[arkades]

> One aspect is that being excellent at one thing is hard. Be really good at two things. And thats how you will stand out because it is the fusion of two skils that makes you unique.

This is a difference of semantics. "Do a thing you are especially good at" vs. "Do two things you're really good at ... to create a unique result" is another way of saying "find a thing you're uniquely good at."

[unishark]

Well if you assume the basis set of things you can be good at is arbitrarily chosen. But I think the point was to define things" based on how skills are broken up in society. It's certainly much easier to learn them this way. You probably can't find many books or college classes in "public speaking in Mathematics", to help you become the best at this specialized focus, but it's easy to independently study these two specializations.

[pottertheotter]

> This is a difference of semantics. "Do a thing you are especially good at" vs. "Do two things you're really good at ... to create a unique result" is another way of saying "find a thing you're uniquely good at."

This is like in accounting/economics when someone says, "Everything is a variable cost... if you wait long enough!" Sure, the payments you make on a 10-year contract are variable if you're thinking in time periods of 100 years (in years 11-100 you can decide whether or not to keep paying for the item), but that's rarely the case.

Similarly, when people talk about specialization and "finding something you're good at", I would assert that the norm is that people think in terms of one specific area/skill. Hence, it's important to talk in these terms and point out to people that they should consider that they might actually get the most benefit from being good at two skills.

[kritiko]

I think the distinction is more than semantic. The point of the exercise (and Adams' self help advice generally) is to promote entrepreneurial thinking. The combination of skills is seen as "added value" or differentiation. Whereas pursuing a single skill may have a clear path of training & advancement, this is encouraging people to create a new path.

[jrussino]

I think even the author's own example can be criticized this way. He describes himself as a top-25% artist and humorist, but not among "the best" at either of those. But you could just as easily re-frame that as him being among the best cartoonists.