The Value of Specialization

[Dragline]

Jacob is one who argues that one should become a renaissance (wo)man who has a breadth of knowledge and skills rather than become a specialist. While there is a lot of merit for the jack of many trades in the ERE lifestyle and a life of financial independence. Is that the strategy one also assumes for finding and developing a career?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "finding and developing a career"? Is this an end unto itself or a means to an unstated end, which is _________________ ?

And what of the implicit assumption in that question that one is entitled or destined to have only one "career"?

I'd submit that "career" is simply a pre-defined box that may be awfully limiting. A form of snobbery if you will.

If your goal in life is to have a "career", then it may send you down one path that Newport can help you with. But if your goal in life is to do _______________, then you may want to broaden your perspective.

I suggest to you that Newport's unstated goal is not to have a "career", but to achieve a certain status in society, which is why he is fixating on high-status people like Feynman and Jobs. Which may in turn lead to a certain form of anxiety and envy if not tempered:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoShQEhl1ek

Can you find happiness even if you are not a Feynman or Jobs? Or even a Newport?

I do agree with Newport that development of skills is what leads to successful careers, not having an initial "passion." But that still begs the real question.


I am indebted to my mother for having placed this quote upon my bedroom wall as a child:

"If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away."

-- Henry David Thoreau

[Riggerjack]

For what its worth, I believe in doing both.
Specialize enough to get a solid career, then stop. At this point, you have hit a point of diminishing returns. Now is when taking a sharp turn in a new direction works best.
now, where that point is depends on the career. Construction, 4 years to journeyman is standard, but 4 years is the beginning of the beginning of your doctorate.
my point is build a solid platform to base your career, but don't let what you know how to do limit what you choose to do.

[Ian]

I've always been skeptical this is as much of a dichotomy as people usually view it. Life isn't a game where you can distribute your skill points exactly the way you want - you have a lot of limits and obligations. Usually, acquiring other skills won't really take that much time away from your primary focus because there's a limit to how much effort you can productively (not lucratively) pour into a single discipline.

There are certainly tradeoffs that create various points along the continuum. I aim to cultivate a decent variety of skills to a useful level while aiming for professional level in only a few.

[IlliniDave]

Maybe it depends on to what degree one wants to integrate into society/community, and to what degree they want to be independent. Clearly current society is being optimized around specialization where other specialists are relied upon to fill in the gaps inherent to specialization for an individual. The way it's structured now, this requires continual exchange of money.

I just see it as two dimensions, breadth and depth, of a person's competence. I suspect some combination is the ideal solution, depending on specifically on what parameters one wants to optimize with respect to. There's value to being able to efficiently generate money, as well as to avoid distributing more than is necessary.

There's also a dimension of enjoyment. A person may develop into an expert guitarist simply because they enjoy music without it ever entering into the financial aspects of their life either a a direct money generation or cost avoidance tactic.

[Dragline]

For what its worth, I believe in doing both.

A man after my own heart.

Along a time-space of many years, "both" is often the best of all worlds when the decision is difficult or the outcomes are uncertain. At least until you decide that one option has gone far enough and can be shut down or eliminated.

[GandK]

This issue bothers me WRT public education.

Do we focus on a broad base, or do we eliminate the technically unnecessary so we can delve more deeply into the necessary? As a parent/stepparent in a world of falling school budgets, this is a big deal to me. G and I have had many lively arguments on the subject.

[jacob]

I advocate the "appropriate" level of specialization.

Most people are overspecialized.

If this happens in a low-competitive environment (big fish in small pond) this is fine since it results in a very nice income/status. If it happens in a high-competitive environment (small fish in big fond) it's suicide-by-work and there will always be someone to outwork or outsmart you.

Except for virgin territory (think anything that commands a high salary for a few years of education/experience), most fields are in the latter stage.

Second, exclusively focusing on a single specialization renders people utterly incompetent to the level where they HAVE to pay $15 to fix a flat bicycle tire (cost of patch $0.10), $4 for a quarter's worth of coffee and $20 for a $1 meal. The problem here is that overspecialized experts hire other overspecialized experts at the going marginal rate for that expertise even if the job is dead-simple. It's like hiring a brain surgeon to put on a band-aid.

I credit my/our measly skills when it comes to patching tires and frying eggs to the fact that we entertain a $40,000 lifestyle (from the looks of it) on a $10,000 budget.

[jacob]

Whether to specialize enough to command an nice salary AND learn ridiculously simple things like brewing coffee... OR generalize to the point where one can work as a "handyman" (fixing jammed doors, book keeping, dog walking, tutoring, ... ) in enough fields to have employment opportunities available at will (see Surviving without a Salary by Charles Long) is a matter of taste/temperament.

[JamesR]

HandiAce,

IMO, Cal Newport's book isn't really focused on a "career" per se. It's specifically about developing rare & valuable skills that let you get the work that you want, have the control or income that you want. A lot of skills are transferable across different careers too, so it's not really locking you in. After achieving a minimum 'depth' on skill, to the point of being employable, then it's probably fine to do a mix of depth/breadth.