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

Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 133 posts

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#111

Post by mygo »

ryanmercer wrote: post #110
mygo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s probably been hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who had free time since Leonardo. Leisure time is a necessity, but it’s not the difference maker.

>There’s probably been hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who had free time since Leonardo. But did they have wealthy benefactors underwriting their life? Aristotle thought for a living. He almost certainly never had to worry about money, ever. Leonardo had to churn out works of art occasionally to keep money coming in. In the case of Leonardo he could pursue an odd project and in some cases get someone…

> He almost certainly never had to worry about money, ever.

Neither has every wealthy housewife, ever.

Nor every senator’s son, etc.

If that was the determining factor, every young adult rolling around in old money should be pumping out sistine chapels and eradicating polio. It’s necessary, but it’s not the thing that makes the difference.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#112

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

tzekid wrote: post #105
f4stjack wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do agree. I am a: - philosopher (Bachelor's degree) - sociologist (Master's degree with thesis on criminology) - international relations student (another bachelor's dg in 2 years) - C# Programmer (by a workshop) - Java Programmer (by profession) - Python programmer / Data scientist (by self education) - Data Analyst with SQL(workshop & profession) and the HR guys around here just think "I am not focused enough" and d…

Working in a team is not only about skill, but about work-culture. If they have dismissed you because you have a broad range of interests, then that place wasn't right for you anyways.

There are very, very few places where a broad range of professional skills is considered an asset for a developer.

Most places want cogs. If you're too broad or have too many teeth, you're not going to fit in with the other cogs.

But you may be pitching at the wrong level. Developer jobs may not be the right niche for someone with a broad spectrum of skills. (By which I mean genuinely broad multidisciplinary professional skills and interests, not [three popular coding languages with some backend experience].)

Management and strategy may be a better fit.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#113

Post by Phemist »

joshvm wrote: post #52
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is, it doesn't seem to pay, at least in the employment market. Employers want specialists, and pay for them. If your CV is two or three distinct things (I don't mean a selection of languages, or front and back end dev here, I mean distinct skills like say programming and accountancy) it's very unlikely to get you a better salary. In fact if you've diverged from a straight specialism throughout your career it's…

> Employers want specialists, and pay for them. If your CV is two or three distinct things (I don't mean a selection of languages, or front and back end dev here, I mean distinct skills like say programming and accountancy) it's very unlikely to get you a better salary. This really depends on your employer and your definition of specialist. There are jobs where following a very straight career path would be a disadva…

> Hacker news gives a very skewed view on the world, as if everyone is up to date with the latest developments in deep learning. In reality, most people in academia are pretty unaware of what's possible, or don't have the technical skills (or grad students with them) to make use of it

Agreed, although I can also detect a lot of negativity from an older generation of academics in fields that classically border machine learning very closely. One remark I found funny (paraphrasing) is: "Total learning is a constant, and it consists of the sum of the machine's and the person's learning.. the deeper the learning of the machine.. the shallower the learning of the person". But I don't really have a stake in this and am not in much of a position to judge.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#114

Post by PavlovsCat »

friedman23 wrote: post #83
afarrell wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever tried to plan an invasion? Like, actually done a net assessment of a scenario in detail accounting for terrain, equipment, training, intelligence, logistics, and all the other things that go into a military encounter? It is time-consuming and hard. So is efficiently butchering a hog. So is learning to program well. Changing diapers and pitching manure? Not so much. Dying gallantly? Only get to practice…

The quote is tongue in cheek, you should have probably gotten that on plan an invasion.

It's simply not to be taken that literally but that doesn't make it tongue in cheek. Write some poetry, it helps understanding what others write.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#115

Post by [deleted] »

mygo wrote: post #111
ryanmercer wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There’s probably been hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who had free time since Leonardo. But did they have wealthy benefactors underwriting their life? Aristotle thought for a living. He almost certainly never had to worry about money, ever. Leonardo had to churn out works of art occasionally to keep money coming in. In the case of Leonardo he could pursue an odd project and in some cases get someone…

> He almost certainly never had to worry about money, ever. Neither has every wealthy housewife, ever. Nor every senator’s son, etc. If that was the determining factor, every young adult rolling around in old money should be pumping out sistine chapels and eradicating polio. It’s necessary, but it’s not the thing that makes the difference.

[deleted]

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#116

Post by afarrell »

dasmoth wrote: post #92
afarrell wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever tried to plan an invasion? Like, actually done a net assessment of a scenario in detail accounting for terrain, equipment, training, intelligence, logistics, and all the other things that go into a military encounter? It is time-consuming and hard. So is efficiently butchering a hog. So is learning to program well. Changing diapers and pitching manure? Not so much. Dying gallantly? Only get to practice…

My father started butchering lambs based on reading a book, and using tools already around the house (he might have bought a cleaver, but pretty sure that was after he'd done the first few). The first one took quite a while, but worked out fine. Did he ever get as efficient as someone who does it every day? Of course not. But it's very definitely a learnable skill. I do agree that the invasion is a bit of an outlier,…

Sure, and its useful as an opener to the discussion of when to specialize and when not to. But it isn't an answer to the discussion.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#117

Post by overgard »

snowwrestler wrote: post #74
overgard wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feynman is kinda the counter argument though — I think his IQ was 120ish. Obviously very smart, but his unique insights seem to have come more from a broad base of knowledge and an intensely curious personality vs raw brain power. I don’t think you need to be a genius to make an impact in a lot of fields.

I think it's a huge mistake to compare the life of Richard Feynman and the results of an IQ test and think "huh, maybe he wasn't that smart." Richard Feynman was obviously brilliant, based on any measure of real life impact you can imagine. Meanwhile, an IQ test is just something we made up. The only reasonable approach to this set of data is to conclude that IQ is not as good as we wish at actually measuring intelli…

Well first off, 120 is very smart. I don't see how saying that suggests he wasn't highly intelligent. My only point is that there's a reasonable case to be made that his contributions had more to do with how he acted, his personality, his drive, etc., than just with being born smarter than everyone. I really dislike the notion of "genius"; because I think it gives people an excuse to never develop themselves or to be happy with whatever intellectual plateau they've reached. Whenever I hear someone say "well so and so was a genius" I always feel like there's an unstated but implicit message of "so why bother?"

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#118

Post by [deleted] »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #73
tptacek wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how when Richard Feynman's IQ test score doesn't conform to some narrative, HN is in contortions with excuses why the test doesn't matter, but when we come around to the topic of white IQ supremacy, suddenly HN is armed to the teeth with factoids about how g-loaded and circumstantially neutral the mainstream IQ tests are.

Or perhaps there is a difference between one-off individual measurements and group statistics, but please feel free to feel outraged... Sorry for the snark but do you honestly not see that there is a difference between the two cases?

[deleted]

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#119

Post by alehul »

gus_massa wrote: post #63
alehul wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So true. There's two types of research; one that builds upon prior knowledge to new conclusions, and another that undermines everything previous to be incorrect or incomplete. The first is done by your average PhD in Physics, for example, while the latter was Einstein and then Heisenberg, Planck, and Born. While someone can be successful in the latter kind (undermining previous knowledge) through a fresh new hypothes…

To undermine previos knowledge you need to understand everything prior and reaching the current point of knowledge in that field, even more than if you want to make some incremental discovery. Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck, and Born had a deep knowledge of the current state of Physics at their time.

While it's necessary to possess a substantial amount of knowledge, I would argue that people who are older and have even more knowledge in the field are usually too accepting of the current information to question it enough to change it.

Einstein started working on general relativity at 28, and Heisenberg published the uncertainty principle at 26. While Planck and Born were older for their most famed work (late 30s?), they were still relatively young.

I would argue that this seems to show that there is some higher likelihood in a scientific epiphany at a young age, when you've yet to accept information as undoubtedly true, and instead are questioning it as you're learning.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#120

Post by WalterSear »

kartickv wrote: post #98
WalterSear wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's fair to say that, generally, breadth is valued more at smaller companies where people have to multi-task. IME, not at all during the hiring process. And only rarely later.

Is your experience with companies that could make use of your other skill? If you understand accounting, and you're applying to a company that makes photography apps, that won't be given much value.

Obviously if your skills aren't relevant, they aren't going to be used.

IMHO, this is mostly due to the nature of the industry I am in (software). Hiring engineers is difficult, and only done when there are specific needs to fill - particularly at small companies, that can't afford to think too far ahead, or afield.

Post reply on HN