Hacker News Reader

Comment by vik0 | Hacker News Reader

I find it extremely depressing that people here wish for more experts (i.e. specialists). The greatest minds that have thus far graced this planet were not specialists, they exceeded in a wide pool of areas. They were, as the saying doesn't go - jack of all trades and masters of dozens

View on HN

Most of us cannot be those "greatest minds that have thus far graced this planet." For many of us, it's more fulfilling to be good at one thing than mediocre at dozens.

I think the core point of being "mediocre at dozens" is that you could connect dots that the experts can't, so at the macro level you can have advantages while the averages turns to specialization.

I suppose there's levels of mediocre. For the vast majority of us, the level of mediocre we could accomplish across many fields may not enable us to do much connecting at all. But I realize this is all very vague and depends on individual traits. I just don't think that what OP points out is "extremely depressing."

I think the key is balance. The people I’ve worked with who are the most effective and successful are really good at one or a short list of things, but have their hands in many other things.

And often they’re really good at the one thing because they have their hands in many things.

Cultivating a breadth of knowledge often isn’t just being mediocre in a bunch of subjects, but about broadening one’s awareness to potential connections and opportunities.

If you can’t go deep on anything, that shallow knowledge may not get you very far.

But if you can go deep on X subject with enough surface level knowledge of a variety of potentially related topics, you’ll be able to accomplish far more interesting things than someone with equivalent but exclusive knowledge of X.

I have been a deep specialist in my career. Currently I am a generalist.

My bosses task me with being the 'dot connector' for a bunch of specialists. Seems to work out well.

Many people are just interested in expert credentialism and expert theatrical performance for an audience though.

If you really want to know a subject well beyond theater, you obviously would have to know many adjacent subjects and many seemingly unrelated subjects since "subjects" in this context are just imaginary divisions within human knowledge.

If your interest is credentialism though then the unrelated subjects are just a complete waste of time and most likely the adjacent subjects are just a distraction from memorizing your lines for the theatrical "subject matter expert" performance.

It is really a question of the best way to pretend to be a great mind when you are average and that is to specialize to a degree that minimizes the amount of people who know what you are talking about on the subject of interest.

We have built an entire class of society on this method.

The industry wants experts, people shouldn't be so quick to confuse that with what ought to be.

“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 A. Heinlein

I have a thing that I do. I would like to be better at it. Insight into how worldwide-recognized experts achieved their expertise is of interest to me.

Renaissance-like approach to knowledge and skill acquisition in many ways can be seen as outdated. The rise of specialization in the modern world is, I think, a response to the increasing complexity of many fields.

Does a "kernel" of a field really does increase in size over time? or is it that we are accustomed to being highly specialized?

It doesn't have to be either-or. Narrow specialists lack the intellectual curiosity that would drive them to seek understanding. False generalists lack the drive to become good at anything. True generalists have wide interests and become experts in many things.

You can't be a generalist without being an expert.

Depressing? I think it's natural, and good for the competent generalist. Most people don't have the incentives or the will to invest a lot of time in learning lots of things.

> The greatest minds that have thus far graced this planet were not specialists, they exceeded in a wide pool of areas

For each polymath there's also Michael Jordan and golfing.

I never thought someone would compare polymaths (let's call it, intellectual or mental power) to people with great athletic ability (let's call it, physical power)

Although thinking about it a bit more right now, I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to be great at a wide range of physical activities to be considered a polymath - as opposed to both physical and mental activities, or solely just intellectual activities

If someone excels in a great deal of, say, a number of sports (which I admit, would be nigh impossible in the current age with all the professional sports leagues and their exclusiveness), one could probably argue that that person is a genius

Reply on news.ycombinator.com