-58 It's better to be moderately skilled in many things than it is to be extremely skilled in just a few things amirite?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

or extremely good at one thing

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Ever hear of Eratosthenes? He accurately calculated the circumference of the Earth a couple centuries BCE. Anyway, his contemporaries nicknamed him "beta" because, while he was not the best at anything, he was evidently 2nd best in almost any field.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So you see someone being masterful in one or few things better than being a "jack of all trades"?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I'm not sure I can say one way is better than the other, but being really good at just a few things worked out well for Eratosthenes.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

The way I see it is that if everyone was masterful in one or few things and got together forming a synergy, working off each other would form an unbreakable creative force. Each one would contribute their strength, and have their weaknesses made up for from their counterpart's strength. I think the reason why there's a stereotype of Chinese, Korean, Japanese being so smart and good at everything is because they all brought up to find their talent or skill and stick with it and perfect it. Everyone is different and brings something unique to the table so it when they all get together, it creates the illusion that they're just amazing at everything. I think that if we all start adopting this idea we'd be more respectful to each other. In our society (North America) is very narcissistic - it's a "me me me.. hey look at me" generation. Forming this synergistic bond among people working together would eliminate this I think. (sorry for going off there, it's just crossed my mind recently) What do you think?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

For starters, I think you sound like an idealist. That's not a bad thing. I've had similar thoughts, though perhaps not on such an expansive scale. Everyone brings a unique set of skills and experiences to the table. I'm a software developer, and working on a team comprised of people with significantly different skills can be an awesome - productive, fulfilling, fun - experience. I've had similar experiences writing and playing music with garage bands in my past. I agree that our society (I live in New York state) is very me-oriented. However, being a skeptic, I have trouble imagining synergistic teams comprised of more than a few dozen people. The larger the team, the more likely it is that people will have significantly different goals. Also it's hard to "self-police" a larger team. How do I know that everyone else is doing their share? I have an alternate hypothesis for why Asians (including Indians) are stereotyped as being intelligent/over-achievers. There is like 2 billion of them, yet we are mostly familiar with only the small percentage who immigrate to the States. I'm guessing the people who leave their homelands tend to be ambitious people... but this is just my theory. I hope no one finds these comments offensive. If anything, I'm too fond of Asians. Thoughts?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I don't see how there's anything offensive in this. You're right about the amount of people in a team that have a synergy dynamic. You sound like a cool person and I've enjoyed your input on my post.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Depends on the things, really.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I can't become famous for being moderately skilled in many things

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sooooo you'd rather be a dabbler than a scholar. I respect the person who knows a lot about one subject more than the person who knows very little about a lot of subjects.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Being a jack of all trades doesn't mean you know very little about many subjects. It actually means the opposite. A good renaissance man is very competent in plenty of subjects. He simply chooses not devote all his time into just one to become a total master. Leonardo da Vinci was one such person. He had a brilliant mind, and because he chose to dabble in practically everything, he was able to contribute many fantastic ideas, inventions, and medical breakthroughs into our world.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, I realize that. da Vinci was a wonderful example of a Renaissance man and he was a very intelligent person. However, that's not what I got from this post. Instead of being excellent at a lot of things like da Vinci was, OP is saying that knowing a little bit about many things is better than knowing a lot about one or two things.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's not what I got. I suppose it depends on the interpretation of the word 'moderately'.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, I thought "moderately" meant like enough to barely get by on the knowledge, not like in-depth like da Vinci had on each of his talents.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

According to the definition, it could be anywhere from mediocre to fairly advanced. It just means not to an extreme extent. So someone could know quite a lot about a subject and still not be considered an expert because they don't know 100%, inside and out.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You're right. da Vinci was a bit more than a 'jack of all trades'. I guess the Renaissance man is called a polymath - 'a master at a lot of things'. Polymaths are very uncommon and not something that someone can aspire to be; they just are. So it doesn't apply to a majority of people.

by Anonymous 10 years ago