Deep vs Shallow

Deep

I feel like some people are made to go deep in their work, perfectionists, researchers. They will build something bugless, beautiful, go deep into something until it’s not perfect. But they will struggle in raising their head and looking around. Wondering about the purpose of what they’re doing, and potentially questioning it. These are great technical team members, crucial to solve very hard technical questions. I would correlate this group with high quantitative intelligence. It’s also more common in technical roles.

Shallow

Then there are other people, that really struggle to stay focused on a single challenge for a long time. People that need faster feedback loops and faster tasks, that cannot go as deep. People that are able to see the big picture, wonder about the purpose of what it’s been done, and question it. These people strive in scenarios in which speed matters more than perfection, and in which, instead of keeping the direction for a long time, continous adjustments are needed. They are crucial to drive the projects in the correct direction in order to reach the final goal. I would correlate this group with high emotional intelligence. It’s also more common in managerial roles.

Nature vs Nurture

Clearly I am strongly over-simplifying by only categorizing people in 2 groups, but I feel it’s extremely important for everyone to learn about oneself her/his approximate position in the spectrum. Clearly, one can force her/himself to be in one group, but my intution is that we are naturally drawn to be in one of the two. Is it Nature or Nurture? Who am I to say it. But at 23yo, my guess is that you are already much better suited for one of the two types of work. So if it’s nurture, you are shaped when you’re young. Doing the type of work in line with your nature feels like magic. It is often (not always) effortless, and you get bursts of excitement and energy that drive you forward. The likelihood of exceeding expectations is much higher, actually you start to feel the drive to exceed them, not to meet them. Forcing yourself to do the opposite type of work is frustrating. You will likely underperform, and enter in a vicious cycle. If you’re smart, you can still do ok, but if you’re smart, you know that you could do much better with another type of task.

I feel like some people are made to go deep in their work, perfectionists, researchers. They will build something bugless, beautiful, go deep into something until it’s not perfect. But they will struggle in raising their head and looking around. Wondering about the purpose of what they’re doing, and potentially questioning it. These are great technical team members, crucial to solve very hard technical questions. I would correlate this group with high quantitative intelligence. It’s also more common in technical roles.

There are environments in which the majority of people need to be of the first type, and others in which the majority need to be of the second type. In a research team, either in a company or in academia, in which the primary goal is to solve hard scientific problems, you need a lot of the first kind. You need people that will spend day and night for months on the same identical problem to figure out a solution.

In a non-deep tech startup, you need people that easily and quickly understand what needs to be done, and exectute it. People that are very fast learners and are able to quickly switch task, context, environment and still perform.