
How to Become the Best in the World at Something - crdrost
https://forge.medium.com/how-to-become-the-best-in-the-world-at-something-f1b658f93428
======
codingslave
I think this is a fallacy, its true that becoming 90th% in a few different
fields would render you quite the unicorn. The issue is that its common for
there to be very low demand for such an overlap of skill sets. Also, how would
you leverage such an overlap? These positions and opportunities do not just
appear as you are qualified, the job market is extremely inefficient, and not
very good at correctly pricing ability. Whats more, being the best in the
world at something generally makes that skill very recognizable to others. You
are a standout and ascend extremely quickly. I would argue the true best
strategy is to shoot for best in your city or country/world at some nascent
niche skill.

As an addition, this kind of article is part of a group of articles aimed at
seeming to be a "novel" or "clever" approach to life, somehow holding the key
to outsmart others. Most likely it a complete waste of your five minutes. Its
similar to thinking about the Dunning Kruger effect, a complete waste of time.

~~~
joecot
> The issue is that its common for there to be very low demand for such an
> overlap of skill sets. Also, how would you leverage such an overlap?

The only overlap they really gave in the examples was "They're good at X
skill.... and marketing themselves." Literally, the example people were good
at both a skill and then marketing themselves as being good at that skill.
Gary Vaynerchuk is both a good writer and good at marketing himself. Steve
Jobs was good at design and also marketing himself. Tomas Pueyo is apparently
decent at engineering and also ... marketing himself, with articles and TED
talks like this. This is also why people can name Neil deGrasse Tyson but
probably not a single other living astrophysicist. He's not the best in the
world, but he's the best astrophysicist in the world at marketing himself.

So the advice isn't _really_ to be good at two different skills. The advice is
to be pretty good at one skill and then be really good at marketing yourself
as being good at that thing. Even though other people in the world will be
better at it, if you're good at marketing yourself you'll still be in more
demand.

~~~
agota
I think that's a great observation.

One exception I can think of where you legitimately need to be decent at three
skills is bootstrapping as a solopreneur.

You need to be able to code, design, and market your product.

Other than that, it does seem like "X + marketing" is what you need, though I
guess "marketing" is an umbrella term (content marketing requires writing
ability, public speaking requires public speaking ability, etc.).

~~~
joecot
Sure, and I'm sure there are actual cases where being good at 2 different
skills (not one of which being some form of marketing yourself) is relevant.
Devops pretty much requires being good at both development and server
administration. You're correct that bootstrapping requires multiple different
skills, including some amount of business sense. There are many cases where
having multiple different skills could make you the best in the world at that
combo. But those correlations aren't random -- so lots of different people
will be trying to be the best at the same set of skills as you, since they're
connected as requirements -- and despite the article's premise, that's not the
case the author's examples make.

The article really just makes it clear it's important to be able to market
yourself. However "people able to market their skills achieve more than people
who can't" is not as interesting an article premise as "How to Become the Best
in the World at Something (by being good at multiple skills)". And the author
went with the latter because, well, it's important to be able to market
yourself well.

------
crdrost
One nice thing to share here is that a statistical model for success under
such conditions is for there to be a collection of independent random
variables that _multiply_ to form your overall success: people who lack any
particular one of them, x_1 and x_2 = 1000 but x_3 = 0, see the product x_1
x_2 x_3 = 0, below people who have x_1 = 10, x_2 = 10, x_3 = 10.

Taking a logarithm, one gets a sum of independent identically-distributed
variables, which then tend to sum to a normal distribution due to the Central
Limit Theorem, meaning that success distributions produced by multiplication
tend to be log-normal. This was argued by John D. Cook at [1]. Log-normal
distributions are interesting because they have a long tail—usually the top
people drawn are _way, way_ better than you might have expected; normal
populations stick within several standard deviations of the mean but long-
tailed ones see remarkable achievers many tens of standard deviations above
the mean. This result has been long known for things like wealth and income
and other measures of external success. So there is a lot of truth to this
idea that, say, if you are a programmer, your time is worse spent on building
that extra expertise with things that you are good at, like programming, and
better spent on building new expertise with things that you are not good at,
like perhaps digital art or negotiation/persuasion or accounting.

[1] [https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/09/29/achievement-is-
log...](https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/09/29/achievement-is-log-normal/)

~~~
nostrademons
This changes with the size of the firm you're part of. It's true for
_individual_ pursuits like basketball, drawing comics, or entrepreneurship.

But a big corporation gets around a lack of any one critical variable by
hiring someone for that variable. So if you're an excellent backend engineer,
your time is wasted learning digital art, because _somebody else will be
making the artwork_. Effectively the corporation becomes the organism and you
become one specialized organelle in them. You're better off increasing your
expertise _within that specialty_ than learning other ones - say by firsthand
experience with all the ways distributed systems can fail.

The returns to being a top individual producer beat the top returns to being a
corporate drones, but the _average_ returns are significantly worse (because
the big corporation benefits from being able to swap out individual motivated
actors to plug deficiencies rather than having to develop skills itself), so
depending on your risk tolerance, this may or may not be a good strategy.

~~~
adrianmonk
> _So if you 're an excellent backend engineer, your time is wasted learning
> digital art, because somebody else will be making the artwork._

Tangentially, as a backend engineer, I've had to tell the people who made the
digital art that the additional icon they supplied me wasn't quite the same
color as the existing ones it was supposed to match and also looked misaligned
because it didn't follow the same geometrical conventions.

So I wish what you're saying were true, but it isn't necessarily. This being a
tangent, I'm not necessarily looking for a moral to the story here, but maybe
it's something about having a certain minimum competence in an area so you can
be sure you're working effectively with others.

(EDIT: What is a backend engineer doing with an icon at all? Sticking the URL
where it's hosted into a config file and modifying the logic so that it shows
up (or doesn't) as appropriate, then testing that by looking at the UI and
seeing art that looks wrong.)

------
specialp
An aside, but basketball is probably not the best example. A large amount of
men 7ft tall or more have played in the NBA. over 17%. So basketball many of
them have achieved elite height not skill.

[http://www.truthaboutit.net/2012/05/true-or-false-half-of-
al...](http://www.truthaboutit.net/2012/05/true-or-false-half-of-
all-7-footers-are-in-the-nba.html)

~~~
wolco
About 2800 people in the world are 7 feet tall or taller. 0.000038%.

Half are women. 300/400 would be in the age range at anytime. If 10% play
basketball. That's only 40.

~~~
messick
> There are 43 players in the National Basketball Association that are at
> least seven feet tall. Fourteen of those players are seven-foot-one or
> taller.

[https://gooddeedseats.com/tallest-players-of-every-nba-
team-...](https://gooddeedseats.com/tallest-players-of-every-nba-team-
heights/)

~~~
wolco
Interesting. I wonder how many all-stars vs bottom feeders. Sevenfooters need
to rebound/block sometimes shoot but rarely are they the best of the best and
suffer from more health issues.

------
AnIdiotOnTheNet
I think there is yet another path: hyper specialization in one ludicrously
specific niche no one else cares about or has good reason for not getting
into.

If you spend 10k hours perfecting something no one else even thought of
trying, chances are you'll be the best in the world at it.

~~~
agota
Can you give a specific example, though?

Because generally, no competition means no demand, so while it might be
satisfying to be best in the world at something, an obscure skill might not
translate into financial success.

~~~
mike00632
In the world of signal processing there are a lot of technical areas that are
super important/lucrative but few people have expertise in them. Often it
takes not only technical competence but years of experience.

To make this example even more specific, maybe you are good at writing fast
decoding algorithms for new telecom standards.

There is also a lot of now low-hanging fruit in compressed sensing for the
mathletes/computer people who know what that's about.

Edit: Actually, just learn math if you're looking to get ahead and have an
advantage over many people. This advice doesn't make for the best blogpost or
YouTube video but it's effective.

------
swader999
Sport is going this way. There's a growing body of evidence that early
specialization produces less champions. Kids are encouraged to participate in
other sports well into their teen years. Less burn out, lower injuries and
this approach creates more athletes that can be described as "naturals". They
have skills and abilities that seem magical and unexpected.

~~~
hanniabu
Some people are actually legit naturals though. There was this one kid I knew
that didn't play sports growing up, but if you gave him a basketball in gym
class you could nail every 3 pointer. He was asked to come out to compete in
an important track meet because he was known to be fast and he ran a 400m
hurdles race in 53 seconds with the worst possible form. For reference, in the
men's World Championships earlier in the month the winner ran 47.4 with most
others finishing before 49. He just didn't care for sports though ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

Makes me wonder who else is out there with this kind of talent and what kind
of records could be broken/made if they tried or had the opportunity.

~~~
derekp7
You also have the case where natural ability is a hindrance. If the kid is
used to not having to work at a particular sport, they will have trouble when
they get to a point that they have to involve deliberate practice in order to
get beyond their current level (something they never had to do before).

~~~
ptd
This applies to academics as well. A lot of people have stories of being the
best in their class/school at something, but when they get to college they are
average, or even below average because they never had to deliberately study.

~~~
agota
I think this is a serious issue for intelligent people.

The curriculum is tailored towards people of average intelligence, so if you
are one, two, or three standard deviations above that, you won't be under
pressure to develop a work ethic because you can get good grades without it.

Of course, if your intelligence is above average, then you probably are
interested in a career that attracts other intelligent people.

And then you are in a serious trouble, because now you are in an environment
where everyone is of similar intelligence, so you don't have your competitive
advantage anymore, plus some people have a work ethic that you lack.

And even if you are still a standard deviation above most people, there are
likely other people who are at the same level as you, and they might have a
work ethic.

I think this is something that people who have intelligent children need to
pay attention to.

------
BlameKaneda
Two of my greatest loves are tennis and photography. I've been playing tennis
for over 20 years (nearly a decade competitively) and I started taking
photography seriously about 7 years ago. In both of these fields, especially
tennis, I'm comfortable enough where I can teach it to just about anyone.

In the first few years of doing both, there were plenty of times where I was
intimidated by better people, where I'd ask myself "why can't I be more like
X?"

At some point, there came a time when I became _comfortable_ enough in my
abilities so that I no longer think that way. All in all I think I'm an
excellent tennis player and that I take great photos. So what if Alice is a
better tennis player than me? So what if Bob takes better photographs?

If anything, and this is especially true with photography, whenever I come
across a better person I try to take away something from their skills that can
use to improve myself.

------
msluyter
This seems to be an elaboration/rediscovery/variant of something Scott
Adams[1] said a while ago:

[https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/car...](https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/career-
advice.html)

Decent advice, imho.

[1] Note, this does not constitute an endorsement of Scott's political views.

~~~
pbulises
Yep, I quote him in the article as such! "The solution is skill stacking, a
concept popularized by Scott Adams."

~~~
MacroChip
I loved the article. I'll be sharing it. The visualizations make it much more
digestable and inspirational. Also, the link you posted to Adams' blog has a
messed up cert or something. I'm on Firefox on Android. I'll reach out to him
as well.

------
chadcmulligan
I'm a fan of tennis, I'm not a very good player though, and never will be - I
don't want to play 12 hours a day. I've watched Federer many times and a
couple of take aways I've seen from watching him - practice every day, if
you're losing, just keep going, the other guy will eventually give up or make
a mistake, or you'll lose today, the other guy will eventually give up.

I really think this is the only way to be the best at something - do it every
day, some days you'll fail, but if you keep going, eventually you'll have so
much expertise you'll wake up one day and be the best, or close enough.

The trouble is no one really wants to do this, all Federer does is tennis, he
must love it, every day he gets up and plays tennis. Most people will stop at
good enough though.

If Federer played basketball, would he be the best? probably not, so thats the
other thing - pick something your body and brain is built for, and do it every
day.

If there were any short cuts then the best would use them any way and add them
to their arsenal, so any short cuts will be short lived.

I think PG said something the same about start ups - they don't fail the
founders just stop.

I think this ties in with why so many start ups are made by rich kids, they
can afford not to stop, everyone else has to stop at some point and get a job.

~~~
suyash
I concur, it also reminds me of this famous quote : “We are what we repeatedly
do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit. ” —Aristotle.

~~~
chadcmulligan
I always find it surprising when so much of what we think and talk about today
is the same thing that people thought and talked about a couple of thousand
years ago, very little about people has changed.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
See, I would be surprised if it was the other way.

------
Fricken
If the goal is to be the best in the world for the sake of being the best in
the world at something, just pick something really obscure.

I'm the best in the world a tactical boomerang juggling in Breath of the Wild.
A gamer with pro-level skills could probably show me up with a few hours
practice, but until someone decides to do that, I'm the best.

~~~
sudhirj
I think the goal is to be best in the world at something that society will
reward, that will enable you provide it with something it wants that it
doesn't know how to get or doesn't know it wants yet.

In your case, making entertaining videos of popular games is a pretty
profitable niche.

------
jkbonfield
I know I'm not the best at anything I do, but when combined the overlap makes
a niche for me that has so far worked out well. Pure luck frankly.

However that is _only_ because the skills I'm thinking of aren't in themselves
hugely common. I'm not mega skilled at them, but the relative rarity of some
means the overlap really is quite small - fortunately!

It's not going to be good advice if your key skills are, say selling things
and being super knowledgable about cars. Oh look, an obvious union but that
combination is popular already. So I'd say start by becoming good at a couple
niche skills and then see where you end up.

------
coldtea
That sounds like a common idea the Dilbert author mentions from time to time.

He could draw a little, and he knew about the business world a little, but not
many people could combine those things -- and be a business cartoonist.

~~~
markus_zhang
He also started kind of early and managed to keep it going. Starting early is
extremely important for...pretty much everything.

~~~
dredmorbius
As is keeping it going.

~~~
markus_zhang
Yes!

------
qubex
And here I was, expecting to read a ‘hypothetical’ plan to assassinate all
one’s competition... maybe it’s time to put _The Prince_ down.

~~~
AWildC182
That's how masters (old timers) rowing seems to work. You just wait for
whoever is faster to die of old age and if you die first it's not your problem
anymore.

~~~
fuzzfactor
Start early.

Benchmark with the leaders.

Be prepared to work as hard as them, and actually do it for enough years to
make a difference.

Outlive them. This is what you were planning to do when you started early.

For a pursuit where skill building is a function of effort over a lifetime.

In sports I guess that would be your athletic lifetime.

------
johnobrien1010
"The easiest way to be at the top of your field is to choose a very small
field." \- Simone Giertz, TED Talk, May 14, 2018 [https://singjupost.com/why-
you-should-make-useless-things-si...](https://singjupost.com/why-you-should-
make-useless-things-simone-giertz-full-transcript/)

------
QueridoGuy
That’s one of the questions i always wanted to ask the top people such as Bill
Gates or someone like Dennis Ritchie. Being the top isn’t something easy, but
i feel like people overestimate it quite a lot, to the point that they quit
thinking they want to be the best. I can say , the world is much smaller than
the concept we draw on our minds. So many stuff that i looked into, especially
in the programming world, is simpler than what’s in my mind. The reason why we
always think that it’s big and hard thing to achieve is due to how we were
taught in schools. We get taught about stuff that on the next grade they say
it’s more than we think. Take negative numbers for example, we start knowing
that numbers are only positive and nothing such as 2-5 is possible, then we
get taught that that idea is wrong.

Anyway, we tend to overestimate because of how we used to encounter. If we
dedicate ourselves to something, it will pay off. If there is someone that’s
world class on something, you shouldn’t focus on becoming him, but focus into
further things. We are all alike at the end, it’s our enthusiasm that drive us
into pursuing our goals. The only difference between you and the other top 1
is that he had more interest.

Basically to put it in simpler words, don’t think that there is a huge gap
between you and your understanding of the world and your goal. It’s much less
than you think

~~~
Kaveren
> "The only difference between you and the other top 1 is that he had more
> interest."

Wishful thinking. The most important component is genetic ability, which must
be enabled by an environment allowing you to put in the required effort (i.e.
developed or developing country, food and housing, minimal education).
Interest and discipline is a tertiary concern.

It's way easier to be interested in something if you have natural aptitude.

------
mindgam3
> You will not be the world’s greatest writer, nor the top chess player, nor
> the most masterful public speaker.

> It’s not about being great at any one thing — you just need to be pretty
> good at an array of useful skills that, when combined, make you truly one of
> a kind.

As somebody who was the world’s #2 chess player for my age as a kid (okay, not
the “top” but close enough) - I’d like to say that the advice in this article
is terrible for anyone who wants to reach their full potential.

The part I really have a problem with is this:

> There will always be someone working harder... [or] someone with greater
> genetic gifts, or more luck, or both.

The only way to get world-class at something is to work your ass off. To have
discipline and apply yourself consistently to the practice, day in and day
out, for years.

And yeah, even if you do that, you _still_ might not be best in the world at
that thing. But you know what? The relationship with yourself that you
cultivated while mastering that discipline will 100% translate over to any
other endeavor you wish to pursue.

Similarly, if you always give up on things because you always see there’s
someone better than you, that pattern will hinder your ability to excel
everywhere.

My competitive chess career was pretty brief in the end. I realized that
staying at the top would require total dedication and no social life (home
schooling etc), and yes, there were other up and coming kids who seemed to be
at a level I couldn’t reach. So I gave up the dream of being world chess
champion and went to school. But I cannot even express how much the experience
of devoting myself to one discipline helped me later on in my life and career.
Peak performance in any area ultimately depends on how you deal with
challenge, setbacks, and motivation for the grind.

Don’t settle for being “pretty good”. Push yourself to be the best you can be,
you might be surprised what you learn along the way.

[Edit] To the people commenting things like 'I think he is giving "regular"
people who arent gifted a path to massive success by being "pretty good" at a
few different things':

The whole "regular" people argument is BS. I was a "regular" kid who happened
to become freakishly devoted to chess, at which point people started labeling
me as a "prodigy". But the label is meaningless. Nobody calling me a prodigy
saw the thousands of hours I spent playing and practicing.

I hate it when people draw arbitrary distinctions like "regular" vs "gifted".
It makes the so-called gifted ones out to be freaks, or whatever the opposite
of "normal" is, and it is demotivating to all the so-called normal kids who
wonder if they could ever achieve greatness.

~~~
lbacaj
I was pretty good at Chess myself growing up, consistently got trophies in
tournaments. Ranked in the top 5 nationally (within the US) for my age group,
the trophy I earned for that was bigger than me (I was 12 at the time).

Still though being top 5 in the US for that age group dosent mean very much,
the US is one country out of many others. On top of that as you stack against
other ages especially say when I became an Adult there is no guarantee I would
have even made it to the top 10000, never-mind the top 5, because far more
Adults play chess.

I dont think the author is discouraging people from doing that if thats what
they are passionate about.

Far more importantly I think he is giving "regular" people who arent gifted a
path to massive success by being "pretty good" at a few different things. He
is mathematically trying to prove that it will lead to great results, perhaps
maybe even better results, than being the absolute best at one thing.

There are diminishing returns to pushing yourself if you arent gifted, you may
try your heart out and never ever get to be the very best at Chess. Let's say
you hypothetically committed large chunks of your life to it, dont have any
other skills, and now are broke and cant live a good meaningful life because
you dont earn much for being great at Chess, you only earn if you are the very
best.

His path is safer for most of us.

~~~
reroute1
I agree, also this should have been called why to be pretty good at lots of
things.

------
Jun8
Quick example of skill stacking: You won't be the world's best chess player or
boxer, but, hey, being the world champion in chess boxing
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing))?
That may well be within you reach.

~~~
Kaveren
This is gimmicky. Everyone knows they can be the best in the world at some
random and obscure task nobody cares about. This sort of thing is a complete
waste of your time. Better to focus on improving at one or the other.

------
markus_zhang
Although I agree with the idea, getting good at a jack of trades might be
equally difficult (e.g. depending on childhood influences or genetics). If A
complements B and someone gets good at A, he/she probably HATES B to the point
to avoid it as much as possible.

~~~
agota
Another person in this thread pointed out that "skill stacking" boils down to
becoming good at two skills, "X + marketing".

I think that's a good example of "Good at A + hates B", say "Good at software
engineering + hates marketing".

But what are the other "Good at A + hates B" skill combinations?

~~~
markus_zhang
Good tech skills plus hate human interation. Or vice versa. Some people just
have the innate to get good at both. I think if you want you can definitely
train very hard to be OK for sth you hate but is it worth it?

~~~
agota
I think whether it's worth it depends on if the goal you are trying to achieve
is worth it.

I remember reading about this couple of I believe software engineers who
achieved financial independence at I think age 30.

If I recall correctly, she didn't have any natural aptitude for software
engineering, she struggled to keep up with her classmates, she didn't enjoy
her work, etc.

Still, she got her degree, got a job, made six figure salary, and retired at
30.

From what I understand, for her it was worth it.

~~~
markus_zhang
I agree 100%. It depends on personal goals.

Another thing is we can train skill B by using a method that we enjoy, to
remove half of the pain.

------
spacedog11
Author of the article gives one TedX talk, then goes on to proclaim that he's
an "expert" at public speaking and ranks himself in the "90" percentile for
public speaking. What a joke!

~~~
ken
Fear of public speaking is consistently ranked the #1 fear of the average
person. I would absolutely put someone who can do it confidently in the top
10%. That's the point of the article: "A bit of work can quickly get you to
the top 10%".

------
hevi_jos
It has to be said that Steve Jobs great quality was learning from the best in
a given field, what it is called now "modeling".

He had as a mentor, when he was kid, f*cking Robert Noyce:
[http://online.wsj.com/media/NoyceJobs_digits_D_2011100715195...](http://online.wsj.com/media/NoyceJobs_digits_D_20111007151956.jpg)

Noyce himself was a genius on its own.

And then Markkula, and then the president of Sony(that launched the Trinitron
and walkman), and so on.

He learned how to learn.

------
hamilyon2
Actually, getting to 90-th percentile of public speaking _and_ self-
presentation make you little bit of celebrity regardless of any other factors.

------
oper8or
This should be taken to heart by every technologist, or to be precise, pure
technologist. Being pure tech today is about as useful as being a typist
during the type-writer era i.e. specialized skill that is in demand, but by
itself (with few exceptions) is only secondary to the domain it is applied in.

Most so-called "tech" companies are not really tech, but more in
(tele)communications, media, advertising, surveillance data businesses.

It is easy to see the time when everyone can do technology. This surely
happened to typing, it would be ludicrous trying to get a job as a typist
today. Same can happen to the pure tech: a) due to technology itself e.g. web-
site builders, etc. b) education,- everybody learns to type today, its a bit
of a stretch, but maybe everybody can learn to program.

Aside from job security argument, the value creation is happening in the
domain where business is focused, not necessarily knowledge of technology.
Technologists who understand the domain can deliver much more value, and
command higher premiums.

------
RivieraKid
This seems kind of pointless, most people already are the best in the world at
some specific combination of skills - knowledge of local geography, ability to
cook a certain set of meals, etc.

Anyway, a related thought that I find interesting: Becoming a "polymath" i.e.
learning a wide range of topics to reasonable depth requires less effort than
most people expect. For example, let's say you want to learn mathematics,
physics, chemistry, biology and economics. I think that achieving 80% of
undergrad knowledge would take much less than 80% of the time that people need
to complete an undergrad degree. So let's say it could take a year to acquire
a good foundation in each of these topics if you try to optimize the process
by focusing on fundamentals and core principles, choosing the best books, etc.

------
logicalmonster
I don’t know if Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, was the first person to
really write about this concept, but he originally wrote about the concept he
called the “talent stack” with the same exact arguments in his books years
ago. I think this idea is really important: it’s smart to combine different
skills. Additionally, having experience in different domains like economics
and design and business and technology and more gives you a lens to see the
world through that not everybody has. If you combine a few of these lenses,
you’re able to make connections and understand things that most people
wouldn’t see.

------
rpmisms
It's pretty simple

Don't be the first at what you're doing. You need the accomplishments of
others to build on.

Have competition. You need to have someone else to keep your skills
developing.

Have a supernatural amount of talent. It takes an amount of innate skill to
truly be the best at something.

Spend WAY more than 10,000 hours of deliberate practice.

A good example is Feliks Zemdegs, the on-and-off Rubik's cube world champion.
He's got the above skills, and keeps getting overtaken by various people, but
so far, has redefined his skillset every time and risen back to the top,
breaking even more barriers.

------
esel2k
Isn’t it strange that comments on medium are all very positive whereas on HN
all are very negative towards this article. What I want to say is that there
might be a bias?

~~~
pbulises
Author here. It's the culture of the site. Like Reddit. Much more critical.
Also, remember that Medium is the platform where the writer writes.
Commentators mean in fact to address the author. That helps for civility.

------
caiocaiocaio
"I'm the best in the world at something. I guess I'll write a Medium article."

~~~
TurkishPoptart
This. I'm pretty annoyed with these Medium articles that keep popping up on
this site.

------
mertd
Interesting way to discover the curse of dimensionality.

------
graemeo
the graphs in this medium post make my head spin, but at least the 2nd one has
words describing what the author purportedly means.

~~~
igdr138x
Thank you. They're staggeringly bad. I'm surprised no one else commented.

------
agumonkey
Beware of low perskill grade, stacking would just be a new word for 'jack of
all trades'

------
sabujp
many managers and directors at tech companies are like this, they have good
skill at coding/understanding tech stacks, managing, marketing, writing,
speaking, and understanding the business aspects

------
dredmorbius
Selling it helps too.

------
somurzakov
looks like market segmentation - finding your niche.

find your niche by being top 10% in three areas and you will be top .1% in one
niche that is combination of the three

------
mineP
Is this why we go to colleges?

------
cdelsolar
I'm pretty sure I'm the best person in the world at combined Scrabble and
coding.

~~~
raphlinus
Have you met Liam Quin?

------
username4567
Medium forces a login. Is there a non-Medium link?

~~~
pbulises
[https://forge.medium.com/how-to-become-the-best-in-the-
world...](https://forge.medium.com/how-to-become-the-best-in-the-world-at-
something-f1b658f93428?source=friends_link&sk=88d2ce6a8cdaacd47ae6a754fb96e9b5)

------
forgotmypw
Why is it acceptable to submit an article which is selectively inaccessible to
the majority of users?

All I see is:

How to Become the Best in the World at Something With skill stacking, you
don’t need to be at the top to be extraordinary Tomas Pueyo Oct 17 · 7 min
read

It’s better to have three okay tools than a single, perfect one. The axe is
great at breaking obstacles, but not that useful to jump over pits. The
grapple is great to jump over ice or pits, but not amazing for slaying
dragons. The only way to win is by having both tools. Illustrations: Tomas
Pueyo.

CConsider what it takes to become an NBA player. Most of them have been honing
their skills on the basketball court practically since infancy. Years of
countless practices, camps, and games have helped each player develop a skill
set based around shooting…

Keep the story going. Sign up for an extra free read. You've completed your
member preview for this month, but when you sign up for a free Medium account,
you get one more story.

 __Flagged. __

~~~
CedarMadness
I've been using an extension to avoid this common annoyance.

[https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-
firefox](https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox)

also for Chrome: [https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-
chrome](https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome)

~~~
forgotmypw
I use neither Chrome nor Firefox, nor am I installing extra software to access
a website that doesn't want me.

------
mrcoder111
This is really incorrect advice in the world of software engineering. At least
in FAANG companies and big name startups, no one cares if you read How to Win
Friends and Influence people and have "social skills". If you can't pass the
engineering interviews, you're fucked.

~~~
yters
Where I work, leadership and people skills are severely lacking amongst
programmers, so just a modicum of both makes one stand out pretty easily.

