Jan 31, 2023
The myth of the valuable generalist
date
Jan 31, 2023
slug
generalist-myth
status
Published
tags
type
Post
As a self-appointed generalist, finding advice confirming how valuable we are these days is easy [1]. The narrative usually goes that the most successful people in society, from CEOs, top-percentile content creators, and investors, are actually generalists, and our outdated education system forces us to specialize like factory workers living in the 1800s. While there is some truth to this, I’ve been thinking about exactly for which situations (and for what reasons) this would hold. My conclusion ended up being a harder-pill-to-swallow than I anticipated.
What does it mean to create value? A large part of the answer involves being able to solve problems people face. People dislike pain, so if you can reduce it, they’ll reward you. The more painful the problem and the more often it occurs, the more value (and therefore wealth) gets associated with solving it.
On the other side of the equation, the value associated with solving a problem that few people can solve is higher because of the reduced competition. A major supply side component is the complexity and expertise required to solve said problem since fewer people have the skill, experience, and knowledge needed to solve it.
So, to create value you need to:
- Find problems that are painful and frequent;
- Have the skills, experience and knowledge to solve those problems better than anyone else [2]
We’ll start by dissecting the latter: How do you become the type of person who can solve certain problems better than anyone else?
Since we’re limited, time-bound humans, specializing is the obvious answer. This has to be the case because the competition is going to include people who have specialized, and if the skill is important enough to solve the problem better and faster than you, then they will. Here, I’ve defined specialization as your ability to solve a particular problem better than anyone else, even if it involves more than one skill. When people think about specialization, they tend to picture someone who is best at one specific thing, like Michael Jordan or Andrew Wiles. But, you can be just as much of a specialist at the intersection of a few skills that combine uniquely, like Grayson “The Professor" Boucher combining basketball and entertainment or Demis Hassabis combining mathematics, AI research, and the ability to lead teams. What matters is that they could all create value by being part of the few capable of solving their chosen problems.
To clarify, I’ll use an extreme, fictional character who is just ok at the entire catalog of human skills. Which problems can this person solve better than anyone else? Every area I can think of is either not valuable or is dominated by specialists. So-called archetypal generalists like Benjamin Franklin / Da Vinci created value not by being generalists but by specializing in fields like writing, inventing, politics/painting, engineering, and mathematics. They also happened to possess superhuman abilities and reach the top of multiple fields throughout their lives.
So, if specialists create all the value and you aren’t a specialist already, how can you become one? For most people, the latter example of becoming very good (top 25%) [3] at two or more things is the more likely path to take. The best bet here is to experiment in different specialties over time, staying mindful of how your temperament and privileges can combine to give you an edge. With any luck, you’ll find the answer to the former question, too - matching your skills to appropriate problems can be just as tricky as acquiring them; here, specialization gifts you boundary conditions around your circle of competency to help guide you on your search.
A wide range of skills and knowledge (alongside specializing) can still be helpful by giving you a unique perspective on solving problems that other specialists might not have. However, the extent to which you should sacrifice depth for breadth depends on what you want to work towards.
Additionally, some problems require a single person to move across several domains. A good example is founding a startup. It’s difficult to tell the exact problems you’ll face over a decade of building a company - so it’s good to be prepared. Some problems become harder to solve as more people become involved [4]. At some point, the advantages of having everything in a single person's head outweigh the specialization of a team because of the added overhead.
Ultimately, you’ll likely need to pivot or completely reorient your specialization throughout your career, and breadth can help you determine and execute this new direction.
It’s trendy to say that generalists are valuable, and it feels good to hear it without needing to put in the work required to specialize. But it’s historically untrue. Everyone who has solved an important problem has specialized in one or a few areas. This framework is extreme and may sound pessimistic. Still, it's exciting to know that there’s an infinite supply of problems (both big and small) that need to be solved and that a unique combination of your potential abilities to solve them better than anyone else exists.
[1] The idea of a spectrum of generalists and specialists on opposing ends, endless articles, books like Range by David Epstein, etc.
[2] Assuming a perfect world, perfect competition, no asymmetries, and ceteris paribus. I’m ignoring things like luck, positive-sum games, risk-appetite, etc. “Best” taken as approx top 1%.