationships, yes. For freelance, I would say it's quite the
opposite, where you have a much bigger pool of gigs you can accept as a
generalist. And if you are in full-on mercenary mode, it also allows you to
capitalize a lot better on hype-topics, where as a good generalist you can
ramp up on the required skills pretty quickly.

------
HeraldEmbar
As I understand it, the "Do 10,000 hours" idea is about achieving expertise.
It doesn't mean that you had to have to started specializing and achieving
that expertise when you were 3 years old. So I think that the premise of the
article, though not necessarily that of the book itself, is a straw-dog
argument.

------
scarface74
I’ve found that it is best to specialize early in your career but at some
point you’re going to hit a ceiling and then it’s better to be a generalist
for more architectural and leadership roles - even if you want to stay hands
on. It really helps in consulting (true consulting not staff augmentation) to
be a generalist.

------
yelloweyes
I mean... the world _needs_ specialists.

Would you trust some random generalist to design the airplane you're going to
fly in?

~~~
marcosdumay
Would you trust people with no general knowledge to design something composed
of many different mechanical, aerodynamic, electrical, electronic and human
systems?

Specialist programmers see no problem on reading values from an unreliable
sensor and overriding the pilots decisions if the values are bad.

------
Invictus0
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.

~~~
majos
> Putin

What? Politics as much aside as possible, why put him next to Leibniz and Ben
Franklin?

~~~
C1sc0cat
Yeh no offense to Comrade Putin but his KGB Career dint reach the heights.

------
chiefalchemist
The headline is misleading. What makes Generalists more valuable is the rate
of change. That is, as change increases, the ability to adapt is essential.
It's not the (less valuable) skills you had, but your ability to pick up new
skills (that's more valuable).

------
Balgair
Good interview with the author here:
[https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/generalist-
specialis...](https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/generalist-specialist-
david-epstein-interview/)

------
linux_devil
Podcast link : [https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/generalist-
specialis...](https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/generalist-specialist-
david-epstein-interview/)

------
yantrams
On a somewhat related note, I often wonder why Poincare is still considered
the last of the Universalists/Generalists. I believe Von Neumann would be a
strong contender to that title.

~~~
shdh
Von Neumann was definitely a modern polymath

------
tabtab
Specialization gets you started so you can afford a family and home.
Generalization gets you into upper management.

~~~
1-6
And stay there until you get pushed out of the org. It's better to stay
specialized as long as you can to avoid upper management.

~~~
tabtab
Many techies reach a point where they go: "Oh crap, now I have to move into
management." More money but less fun.

------
phkahler
I'd advocate doing both. Be a generalist but specialize in something.

------
JVIDEL
I feel this at odds with my personal experience, and I am a generalist

------
apo
> Which leads to a caveat. Miranda is a very talented fellow; so are most of
> the other “high fliers” who crop up in “Range.” What worries me is that this
> emphasis — what social scientists call “restriction of range” — might skew
> Epstein’s moral just a bit.

I'm surprised that Dunning-Kruger wasn't mentioned here. High-flier
generalists are especially vulnerable to self-deception. Their charisma, and
the adulation it generates, conceals the consequences of weak understanding of
specific topics. This species of generalist is very vulnerable to being
blindsided by nuances readily apparent to those who have taken the time and
effort to master a topic.

The Dunning-Kruger generalist tends to end up in a position of power, often
with disastrous consequences. The current US administration's cabinet is full
of them, for example.

~~~
gdubs
The Dunning-Kruger effect would apply just as much to a specialist as it would
a generalist. No matter how specialized one gets, there’s always the possible
cognitive bias that they think they know more than they do. There’s also the
risk of tunnel vision and compartmentalization, where the specialist, unaware
of of relevant information existing in some other silo continues to try to fit
round pegs into square holes.

~~~
Snoozle
You could even argue that the Dunning-Kruger effect applies MORE to
specialists than generalists, as generalists are already approaching problems
as if they don't have as much experience as a specialist and are more likely
to research and learn as part of the problem solving process instead of assume
that they are already experts at this and make a mistake.

~~~
gdubs
So true. It’s the feeling of, “the more I learn the more I realize I don’t
know.”

------
codesushi42
From my own experience, being a generalist gives you more job mobility. I've
gone from web frontend, to server side, to Android and iOS frontend, to mobile
infra, now to ML. And keeping things varied keeps me from burning out.

However, specialization will move you further in your lob ladder at a faster
pace. The risk is if you specialize in the wrong area, and then that area
becomes stale. You'll have a harder time switching to something else.

------
gitgud
It's strange how the "Jack of all trades" phrase changed over time. The
original phrase was:

 _" Jack of all traits,_

 _Master of none,_

 _Still better than a master of one " _

The original phrase is much more against specialisation, however omitting the
last two lines makes it almost belittle generalization... The meaning of the
phrase has basically reversed over the years.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_all_trades,_master_of_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_of_all_trades,_master_of_none)

~~~
Konnstann
Something similar happened with "Blood is thicker than water", a phrase used
to convey the importance of family, where the original quote is "The blood of
the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb", which conveys the exact
opposite, that ties you make yourself are more important than family.

~~~
Semaphor
According to Wikipedia [0] it's not as clear as you make it out to be.

[0]:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_is_thicker_than_water](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_is_thicker_than_water)

------
chiefalchemist
> Remember the ‘10,000 Hours’ Rule for Success?

No, I do not. Because there never was such a thing. What there was/is a rule
of thumb to say it takes 10,000 hours to be "expertly proficient" at something
- which is not to be confused with being successful.

In other words, putting in 10k hours does not mean you'll play in the Premier
League or star in a Hollywood film. It simple means that if you ever hope to
do either you'll have to put in at least 10,000 hours.

The media wonders why some of us are so critical of them. Yet they constantly
fail to do their job properly. It's a miracle more of us aren't more critical
of their monkey see monkey do approach to publishing.

~~~
justnotworthit
After listeningt to Epstein's conversation on Econtalk, I don't quite
recognize this article's accuracy to his beliefs.

HN linked to a blog post about having a strong bias against books that are
made by journalists who aren't experts in the field. I find pop psychology
books by journalists with this "anecdote/study/lesson" formula tiring.

------
TheRealPomax
It is unfortunate that it's not even surprising that the NYTimes no longer
requires writers to actually know the real meaning of sayings they invoke. Nor
that editors don't catch misuse anymore. "Folk wisdom holds the trade-off
between breadth and depth to be a cruel one: “jack-of-all-trades, master of
none” [...]".

Cool, cool... the saying continues, though: “A jack of all trades is a master
of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one”.

~~~
danielg6
I’ve never heard your extended version before. I wonder how common it is
versus what you’re criticizing...

~~~
TheRealPomax
A fair thing to wonder, but then you might also not know the actual original
is just ""Jack of all trades" without the "master of none", part, which got
added much later and completely changed whatever the original meaning was.

~~~
danielg6
Uhh... no? I knew that. My point was that _you_ were wrongly criticizing the
reporter for not knowing the “original” meaning of a phrase. _You_ were wrong
about your extended version being original and you’re also wrong about it
being common. I was trying to be nice and let you know you were wrong by using
the phrase “I wonder...” I wasn’t actually “wondering” lol.

Based on your recent comment, it seems like you were offended or maybe you
just don’t understand how these things work at all.

~~~
TheRealPomax
I wasn't, I do, and this is getting weird =)

I've only ever heard people correct the phrase to the longer version, so
clearly we just live in completely different linguistic worlds. Bubbles are a
good thing to bust through, so: thanks.

~~~
danielg6
“Completely different linguistic worlds?”

That must explain it, and you’re welcome.

------
claudiulodro
I disagree. Look at the post-college careers of General Studies majors
compared to any specialized major. Our current society rewards specialization
and niching.

Dabbling is low-risk/low-reward; specialization is high-risk/high-reward.

~~~
throwayEngineer
Academia is not the real world, and they always seem to be struggling to be
Useful.

A generalist who can program, market, and run a business is likely going to be
better at making good decisions over someone with only 1 of those skills.

Forget about Academia for a moment.

~~~
claudiulodro
Decisions about what? The low-hanging-fruit software companies have already
been built; the most successful new software companies are all about a
specific vertical, and this requires specialization.

Trivially, yes it would be best to be 100% expert in programming, 100% expert
in marketing, 100% expert in business, and 100% expert in whatever the
business domain is, but that isn't feasible. That's why most new start ups
have a founding team, not a founding superperson.

~~~
goobynight
I'm not buying it. What companies are you thinking of? I feel like I will
either find them seeking out a generalist for some subset of their workload or
a company that is just as young and valuable that hires massive numbers of
generalists (e.g. Uber, Postmates/Doordash, WeWork)

