Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#91

Post by anotheryou » Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 8:28 AM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #34

nordsieck wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look, this essay is ridiculous. It starts by citing Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Benjamin Franklin, and then delivers silly things like this definition of a "generalist": >> Someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set. If you take this advice and tone it down a lot, it becomes both reasonable and good. From Scott Adam's Career Advice [0]: >…

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…

exactly. I throw all art out of my resume and the best offers come from companies in the same market as my current employer.

I'm a generalist, but for each application I have to mold it in to a fitting expertise. Even when applying for product and project management.

even within companies, no matter what you actually do, your job title will haunt you. doing 90% frontend dev and being the designer, doing 60% product and being the project manager.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#92

Post by dasmoth » Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 8:29 AM UTC

afarrell wrote: post #80

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #51

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” --Robert Heinlein

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, although even in that case there are questions of scale.

I've always loved that quote, but my reading is: on top of the everyday things, it's worth picking up several skills which require some deep study. No, you won't get them all, but having several -- and being open to learning something new if a good opportunity arises -- is valuable.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#93

Post by _Microft » Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 8:42 AM UTC

nordsieck wrote: post #26

snowwrestler wrote: post #10

Look, this essay is ridiculous. It starts by citing Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Benjamin Franklin, and then delivers silly things like this definition of a "generalist": > Someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set. Then proceeds with: > Despite the world’s immense need for polymaths, these individuals seem to be quite rare. That’s because…

> Look, this essay is ridiculous. It starts by citing Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Benjamin Franklin, and then delivers silly things like this definition of a "generalist": >> Someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set. If you take this advice and tone it down a lot, it becomes both reasonable and good. From Scott Adam's Career Advice [0]: >…

Be part of the top of 25% in three independent fields and there is your (0.25^3 ~= 0.016) top 1-2% skill set.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#94

Post by f4stjack » Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 9:00 AM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #34

nordsieck wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look, this essay is ridiculous. It starts by citing Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Benjamin Franklin, and then delivers silly things like this definition of a "generalist": >> Someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set. If you take this advice and tone it down a lot, it becomes both reasonable and good. From Scott Adam's Career Advice [0]: >…

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…

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 don't even get into the technical phase of the interview most of the time. Sadly, I think, if I could get into that part I'd ace it. Right now I am super demotivated though.

Maybe this is a regional thing, I can not comment about how my resumé would look to an international company but the question of "what does it mean to be an employable person" is a valid one and sadly can be answered with hyperspecialization and/or knowing the right people working in the company.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#95

Post by carlmr » Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 9:25 AM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #76

nordsieck wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look, this essay is ridiculous. It starts by citing Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Benjamin Franklin, and then delivers silly things like this definition of a "generalist": >> Someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set. If you take this advice and tone it down a lot, it becomes both reasonable and good. From Scott Adam's Career Advice [0]: >…

I would encourage people to find a better career coach than Scott Adams. Like many people who achieve remarkable cultural success, he doesn't actually know why it happened. For instance: does anyone think Dilbert succeeded because Scott is good at drawing? But it's first on his list of self-superlatives. Edit to add: Great drawing skill does not matter for most comic strips. Look at Peanuts, or Garfield, or more rece…

Apart from him saying that his drawing skills aren't that great (which was the exact point above, it's better to be slightly above average in multiple domains than trying to be the best in one, which is almost impossible), I disagree with you that the mentioned comic artists don't have drawing skills.

XKCD looks simple, but the recognizability of these simple characters isn't that easy to achieve.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#96

Post by carlmr » Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 9:33 AM UTC

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…

I see IQ measurements as a rough estimate of certain cognitive skills that have some predictive ability of how well you will fare in solving classical school problems.

The pattern recognition skills that most IQ tests ask are fairly similar to solving a lot of exam questions. But they're only a part of the skillset that you need to become a great physicist.

If Feynman had prepared for an IQ test I bet he could have made it to 160. The kinds of patterns you see on IQ tests can be trained. But it's not a particularly interesting pursuit. I've personally done a professional IQ test and reached 130 while in university. Because in school you're training similar kind of problems regularly. I'm sure if I did an IQ test now I wouldn't even get close to 130, because I don't do exam questions regularly anymore. I also can't quote any successes similar to Mr. Feynman, so I doubt this is meaningful.

What IQ doesn't measure is curiosity. It doesn't measure how well you connect disparate disciplines. It doesn't measure how ready you are to upset the status quo. And if I read Feynman's book "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman" correctly (great read btw), it was these things that actually made him think about physics problems from a different perspective.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#97

Post by collyw » Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 9:50 AM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #34

nordsieck wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look, this essay is ridiculous. It starts by citing Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Benjamin Franklin, and then delivers silly things like this definition of a "generalist": >> Someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set. If you take this advice and tone it down a lot, it becomes both reasonable and good. From Scott Adam's Career Advice [0]: >…

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…

"Full Stack Developer" is pretty much a generalist, and they are as in demand as ever.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#98

Post by kartickv » Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 10:09 AM UTC

WalterSear wrote: post #55

joshvm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#99

Post by kartickv » Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 10:23 AM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #34

nordsieck wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Look, this essay is ridiculous. It starts by citing Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Benjamin Franklin, and then delivers silly things like this definition of a "generalist": >> Someone who becomes competent in at least three diverse domains and integrates them into a top 1-percent skill set. If you take this advice and tone it down a lot, it becomes both reasonable and good. From Scott Adam's Career Advice [0]: >…

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…

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.

Are you also good in your primary skill? Is it like 100% of engineering (say) + 20% of UX design, or 60% each of engineering and UX design? In the former case, one will clear the bar for an engineer job post, with your UX design skills helping to position you above other qualified engineers. In the latter case, you may be judged unqualified and rejected.

And what do you think about related skills, like UX design or marketing in addition to programming.

Re: Why the world needs deep generalists, not specialists

#100

Post by kartickv » Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 10:35 AM UTC

seanpackham wrote: post #89

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…

Recently I find this to be the case for me. I consider myself a generalist: engineering (a few stacks/languages), product, business, marketing, leadership and education. Recruiters tell me to focus on one thing on my CV and I feel employers don’t believe I could be even two of those things. For example with my blend of skills I was able to double the traffic, increase leads and social engagement by 5-6x at the last p…

A possibly silly question: did you counter with "Why don't you test my engineering skills if you don't believe me? Give me a fair chance. And then, if I'm not good, by all means reject me." That's assuming you've applied for an engineering job.

Another question: as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18484883 says, would it help to rewrite your CV to highlight what the job is looking for? Again, if it's an engineering job, talk about your eng accomplishments in great detail, with perhaps only a bullet point for other skills at the bottom of the resume?

As https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/ says:

> Did the solicitation for the job say “We are seeking someone with strong skills at scaling traffic in a fast-moving environment”? Pick out the key words. Scaling traffic. Fast-moving environment. “Scaling traffic” doesn’t sound like how I’d phrase it if I were writing or speaking for myself, but if you’ve just described your need to me as scaling traffic, by golly I will tell you how great I am at scaling traffic.