7 ms·

Well the counter-argument to that is: why do you need to achieve mastery? You can be happy with the slow progress you make along the way. You don't need to be P

Well the counter-argument to that is: why do you need to achieve mastery? You can be happy with the slow progress you make along the way. You don't need to be Picasso to enjoy painting.

Retric 6y ago
Yea, the counter to mastery is the realization that you can get to a useful place in most areas with 100 hours or less of effort. It’s nowhere near enough time to become say a short order cook, but plenty of time to learn to make bacon and eggs for breakfast in whatever specific way you want it.
- _huayra_ 6y ago
  Learning when to stop at a satisfactory level is equally hard as learning when to floor it and push against some difficult goal. I think even 100 honest hours learning something will get you further than you probably need to go, e.g. basic home maintenance stuff that is just 1. find the right youtube video, 2. have the tools, 3. don't be a moron. god knows that my far beyond satisfactory level of dotfile / config tweaking has probably paid fewer dividends than I'd like to think...
  - unlaxedneurotic 6y ago
    Not being a moron is a skill that is getting harder to find everyday.
- cheschire 6y ago
  Your first sentence stands well on its own. I suspect if you shadowed a short order cook for 2.5x 40 hour work weeks, you would be able to function as a short order cook yourself. The entire point of that job is to prepare food that takes a short time to deliver. This means lots of rote tasks which can be performed rapidly.
  - heavenlyblue 6y ago
    Cook doesn’t only cook by the way. The fact that you can remember a recipe doesn’t mean you will be able to easily adapt to the lack of certain ingredients on the market and/or optimise the cost of the finished product.
ehnto 6y ago
Even Picasso was a jack of many trades. I am in no position to decide whether or not he was a master in every field by the end of his life, but I know for certain he was mediocre at all of them at some point.
- alimw 6y ago
  You'd have to go back into his very early childhood to find a time when he couldn't paint.
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    I find this is true for the handful of multi-talented people I know in my personal life. They truly have innate talent/ability in at least one area. Sometimes they have a remarkable ability to learn new things quicker than most people, other times they have to work hard for everything else, but they always have their natural talent to fall back on, in times of duress or limited energy. I'd be interested to see some research in this area.
    - rland 6y ago
      I'm not sure. I know a lot of seemingly "talented" people. How do they pick up a new instrument in 2-3 months? Or be able to balance on a skateboard after just a little while? Or get kills better than me with only 200 CS GO hours clocked? The answer is always that they spent a lot of focused time earlier in life, or that they spend a lot of time that I wasn't aware of -- like I find out that they have 2500 hours in CS:S on another account... yeah that makes a lot more sense. I don't believe innate talent exists. Other than that some people are mentally quicker, or have faster reflexes, or are physically more capable -- "general" things. But talent exists only from both hard work and time, which for many things can start at age 2 or 3.
      - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
        >I don't believe innate talent exists. Other than that some people are mentally quicker, or have faster reflexes, or are physically more capable -- "general" things I don't understand how this distinction is supposed to work. If someone has exactly the 'general natural inclinations' that fit to a certain activity, it seems asinine to not call them talented in it. Sure, they won't be skilled in it unless they actually put in the work, but they'll comparatively have an easier time with it.
nerdponx 6y ago
I don't think most people strive for mastery. But many things just aren't that fun or satisfying if you don't at least achieve competence. A lot of hobbies, crafts, and activities really only start to become fun (rather than "rewarding but tiring") when you start to get good at them, because you have to think/work less hard to achieve basic satisfying outcomes.
- tmh88j 6y ago
  >I don't think most people strive for mastery. But many things just aren't that fun or satisfying if you don't at least achieve competence. Learning how to play the guitar was frustrating for me, but my stubbornness to be able to play the music I listened to is what kept me going. I'm constantly listening to music and I knew I would enjoy it in the long run so I'm glad I stuck with it, but man, the first hundred hours or so of learning honestly wasn't enjoyable to me. I love it now but it felt like a chore at the time.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    I always laugh when people remark that some dancer "makes it look easy". Because it is easy when you've trained enough. And the more you train at it, the funner it gets.
    - mudita 6y ago
      What style of dance do you mean? I think this "making it look easy" is probably most relevant for ballet, where high level dancers still train very "basic" movements or use a lot of muscular effort to create the illusion of lightness etc.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        Pretty much any style that has prescribed technique to it (not just random movements). Partnership dancing comes to mind. It takes years of training to make it look effortless, and it is (for the dancers). Even the best regularly go over the basics again and again.

Well the counter-argument to that is: why do you need to achieve mastery? You can be happy with the slow progress you make along the way. You don't need to be Picasso to enjoy painting.

Retric 6y ago

Yea, the counter to mastery is the realization that you can get to a useful place in most areas with 100 hours or less of effort. It’s nowhere near enough time to become say a short order cook, but plenty of time to learn to make bacon and eggs for breakfast in whatever specific way you want it.

_huayra_ 6y ago
Learning when to stop at a satisfactory level is equally hard as learning when to floor it and push against some difficult goal. I think even 100 honest hours learning something will get you further than you probably need to go, e.g. basic home maintenance stuff that is just 1. find the right youtube video, 2. have the tools, 3. don't be a moron. god knows that my far beyond satisfactory level of dotfile / config tweaking has probably paid fewer dividends than I'd like to think...
- unlaxedneurotic 6y ago
  Not being a moron is a skill that is getting harder to find everyday.
cheschire 6y ago
Your first sentence stands well on its own. I suspect if you shadowed a short order cook for 2.5x 40 hour work weeks, you would be able to function as a short order cook yourself. The entire point of that job is to prepare food that takes a short time to deliver. This means lots of rote tasks which can be performed rapidly.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  Cook doesn’t only cook by the way. The fact that you can remember a recipe doesn’t mean you will be able to easily adapt to the lack of certain ingredients on the market and/or optimise the cost of the finished product.

ehnto 6y ago

Even Picasso was a jack of many trades. I am in no position to decide whether or not he was a master in every field by the end of his life, but I know for certain he was mediocre at all of them at some point.

alimw 6y ago
You'd have to go back into his very early childhood to find a time when he couldn't paint.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  I find this is true for the handful of multi-talented people I know in my personal life. They truly have innate talent/ability in at least one area. Sometimes they have a remarkable ability to learn new things quicker than most people, other times they have to work hard for everything else, but they always have their natural talent to fall back on, in times of duress or limited energy. I'd be interested to see some research in this area.
  - rland 6y ago
    I'm not sure. I know a lot of seemingly "talented" people. How do they pick up a new instrument in 2-3 months? Or be able to balance on a skateboard after just a little while? Or get kills better than me with only 200 CS GO hours clocked? The answer is always that they spent a lot of focused time earlier in life, or that they spend a lot of time that I wasn't aware of -- like I find out that they have 2500 hours in CS:S on another account... yeah that makes a lot more sense. I don't believe innate talent exists. Other than that some people are mentally quicker, or have faster reflexes, or are physically more capable -- "general" things. But talent exists only from both hard work and time, which for many things can start at age 2 or 3.
    - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
      >I don't believe innate talent exists. Other than that some people are mentally quicker, or have faster reflexes, or are physically more capable -- "general" things I don't understand how this distinction is supposed to work. If someone has exactly the 'general natural inclinations' that fit to a certain activity, it seems asinine to not call them talented in it. Sure, they won't be skilled in it unless they actually put in the work, but they'll comparatively have an easier time with it.

nerdponx 6y ago

I don't think most people strive for mastery. But many things just aren't that fun or satisfying if you don't at least achieve competence. A lot of hobbies, crafts, and activities really only start to become fun (rather than "rewarding but tiring") when you start to get good at them, because you have to think/work less hard to achieve basic satisfying outcomes.

tmh88j 6y ago
>I don't think most people strive for mastery. But many things just aren't that fun or satisfying if you don't at least achieve competence. Learning how to play the guitar was frustrating for me, but my stubbornness to be able to play the music I listened to is what kept me going. I'm constantly listening to music and I knew I would enjoy it in the long run so I'm glad I stuck with it, but man, the first hundred hours or so of learning honestly wasn't enjoyable to me. I love it now but it felt like a chore at the time.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  I always laugh when people remark that some dancer "makes it look easy". Because it is easy when you've trained enough. And the more you train at it, the funner it gets.
  - mudita 6y ago
    What style of dance do you mean? I think this "making it look easy" is probably most relevant for ballet, where high level dancers still train very "basic" movements or use a lot of muscular effort to create the illusion of lightness etc.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      Pretty much any style that has prescribed technique to it (not just random movements). Partnership dancing comes to mind. It takes years of training to make it look effortless, and it is (for the dancers). Even the best regularly go over the basics again and again.