51–60 of 148 posts
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.
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.
And many outside that too. From medieval weaponry to chicken shop reviews, the internet has a fair people who make a living off all kinds of very specific subjects that most people wouldn't even think about.
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but is your level of success similar to the level of success of someone who is the best in the world at something?
That's a good point. However, I think the question is how likely it is that you would be able to become the best in the world at something? I think that people who are the best in the world at something tend to be genetic freaks. Are you one? Probably not. In that case, attempting to become the best in the world might mean setting yourself up for failure, though presumably you would still be more successful than an a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
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.
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.
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?
> 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…
Actually I'm wondering maybe the striving to best mentality is also in the genetics or early education. But I do agree that this mentality helps tremendously.
But the great thing about the "striving to be best" mentality is you don't need anyone else to give it to you, and if you didn't get it as a kid it's never too late to start. You just need to be passionate about something and then be crazy enough to see how far you can go with it.
> 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…
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.