
Wide interest in unrelated subjects? You're a scanner - sustainablepace
http://sustainablepace.net/refuse-to-choose-barbara-sher-scanners
======
AndrewKemendo
As someone who would probably best fit this description, I don't think the
advice to embrace this pattern is particularly good.

At the end of the day, you are valued (and paid) for what you actually
contribute to a larger goal. That's not restricted to mechanical types of
activities either, personality based activities like sales and marketing take
specificity and deep experience to be really good at.

Being shallow and wide means you will always be out-competed by someone deep
and narrow.

The only place where a "scanner" might be a valuable trait is as an executive
- but I don't think there is enough data to even prove that is right.

...and yes I am aware that there are a handful of jobs around the world for
people like this, for example David Shing [1]. However it's what, _maybe_ a
few hundred jobs worldwide.

[1][http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/11/who-is-
shi...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/11/who-is-shingy-aols-
digital-prophet)

~~~
sustainablepace
I understand your point. However the book has some advice that includes the
concept of a "good enough job" that pays for your wider interests that can't
be monetized equally well. I think the truth is neither black nor white.

~~~
chimericray
I enjoyed the article, thanks for the link. It appears to me that the author
writes the book placing value of life fulfilment over traditional career
success (where extreme focus pays greater dividends). I'm definitely a scanner
and have considered it a negative but the author seems to have a positive and
potentially useful view on it, I'll probably take a look at the book.

------
kazinator
Not one of these scanners, though:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanners](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanners)

:)

