-Let’s define broad as “the whole”

-Let’s define narrow as the smallest division

-Let’s consider “normal” breadth as the kind of breadth of subject matters that most people engage

-Let’s consider “normal” narrow as the kind of focus that most people achieve in their single career

 

First let’s acknowledge that those two are not mutually exclusive

If you can pack up more knowledge and ability into your brain — it will show in greater depth or breadth or both

 

Now to the evergreen questions:

“Should I be a specialist or generalist?”

“Should I know a lot about a thing or a little about everything?”

“Does depth or breadth matter more?”

etc

 

Now here’s the key part,

Before we can answer this question — we must obviously specify criteria

And yet this is already where most pundits trip over

 

Are YOUR goals the criteria?

Is what WORLD wants the criteria?

Is the CIVILISATION the criteria?

Is your TRIBE the criteria?

 

Those can of course overlap

When the world is not in a civilisational downtrend — then the world’s goals overlap with civilisation’s goals

Likewise when your tribe is very important bunch of individuals of great import to the world — then your tribe’s goals overlap with what the world wants (and vice-versa)

And of course the most standard: when the WORLD can give you what you WANT — then you giving the world what IT wants overlaps with your goals

 

But they of course don’t have to overlap

You can completely disagree with the world,

Or not exactly agree with the people around you, your current tribe,

etc.

 

Now to the point, broad or narrow?

 

Living life is a complex, multi-variable process

You arguably can have someone help you solve some of those problems (in return for you solving some of their problems)

However in my experience, life, in a purest sense, as a “single player game”,

Therefore I recommend going BROADLY

AND deeply. But first broadly

You want to become an EXPERT in LIVING YOUR LIFE

 

What about business? The “worldly success”?

-too narrow is too exotic

-too broad is too common

-the trick has always been to land the rare sweet spot that’s not yet well-trodden — but SOON WILL BE

One advantage of business is that there ARE some objective goals, which are only acquired by going very deep and narrow,

They also tend to be very hard

But less hard than getting lucky

Scientific breakthroughs, vanguard of technological progress — obviously still require tremendous good fortune

But less so than synchronising with what should HAPPEN to be trendy in the world, at a given moment

 

…which characterises culture

Including arts

AND including politics

Where again you want to go broad, yet not too broad,

You want to go narrow, yet not too narrow,

You win if you went narrow — then the masses joined you

 

One important detail: breadth CAN result in depth too

Because various disciplines overlap

And sometimes unique overlap gives rise to a new category

In which case your unique combination of breadth becomes depth

 

So what is the answer?

 

The first obvious answer is to build both breadth and depth at once — i.e. continuously increase all knowledge and ability

Most people cease learning altogether. This is a recipe for utter mediocrity

 

Second is to do it in a balanced way

We tend to overindex on that which we’re already good at

Once you get one career — you will tend to get tunnel-visioned on it

Too much of your identity will be tied to it

Too much of your attention will be captured by opportunities exclusive to it

At the expense of other possibilities

Conversely,

generalists, hobbyists, will tend to lack the FOCUSING gear

That’s one prerogative of their broad interests — tendency to get bored quickly with one thing

Thus:

I recommend getting good at EVERYTHING

And very good at a number of things

 

The third is: OPPORTUNITY dictates the necessary breadth/depth

This ties to the problem of it being UNPREDICTABLE, INSCRUTABLE — what LEVEL of DEPTH will ultimately be rewarded, AT THE TIME, by the world

This is the prime mistake I think pundits make

FUCK knows how deep your specialisation should go

FUCK knows what hard subject matter will be the most in demand after you graduated, or built brand recognition

Plenty “recommended” career paths have been obliterated. Even before AI. Even before the internet. EVEN before the computers.

ALSO plenty hard disciplines only increased in value

Also plenty hard disciplines became useless

The mistake is not recommending DEPTH, OR breadth

The mistake is OVERCONFIDENCE

And post-factum rationalisation

 

Therefore it’s your CURRENT OPPORTUNITY which is the BEST guide to what you should be improving

And this is almost tautological

Because obviously at all times the best problems to solve are your CURRENT PROBLEMS

Because they are real, they are HERE, and you can solve them now

 

This DOES again suggest slight bias in favour of breadth

If you can’t know WHAT Will matter — might as well get exposure to as many opportunities as possible

This also correlates with the world of greater optionality in every way: with geographical, communicational, technological, creative, cultural freedom

 

Of course the same argument is often presented for depth, specialisation

“When everything is commoditised — you must find something truly unique and rare”

But this runs danger of originality for the sake of originality

It must be USEFUL first, then in low supply

 

Again, the best moment to go NARROW and DEEP — is when you have confirmation of it being rewarded

Again, the element that’s always most misunderstood is RANDOMNESS

That’s how pundits are overconfident

That’s how you are overconfident in your degree

And also how you UNDERAPPRECIATE the UNIQUENESS of the OPPORTUNITY in front of you, WHEN it finally strikes

You may look at others doing crazy and awesome things — and think this is a legitimate path

Failing to realise the randomness of how they arrived at that path

And thus failing to appreciate your own opportunities

 

Therefore,

I recommend more and more BOTH breadth and depth. Never be lazy, never be incurious.

I recommend slight bias in favour of breadth. Not least because it gives you head-start in new fields, due to overlaps, at every depth.

And then I recommend massive, urgent opportunism — when the opportunity strikes

I advise against oversimplified solutions that rely overconfidently on what ONCE worked. The time moves forward, not backwards.

I recommend maximum exposure to randomness and opportunity, so that this fortuitous opportunity can occur to your advantage