Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

abhijitbhaduri.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 159 posts

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

#71

Post by spacemark »

ozim wrote: 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…

As with most categories, labels, and taxonomy, the dichotomy is a human construct. Of course it's not true absolutely. But it still has utility to ponder, and when applied to specific contexts can be powerful.

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

#72

Post by ignoramous »

cjblomqvist wrote: post #23
irjustin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In economic theory this is well known, and related to S-curves. First innovation (requires integration, which requires generalists/people spanning disciplines), then specialization and price war / commoditization

Interesting. So, as the s-curve begins to climb up and systems demand specialists, then, is it the case that they'd be paid more and hired at higher levels than generalists?

Which is to say, specialists tend to get hired once stability is achieved but also tend to capture more value / status than the generalists that helped the system navigate the s-curve?

Alternatively, are all senior hires at stable systems like FAANGs, specialists? Even if they're generalists, do they get valued less than them: May be hired at Staff level instead of Senior Staff or above?

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

#73

Post by namelosw »

planet-and-halo wrote: post #2

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 love video games and this makes perfect sense to me.

Games could be seen as different universes, they have different rules. Generalists looking for 'meta' ideas that can help them understand the game rules quickly and take advantage first. Specialists tend to put more effort into the same game or the same genre practicing (like typical professional players) and then slowly outperform generalists.

In the real world, unstable or dynamic societies are continuously changing rules, and it feels just like jumping from games to games. Once the society becomes stable or static, specialists slowly come into play.

On top of that, there's also another dimension of the game: speed. If the game rule is very simple, then the specialists would win very fast. Otherwise, the process would be very slow when the game is very deep. I believe the same rule would also apply to different industries.

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

#75

Post by AstralStorm »

ignoramous wrote: post #72
cjblomqvist wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In economic theory this is well known, and related to S-curves. First innovation (requires integration, which requires generalists/people spanning disciplines), then specialization and price war / commoditization

Interesting. So, as the s-curve begins to climb up and systems demand specialists, then, is it the case that they'd be paid more and hired at higher levels than generalists? Which is to say, specialists tend to get hired once stability is achieved but also tend to capture more value / status than the generalists that helped the system navigate the s-curve? Alternatively, are all senior hires at stable systems like FA…

Specialists need to be trained or train themselves. This is only really achieved by on the job training or very in depth courses. So ultimately, you would hire good generalists and get them trained on the job to specialize in the field.

Nobody is born a specialist. Universities do produce some but it's research, not the same as development and deployment.

And you need generalists as well as multiple field specialists to not get locked in a quibble over comma or a comfortable but overcomplicated and bad solution.

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

#76

Post by mastazi »

ignoramous wrote: post #72
cjblomqvist wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In economic theory this is well known, and related to S-curves. First innovation (requires integration, which requires generalists/people spanning disciplines), then specialization and price war / commoditization

Interesting. So, as the s-curve begins to climb up and systems demand specialists, then, is it the case that they'd be paid more and hired at higher levels than generalists? Which is to say, specialists tend to get hired once stability is achieved but also tend to capture more value / status than the generalists that helped the system navigate the s-curve? Alternatively, are all senior hires at stable systems like FA…

> but also tend to capture more value / status than the generalists that helped the system navigate the s-curve?

Are you assuming that being a specialist in a mature market always makes you more money than being an early player? I don't think that's always the case, there are many stories in the news of early employees of Silicon Valley companies who are now multi-millionaires just because they were in early. E.g. one of them IIRC is the cook who was in charge of preparing meals for the early Google team.

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

#77

Post by JackMorgan »

In my limited experience a specialist gets paid more, right up until they don't. Specialist areas from the 90s are so rarely used today as to be laughable, TokenRing anyone?

Generalists are slightly less compensated, but as long as they keep on top of new areas, they are able to stay relevant and actually stay in the industry. In my case, the VB6 specialists I used to work with still barely make a living with it, but meanwhile I've moved on through VB.NET, C#, and now F#. A deep investment is worthwhile to the industry, but is rarely worthwhile to the developer, and the landscape just changes too fast to make it worthwhile (at least for me).

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

#78

Post by Icathian »

threatofrain wrote: post #5
planet-and-halo wrote: post #2

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

Really it's more akin to succession I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_succession

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

#79

Post by maigret »

JackMorgan wrote: post #77

In my limited experience a specialist gets paid more, right up until they don't. Specialist areas from the 90s are so rarely used today as to be laughable, TokenRing anyone? Generalists are slightly less compensated, but as long as they keep on top of new areas, they are able to stay relevant and actually stay in the industry. In my case, the VB6 specialists I used to work with still barely make a living with it, but…

I think the better strategy is to specialize in topics that are long living. For example, specializing into parallel programming, or virtualization, or APIs. Those topics are less likely to come and go than a library, product or technology building on top of them. In your case for example you seem to be specialized in the Microsoft programming ecosystem, which is probably a safe bet.

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

#80

Post by maigret »

_blu wrote: post #53
ozim wrote: 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.

You're probably better than you think. If your company is good, it probably has a good culture and it feels there achieving great things requires not that much effort. I've felt that in good teams, big outcomes are easy, while bad teams will struggle to deliver simple projects. Also nowadays there are so many options to connect with other developers. Check the meetups (now most are virtual, so doesn't matter where you live much), or the indie hacker scene for example.
Post reply on HN