On Being a Generalist • Hacker News Board

Re: On Being a Generalist

#101

Post by tincholio » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

jetrink wrote: post #77

tincholio wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is another aspect that is relevant, and that is that the effort needed to get to the 99th percentile of some ability is way larger than that to get to the 90th, and often, you can do very well with just being in the 85th. So you can become pretty good at many different (often complementary) things, in ways that likely make you way more effective than that guy who's a guru in a very specific topic. Then again, s…

This is a good observation and applies to non-professional skills as well. For example, you can learn to repair your clothes at an 85% level using only a $20 sewing kit and some YouTube videos. Taking a well-loved shirt to a tailor is a chore, throwing it away is sad, but mending it is gratifying. Yet somehow, despite the amount of knowledge freely available on the internet, things like this are increasingly neglecte…

Yes, I meant it in the general sense, actually, though it probably didn't come through like that.

Re: On Being a Generalist

#102

Post by shrimpx » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

stared wrote: post #8

Often we cherish specialists quoting "Jack of all trades, master of none". Curiously enough, the full version of the original has a twist: “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one." https://www.theodysseyonline.com/7-phrases-youve-been-misquo...

In my experience, a master of one is most of the time better described as a jack of one trade, anyway.

Re: On Being a Generalist

#103

Post by maverick2007 » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 6:35 PM UTC

hkmurakami wrote: post #58

umvi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and given the costs to become the very best, it's often a choice like this. Say you need to hire athletes with in experience swimming, running, and gymnastics to design some classes for your school. Would you rather hire: - 3 gold medal Olympians, each of whom have medaled in the 3 areas - 1 bronze medal Olympian who has single-handedly medaled in swimming, running, and gymnastics?

I do have a strange fascination with Modern Pentathlon. Basically none of those athletes are truly "world class" in any of the 5 disciplines if I understand correctly, but they're the best at the combination of all of them.

I worked for a D1 track and field team while I was in college and I found the Pent/Hep/Decathlon some of the most fascinating sports with how coaches approached which athletes to submit. Some coaches (like the one at my college) chose to submit true generalists, athletes that wouldn't usually win an individual event but would get points in most of them. But other coaches favored submitting athletes that had distinct specialties, assuming they'd win that event and then get points in a couple of the other events. It's been a while so I don't exactly remember which approach seemed to work better but I found the strategy fascinating!

Re: On Being a Generalist

#104

Post by dorkwood » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

Surely all specialists in tech end up as generalists eventually. If you were a jQuery specialist 10 years ago, you've pivoted to something else by now. How many times does that need to happen before you become more general than special?

Re: On Being a Generalist

#105

Post by Balgair » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

David Epstein's Range [0] is a great look into this seeming paradox of broad v. deep. The intro chapters of Tiger Woods with golf versus Roger Federer with tennis are the thesis: There are 'kind' learning environments and 'unkind' learning environments.

'Kind' learning environments are golf, chess, SAT prep, etc. Here, you just need to grind out the hours. The feedback is fairly quick and the objective is clear. You should specialize early on to grind out the time, like Tiger Woods.

'Unkind' learning environments are tennis, jazz, business, etc. Here you need a lot of general information to see weak patterns. You need to borrow from other domains and read a lot of unconnected stuff. The feedback is not timely and the objective is not clear. You should 'graze' on a lot of other things to become 'elite' in your chosen field. Roger Federer played a lot of sports before choosing tennis 'late' in life.

The book is very detailed yet readable, a great targeting at a general audience. The section on music is fascinating reading.

Generalist or specialist bents are both good ideas, but it depends on the environment.

[0] https://davidepstein.com/the-range/

Re: On Being a Generalist

#106

Post by notduncansmith » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 6:54 PM UTC

tincholio wrote: post #45

stared wrote: post #8

Often we cherish specialists quoting "Jack of all trades, master of none". Curiously enough, the full version of the original has a twist: “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one." https://www.theodysseyonline.com/7-phrases-youve-been-misquo...

There is another aspect that is relevant, and that is that the effort needed to get to the 99th percentile of some ability is way larger than that to get to the 90th, and often, you can do very well with just being in the 85th. So you can become pretty good at many different (often complementary) things, in ways that likely make you way more effective than that guy who's a guru in a very specific topic. Then again, s…

Scott Adams (creator of the Dilbert comic) offers similar career advice: https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/car...

Re: On Being a Generalist

#107

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #48

zerr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they hire Competitive Programmers - this is a separate specialty, but Google assumes such programmers should be able jump into real world software engineering. They recognize the flaw but so far can't come up with a different way.

> No, they hire Competitive Programmers More specifically, programmers who spend a lot of time learning how to solve algorithm puzzles. This heavily favors single people who have lots of time to devote to studying such things and disadvantages time-constrained people such as developers with a family life at home.

[deleted]

Re: On Being a Generalist

#108

Post by folli » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #105

David Epstein's Range [0] is a great look into this seeming paradox of broad v. deep. The intro chapters of Tiger Woods with golf versus Roger Federer with tennis are the thesis: There are 'kind' learning environments and 'unkind' learning environments. 'Kind' learning environments are golf, chess, SAT prep, etc. Here, you just need to grind out the hours. The feedback is fairly quick and the objective is clear. You…

"Federer, who started playing tennis at age eight, became Switzerland's junior champion when he was 14."

Is that what's considered late?

Re: On Being a Generalist

#109

Post by dpc_pw » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

mettamage wrote: post #98

dpc_pw wrote: post #96

Knowing only React, or one programming language doesn't make you a specialist. It just means you have very little knowledge and/or experience. What's next? "if statement developer"? Software engineering as a whole, is one specialization. Maaaybe backend vs fronted could be made into two meaningful specializations. Or "distributed systems", "game development", "financial systems" etc areas. But not one framework/ PL.…

You are a specialist if that's the only thing you're doing. And such a word becomes meaningful once you're doing it +3 to +5 years, IMO. I've seen a modicum of posts on HN that was something along the lines of "I've been a C++ developer for the past 12 years, how do I become a web developer?" So I guess there's something to it. At least in some of the cases.

> "I've been a C++ developer for the past 12 years, how do I become a web developer?"

That's just wrong way to put it. This C++ has been used for something (kernel, embedded, system level programming, games). That's the meaningful area of "specialization", with C++ being one of the tools used there.

Re: On Being a Generalist

#110

Post by mxuribe » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 7:06 PM UTC

andrenotgiant wrote: post #61

mxuribe wrote: post #12

I've been currently looking for employment and job descriptions nowadays are ridiculous. In one paragraph or section of a job description, they'll specifically state that they want a generalist, and in the very next section, they'll state explicitly that they want a specialist; just crazy. Also, throughout my job history I've been more of a generalist; sort of like a modern day devops (but much broader in scope/respo…

>...job descriptions nowadays are ridiculous. In one paragraph or section of a job description, they'll specifically state that they want a generalist, and in the very next section, they'll state explicitly that they want a specialist; just crazy. I wouldn't put much weight in the specific wording of job descriptions, they're often an amalgamation of previous similar roles at the company and other companies. >There i…

> ...I wouldn't put much weight in the specific wording of job descriptions...

Agreed, and normally I wouldn't care as much. But I'm actively look for work right now...so to invest time and effort only to be met with rejection and disappointment(because of such mismatches), it gets frustrating really fast.

Oh and 100% agreed on your other notes!