Ask HN: Deal with feeling of not knowing anything well enough?
I've spent 15 years in the tech industry, working with well-known tech companies and engaging in projects that I'm proud of. My main focus has been on creating reliable, widely-used distributed systems. However, I often feel like I lack in-depth knowledge. The challenges I face seem quite similar, like working with building blocks. My approach involves learning what's necessary to solve immediate issues and then moving on. I'm unsure how to reach the expertise level of industry leaders like Brenden Gregg and Jeff Dean.
It might be like having Impostor Syndrome. But I do believe I have some knowledge and can use it effectively, but there’s also a sense that I lack deep understanding.
How can I handle this situation? What steps can I take to achieve even just a small portion of their expertise?
29 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 95.5 ms ] threadSo keep your mind open, keep reading, keep learning, keep practising your art.
I've just started a PhD after 30 years of start-ups etc, and I am aware that people's view of my skills is often much more positive than my own view of my skills. And I'm also spending time with other entrepreneurs who seem better than me in every dimension!
Keep humble, but keep going.
So in that vein:
1. Find a very narrow area where you would like to have in-depth knowledge
2. Read the seminal works in that area (could be academic papers, could be blog-posts, could be even code)
3. Go for a long walk, and mull about it for a bit.
4. See if you can add something, no matter how little, to the area
5. ???
6. Rinse repeat
---
Big question is whether that's something you're internally motivated by, or externally. The fruits of that sort of labor are mostly internal; and very few people have the stamina to continually do this, unless it personally fulfills them.
This is always where I get stuck. I see something, and say “hey this looks interesting” maybe I should invest in this”. But I always worry that I’ll over invest in it at the cost of other more general, but “useful” things.
If we could see the future accurately we wouldn't need careers advice or HN!
Part of this is that you need to take a punt or three, but probably try to ensure they are interesting and enjoyable, since you are more likely to stick at them.
I agree. This comment reminded me of PG’s latest essay, where he writes about this. I can gladly recommend this text.
http://paulgraham.com/greatwork.html
I find that when I do these types of projects, I very quickly figure out where the holes in my knowledge are. That gives me a direction on what to learn next, and the motivation to actually learn it and apply it in practice. It feels much more efficient than just picking up a textbook and trying to learn that way.
E.g., there are lots of plumbers around, but the number of plumbers who also know how to build a website is much lower, and the number of web-site building plumbers who are also trained in law and registered to perform marriages in Ohio is vanishingly small.
Why do you want to be an industry leader? Ego? Dissatisfaction with the similarity of your work?
When you move on do you crystallize your learnings like in a document or a chat with other people? Does it give you an idea of where to go next?
Second, it's an unfair world. Some people have more time to put into stuff to think deeply and do work that don't directly, instantly lead to real-world impact. (There is one gentleman per neighborhood who "knows deeply" about French Revolution or Civil War, or so they think) I am sure Jeff Dean doesn't have a manager breathing down his neck. Have you tried going deep into something, and writing about it? Like Julia Evans' blogs on DNS? Why don't you try something like that? You mention Jeff, do you work in ML? Have you tried publishing research? It doesn't have to be NeurIPS or ICLR. Why not a small, independent paper in arXiv?
And, also, highly recommend a group of similarly motivated people for a study group. Because "deep knowledge" doesn't directly turn into product-being-admired-by-many-people, you might get bored while reading a 500 pager. A group helps the most.
It can feel risky because there's vulnerability in asking a question! But if you use a little flattery (vs. trying to hedge by sneaking in your own answer), people will share enthusiastically. When you get in the habit of gathering viewpoints from everyone by constantly asking questions, your perspective and wisdom grows deeper and deeper.
See Richard Feynman's autobiography for a version of this strategy.
In my own experience I learned that in almost every case where I sought the participation of others and relinquished some of my control my work was objectively improved across the board—the final product seemed much more mature, robust, and I was introduced to a lot of blind spots that allowed me to learn and grow, which in turn helps improve future efforts. My personal philosophy now simply asserts that in most scenarios I only stand to gain with the involvement of more (and more diverse) voices.
More to the OP’s original point, I believe that accepting one’s own limits, and freely admitting when a task or project may test/exceed them, is one of the components to this same general humility. It’s empowering to be able to nourish your curiosity and push your limits. Involving others who can support that effort expands your possibilities and while providing additional protection against failures. All of this is healthy, just generally, but such collaboration can also help define where you stand among your peers, identify potential gaps in your knowledge/abilities, reassure yourself that your contributions are meaningful, and shape the path to further growth. The same is true for everyone involved, and you can lend your own strengths to their development in-kind. Concerns for how you’re perceived by others should center around how you engaged with the process and helped foster progress, the results of which should speak for themselves in the long run.
TLDR; I diverged a bit from the parent comment. Lots of people are smart, and skilled people are interchangeable with other skilled people. Being generous, sincere, and supportive however can make you indispensable. However, all of these traits require cultivating and training, whether it’s technical knowledge or listening with empathy.
Comparing yourself to others?
Yea, that's not going to end well. Instead compare yourself to yourself in the past.
If you are the guy who solves the problems, than that's the barometer by which to judge yourself. You are not an impostor.
And if you are the problem solver, then it's great if you suck. It's a sign that things are ok with you.
Because if you know in depth everything you work with it means you are not pushing your own boundaries. You are playing it safe, well within your comfort zone. It's ok to stay in the safe zone for a little while, but don't do it for long.
The majority of the workers out there get to that safe zone after a few years of experience, and then stay there. Don't be one of them. Push yourself, keep becoming better, and keep the comp raises coming.
Remember, expertise is a journey, not an instant achievement. Embrace the learning process and gradually you'll find yourself gaining more in-depth insights.
Impostor Syndrome is common; you're not alone on this path.
You could be the best at x task but there are only 5 positions in the middle of nowhere that require it so why spend time on it?
Otherwise, audit your time in 15min increments for one week, reduce entertainment, and get enough sleep/exercise/etc. Use a dumb phone.
I’m not sure if you’re in a mid life crisis or pre-retirement one. I sat down then wrote a 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 year hypothetical plan and realized I needed to change it all because of the retirement date as well as value for spending my time doing it all.
It sounds more like you want to work on getting rid of imposter syndrome. Just realise nobody really knows what they're doing because there are no absolutes.