Don McMinn

I’ve always enjoyed Thomas Huxley’s comment, “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” Here’s a post I wrote on this subject.

Recently, I have tweaked the thought to read, “Try to learn something about everything and everything about at least two areas.”  Here’s why.

There’s plenty of time to master more than one area. 

Years ago, Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Outliers: The Story of Success suggested that it takes 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to become an expert in any field. About three hours a day for 3,333 days—a little over nine years. Scientists have debunked the 10,000-hour rule (suggesting that in many instances it doesn’t take that long to master a field) but for now, let’s assume that the rule is correct: it takes nine years to master a skill. 

Life expectancy in the U.S. is currently around 79 years. So, starting at age 20, according to the 10k-hour rule, someone could master 6.5 areas (59 years divided by 9 years) in a lifetime. That’s overly ambitious, but you get my point—in an average lifetime we have plenty of time to master more than one area.

Mastering more than one area is beneficial.

Mastering multiple areas creates the possibility of synergy

A good (though imprecise) explanation of synergy is: when two or more elements work together and complement each other such that their combined force is more powerful than the sum of their individual forces. The whole is equal to more than the sum of its parts, such that 2+2 = 5.

When you master multiple disciplines, synergy can occur. 

My son-in-law is a board certified emergency room physician. He’s really good at what he does. He’s currently finishing an MBA so he’s “mastering” business and leadership. Recently he was chosen to be chief medical director of a startup company out of Oxford. He was hired because he’s a master of two fields.

Imagine how beneficial it would be to:

• • Earn an MBA degree and master the Chinese language.
  • Be a good engineer and a great writer.
  • Be a good teacher and a master mechanic.  

Mastering multiple areas will give you greater job security.

The job market is very volatile and will continue to be. Positions are being replaced by AI; companies are downsizing. If you’re only competent in one area you’re more vulnerable than if you have multiple skills. 

Likewise, it’s wise to have two sources of income. Work a full-time job but also have a part-time job. For instance, my friend John is a master organist and he also builds, repairs, and tunes organs. My friend Linda teaches public school and is a wedding photographer.

Master several areas. I can’t think of any downside to doing so. 

“A weak argument generally dilutes a strong one.” Neil Rackham

What’s wrong with these arguments?

Husband — I think the time is right for us to buy a new car. The model we want is on sale this month, we have the money set aside to pay cash, we’ll save money on car repairs, and a new car will make our garage look better.

Employee — We shouldn’t include this product in our catalog. It doesn’t meet our standard of quality, our profit margin would be small, and Christmas is on a Monday this year.

Bob — I don’t like Picasso’s art. It’s very abstract and I prefer realistic art. That’s why most people don’t enjoy his art. 

In each instance, the speaker is building a solid argument but then sabotages it by unnecessarily adding an incredulous point. Each speaker should have left off the final phrase. If I heard these statements I would be compelled to comment on the confusing and faulty last statements. These obviously uninformed final phrases would even cause me to question the integrity of the entire argument as well as the thinking ability of the speaker. 

I hear this mistake made often. Someone begins to construct a reasonable proposition but then, in an attempt to further strengthen his case, adds on weak, even indefensible points that dilute the argument and may cause people to totally dismiss the proposition.

When making a case, or just expressing an opinion, limit your supporting evidence to solid, rational statements. Don’t add feeble, irrelevant, or questionable statements because instead of strengthening your position, they weaken it.

What do you think?

 

Direction is more important than speed.

When you’re heading in the right direction, every step you take is progress. If you’re going in the wrong direction, every step is counterproductive. So whether you’re going slow or fast, direction trumps speed. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Make sure that first step is in the right direction.

When making important decisions that have long-term implications (career move, major financial decision, long-term relationship), slow down and carefully evaluate your options before starting.  

Movement is better than inactivity.

If you’re inordinately passive and/or you’re stuck, just start moving. Often, movement is better than inactivity, even if you’re not sure you’re going in the right direction. Several false starts will be better than doing nothing.  And when you start moving but soon realize you’re heading in the wrong direction, you can change course. It’s difficult to steer a stationary bike. 

Do you sense the tension between these two statements? One says “Don’t move until you know you’re going in the right direction.” The other says, “Stop being passive, just do something.”

Of course, correct direction and speed is optimum.

There is a scene in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland where Alice is talking to the Cheshire Cat, who is perched up in a tree. Alice is a bit confused about her direction, so she asks the cat:

“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”

“That depends a great deal on where you want to go,” replies the Cheshire Cat.

“I don’t much care where,” says Alice.

To which the feline replies, “Then it doesn’t matter which way you go.”

Some people face the same predicament as Alice. They don’t really know which way they want to go in life, so they just wander aimlessly and soon become stagnant and stale, or, they don’t move at all.

Maintain a healthy balance between right direction and movement.

Last week, my friend Ward encouraged me to read Tolstoy’s short story titled How Much Land Does a Man Need? It takes about 10 minutes to read. As expected, it is simple and profound. Here’s a link to a free copy. 

Don’t let perfect be an enemy of the good.

This aphorism is an old Italian proverb first made popular by Voltaire who used it in his poem La Bégueule. The literal translation is, the best is the enemy of the good. 

Other philosophers and writers have expressed the thought in slightly different ways. Confucius: “Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.” Shakespeare: “Striving to better, oft we mar what’s well.”

Perfection is impossible to achieve, so pursuing it is sometimes unnecessary, even counterproductive. The pursuit of perfection can become inefficient and produce diminishing returns. We need to know when good enough is good enough.

Robert Watson-Watt, who developed early warning radar in Britain to counter the rapid growth of the Luftwaffe, warned of a “cult of the imperfect” in which imperfect is unacceptable. (He got pushback on early versions of his radar system because it wasn’t “perfect.”) Instead of waiting until something is perfected, he suggested, “Give them the third best to go with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes.” That wise perspective helped the Allies win the war.

Sometimes “done” is adequate. Don’t let perfection be the enemy of done.

• Only spend 45 minutes cleaning your car. You could devote two hours to the project but is the extra time worth it? It may rain tomorrow.
• Want to acknowledge a friend’s birthday? A handwritten, slow-mailed notecard may be the most impactful, but a short phone call or text message will get the job done.
• Instead of waiting to get the perfect tool to do a job, improvise and get it done.

Obviously, there are situations when setting the highest standard is important. I want my pharmacist to be fastidious when filling my prescriptions and pilots should be perfectionistic when evaluating a plane’s airworthiness. 

But don’t let perfect become an enemy of good and done.