Scott Adams on careers.
His premise is that most successful people are good (top 25% of the populace) at three things that put them into high demand. At the end of the article, he asks, “What are your three?”
Lessee:
- Breadth of knowledge – I know this isn’t necessarily what he’s looking for, but I think it’s suitable. I’m not great at anything, but on top of being decent at a couple things, I’m marginally okay (I’d say 65%+) at a *lot* of stuff. I think this gives me a lot of perspective, and enough of an ability to pull useful information from a wide variety of sources that it’s a skill in itself.
- Understanding systems – Again, sort of a weird thing to be good at, but I have a really solid ability to look at a system of interactions and understand how it’ll work. It lets me play games in my head that don’t exist, or build an interactive system of dialog before writing a line. I always wanted to be able to draw well, but I was never able to develop the skill to take an image in my head and transfer it to paper – I couldn’t ever “see” the image in sufficient detail to translate it. With game design, I can see the whole thing, clear as day. Sometimes I’m wrong, and obviously I miss stuff – but I’ve found in my experience if I’ve got a single skill I can say I’m genuinely good at, this is it.
- Writing – Yeah, okay – the novels and the blog aren’t the best example to hold up here, but it’s not really what I’m talking about. In terms of writing, I think my skill is that I can take an idea, and write it down in a way that (hopefully) communicates that concept to the reader. I’m no Kerowack (spelling intentional (not Jack Kerouac)) – not by a longshot. But in terms of say, taking something from ‘Understanding systems’ and trying to communicate that to someone, I think I can do that better than 90% of the people I know who have similar responsibilities.
So, I think those are my three things. If you’d asked me 10 years ago what I thought my three things were, they’d have been totally, totally different. *shrugs*
This, of course, begs the question… what are *your* three?
I’m not sure what he means by “top 25%” but I don’t think it is the population at large.
I take that to mean “Top 25%” of people who actually care to apply that skill. I’m pretty sure that I could beat 75% of the world in one-on-one basketball. But if we narrow that field to “people who play basketball more than once a year” than I’d be lucky to be above 10%, I think. Any high school basketball player would demolish me.
It’s difficult for me to name my top skills, because I move in such different circles. As far as jobs, I’ve done research in AI and HCI and also web application development. These days I alternate work weeks as a researcher in AI and web developer, and so it feels like what I’m good at, relative to the people around me, changes all the time.
Stepping back to look at the big picture, I think I’m a mediocre AI researcher, a pretty good HCI researcher (though I haven’t done it much) and a very good web developer. The last one is easy, though, because most web developers are terrible—my current job is to look at other people’s code and make it work with Firefox and the stuff I’ve seen is truly gut-wrenching.
Still, what are my best skills? Though I think I’m competent at developing engineering solutions to problems, I feel like my strengths lie in perspective I bring to those solutions. I think I’m good at analyzing technical systems abstractly, seeing technology as an interaction between human and computational components, and also have an appreciation for aesthetic in software and technology.
I find at least one of these skills lacking in the general population in each of the environments I work in. For example, AI researchers are surprisingly unconcerned with the human interaction with the technologies they create. The focus in that research is almost always performance “how can I reduce my error by a fraction of a percent?” and not “I know this system will make errors, how can I reduce the cost of those errors to the humans using it?” I think my PhD research is fairly rare in that it involves a machine learning task that tries to optimize the amount of time it takes a human to use the system.
On the other hand, HCI researchers seem to be not think very abstractly about the systems they build. They create some system, run some tests, and report their results, but rarely try to build a theory up around those results. Because they involvee humans, those theories would obviously be wrong in a great many ways. However, just because a theory is wrong doesn’t mean it can’t be useful. I rarely see HCI research say, “our system is a Foo. Other examples of Foos are SystemX, SystemY, and SystemZ and so we should expect that users of these systems will all have the following experience in common…”
As for aesthetics, it’s difficult for me to say where this helps me. Unfortunately, I can appreciate good design but I’m not a good designer. The net result of this is that, whenever I try to design something I tend to spend a lot of time iterating and typically wind up with something I’m not too happy with. Not that good designers don’t iterate; just that they iterate fewer times and wind up with better results. Still, programmers aren’t generally known for their design sensibilities, so maybe this will come in handy some day.
Obviously, maintaining his train of thought is not one of Adams’ strong points:
“2. Become very good (top 25%) at two or more things.”
“What are your three?”
LOL
In any case, I think the Adams’ post is pretty stupid, or should I say, a logical fallacy. It’s a classic, “Post hoc ergo propter hoc.” Successful people are good at least two things, ergo, to be successful, you need to be good at least two things, wherein “good” equals “being in the top 25%.”
What about all those people who are, I don’t know, good at dish washing and juggling? Or personally, my painting and drawing skills are in the top 25%, and my bike riding is in the top 25%. What on earth can I do with those two in combination?
This touches on what Rawhide mentioned, which is, 25% of what? Adams leaves it broad. To him, you only have to be better than “most people.” So, I only have to be a faster rider than 25% of “most people” and not professional bike riders.
I mean, “most people” would include little kids and old folks. I will smoke them on my bike. 😉
But seriously, WTF is Adams smoking?
Alternatively, what about all those guys with medical degrees and business degrees that are complete failures? The ones trying to get some dopey medical device off the ground?
The formula for success is so much more complicated that it’s kind of pointless to go through Adams’post with any kind of rigor. It prima facie stupid (how much Latin can I throw in here?).
However, I’m always a big fan of hearing what people have to say for themselves about themselves. Self-reporting is interesting.
Given my criticisms of Adams being in the top 25% of “most people”, I think if there was a competition where everyone competed in every form of endeavor, I think I’d come in the top 25% in most events.
I mean, I played the piano for about a month when I was 12. I think I could fake my way into the top 25%.
I think the question Adams should be asking is, within your competitive peer group and regarding highly valued skills, what are you in the top 25%?
That is still flawed, but it gets a little closer to being a useful benchmark.
I think Adams’s point is that no matter how narrow a field you define for yourself, you’re not going to be the best in the world at it (see this comic). However, once you start combining fields, the possibilities go up exponentially, and once you hit combinations of three fields, you can find an intersection that is uncompetitive.
I’m still figuring out my field(s). It’s something to do with perspective and communication – I can understand problems from the perspective of a scientist (been top 25% there), engineer, software developer (been top 25% there), end-user and manager (working on top 25%), and communicate those perspectives to others trapped in a single perspective.
I didn’t get around to writing my post in response to Adams’s this weekend (my Internet was down), but I definitely want to respond at some point.
How did I not realize you have an active regular blog in addition to an LJ? Gah!
Yeah, I figure I’m probably one of the best designers of educational computer game about climate and weather interactions with human systems in the entire world.
My three: game design, computer programming, science (especially complex systems & the like). I also think I’m pretty good at communication, but I’m not sure how much that should count, since it’s important to almost every field.
(I say “one of the best in the world” because there are probably a whopping ten people, grand total, who fit into that tiny little niche. Just in case that wasn’t clear and I sounded snooty about it.)
“I think Adams’s point is that no matter how narrow a field you define for yourself, you’re not going to be the best in the world at it (see this comic). However, once you start combining fields, the possibilities go up exponentially, and once you hit combinations of three fields, you can find an intersection that is uncompetitive…” and that is the formula for success.
That’s almost exactly what Adams wrote, so I think you’re paraphrasing accurately. As he said, “You make yourself rare by combining two or more “pretty goods†until no one else has your mix.”
I still maintain that it’s so general as to lose all meaning. It’s the stuff that lousy self-help books are made out of, “What Are Your Three?: The Secret to Success! by Scott Adams.” It has as much substance as “Think Positive!” or “Work Hard!”
He pulls the number 2 or more/3 out of thin air and then he arbitrarily defines the “zones” of the things to be good at. I mean, if a person is a “good writer”, can he/she break it up into “imagination” and “good work ethic”? There’s two. Or is it one? Would that person need to have attention to detail and ability to market his/her writing, or is the attention to detail enough? On and on.
Essentially, his “list of three” is an opportunity for people to think positively about themselves. “Hey, what am I good at?” It’s fun, and entertaining in a “wanna-be Internet meme” way. As legitimate career advice, it’s pointless and redundant.
But what bothers me most about it is the fact that it’s misleading. As I walked to work today, I thought about all the people I know that easily meet Adams’ criteria, but aren’t successful. And it pissed me off that someone like Adams, who is very successful, could smugly dispense “found” wisdom from on high about what it takes to be successful. He’s just one more in a long line of relatively well-meaning people that are successful and think they know “The Answer.†Oprah has made a career out of it and has managed to lift approximately nobody up to anywhere near her level.
I thought about the friend that is an amazing marathoner and went to a top 20 law school, did well, and prior to law school, he was a dedicated EMT, but is struggling to make ends meet at a temp law job. A job he ended up at for reasons not under his control.
I thought about the friend who is a brilliant physicist/mathematician (and good at other stuff I won’t reveal), who spent a couple years unable to get his start-up off the ground. His start-up was exactly what Adams suggested: a combination of what he was good at and a valuable thing. But it didn’t work out. Why? Cause that’s what happens.
On and on. All sorts of good, smart people that tried and failed. And I keep thinking about how a successful person sits writing about how it’s so simple. “I figured it out. Why can’t you?” I think it’s obvious I don’t suffer these kinds of attitudes gladly.
Moreover, his criteria for success really doesn’t tell us anything. He simply puts a spin on it. As I said, he pulls the “2 or more” out of thin air, but without that, what is he telling us? You can’t be the best in the world? Got it. That your chances are better if you are pretty good at more than one thing? Got it. Combine things to make yourself a rare, but valuable commodity? Like what? “engineering degree, law degree, medical degree, science degree” O.K., so what else is new?
A_B
I don’t think that’s the *point* of Adams’ post – at least, I didn’t really take away from it, “Be good at a couple things, and success is guaranteed!”
I saw simply as a piece of perspective – that it’s really hard to be the master of your field, almost no matter what you choose, but it’s actually plausible to be good at a couple things, and try to find the intersection of those things.
To you, it’s obvious as the nose on your face. To me, as well. I think that everyone who posts comments on this blog has come to that understanding either on their own, or long ago.
But when I was growing up, I remember wanting to be the *best* at something, and for many years, I lamented that I simply couldn’t think of anything I could truly excel at. It was only after I realized that the spaces *between* fields are themselves legitimate fields that my path really became clear to me.