Without a doubt. It becomes even more evident that we can't control the outcome the more we put ourselves outside of our comfort zone. It becomes a self-reinforcing understanding after awhile.
This is right on. An outsider might disagree when looking at something like a niche tech startup, assuming that it is the hyper-specialist who brings a company to fruition. But that hyper-specialist is really just a master of FITFO... and thus a generalist. This is the driver of innovation like you're saying. Thanks for comment.
And working with tech-startups, one reason 90%+ fail is because they are so niche as to have no growth path. Evenmoreso what happens is they focus on each little piece myopically and end up with an architecture that is bubblegum and bailing twine of dozens of niche ideas. They need the generalist to put together the larger picture.
A good piece, and I would add; movies promote the Lone Hero, but really the most effective is not one guy who's good at everything, but a team of specialists. The scout, the gunner, the rifleman, the commander, the signaller, the medic, etc. But note: each of them has skills in the other's areas, it's just they're particularly good at one of those particular roles.
Similarly in life in general. A team is more effective than even the most capable individual, and in a team people have roles, but they can and do cover for each-other from time to time.
A great point. I think the ideal would be to train for the intense expertise of the expert, but at the same time train for the competency of the generalist.
I think most of us are closer to regular infantry than SF. With that in mind, it’s alright to just be slightly better than everyone else at one thing, and alright at the other jobs. That slightly better, in the context of a team where everyone has something they’re slightly better at, in practice it’s pretty good.
That’s different to SF where you want your demos guy to really know demos, your sniper to be a really good sniper, your medic to be a really good medic - because the team is doing special things, not regular things.
But most of us are doing regular things. So, be generally capable, and then be slightly better at one or two things nobody else in your team - work, family, sports, whatever - is slightly better at, work together with them, and together you’ll do some useful stuff.
Even in the SF world, there is saying: brilliance in the basics. The best guys I've know were not extremely good at breaching or sniping or combat diving; they were just good at all the skills, ready to do whatever needed to be done for the mission and the men. Another great point, thanks Warburton.
One of my favorites of all your essays to date. So many layers that apply to all aspects of life.
I often feel like I’m the sniper army crawling through the grass that allows my mind to get hung up on the minor inconveniences on the path despite being dialed in elsewhere.
Generalist vs specialist, internal vs external validation, regulated vs talented.
Good shit as always brother. Still looking for the earlier essays that I’d notice a difference in…
Interesting take, Sam. I like it. Taking part in conversations with competition shooters about this topic, I've come to discover that our main difference is where our focus lies. The Combat shooter's focus is external. That's where the threats exist, and he must identify them before he engages them. The Competition shooter's main threat is himself. He must focus internally and vanquish distractions to dominate the course of fire. He is a specialist indeed, while the Combat shooter is generalist, survivalist, demolitionist, and a litany of other 'ists'. Thanks, Sam. Great piece.
I/We are responsible for the effort NOT the outcome…
Rule number one to live a better life.
Without a doubt. It becomes even more evident that we can't control the outcome the more we put ourselves outside of our comfort zone. It becomes a self-reinforcing understanding after awhile.
Jack of all trades and master of none, but most often better than a master of one.
We laud specialists but it's the generalists who typically find the real innovation.
This is right on. An outsider might disagree when looking at something like a niche tech startup, assuming that it is the hyper-specialist who brings a company to fruition. But that hyper-specialist is really just a master of FITFO... and thus a generalist. This is the driver of innovation like you're saying. Thanks for comment.
And working with tech-startups, one reason 90%+ fail is because they are so niche as to have no growth path. Evenmoreso what happens is they focus on each little piece myopically and end up with an architecture that is bubblegum and bailing twine of dozens of niche ideas. They need the generalist to put together the larger picture.
Great essay BTW
100%. That's the value of boots on the ground.
Well said.
A good piece, and I would add; movies promote the Lone Hero, but really the most effective is not one guy who's good at everything, but a team of specialists. The scout, the gunner, the rifleman, the commander, the signaller, the medic, etc. But note: each of them has skills in the other's areas, it's just they're particularly good at one of those particular roles.
Similarly in life in general. A team is more effective than even the most capable individual, and in a team people have roles, but they can and do cover for each-other from time to time.
A great point. I think the ideal would be to train for the intense expertise of the expert, but at the same time train for the competency of the generalist.
I think most of us are closer to regular infantry than SF. With that in mind, it’s alright to just be slightly better than everyone else at one thing, and alright at the other jobs. That slightly better, in the context of a team where everyone has something they’re slightly better at, in practice it’s pretty good.
That’s different to SF where you want your demos guy to really know demos, your sniper to be a really good sniper, your medic to be a really good medic - because the team is doing special things, not regular things.
But most of us are doing regular things. So, be generally capable, and then be slightly better at one or two things nobody else in your team - work, family, sports, whatever - is slightly better at, work together with them, and together you’ll do some useful stuff.
Even in the SF world, there is saying: brilliance in the basics. The best guys I've know were not extremely good at breaching or sniping or combat diving; they were just good at all the skills, ready to do whatever needed to be done for the mission and the men. Another great point, thanks Warburton.
One of my favorites of all your essays to date. So many layers that apply to all aspects of life.
I often feel like I’m the sniper army crawling through the grass that allows my mind to get hung up on the minor inconveniences on the path despite being dialed in elsewhere.
Generalist vs specialist, internal vs external validation, regulated vs talented.
Good shit as always brother. Still looking for the earlier essays that I’d notice a difference in…
Love the nod to Adam too
Right on, Kyle, thank you. It's an analogy I see creeping up on me every day.
Interesting take, Sam. I like it. Taking part in conversations with competition shooters about this topic, I've come to discover that our main difference is where our focus lies. The Combat shooter's focus is external. That's where the threats exist, and he must identify them before he engages them. The Competition shooter's main threat is himself. He must focus internally and vanquish distractions to dominate the course of fire. He is a specialist indeed, while the Combat shooter is generalist, survivalist, demolitionist, and a litany of other 'ists'. Thanks, Sam. Great piece.
Right on, brother. The list is long indeed.
Thank you for this. Your words today were much needed for me, and I believe an answer to recent prayers. Be well.
It is my pleasure. Thank you, and I wish you all the best.