I think this point resonates. There are often a lot of commonalities between traits and having a breadth of understanding often affords more insight into a particular, but it will always be valuable to have a true mastery of a select few. at risk of alienating others in the conversation I'd like to make a point about a game called DotA. Extremely difficult with a high skill ceiling, the game pits teams of players against one another in asymmetrical battle with 126 characters, each with distinct abilities. There is a prevailing wisdom that the game is dauntingly unaccessible because, "to understand DotA you have to play a few games with every hero." On the other hand to play well you need to specialize on a particular hero and role. However every hero has a select group of counter-heroes, which have abilities that are particularly strong against a given. Therefore the best players in DotA have an understanding of all heroes, but they specialize in a small pool of 4 or 5. There are people who are very good at playing a single hero, but they can be completely shut-down with a counter. Maybe I'm just a little over-invested in a silly game, but I think it draws a powerful analogue to life.