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

91–100 of 159 posts

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

#91

Post by WJW »

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…

It's not at all clear to me why a T-shaped individual would be better than "square" individual of the same depth (ie something with more overall surface area).

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

#92

Post by andagainagain »

This whole thing just sounds like it's based in multiple bits of poor logic and improperly used principles.

- Don't take away data points to find averages you like. When you have a category like "fastest growing successful startups", I want to know how many you looked at. And no, 45 is not unreasonable. Neither is 40. We're dealing with people aged 20-80. But actually, 20 is unlikely because you also put in "successful", which takes a few years to figure out. So like 25-80, with more at the young-ish end of that spectrum.

- "Specialists do not do well as predictors of financial or political trends. Nor are they good at predicting human behavior" is a bad generalization to make on specialists. EVERYONE is bad at predicting human behavior, financial and political trends. EVERYONE. If you think you've found someone who is good at that, I think you've found someone that's good at hiding how much they suck at it. Test them, with specific claims, and usually they reveal they're just as bad as anyone else.

- "Specialists often learn from experience" - of course they do. So do generalists. Also, so do you.

- "Inspiration is everywhere", hey, on that I agree. Inspiration is indeed everywhere.

- "What can do you to thrive in such a world?" - The author recommends all sorts of things, most of which are quite silly. Reading books every day? GREAT! Read magazines that cater to different hobbyists? Less useful. Listen to music from another country? I suppose... if you want. Learning about motor cycle racing and polymers? Again, if you want. But it's implied that this is somehow beneficial to your career, which it almost never is.

I know a bunch of biology, a smattering of physics, plenty of skeptical stuff, a touch of programming, little bits about music and cultures around the world, an enormous number of trivial things. I know those things because of my history, my experiences, and my curiosity. I am no better at predicting human behavior or economic markets than the world leading chess experts. And I'm no more likely to succeed at making a startup than someone who doesn't know about ancient tea and black powder muzzle loaders.

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

#93

Post by andagainagain »

korax_nyx wrote: post #82

I've been a generalist all my life, I don't think I could be otherwise because I love to learn above all things. That's a curse and a blessing at my forties. And I don't know who is more successful, but certainly I can tell that my main disadvantage is the constant, crippling imposter syndrome. Because I know some things about many things, but above all, I know how much I don't know yet.

Most people consider themselves generalists. And it kinda makes sense, because most people, when you know more about them, are generalists.

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

#94

Post by KptMarchewa »

nxc18 wrote: post #48
jbluepolarbear wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it’s perspective, I’m a career long generalist and I feel confident that I can be put on any team and preform at or better than the average specialist in the same position. I’ve backed this up with every position I’ve had and have built a network of people that know and trust when I say I can do something. I think that’s more important than any specialist because if I don’t know an answer or how to solve some…

I tend to agree, and for strong performers/individuals (or just people who are willing to learn quickly/go outside of their comfort zone), it is often possible to become proficient at many ‘specialized’ roles. Especially with softer things, like moving between Java/C#/Kotlin/Swift, or Android/iOS development. There’s a lot involved in each ecosystem, but there’s also a lot of commonality. And, frankly, we shouldn’t p…

I kind of don't know where to put myself on that spectrum. While I'm dealing with a pretty narrow, specialist role - data engineering, there is extreme breadth of tools and approaches in the field. I feel that internally I'm generalist, picking up new tools and ideas with ease. Especially compared to people that mastered internals of Oracle DB for 20 years.

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

#95

Post by Frost1x »

WJW wrote: post #91
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…

It's not at all clear to me why a T-shaped individual would be better than "square" individual of the same depth (ie something with more overall surface area).

I'd say the assumption is that your square shape would sacrifice breadth for depth across their breadth. The assumption is that time is fixed and you can only learn and master a certain amount of material to a certain degree. At some point you're going to sacrifice something for the other because time is fixed. There's probably another element to consider: memory, learning rate, and rate of change of a given industry. If an industry moves fast your dabbling in that field can useless fairly quickly.

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

#96

Post by goodlinks »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #94
nxc18 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree, and for strong performers/individuals (or just people who are willing to learn quickly/go outside of their comfort zone), it is often possible to become proficient at many ‘specialized’ roles. Especially with softer things, like moving between Java/C#/Kotlin/Swift, or Android/iOS development. There’s a lot involved in each ecosystem, but there’s also a lot of commonality. And, frankly, we shouldn’t p…

I kind of don't know where to put myself on that spectrum. While I'm dealing with a pretty narrow, specialist role - data engineering, there is extreme breadth of tools and approaches in the field. I feel that internally I'm generalist, picking up new tools and ideas with ease. Especially compared to people that mastered internals of Oracle DB for 20 years.

Imho bi / data people need to be generalists to be good. Even if you've only done data, if you're good, i bet you have got inside the heads many job roles, within and outwith IT. You've probably dealt with you're fair share of connectivity and authentication / permission issues. Not to mention being able to translate between strategic objectives and day to day data capture..

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

#97

Post by Supermancho »

indymike wrote: post #84

It's not generalist vs. specialist, it's capacity for learning and adaptability that really matters. When things are steady state, learning capacity and adaptability don't really matter. You do the same thing, the same way, every day. When change is in play, and it doesn't matter if that is technical or organizational, those who can learn faster and change behaviors to meet the change are going to outperform. I once…

> It's not generalist vs. specialist, it's capacity for learning and adaptability that really matters.

From a career perspective, you are going to get a lot less opportunities to show off your adaptability without specific (specialized) experience, today, that impacts your career. You need to be in the right place to make an impact, have someone who notices your impact, have a space for you to fill to move up in the hierarchy. These things rarely happen. This is the root of the answer to the question. Specialization wins.

The focus on skills and knowledge is a gross mischaracterization of the problemspace, outside of the article's assumptions and the soft terms "specialization & generalist". It's hard to argue that attractive sociopaths with political connections/wealth (which is a very specialized niche) do the best in American culture by most metrics. Specialization wins.

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

#98

Post by scruple »

Snoozle wrote: post #3

I always feel like these types of posts are too kind to generalists. Maybe that's just because I am one and I am falling for the greener grass. It's true I've done well in my career, but I've never felt particularly competent. I can do a half assed job as a manager, developer, product owner, and salesman, but I am not any better at those tasks than someone who specializes in doing those things. I could argue that I h…

I have a very good friend who leaned into C++ hard about 10 years ago. He's now sitting on one of the languages sub-committees. I think he'll never have any shortage of employment opportunities doing work that he finds interesting. At the same time, I leaned into Ruby hard. I'm now leading a team that writes JavaScript and, quite frankly, I do not have the same confidence. I'm not even confident that I'll be writing JavaScript in the next 1-2 years...

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

#99

Post by dharmach »

irjustin wrote: post #9
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'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…

Does it mean the roles of husband and wife, which were specialized before, are generalized now due to unstable marriages?

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

#100

Post by scollet »

tobyhinloopen wrote: post #64
_blu wrote: 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

My friend's dad, the handyman, always said:

"I may not be fast, but at least I'm not good."

Post reply on HN