|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
All things considered, I am fairly productive these days. Through many of my regular activities, I feel that I am learning more each week. But I have had an unmistakeable realization that I am on my way to becoming a so-called a jack of all trades and master of none. Ironically, my overall productivity and learning level is satisfyingly high. I'd certainly say that it's the highest it's been since 2008. But while I am productive, I've found that my time and effort is scattered across many areas of study. Even though I'm productive overall, this lack of focus has caused my progress in each particular area to be slower than it should be or could be. For reference, here is my list of regular productive activities: - Chinese (mandarin)
- Writing (surprise!)
- Weightlifting
- Programming
- Reading the Economist
- Assorted reading of business related books
- Personal Finance
- Socratic dialogue (lol)
Combine this with my full time job (usually from 9am-7pm), and we have a recipe, not for disaster, but for very slow progress. I've generally decided that I will forgo further work on programming for the time being, and have already cut back dramatically on my business book reading (I used to read 100 pages/day in this area). Personal finance is now mostly passive maintenance rather than an active study. Socratic dialogue (lol) happens maybe once every few weeks, instead of multiple times a week. So I'm essentially down to the following, much more reasonable list of pursuits: - Chinese
- Writing
- Weightlifting
- Reading the Economist
The Japanese phrase for a jack of all trades, master of none, roughly translates to skilled (in many crafts) but poor (as a result). I feel that it describes my dilemma more profoundly than its English counterpart. It's a painful decision to forgo many of these areas, and I'm hoping to pick them back up again when I have a little more free time. But for now, I feel that it is important to focus on the subjects that I will most likely need in the short to mid term future, rather than those that are merely nice to have.
Crossposted from my main blog
 
|
Can you explain your socratic dialogue activity?
|
Why does what you do have to be productive?
|
I was just discussing with some friends how the "master of none" part of the phrase is generally forgotten when used today. I am glad to see other people still remember.
|
I know this feel, I've pretty much stopped all my other hobbies just so I can focus on physical fitness. But even before that I was having trouble fitting all my interests into a day. I want to read more, I want to play the guitar, I want to program games on the iphone... So much want, so little time.
I hope you'll be able to pick those other areas up again at some point in the future. But it sems to me the older you get the busier you get.
|
I'm worrying about this problem right now, and have deduced that MMORPG-ing has to go.
School + Music kinda takes up the bulk of my life, add Weightlifting and Writing to the mix and that's about as much as time can allow =(
|
A common problem for the theoretical man. Less emphasis on 'productive' things more on what you enjoy will resolve this.
Socratic dialogue (Greek: Σωκρατικὸς λόγος or Σωκρατικὸς διάλογος) is a genre of prose literary works developed in Greece at the turn of the fourth century BC, preserved today in the dialogues of Plato and the Socratic works of Xenophon - either dramatic or narrative - in which characters discuss moral and philosophical problems, illustrating a version of the Socratic method. Socrates is often the main character. (wiki entry x.x)
|
On March 01 2012 02:03 DCLXVI wrote:
I was just discussing with some friends how the "master of none" part of the phrase is generally forgotten when used today. I am glad to see other people still remember.
I thought it was the modern addition of "master of none" that turned "jack of all trades" into a negative label.
In any case, I don't understand why people see "jack of all trades" as a bad thing. Certainly, it is tempting to say that with knowledge advancing so quickly in every field, it's hard to stay competitive without specializing exclusively in one area. However, I think the more important point to take away is that you want to have a unique combination of skills. That may mean being the engineer that can actually understand user needs, or the manager that actually knows how to code, or the center that can actually shoot free throws. Sure, the specialist has his place, but you need the jack of all trades too if you want to avoid a siloed organization.
That being said, I think trimming down on pursuits is totally fine as well. My traditional approach has been to try as many things as possible and then let the less important ones naturally drop out, but recently I've been trying a more additive approach: grad school + internship, piano/composition, and slowly adding dance/exercise/learning Chinese/etc. back in as I improve my time management.
|
I suffer from the same problem. And the issue becomes, as I'm sure it is for others with the problem, is that we tend to enjoy all that we do or take part in, and can't reasonably cut out areas to become masters of any one thing.
|
On March 01 2012 02:03 DCLXVI wrote:
I was just discussing with some friends how the "master of none" part of the phrase is generally forgotten when used today. I am glad to see other people still remember.
Yes, and even further amusing when the continuing "better than a master of one" is forgotten even more. The insinuation that you can only be a master of one thing is nonsense too, when we look back just a couple centuries back and are struck by the various polymaths that lived through history.
|
I may be master of none, but I'm diamond of everything
|
I think people are misunderstanding Haji. He is not saying that being a "jack of all trades" is necessarily bad but in his case its not optimal in that hes progressing slowly trying to juggle everything. We all want to accomplish things but we are limited by time and our own energy so certain things have to be set aside for the thing being to focus 100% on the things we consider more important.
Its something I have been thinking lately too. I realized there are a lot of things I want to do but not enough time to do them all and trying to do a little of everything in the end makes me unable to completely finish anything.
|
On March 01 2012 02:46 divito wrote:
I suffer from the same problem. And the issue becomes, as I'm sure it is for others with the problem, is that we tend to enjoy all that we do or take part in, and can't reasonably cut out areas to become masters of any one thing.
Same here, cutting down sounds easy in theory. But deducing what is more fun than the others is quite hard in some cases. Often you don't want to drop any activity because all of them are equally fulfilling/enjoyable to you.
On March 01 2012 03:08 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 02:03 DCLXVI wrote:
I was just discussing with some friends how the "master of none" part of the phrase is generally forgotten when used today. I am glad to see other people still remember. Yes, and even further amusing when the continuing "better than a master of one" is forgotten even more. The insinuation that you can only be a master of one thing is nonsense too, when we look back just a couple centuries back and are struck by the various polymaths that lived through history.
I guess by polymaths you're referring to people like Euler and Gauss, right? First of all, these were the outstanding geniuses of their time and you can't compare them to your average Joe. Also, consider the education these people received. How much do you think Gauss knew about tribes in the rainforest or the topography of China (or whatever useless crap you learnt in school)? Those guys were math machines from early on in their childhood.
Second of all, the research that's done today for example in math, is so advanced, Euler wouldn't understand a word. There's a reason we don't have polymaths anymore. Stuff is just getting too complicated too quickly. Nobody can keep up with several fields of research, let alone different subjects.
There are of course exceptions sometimes but as a general rule the "master of none" thing isn't nonsense at all.
|
if something doesn't taste sweet enough, your first instinct is to add more sugar. but sometimes its better to take out some ingredients, instead. 
its good that you understand that you need to make sacrifices. i have also been thinking about this very same thing - i want to spend more time writing and drawing, but i spend most of it playing starcraft or streaming shows. i have a lot of free time, being 20 years old and all, but i still need to balance my hobbies much better. besides, all of those things that you and i enjoy are still going to be there should we decide to pick them up again.
|
On March 01 2012 03:31 Ilikestarcraft wrote:
I think people are misunderstanding Haji. He is not saying that being a "jack of all trades" is necessarily bad but in his case its not optimal in that hes progressing slowly trying to juggle everything. We all want to accomplish things but we are limited by time and our own energy so certain things have to be set aside for the thing being to focus 100% on the things we consider more important.
Its something I have been thinking lately too. I realized there are a lot of things I want to do but not enough time to do them all and trying to do a little of everything in the end makes me unable to completely finish anything.
I understand, but going under the assumption that he does want to advance in all of the listed items, I'm not convinced that focusing on one to the exclusion of others will result in faster overall mastery, since there are often diminishing returns to effort. Of course, that's not exactly what he's doing, but I think that's why I responded the way I did -- contrary to what his blog title would suggest, his approach seems like a hybrid approach between specialization and generalization, which is probably the most sensible way to do it.
|
On March 01 2012 03:31 surfinbird1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 02:46 divito wrote:
I suffer from the same problem. And the issue becomes, as I'm sure it is for others with the problem, is that we tend to enjoy all that we do or take part in, and can't reasonably cut out areas to become masters of any one thing. Same here, cutting down sounds easy in theory. But deducing what is more fun than the others is quite hard in some cases. Often you don't want to drop any activity because all of them are equally fulfilling/enjoyable to you. Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 03:08 koreasilver wrote:On March 01 2012 02:03 DCLXVI wrote:
I was just discussing with some friends how the "master of none" part of the phrase is generally forgotten when used today. I am glad to see other people still remember. Yes, and even further amusing when the continuing "better than a master of one" is forgotten even more. The insinuation that you can only be a master of one thing is nonsense too, when we look back just a couple centuries back and are struck by the various polymaths that lived through history. I guess by polymaths you're referring to people like Euler and Gauss, right? First of all, these were the outstanding geniuses of their time and you can't compare them to your average Joe. Also, consider the education these people received. How much do you think Gauss knew about tribes in the rainforest or the topography of China (or whatever useless crap you learnt in school)? Those guys were math machines from early on in their childhood. Second of all, the research that's done today for example in math, is so advanced, Euler wouldn't understand a word. There's a reason we don't have polymaths anymore. Stuff is just getting too complicated too quickly. Nobody can keep up with several fields of research, let alone different subjects. There are of course exceptions sometimes but as a general rule the "master of none" thing isn't nonsense at all.
Also Leibniz. I've heard from someone that has access to the Leibniz archives (his writings on mathematics, philosophy, science, etc.) and he said that it's just hard to comprehend exactly how Leibniz did all of this in one life time. Of course it's true that what we are doing now in each individual field is far more advanced than in Leibniz's life time, but it doesn't change the fact that he was at the forefront on both philosophy and mathematics and was doing some pretty highly original and significantly influential work in multiple fields.
|
I think the best approach for the "Generalist who would like to be a Master" is to focus on one thing for an extended period of time. For example, I would like to become better at writing music, so according to my approach, I should focus most of my effort on writing music, day in and day out, for perhaps 2-3 years at the very least. Once I feel confident in a field, with significant time spent and direct experience to draw from in order to make that decision, I can move on to another pursuit. However, now that I am a "master" of one skill, I will need to periodically "refresh" it by going back to it once every week or perhaps twice a week or once every two weeks.
It's like you have a child. When you start out, it requires all of your attention. But as it gets older, your obligation decreases. Think of it like having another child when your first goes to college. You focus your attention on the newborn, the new skill, but you still need to occasionally call and visit the undergrad.
|
On March 01 2012 04:16 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 03:31 surfinbird1 wrote:On March 01 2012 02:46 divito wrote:
I suffer from the same problem. And the issue becomes, as I'm sure it is for others with the problem, is that we tend to enjoy all that we do or take part in, and can't reasonably cut out areas to become masters of any one thing. Same here, cutting down sounds easy in theory. But deducing what is more fun than the others is quite hard in some cases. Often you don't want to drop any activity because all of them are equally fulfilling/enjoyable to you. On March 01 2012 03:08 koreasilver wrote:On March 01 2012 02:03 DCLXVI wrote:
I was just discussing with some friends how the "master of none" part of the phrase is generally forgotten when used today. I am glad to see other people still remember. Yes, and even further amusing when the continuing "better than a master of one" is forgotten even more. The insinuation that you can only be a master of one thing is nonsense too, when we look back just a couple centuries back and are struck by the various polymaths that lived through history. I guess by polymaths you're referring to people like Euler and Gauss, right? First of all, these were the outstanding geniuses of their time and you can't compare them to your average Joe. Also, consider the education these people received. How much do you think Gauss knew about tribes in the rainforest or the topography of China (or whatever useless crap you learnt in school)? Those guys were math machines from early on in their childhood. Second of all, the research that's done today for example in math, is so advanced, Euler wouldn't understand a word. There's a reason we don't have polymaths anymore. Stuff is just getting too complicated too quickly. Nobody can keep up with several fields of research, let alone different subjects. There are of course exceptions sometimes but as a general rule the "master of none" thing isn't nonsense at all. Also Leibniz. I've heard from someone that has access to the Leibniz archives (his writings on mathematics, philosophy, science, etc.) and he said that it's just hard to comprehend exactly how Leibniz did all of this in one life time. Of course it's true that what we are doing now in each individual field is far more advanced than in Leibniz's life time, but it doesn't change the fact that he was at the forefront on both philosophy and mathematics and was doing some pretty highly original and significantly influential work in multiple fields.
Oh, I agree. Of course there are/were people like that. And by no means do I want to belittle their work. I just think it's important to see the differences. For example, I am considered very well read by most people that know me. I consider myself to be kind of a jack of all trades in that regard but I know that I am so far away from mastery in basically everything i know. And I think this would hold true nowadays for almost everyone but the greatest minds.
On a more humorous note, I just looked up polymath in the dictionary and it doesn't have anything to do with math, really. Total fail on my part :D
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On March 01 2012 06:10 surfinbird1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 04:16 koreasilver wrote:On March 01 2012 03:31 surfinbird1 wrote:On March 01 2012 02:46 divito wrote:
I suffer from the same problem. And the issue becomes, as I'm sure it is for others with the problem, is that we tend to enjoy all that we do or take part in, and can't reasonably cut out areas to become masters of any one thing. Same here, cutting down sounds easy in theory. But deducing what is more fun than the others is quite hard in some cases. Often you don't want to drop any activity because all of them are equally fulfilling/enjoyable to you. On March 01 2012 03:08 koreasilver wrote:On March 01 2012 02:03 DCLXVI wrote:
I was just discussing with some friends how the "master of none" part of the phrase is generally forgotten when used today. I am glad to see other people still remember. Yes, and even further amusing when the continuing "better than a master of one" is forgotten even more. The insinuation that you can only be a master of one thing is nonsense too, when we look back just a couple centuries back and are struck by the various polymaths that lived through history. I guess by polymaths you're referring to people like Euler and Gauss, right? First of all, these were the outstanding geniuses of their time and you can't compare them to your average Joe. Also, consider the education these people received. How much do you think Gauss knew about tribes in the rainforest or the topography of China (or whatever useless crap you learnt in school)? Those guys were math machines from early on in their childhood. Second of all, the research that's done today for example in math, is so advanced, Euler wouldn't understand a word. There's a reason we don't have polymaths anymore. Stuff is just getting too complicated too quickly. Nobody can keep up with several fields of research, let alone different subjects. There are of course exceptions sometimes but as a general rule the "master of none" thing isn't nonsense at all. Also Leibniz. I've heard from someone that has access to the Leibniz archives (his writings on mathematics, philosophy, science, etc.) and he said that it's just hard to comprehend exactly how Leibniz did all of this in one life time. Of course it's true that what we are doing now in each individual field is far more advanced than in Leibniz's life time, but it doesn't change the fact that he was at the forefront on both philosophy and mathematics and was doing some pretty highly original and significantly influential work in multiple fields. Oh, I agree. Of course there are/were people like that. And by no means do I want to belittle their work. I just think it's important to see the differences. For example, I am considered very well read by most people that know me. I consider myself to be kind of a jack of all trades in that regard but I know that I am so far away from mastery in basically everything i know. And I think this would hold true nowadays for almost everyone but the greatest minds. On a more humorous note, I just looked up polymath in the dictionary and it doesn't have anything to do with math, really. Total fail on my part :D
lol I love how the main discussion thread is like "level 3" while your discussion is way out there
|
"Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one." Most of the time it might be better and even more fulfilling to be good at many things, rather than great at just one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
