Live data from Hacker News

Generalists vs specialists – Who has a greater chance of success? (2019)

abhijitbhaduri.com

61–70 of 159 posts

Re: Generalists vs specialists – Who has a greater chance of success? (2019)

#61
post #45

I doubt, there's such a thing as a real generalist, that knows SW development, negotiation, history of Italy, international politics, engine design, ... to the same level of depth. When we speak about successful generalists, they are still quite specialized. They might know some data analysis (maybe limited by Excel and VB macros), some teamwork skills, some marketing/sales/product ownership knowledge, some competiti…

Being more capable in all situations can be a goal. What you are describing is a Renaissance man, also called Universal Man, Italian Uomo Universale, an ideal that developed in Renaissance Italy from the notion expressed by one of its most-accomplished representatives, Leon Battista Alberti (1404–72), that “a man can do all things if he will.” The ideal embodied the basic tenets of Renaissance humanism, which conside…

I know about Reneissance man, but this isn't what I had in my mind when writing it. With Reneissance men, you expect them to be extraordinary creatures who don't only have breadth, but also depth.

What I meant by generalists, it was a lot of breadth without depth. Like knowing one city from every country, but not knowing more in any. Like knowing one painting from all major artists, but not knowing second and third from anyone. Being able to paint a dog, but not a cat, a man, a castle.

Being such a generalist would not be practical. In fact, it would be useless. Even Leonardo da Vinci was a painter, student of anatomy and engineer. He wasn't archeologist, expert on India, or circus acrobat who can juggle with torches. Da Vinci was specialized too.

What I see in generalists today, are very often general managerial/entrepreneurial skills mixed with some level of expertise in one or two fields. And calling this generalist seems as bad naming practice.

There must be another, better name for this.

Re: Generalists vs specialists – Who has a greater chance of success? (2019)

#62
post #9

The best thing I ever read on this topic came from biology. In "The Diversity of Life," E.O. Wilson describes how specialist species thrive in stable environments. The stability allows them to evolve "deeply" into a niche and outcompete any species less specialized for that same niche. So if I'm really great at plucking fruit from tall trees, and you suck at it, I win. In unstable environments, however—say all of tho…

I've had a going theory on this - that it's a yoyo between generalization and specialization. A particular topic starts with generalists but as time progresses and stability (i.e. a path worth pursuing) becomes apparent, specialization is needed to eek out more performance gains. Then after a while, that particular area gets disrupted because there's a fundamental shift in landscape and the cycle repeats because the…

And once in a while, a really large disruption in all areas causes a mass extinction where all specialists are wiped out, and only a few generalists rebuild the new environment on their own.

Re: Generalists vs specialists – Who has a greater chance of success? (2019)

#63
Following most of the comments I've read I fall in the generalist population.

But I'm trying to have a more nuanced perspective. My goal is to be a specialist in a couple of practices less likely to change not in the tools that are more likely to change.

For example, as a developer I would want to become a specialist in Object Oriented Design, not in Java/PHP/etc. I might not understand all the nooks and crannies of Java and the JVM but I understand enough to get the work done in 90-95% of cases and I'm comfortable enough to get my hands dirty with the official documentation in order to deliver good work in the rest 10% of cases. Yes it's quite probable that a Java specialist will be more effective than me in those 10%, but having a wider breadth of knowledge makes up for it in other areas of the project.

In my experience I can cover most of my lack of knowledge in a certain tool much quicker if I already have previous experience in switching tools. I'm becoming better in understanding what I can take and apply from my less-specialized expertise and what I need to learn quickly in order to minimize the impact of my "generalism".

Another interesting thing I noticed is a cross-pollination effect, I can bring experience from other tools and provide a completely fresh perspective in solving problems compared to specialists that otherwise wouldn't have even considered some of the new possibilities.

Re: Generalists vs specialists – Who has a greater chance of success? (2019)

#64
post #53
post #32

Well T-shaped individuals have greatest chance of success. What rubs me the wrong way is the false dichotomy like one can only be a specialist or a generalist. It is always presented as if for example chess players would not even know how to eat. There was a joke in the "Top Gear" about "Stig" racing driver that would fall to the ground if taken out of a car. There is also much more to it because world is complex. Fo…

I specialize in .net too, but in a general way. i'm bad at everything. People who i work with who don't know anything about programming thinks i'm a specialist for some reason. luckily i'm the only programmer in my company. I feel like a fake, because I work for a really good company.

“I’m bad at a lot of things” - generalist

Re: Generalists vs specialists – Who has a greater chance of success? (2019)

#66
post #24

I doubt, there's such a thing as a real generalist, that knows SW development, negotiation, history of Italy, international politics, engine design, ... to the same level of depth. When we speak about successful generalists, they are still quite specialized. They might know some data analysis (maybe limited by Excel and VB macros), some teamwork skills, some marketing/sales/product ownership knowledge, some competiti…

Maybe it's more about adapting quickly to a new situation

This! I think of a generalist as someone who learn very quickly and adapt to the situation. Not necessarily as someone who knows many things. Thinking from a startup point of view, usually when looking for a generalist you are looking for someone who can help to jump on things on fire or take a first stab at a new process.

Re: Generalists vs specialists – Who has a greater chance of success? (2019)

#67
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I specialize in .net too, but in a general way. i'm bad at everything. People who i work with who don't know anything about programming thinks i'm a specialist for some reason. luckily i'm the only programmer in my company. I feel like a fake, because I work for a really good company.

“I’m bad at a lot of things” - generalist

"I have a hammer, where are the nails?" - specialist

Re: Generalists vs specialists – Who has a greater chance of success? (2019)

#68

The best thing I ever read on this topic came from biology. In "The Diversity of Life," E.O. Wilson describes how specialist species thrive in stable environments. The stability allows them to evolve "deeply" into a niche and outcompete any species less specialized for that same niche. So if I'm really great at plucking fruit from tall trees, and you suck at it, I win. In unstable environments, however—say all of tho…

Just a restatement of K vs r theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

I thought it was K&R ...

Re: Generalists vs specialists – Who has a greater chance of success? (2019)

#69
Some advice for would-be generalists from my career so far, as a definite generalist in technical services and sales.

- Companies really like people who are technically proficient, but who also have good social skills and can hold a room. If you think this might be a limiting factor for you, spend some time out of your comfort zone and work on it. I attribute at least some of my success to working in pubs when I was younger. It seems to me to be at least as important for progression to top roles as raw technical knowledge. High level people are usually people you can get on with.

- You have to get comfortable, early, with being honest when you don't know. Wear the limits of your knowledge on your sleeve: "I'm not sure to be honest, I'll have to get back to you on that" or even "That's not my area to be honest, you'd have to ask X person" are both absolutely valid answers. I've never felt like anyone has thought less of me for this - on the contrary, people really respect it and much prefer it to being BS'd. Make sure you do get back to them, though.

- Complete Udemy courses in your spare time for the fun of it. Python, UX, Game Development, whatever. They're hit and miss, but do it for fun. Do it on a Sunday. You don't need a clear goal in mind. Increasing your base level knowledge like this will go a long way in real world settings, and there is a joy in receiving pleasant surprise from specialist colleagues when you're able to show an appreciation for their field and what it's about.

I'm now bootstrapping my own stuff instead, but I've been offered C-level with equity positions in London at a relatively young age on this path. It's not to be sniffed at. There is at least one clear downside, though:

- You will not experience the joy of having a deep level of expertise and skill with one specific technology or field, the same satisfaction that specialists and academics feel. I can put a web app together and train a model, but I know that I am not an expert at these things and probably never will be. I don't get deep into projects that really get me out of bed in the morning, or that push the bleeding edge of research, and I do wonder what that feels like. Bet it's nice.

Post reply on HN