Give and Take

At one point in time, I helped college students learn Computer Science both as an adjunct professor and a full-time professor at various locations.  I was fond of quoting the opening character, a traveling tinker or salesman, portrayed by Robin Williams in Disney's version of Aladdin.  The character tries to sell a device that will "save money, time and space - and also make julienne fries!"

I used that as a hook to try and get them to remember that in computing, there is often give and take between time and space.   Often, to get something to run faster (save time) you have to use more memory or storage (space).  Or, if memory/storage is tough to come by, you might have to pay with less speed.  The trick is to know what you are working with so you can find the optimal balance of speed and storage.

In everything we do, there is give and take - because we don't get to do things with infinite resources at our disposal.  We have to make choices.

For example - should we pursue excellence in one thing or competence in a diversity of things?

Expert vs Jack (or Jill) of Many Trades?  Which would you pick?

I started thinking about this after gathering with family for Thanksgiving.  My brother's children had taken an interest in learning chess and had a new "Wizard Chess" set that they wanted to play.  It is known in my family that I had been good at chess at one point in time, so I was involved at some level.  But, it brought back the memory of my uncle teaching me how to play chess during a similar family gathering.  

Of course, I lost badly because I was just learning how pieces moved.  But after getting a taste of it, I found myself playing frequently with friends and reading books about the game.  

When the next family gathering came - some months later - we played again and I won.

How did that happen?  For that matter, how do such things happen on a fairly regular basis?  I suspect we all have some ideas.  My uncle, being an adult, with all of the things going on in his life, had probably not played or maybe hadn't even thought about chess since the day he taught me the basics.  On the other hand, I, a kid, had much less calling for my attention.  

I had time and could afford to expend the brain space on chess.  With the privilege of childhood, I could concentrate on chess to the exclusion of other things with minimal consequences.  I suppose I could have made a choice at that time to really pursue chess and see how far I could get.  While I have no illusions that I would be a top competitor at the grandmaster level, I suspect I could have seen some success until I started running into those who had more aptitude and access to training.  The biggest difference is having the opportunity and then the willingness to invest significant time and energy to the task.  According to one site I found about chess, it can easily take ten years or more of play to achieve the level of grandmaster.

And there it is.  Give and take.  How much success in chess was I going to be happy with and what cost in terms of time and personal space was I willing to pay to get there?  If it turned out that I didn't have much aptitude, it would take even more dedication to try to get to my goal - assuming I could get there at all.

This is where most of us live.  We all have different levels of competency for so many things because our resources are limited.  And there are so many more things in which we have NO competency because we have not expended any effort.

So, here I am.  A Jack of Many Trades amongst a whole host of Jacks (and Jills) who have a wide range of competence in so many things.  Now, I need to learn to stop apologizing that I have shortcomings in some areas - because none of us has unlimited resources.