Item — HN Reader

I personally think this article is kind of silly. Ultimately, depending on the field, you probably need to be T-shaped in some way - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills Deep in 1 or 2 important areas, and broader in others. It's a bit hard to be scientific about career trajectories too. Maybe Roger Federer could have been EVEN greater if he had committed to tennis even earlier?

I think it also matters a lot the type of career market you're in and that can be hard to define.

https://medium.com/the-unstudent/career-markets-82fb42694869

In a winner-take-all market, the criteria by which you succeed is quite narrowly defined & agreed upon and there are very limited slots. It's then a matter of optimizing for those criteria (e.g. publication quality in universities or TV screenwriting). In an auction market, there's many different approaches and criteria (e.g. VC investing, design, software engineering) and lots of ways to create new kinds of positions. The creator of Dilbert (Scott Adams) chronicled his journey being in auction market (writing cartoons):

"It’s unlikely that any average student can develop a world-class skill in one particular area. But it’s easy to learn how to do several different things fairly well. I succeeded as a cartoonist with negligible art talent, some basic writing skills, an ordinary sense of humor and a bit of experience in the business world. The “Dilbert” comic is a combination of all four skills. The world has plenty of better artists, smarter writers, funnier humorists and more experienced business people. The rare part is that each of those modest skills is collected in one person. That’s how value is created. "

Is it possible some of the allure of being a polymath and a generalist a bit of confirmation bias? I empathize with the worry over increased specialization, so a book with the message "specialists suffer, generalists win" feels very good.

6 comments

I think this point resonates. There are often a lot of commonalities between traits and having a breadth of understanding often affords more insight into a particular, but it will always be valuable to have a true mastery of a select few. at risk of alienating others in the conversation I'd like to make a point about a game called DotA. Extremely difficult with a high skill ceiling, the game pits teams of players against one another in asymmetrical battle with 126 characters, each with distinct abilities. There is a prevailing wisdom that the game is dauntingly unaccessible because, "to understand DotA you have to play a few games with every hero." On the other hand to play well you need to specialize on a particular hero and role. However every hero has a select group of counter-heroes, which have abilities that are particularly strong against a given. Therefore the best players in DotA have an understanding of all heroes, but they specialize in a small pool of 4 or 5. There are people who are very good at playing a single hero, but they can be completely shut-down with a counter. Maybe I'm just a little over-invested in a silly game, but I think it draws a powerful analogue to life.

In league of legends, there is a concept of "one-tricking", where you have a mastery of one champion, and use that mastery to win, rather than game knowledge and good macro play. Interestingly enough while the top ranks are full of these players, they very rarely make it into the professional scene.

To be fair, the argument most often used for OTP-ing in LoL is not that you neglect developing game knowledge and macro play in favor of mastering that one champion, it's that OPT-ing eliminates all of the random barriers to entry that comes along with having to learn a wide array of champions which in turn allows for you to spend a far greater amount of time developing general game knowledge and understanding of macro play.

I know plenty of 18-25 y/o people and I am giggling when they use the term "one-trick pony" for their narrow-minded colleagues (or bosses). I am glad they are smart and are not easily impressed. Critical thinking is important.

Personally I feel that some of the gaming lingo fits really well in the real world but it might be just me.

"one trick pony" is somewhat older lingo than electronic games i think

Online Etymology Dictionary claims: "The figurative one-trick pony is 1897, American English, in reference to circus acts."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/pony#etymonline_v_17634

Could be. I admit I heard it first in videogames but I am not an authoritative source.

yeah the term is older than gaming, but I brought it up in reference to DoTA.

To be fair, I think Dota has much harder counters for some heroes than LOL

in the case of cartooning, the deep skill is in perseverance and making daily posts for years as you buil an audience.

i think “generalist” misses the point about deep non-technical skills.

An old recipe for success as an innovative entrepreneur is "field crossing" or in your case field combining!

In sports, one popular example is NFL players taking ballet classes.

Ultimately, depending on the field, you probably need to be T-shaped in some way

Indeed, in technical fields such as those we often discuss on HN, it is almost impossible for anyone beyond novice experience levels not to have greater depth of skill and understanding in some areas but also to pick up general knowledge and basic skills across a much broader range of areas. I'm not a big fan of the T metaphor specifically, because I think it misleadingly suggests than an individual will only develop much greater skills and knowledge in a single area or perhaps closely related areas, but the underlying premise makes sense: there isn't really any such thing as a pure specialist in technical work, because you are inevitably exposed to many related areas even if your focus is on one specific aspect.

I haven't read the article, but I've listened to a podcast featuring the author. He voiced that determining the "chaos" of the field or game is very relevant to whether someone should focus on specialization or be a generalist. For instance, chess has more defined moves and outcomes, making it better to specialize in chess early if you want to be good, whereas poker players can benefit from learning across multiple domains. David Epstein also acknowledges natural skill is important. Perhaps Federer would have been great regardless, or even better as you say. Perhaps he would have burned out too.

What about the other millions of mediocre artists and writers with just a bit of business experience? You could probably chalk that one up to plain old confirmation bias. Had Adams been a marvellous artist, he would have considered that part cruical for his inevitable success.

There's a lot to say about striking a nerve and being at the right place at the right time. Luck, basically, just with the option to keep trying.

The rare part is the mix of modest skills in one person who happens to be producing something timely and relevant to a large audience.

Adams would (probably) have been nowhere if he'd been making hilariously cynical cartoons about trout farming.