Scott Adams makes the argument that when it comes to skills, quantity is more important than quality. So if you are good in 2 things, it is better than being great at 1.
Good + Good > Great.
He argues that he isn't the best at drawing or the most funny person. What made his work with Dilbert a success were the number of things he developed a skill for... just average skills. He declares himself as mediocre in drawing, a little more than average at writing, speaking and psychology skills etc. He wasn't really outstanding at any one thing. He just deliberately improved the number of skills he had over time.
He continues to explain that what we need to do is pick up the skills that have an economical value. Scott Adams put in many hours to learn how to spin a basketball with one finger. And went on to use that skill towards nothing of value. So when we select the skills we want to stack, it shouldn't be towards something of no value. He advices that there are certain skills that make people stand out when compounded with others. I wrote about those skills back in 2019 and have worked towards improving some of them. The simple formula he proposes is that for every skill you acquire, you double your odds of success. Particularly complementary skills.
I like this way of thinking almost as much as I am drawn to Bruce Lee's practicing one kick 10,000 times. Bruce Lee is about mastery while Scott Adams is about increasing the odds of success.
The two philosophies seem contradictory. What's even more weird is my inability to select one over the other. Today, I find myself gravitating towards Scott. But ask me what I think tomorrow.
Good + Good > Great.
He argues that he isn't the best at drawing or the most funny person. What made his work with Dilbert a success were the number of things he developed a skill for... just average skills. He declares himself as mediocre in drawing, a little more than average at writing, speaking and psychology skills etc. He wasn't really outstanding at any one thing. He just deliberately improved the number of skills he had over time.
He continues to explain that what we need to do is pick up the skills that have an economical value. Scott Adams put in many hours to learn how to spin a basketball with one finger. And went on to use that skill towards nothing of value. So when we select the skills we want to stack, it shouldn't be towards something of no value. He advices that there are certain skills that make people stand out when compounded with others. I wrote about those skills back in 2019 and have worked towards improving some of them. The simple formula he proposes is that for every skill you acquire, you double your odds of success. Particularly complementary skills.
I like this way of thinking almost as much as I am drawn to Bruce Lee's practicing one kick 10,000 times. Bruce Lee is about mastery while Scott Adams is about increasing the odds of success.
The two philosophies seem contradictory. What's even more weird is my inability to select one over the other. Today, I find myself gravitating towards Scott. But ask me what I think tomorrow.
If you're in a sport like martial arts or basketball then the rules/goals are so much more defined than what most people deal with.
Most of us are in settings where jobs/goals/norms are in constant flux. Probably less wise to try to go for mastery in a narrow niche in such context.
However I do think that a lot of people hear Scott's take on this and think it's easy to become average at something. Even though he might be medicore at the things he listed off, I think the combination of these mediocre skills are a skill in itself. And in that combining skill I'd say he has some level of mastery.