I go back and forward on whether this is the right strategy. Sometimes I think you're right. I even shared your perspective with someone on a train in Europe in one of my "It's about the process, but even if it is also about the ends, it's about what you're trying to achieve and your internal metrics of success" moments.
But then I think, well what if you really do have a major talent for something. What if you could be 'that guy', but you never quite get there because you're dividing your zero sum eggs into too many different baskets. And because given the scope of humanity, talent in any area is actually relatively common. 'Hardwork beats talent when talent isn't working' as the adage goes.
But you would never know what heights you could truly be capable of if you didn't keep a focus.
Yeah, I think about that all the time; whether to go all in on something. However, a couple of things: first, that argument has less power today than twenty years ago - whatever you decide upon might not exist as a career in ten years, and all your efforts, while not nil, will not result in the necessary wealth to support a family in the way you desire. Second, what I didn’t say, is that if 10,000 hours plus talent means you master a skill, there is enough time in one’s life master multiple things. 20 hours a week doing something, every week, for ten years, is 10,000. If you are willing to work way harder than everyone else - because let’s be honest - people today DO NOT work hard - and do multiple things every week, then even choosing between strategies could be an illusion. At least that’s what I tell myself.
There’s also the idea of mixing different skills together to create something new - Scott Adams idea of how he created the Dilbert comics. You might not have this if you go in on one thing.
Sure. Let's delve into this hypothetical for a moment. Let's say what you pursue dies on the vine as a medium of expression or whatever it is, or you don't manage to support yourself + family with the endeavor. Let's also assume the 10,000 hours adage to be true.
If you were going to master four things in parallel, it would take you a lot longer to master any one thing, you would hit your decade and still be 1/4 of the way there, assuming you only had 20 hours per week spare for these activities.. Much like trying level up four different skills at once in a game with fixed XP. If on the other hand you did it in sequence, then sure, in forty years you're a master of four things. But just like the premise that one of your hatchlings dies even if you feed it, so to is life. What if you only had 10 years? Now what if certain hobbies or whatever didn't give you equal XP, what if because of your innate qualities or whatever, one earned you 20xp per hour, and every other passion project earns you 5 or 10xp. Would you prioritize what you're good at, given the veil of ignorance about your expiry date?
That is true, but I failed to say that one would work 20 hours on multiple things EACH per week, for ten years. And I reject the 'fixed XP game' analogy - at least in the sense that most people believe the XP they can get from things is a lot higher than they tell themselves - it's an excuse to not get off their ass.
As I'm currently doing, I'm probably spending 60 hours a week, doing three different things. In ten years - if all goes to plan, I could be a master of three things (but in my mind, I'm going for twenty years ... longer timeframe - also one needn't be a master to support a family, just competent enough). One or two of those things may fizzle out, not work - the other one or two may work - herein is the success. Of course, some years I will have to spend more time on others because of some necessissity (as is your situation right now lol), but over years, they will average out. And, as you will know, many of the things influence and help each other - writing fiction improves my storytelling in non-fiction; being a clinical psychologist will help my insights ... in whatever domain, etc. Added on to that, is all the other skills that may be beneficial to my success but I won't become a master at (research; investing). And, what I didn't say - that is fucking important - HAVE A BACKUP PLAN. I could teach suckers how to ski if all else fails. There will always be snow somewhere - and in fact, that lifestyle is apex.
What if I only had ten years? What I knew about it? Or didn't? I'm a bit confused. If I knew I'd probably go on massive crack bender and learn guitar. Haha nah, if I knew time was limited, I'd probably do exactly what I'm doing now. I'm currently doing what I love - I couldn't be happier, so that's great. On the general question of what to prioritize for other people ... I don't know. Strong arguments can be made for both doing things that bring you capital to support your family, and doing what you love to avoid making yourself miserable ... for that same family. Ideally, you'd want to do things you love that also bring capital. And I've heard some other really good arguments that one can learn to love (or at least like) the thing that does indeed provide for their family - if they're not an ungrateful sod. If you are multi-skilled, and only one does work - but it's your top choice; you can learn to love it because it feeds the people you love most.
Hope I didn't misunderstand your hypothetical - I might have.
Jun 16·edited Jun 16Liked by The Delinquent Academic
I could have been a bit clearer I think. In the first instance, what I was saying was that if we assume all the premises you layed out in your first reply, time is the fixed XP (only so many hours in the day). Therefore, if you split your time between multiple tasks, it delays the time to mastery over any particular thing.
Second idea, XP is not fixed, because time isn't the only component that goes into it, now we're introducing stats and bonuses, which we assume are not distributed evenly (they rarely are in life).
Getting down to brass tacks: 60 hours is great if you're a man of leisure. But I suspect a career/work makes 40 hours a week on passion projects a tall order over a 10 year timeframe, let alone 60. 40 hours per week is close to 6 hours per day. Of course, tall doesn't mean impossible, and neither is an exactness really necessary here, I get the general point.
That said, of course your satisfaction and enjoyment is the strongest argument for the 'eggs in many baskets' approach, and it's horses for courses from my vantage point.
We have been having a back and forth on this topic for years now, and every time it comes up it's a fruitful discussion, I don't think I'm any closer to deciding what is right for me, but I respect your decision to nail your position to the church door.
First idea: Quite clearly true - and the ever-present dilemma for the multi-skilled man.
Second idea: Also quite clearly true.
Brass tacks: As I also should have included, work counts as one of these things, even two of these (if you have two part-time things going). I understand 'mastery' is often looked upon from the elite point of view as something like artistic ability, or being a scientist, but needn't be - it could be being an electrician, haridresser, ... ski instructor. So one of two of those you're getting paid for - even if it is at lower-level (demonstrator - post-doc - professor) before you get there. You need to get buy somehow.
Yeah we have; it suits me in many ways personality wise - and I think now, with the volatility of the environment and the increasing automation of jobs, the argument is much stronger. Even if you're job isn't quite automated, you're subject to whims of the economic and cultural future. If you wanna get out, you can't - you're stuck - and you're just hoping your job pays well, and you don't hate it.
My question is; how to skill up into the trades when boomers seem completely hostile towards the idea of hiring anyone new. I know of a few in the local area who will not teach youngsters outside their own sons.
I am asking as I really do want to learn a trade, but it's so far been barred.
As to the practicalities, a lot will depend on context. That's a shame they're not hiring anyone new. Where are you located by the way (of course, only if you want give out that information)?
Where I'm living, we have the opposite: Every young New Zealander wants to go to university ... because if you don't you are (apparently) ruining your chance at a successful future. Trades, and now farming jobs, are having to be filled by immigrants, because our entitled children think they're too good for the 'dirty work'.
I guess trades are not the only skilled profession one could ascend; neither must they require certifications per se, though because of our certification-obsessed society that would help. (I do wonder if this will change, drastically in future decades. Already a certification from university is valued far less than twenty years ago.) I wouldn't say ski instructing is a trade - unless you're top of the pops - you ain't making much money. But you can survive. My brother left university and taught himself how to trade stocks. You certainly needn't a certification for that.
Thinking about this more, I do wonder if the psychological satisfaction of younger generations like mine will depend on the degree to which we can spiritually and culturally awaken. One could go as far to say, the lifework of the boomers was comfort materialism and sweet sweet driving ranges with really big range rovers. Luckily for them, this worked because they could look outside and see all they had created and done (well, all that they had accumulated). Though there is spiritual perversion in some of the ways they did so; the industrial mind of us humans does look at what we have built with satisfaction - that will always be there. For younger generations they ain't going to be accumulating nearly as much material wealth; in fact, if judged by the boomers material measuring stick, us millennials suck. What instead we need to accumulate then, is not material capital, but spiritual, cultural, and artistic capital. (I don't care if artistic capital is somehow an oxymoron). If we don't then our psychological decline is going to continue into the ground. We need to refute the boomers measuring sticks.
Read this when first popped up in my email but forgot to come on Substack and like it. For a year or so I went to monthly MENSA meetings. They really pushed me to join. But frankly they were such "silo thinkers" that the whole thing seemed ridiculous. I'm more broad spectrum, like viewing the world from a hilltop instead of from a prone position on the ground. And none of my experiences in life go to waste in my writing now. So, this is great advice. Doesn't mean that being an expert in something is bad, but even experts should be open to hearing about other things (which the people at those MENSA meetings weren't -- anything outside their field of study was an anathema to them). We need more Leonardo Davinci types in the world.
A hundred per cent. And Leonardo (probably my favourite human ever) is a perfect example of what I was discussing earlier in the comments: That if you work hard enough ... you can master multiple things. Like Leonardo (okay he was genius, nobody's going to be as good as him, but the idea holds).
Yeah, it sounded like you were referring to Leonardo. And I hope people take your message to heart. We tend to overwhelm the few guests we have here at our home. Our artwork hangs on the walls, hubby plays his compositions on the piano for them, and now my fiction writings are getting published. Add to that his handiwork in the yard and around the house and my own humble efforts in that area. We like to cover the bases in life. Time to free your generation and younger from their cell phones. Their minds are being lathed down from huge logs with so much potential to toothpicks good for very little but to be controlled sheep.
Ah yes you two sound not just artistic but useful! And admirable combination. It reminds me of my friends - one is a builder who has himself renovated their house; the other a chef, who cooks their self-grown vegetables into mighty feasts. Combining two multi-skilled people together probably makes them even more resilient, especially if the skills compliment each other.
I go back and forward on whether this is the right strategy. Sometimes I think you're right. I even shared your perspective with someone on a train in Europe in one of my "It's about the process, but even if it is also about the ends, it's about what you're trying to achieve and your internal metrics of success" moments.
But then I think, well what if you really do have a major talent for something. What if you could be 'that guy', but you never quite get there because you're dividing your zero sum eggs into too many different baskets. And because given the scope of humanity, talent in any area is actually relatively common. 'Hardwork beats talent when talent isn't working' as the adage goes.
But you would never know what heights you could truly be capable of if you didn't keep a focus.
Yeah, I think about that all the time; whether to go all in on something. However, a couple of things: first, that argument has less power today than twenty years ago - whatever you decide upon might not exist as a career in ten years, and all your efforts, while not nil, will not result in the necessary wealth to support a family in the way you desire. Second, what I didn’t say, is that if 10,000 hours plus talent means you master a skill, there is enough time in one’s life master multiple things. 20 hours a week doing something, every week, for ten years, is 10,000. If you are willing to work way harder than everyone else - because let’s be honest - people today DO NOT work hard - and do multiple things every week, then even choosing between strategies could be an illusion. At least that’s what I tell myself.
There’s also the idea of mixing different skills together to create something new - Scott Adams idea of how he created the Dilbert comics. You might not have this if you go in on one thing.
Sure. Let's delve into this hypothetical for a moment. Let's say what you pursue dies on the vine as a medium of expression or whatever it is, or you don't manage to support yourself + family with the endeavor. Let's also assume the 10,000 hours adage to be true.
If you were going to master four things in parallel, it would take you a lot longer to master any one thing, you would hit your decade and still be 1/4 of the way there, assuming you only had 20 hours per week spare for these activities.. Much like trying level up four different skills at once in a game with fixed XP. If on the other hand you did it in sequence, then sure, in forty years you're a master of four things. But just like the premise that one of your hatchlings dies even if you feed it, so to is life. What if you only had 10 years? Now what if certain hobbies or whatever didn't give you equal XP, what if because of your innate qualities or whatever, one earned you 20xp per hour, and every other passion project earns you 5 or 10xp. Would you prioritize what you're good at, given the veil of ignorance about your expiry date?
That is true, but I failed to say that one would work 20 hours on multiple things EACH per week, for ten years. And I reject the 'fixed XP game' analogy - at least in the sense that most people believe the XP they can get from things is a lot higher than they tell themselves - it's an excuse to not get off their ass.
As I'm currently doing, I'm probably spending 60 hours a week, doing three different things. In ten years - if all goes to plan, I could be a master of three things (but in my mind, I'm going for twenty years ... longer timeframe - also one needn't be a master to support a family, just competent enough). One or two of those things may fizzle out, not work - the other one or two may work - herein is the success. Of course, some years I will have to spend more time on others because of some necessissity (as is your situation right now lol), but over years, they will average out. And, as you will know, many of the things influence and help each other - writing fiction improves my storytelling in non-fiction; being a clinical psychologist will help my insights ... in whatever domain, etc. Added on to that, is all the other skills that may be beneficial to my success but I won't become a master at (research; investing). And, what I didn't say - that is fucking important - HAVE A BACKUP PLAN. I could teach suckers how to ski if all else fails. There will always be snow somewhere - and in fact, that lifestyle is apex.
What if I only had ten years? What I knew about it? Or didn't? I'm a bit confused. If I knew I'd probably go on massive crack bender and learn guitar. Haha nah, if I knew time was limited, I'd probably do exactly what I'm doing now. I'm currently doing what I love - I couldn't be happier, so that's great. On the general question of what to prioritize for other people ... I don't know. Strong arguments can be made for both doing things that bring you capital to support your family, and doing what you love to avoid making yourself miserable ... for that same family. Ideally, you'd want to do things you love that also bring capital. And I've heard some other really good arguments that one can learn to love (or at least like) the thing that does indeed provide for their family - if they're not an ungrateful sod. If you are multi-skilled, and only one does work - but it's your top choice; you can learn to love it because it feeds the people you love most.
Hope I didn't misunderstand your hypothetical - I might have.
I could have been a bit clearer I think. In the first instance, what I was saying was that if we assume all the premises you layed out in your first reply, time is the fixed XP (only so many hours in the day). Therefore, if you split your time between multiple tasks, it delays the time to mastery over any particular thing.
Second idea, XP is not fixed, because time isn't the only component that goes into it, now we're introducing stats and bonuses, which we assume are not distributed evenly (they rarely are in life).
Getting down to brass tacks: 60 hours is great if you're a man of leisure. But I suspect a career/work makes 40 hours a week on passion projects a tall order over a 10 year timeframe, let alone 60. 40 hours per week is close to 6 hours per day. Of course, tall doesn't mean impossible, and neither is an exactness really necessary here, I get the general point.
That said, of course your satisfaction and enjoyment is the strongest argument for the 'eggs in many baskets' approach, and it's horses for courses from my vantage point.
We have been having a back and forth on this topic for years now, and every time it comes up it's a fruitful discussion, I don't think I'm any closer to deciding what is right for me, but I respect your decision to nail your position to the church door.
First idea: Quite clearly true - and the ever-present dilemma for the multi-skilled man.
Second idea: Also quite clearly true.
Brass tacks: As I also should have included, work counts as one of these things, even two of these (if you have two part-time things going). I understand 'mastery' is often looked upon from the elite point of view as something like artistic ability, or being a scientist, but needn't be - it could be being an electrician, haridresser, ... ski instructor. So one of two of those you're getting paid for - even if it is at lower-level (demonstrator - post-doc - professor) before you get there. You need to get buy somehow.
Yeah we have; it suits me in many ways personality wise - and I think now, with the volatility of the environment and the increasing automation of jobs, the argument is much stronger. Even if you're job isn't quite automated, you're subject to whims of the economic and cultural future. If you wanna get out, you can't - you're stuck - and you're just hoping your job pays well, and you don't hate it.
My question is; how to skill up into the trades when boomers seem completely hostile towards the idea of hiring anyone new. I know of a few in the local area who will not teach youngsters outside their own sons.
I am asking as I really do want to learn a trade, but it's so far been barred.
As to the practicalities, a lot will depend on context. That's a shame they're not hiring anyone new. Where are you located by the way (of course, only if you want give out that information)?
Where I'm living, we have the opposite: Every young New Zealander wants to go to university ... because if you don't you are (apparently) ruining your chance at a successful future. Trades, and now farming jobs, are having to be filled by immigrants, because our entitled children think they're too good for the 'dirty work'.
I guess trades are not the only skilled profession one could ascend; neither must they require certifications per se, though because of our certification-obsessed society that would help. (I do wonder if this will change, drastically in future decades. Already a certification from university is valued far less than twenty years ago.) I wouldn't say ski instructing is a trade - unless you're top of the pops - you ain't making much money. But you can survive. My brother left university and taught himself how to trade stocks. You certainly needn't a certification for that.
Thinking about this more, I do wonder if the psychological satisfaction of younger generations like mine will depend on the degree to which we can spiritually and culturally awaken. One could go as far to say, the lifework of the boomers was comfort materialism and sweet sweet driving ranges with really big range rovers. Luckily for them, this worked because they could look outside and see all they had created and done (well, all that they had accumulated). Though there is spiritual perversion in some of the ways they did so; the industrial mind of us humans does look at what we have built with satisfaction - that will always be there. For younger generations they ain't going to be accumulating nearly as much material wealth; in fact, if judged by the boomers material measuring stick, us millennials suck. What instead we need to accumulate then, is not material capital, but spiritual, cultural, and artistic capital. (I don't care if artistic capital is somehow an oxymoron). If we don't then our psychological decline is going to continue into the ground. We need to refute the boomers measuring sticks.
Read this when first popped up in my email but forgot to come on Substack and like it. For a year or so I went to monthly MENSA meetings. They really pushed me to join. But frankly they were such "silo thinkers" that the whole thing seemed ridiculous. I'm more broad spectrum, like viewing the world from a hilltop instead of from a prone position on the ground. And none of my experiences in life go to waste in my writing now. So, this is great advice. Doesn't mean that being an expert in something is bad, but even experts should be open to hearing about other things (which the people at those MENSA meetings weren't -- anything outside their field of study was an anathema to them). We need more Leonardo Davinci types in the world.
A hundred per cent. And Leonardo (probably my favourite human ever) is a perfect example of what I was discussing earlier in the comments: That if you work hard enough ... you can master multiple things. Like Leonardo (okay he was genius, nobody's going to be as good as him, but the idea holds).
Yeah, it sounded like you were referring to Leonardo. And I hope people take your message to heart. We tend to overwhelm the few guests we have here at our home. Our artwork hangs on the walls, hubby plays his compositions on the piano for them, and now my fiction writings are getting published. Add to that his handiwork in the yard and around the house and my own humble efforts in that area. We like to cover the bases in life. Time to free your generation and younger from their cell phones. Their minds are being lathed down from huge logs with so much potential to toothpicks good for very little but to be controlled sheep.
Ah yes you two sound not just artistic but useful! And admirable combination. It reminds me of my friends - one is a builder who has himself renovated their house; the other a chef, who cooks their self-grown vegetables into mighty feasts. Combining two multi-skilled people together probably makes them even more resilient, especially if the skills compliment each other.