Jack of all trades, master of many, article.
Robert KvH ventures:
I believe that the statement one can become world class in almost any skill within one year is meant to be a throwaway teaser. There have always been polymaths among us who are gifted and can master many things. But that is far from the norm.
In the three fields that I know well, from participation, observation, and practice (Sailing, aikido, and embedded systems), I can state that I have never encountered, met, or read about anyone who achieved mastery, let alone world class status in one year. I live in Newport, RI, have worked for the America's cup, and met sailors such as Ken Read. They did not become world champions in one year. In aikido, one year of dedicated practice (say 4-5 times per week) wouldn't get you close to 1st degree black belt, generally considered the entry level into being a serious student. I have asked my instructor, who has been studying for almost 30 years if he has met anyone, or heard of anyone that mastered aikido in one year. He just laughed. You can't master the physical/technical aspects in one year, even if you are already an amazing athlete. The spiritual/mental aspects of aikido will take much longer.
As someone who designs embedded systems for 30 years, I have met many good programmers and software engineers, but none of them became competent embedded engineers in one year.
25 comments:
Interesting article. But is the link supposed to take us somewhere?
Futtbuck.
Why does this always happen on the rare occasions when I forget to check the links.
Fixed now.
Another excellent post by Tim Ferriss.
I still don't know what to think of his bold statement: "Based on my experience and research, it is possible to become world-class in almost any skill within one year."
Intellectually, I don't doubt this. I know humans have unlimited potential. The problem, though, is there's hardly any examples of someone mastering the really tough skills in such a short time.
I have never heard of a concert violinist who had been playing for only one year. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not possible. Before Bannister no one had run the 4-minute mile either (in fact it was 'proven' impossible by scientists).
But theory is not enough. Proof is needed. Tim, himself, did achieve mastery in Argentine Tango in one year (winning a world championship). I guess this is where his boldness is founded on. But that tango thing doesn't look too difficult to my eye (I may be wrong, I know nothing about it).
Should we all pick a skill and report back in a year? (Or perhaps, have the New York Times report on our behalf.)
Jack of None
Yes, that's a bold statement. Especially since after that he talks about 20% skill, not 99%. 20% is hardly "world-class", though it may suffice for most applications.
I understood he meant 20% effort => 80% skill as per the Pareto principle.
I.e. the way you practice counts more than the hours you put it. He is just expressing it in more 'scientific' terms.
Now, you might say that 80% skill is hardly mastery either. Maybe this would qualify you to play 2. violin in an opera orchestra or something. But that would be quite impressive already.
He defines it more accurately in the comments section:
“World-class” to me is being the top 1-5% most proficient of all people who practice a certain skill.
Could this be why some view me as a "know-it-all" braggart? Because I have many developed interests and love to share the knowledge? But my true motivation is not vanity, it's sharing. The learning goes both ways.
I can definitely assure the whole world (there I go being modest again!), that there are many, many fields in which I'm hopelessly ignorant. For example, if I were as brilliantly smart as my auntie used to tell her lady friends when I was little, I'm sure I wouldn't suck at chess. But I do. Utterly! It's weird, I would've thought being gifted for Maths would help at playing chess, but no.
Guess not all Renaissance men are geniuses then, huh? Good for me: when you're at the top, the only way to move is down. Me, I love climbing. Macte animo, generose puer!
I think the word you are looking for is Nexialist.
I first learnt this word many years ago, when catching up on the SF books that inspired SF Films.
A.E. Van Vogt rescues his spaceship Beagle from the narrow minded, bigoted single field scientists by unifying their learnings through an upstart nexialist. Ever since then I have found myself in that role, interfacing between different teams with an external perspective.
I think *unifying* different fields goes beyond what we were talking about.
Though doubtlessly that is a rare and valuable skill.
Can you unify without having some mastery of the skills you trying to unify? I guess you could.
Thinking on, this is the role of the CTO in many organizations. Do they have CTO's in the UK, Chief Technology Officer, he is the geek companion of the CEO Chief Executive Officer and scourge of the head bean counter CFO (Financial).
I would invite anyone to see a neurosurgeon or orthopedic surgeon who studied medicine and surgery for 1-2 years. Med school is 4 years assuming you've already had math, chemistry, biology, etc. WHen my body and life are concerned, 80% (which I doubt) is definitely not good enough.
When I get sick, I do an evaluation of myself. Do I think I need help? Do I think the pharmacist can help? Do I need to see Sister, or do I really need to see my GP?
After my own self eval I see one of the above. All are qualified to a point, and infinitely more qualified than me.
If I end up at the GP, then he can either prescribe, or pass me onto a specialist. I've seen things go through a couple of layers of specialist.
There again, why tie up an OR and full staff for a vaginal delivery when a competent midwife can perform well enough. Granted it's good to have a gynecologist handy, and the OR a short drive/walk away.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we don't need specialists, but we are discussing how someone with a broad scope of things can be extremely effective in a wider field. For airbag deployment I want a proper embedded engineer, for a database I want an SQL expert. But for the GUI's and upper level routines I'd take any competent programmer, a master of many.
There will always be the Guru's, they are an invaluable resource, and enabling feature, but they are only needed for the critical corner cases, not the general case.
Speaking of unifying scientific fields, the complex formulas developed by Chemistry for molecule interactions and their electron movements have recently been applied to Astonomics. Turns out the equations for equilibrium state are the exact same which could save a big proportion of space fuel, making cosmic travel much cheaper.
Ironically, these equations were originally developed from the planetary atom model, which is completely false but was a convenient simplification.
Regarding Medicine, I can definitely pitch in: 1-2 years do NOT give 80% of medical knowledge, far from it. It takes at least 6 years to study general Medicine.
Specialists need several more years for those "extra 20%". Usually 4. Five for surgeons, because they also need the practical experience for operations. And after all that time, some set out to become masters in their specialty, which is a life-long quest.
In fact, surgeons past their second year of specializing DO perform operations, albeit under the supervision of the seasoned specialist. And senior Residents in their 4th or 5th year sometimes operate on their own, for procedures with no particular difficulties, with the Professor merely present in the operating room in case of an unexpected incident. (You can never rule out incidents, even with the best. There's always room for the unexpected when dealing with the body.)
In a competent University Hospital Center, you can check in without bothering to ask who will operate you, because they'll be fully apt. Happened with both my parents, operated by classmates of mine.
Besides, a good deal of the final training years is about practical experience and polishing the details.
"But for the GUI's and upper level routines I'd take any competent programmer, a master of many."
Well, I'm not so sure there. For GUI's [Genito-Urinary Infections], a urologist is often best, you know. ;-)
Sorry Pascal I meant MMI or HCI.
I thought the equation was 20% of the skill set deals with 80% of the problems.
Programmers don't know about STD's other then "Standard Telephone Dialing" codes.
The best antivirus protection for STD's is the rubber condom.
Or, you also have the Firewall salled "abstinence or else you'll burn in Hell". But its users often forget to activate it.
Um... is the obsession of my trade taking over? ;-)
I believe that the statement one can become world class in almost any skill within one year is meant to be a throwaway teaser. There have always been polymaths among us who are gifted and can master many things. But that is far from the norm. In alex's example, he has years of experience with his own body to decide if he is sick and who he should see about it, not that he was claiming to have mastered differential diagnoses.
In the three fields that I know well, from participation, observation, and practice (Sailing, aikido, and embedded systems), I can state that I have never encountered, met, or read about anyone who achieved mastery, let alone world class status in one year. I live in Newport, RI, have worked for the America's cup, and met sailors such as Ken Read. They did not become world champions in one year. In aikido, one year of dedicated practice (say 4-5 times per week) wouldn't get you close to 1st degree black belt, generally considered the entry level into being a serious student. I have asked my instructor, who has been studying for almost 30 years if he has met anyone, or heard of anyone that mastered aikido in one year. He just laughed. You can't master the physical/technical aspects in one year, even if you are already an amazing athlete. The spiritual/mental aspects of aikido will take much longer.
As someone who designs embedded systems for 30 years, I have met many good programmers and software engineers, but none of them became competent embedded engineers in one year.
I've only got 15 years of embedded experience, okay 7 embedded, 7 ASIC verification, and I still am finding surprises in the trade.
I think you can spot obvious talent in someone in their first year, but mastery take experience. Experience takes time.
I believe an experienced engineer could become world class in a specific field within a year, but we are talking about a field as narrow as say RS232, I2C or Flash(memory, not graphics) usage, and you would need to work in multiple project teams to get that, after all one board designer will not expose you to all possible problems.
Oh, and sorry Robert if the stereotyping of engineers was offensive. I like the old joke where the artist, banker and engineer are discussing the merits of wife v's mistress.
The artist opts for the mistress for the spontaneity and romance.
The banker opts for a wife, comfort, routine, predictability and security.
The engineer elects to have both. His justification, the wife thinks your with the mistress, the mistress thinks your with the wife. That leaves you free to go to the lab, and get some work done.
Pascal said:
"I'm sure I wouldn't suck at chess. But I do. Utterly! It's weird, I would've thought being gifted for Maths would help at playing chess, but no."
That's the same problem Isaac Asimov had. Although a brilliant man of many talents (including math and science, of course), he was a hopeless chess player and had no ability for languages.
I'm not sure that we should really consider Leonardo a scientist and engineer. A brilliant artist, certainly, but did he make any discoveries in science that weren't already known at the time?
I know that he didn't publish his work, so it's possible, and although I've looked at his notebooks (copies I mean) I can't read them - so I'm certainly not above admitting I'm wrong about this.
He certainly had wide-ranging interests, but this does not translate into mastery or genius in those areas.
Leo DaVinci is officially credited as the first man to have invented several concepts: the parachute, the helicopter, the armored tank, and an automobile prototype that has been reconstituted very recently from the plans. It was propelled by springs, had very limited autonomy, and was essentially an original toy for aristocrat ladies. But this has proven that Leonardo invented the first known wheel vehicle that wasn't propelled either by direct muscle energy (like a cart) or by wind.
Who knows, maybe he ALSO invented the sail-cart.
It is my belief that nobody can be a Jack of ALL trades (like in that series, the Pretender), but that all of us can be successfull Jacks of many trades. All it needs is to keep seeking and have a curious mind.
Pascal said:
"The parachute, the helicopter, the armored tank, and an automobile prototype"
Your beloved Wikipedia says that his helicopter would not have worked, that is tank design was not self-propelled and if built would probably not have been able to go forward (although it has been built, and with a minor change was made to work; it is believed that Leonardo may have put this error in on purpose). It says that the hang glider he designed would have worked, but doesn't say whether the parachute would have.
The thing is, all this proves that he was a great engineer, whose designs were ahead of their time. He appears to have employed scientific principles known at the time to come up with these.
Everyone here should understand that I'm a huge fan of his and am not trying to tear him down. Everyone knows he was a brilliant artist, and I can see that he was a great engineer and that some of his inventions had merit, but as a scientist? Compare him in this way to Gilbert, or Watt, or your namesake Pascal. Judging by the Wikipedia article on him, he seems to have made minor contributions in some areas of science, like geology and botany.
Leonardo was a great abstract thinker, which probably does not go with science, where you work methodically on the nitty-gritty of things.
Okay, now let's talk about the REAL inventor of the Ninja Turtles: Donatello.
Though I've heard that Michaelangelo invents a new pizza at least once a week. (Whether it works as a pizza depends on whom you ask!)
Well, Pascal, we all know that Donatello does machines. :-)
Yeah, I think they messed up the great unique spirit of the Ninja Turtles with the new series, it tries way too hard to be "badass super cool".
The self-derision of the dudes in shells was what seduced me in the original series. Like Mike rushing through the sewers in his jet-ski, and turning to the camera: "I know, the scenery's not much, but I love this theme music!"
Post a Comment