"universal Genius" Vs. "expert In 1 Area"

[Falk]

Lately i hear a lot of self-help teachers /success-coaches etc. say : FOCUS ON JUST 1 THING / be like one massive river, dont have branches / put all your eggs in one basket / ...you get the idea...

THE THING IS: all great people of all times have had a more wholistic approach on life, beeing interessted in many things at the same time and their great value for human-kind came from the synergetic effect of the universal genius / the critical mass of having access to different areas at the SAME TIME & connecting them to something new!!

Aristotle, da Vinci, Goethe, Einstein, Leibniz also most successful people/CEO´s today.. if you read their biographies they are often interessted and trained/skilled in different totaly unrelated fields like music, arts, poetry, mediation, philosophy, chess, etc ...

I personaly LOVE the wholistic approach, to see the bigger picture and beeing able to syngergize throu wisdom in different areas , i think in a world where we seperate everything, and have an educational system that creates so called "experts" we create a bunch of "idiots" who can´t see the bigger picture and only work like machines beeing realy good in 1 area, but what we need today is the exact opposite! 

So this is my plea for an wholistic approach towards human excistence. What do you guys think?

[charlie2dogs]

you said: Lately i hear a lot of self-help teachers /success-coaches etc. say : FOCUS ON JUST 1 THING / be like one massive river, dont have branches / put all your eggs in one basket / ...you get the idea...

where did you get this idea from, maybe you have been listening to the wrong teachers

you said: THE THING IS: all great people of all times have had a more wholistic approach on life

do you really think this statement is true

you said: i think in a world where we seperate everything, and have an educational system that creates so called "experts" we create a bunch of "idiots" who can´t see the bigger picture and only work like machines beeing realy good in 1 area, but what we need today is the exact opposite!

so do you want to create a more intelligent bunch of human idiots,? 

what does the big picture mean to you? if i may ask

[Salaam]

@Falk You're talking polymaths?

Yea, you want to have the best of both worlds. So like an eye, you want to be able to zoom in and out with your focus, with multiple fields of depth. Having a large population of inter-connected information in just one field isn't enough, you need to have many so they can contrast and inter-relate and you can see the universal associative patterns, while also being able to isolate down into specificity.

In my growth I have fields of depth including kinesiology, psychology, biology, seduction, fighting, engineering, chemistry, physics, music, art, and many others. The only limits are my own interest and inclinations. I can learn anything (I'm by no means a master at all of them, but I'm well on my way). 

In order to master mastery, you have to master being a beginner.

[Falk]

9 hours ago, charlie2dogs said:

you said: THE THING IS: all great people of all times have had a more wholistic approach on life

do you really think this statement is true

Da Vinci, Leibniz, Aristotle, Einstein, Goethe... 

9 hours ago, charlie2dogs said:

so do you want to create a more intelligent bunch of human idiots,? 

What?  I think we are talking about 2 different things here  

[Guest username]

Specialization is much more necessary today than it was in past times. Before, since the domain of human knowledge was so minuscule and scholasticism was so rare, it was actually possible to an expert in multiple domains. Whereas today, even within a particular discipline elite researchers spend their whole lives becoming intimately  aware of a  small sub-section of a larger discipline. For instance, it is not feasible to have a world-class understanding of every area of mathematics. David Hilbert is widely regarded as the last mathematician to have a deep understanding of all the major sub-fields. 

This is not at all due to us becoming dumber than our predecessors. On the contrary, we may have more geniuses alive today than any other time in history due to a vastly larger population and more abundant resources. The issue is the amount of knowledge we have compiled has grown so vast that it is simply impossible to be a true polymath in today's world. Specialization is often advocated as a way of building expertise within a niche and securing your position as a go-to person for things within that domain, which allows you to become a rare and valuable person within the market place rather than a generalist whose merit is harder to determine.  Two good books on the subject are: So Good They Can't Ignore You and Deep Work, both by Cal Newport.

I am by no means saying that learning from multiple disciplines is a bad thing. I predict however, interdisciplinary collaboration will require both holistic generalists who see the bigger picture and specialists who have expertise within particular sub-sections of a domain of knowledge. Having everyone aspire to a more holistic approach would be unfeasible due the staggering depth of available information coupled with the limited time one has to learn. Likewise, having a world full of nothing but specialists wouldn't work since nobody would be able to relate to one another. Having a mix allows specialists to share their expertise with others with generalists to facilitate communication between those in different fields.

[charlie2dogs]

2 hours ago, Falk said:

Da Vinci, Leibniz, Aristotle, Einstein, Goethe... 

What?  I think we are talking about 2 different things here  

hahahahaha

[Ajax]

15 hours ago, Falk said:

Lately i hear a lot of self-help teachers /success-coaches etc. say : FOCUS ON JUST 1 THING / be like one massive river, dont have branches / put all your eggs in one basket / ...you get the idea...

THE THING IS: all great people of all times have had a more wholistic approach on life, beeing interessted in many things at the same time and their great value for human-kind came from the synergetic effect of the universal genius / the critical mass of having access to different areas at the SAME TIME & connecting them to something new!!

Aristotle, da Vinci, Goethe, Einstein, Leibniz also most successful people/CEO´s today.. if you read their biographies they are often interessted and trained/skilled in different totaly unrelated fields like music, arts, poetry, mediation, philosophy, chess, etc ...

I personaly LOVE the wholistic approach, to see the bigger picture and beeing able to syngergize throu wisdom in different areas , i think in a world where we seperate everything, and have an educational system that creates so called "experts" we create a bunch of "idiots" who can´t see the bigger picture and only work like machines beeing realy good in 1 area, but what we need today is the exact opposite! 

So this is my plea for an wholistic approach towards human excistence. What do you guys think?

There is nothing wrong with having a wide variety of interest, however, they are talking about career-wise.  As population increases, competition becomes increasingly fierce.  Therefore the person who produces the most valuable products and services are the ones that will be best rewarded.  This can only be achieved with mastery. Unfortunately mastery takes so much time and effort to obtain so the more  you focus on it, the easier it will be to master.

I think that is one reason Leo discussed Lifestyle minimalism.So you can have  more free-time to think and creative  and spiritual endeavors. However, one should still work consistently to master a skill for a career.

[Leo Gura]

The mistake is in making this an either/or choice.

BOTH!

The answer is always BOTH!

People don't like hearing that because it means more work. And that's absolutely right! If you want to match up to someone like Aristotle or Da Vinci, you best be hustling from the crack of dawn to late into the night. Those people put in massive amounts of hours studying various fields. They weren't dabblers. They were very serious about their work and their life.

Life is pretty long. If you use your time wisely, you have time to master multiple fields. The problem is, most people find it hard enough to master just one field, let alone two or three. That really takes exceptional dedication and vision, and also a fair amount of neurotic workaholism.

The danger in taking on multiple fields is that you master none.

[Falk]

On 26.5.2016 at 4:23 AM, Leo Gura said:

The mistake is in making this an either/or choice.

BOTH!

The answer is always BOTH!

People don't like hearing that because it means more work. And that's absolutely right! If you want to match up to someone like Aristotle or Da Vinci, you best be hustling from the crack of dawn to late into the night. Those people put in massive amounts of hours studying various fields. They weren't dabblers. They were very serious about their work and their life.

Life is pretty long. If you use your time wisely, you have time to master multiple fields. The problem is, most people find it hard enough to master just one field, let alone two or three. That really takes exceptional dedication and vision, and also a fair amount of neurotic workaholism.

The danger in taking on multiple fields is that you master none.

Of you course you are right  

I might have been too unspecific, I want to give a better definition of what i imagine to be the NEW version of a Universal Genius, a "Wholistic Human"

Lets propose one Person is investing 50h per week into "A" ("A" is his main thing/interesst can be a business or science research or the likes ...) 

Now he could invest 30h more per week into "A" and make it 80h work in that area, become an expert, do that for 5+ years and expect to be "on top" of this field "A" (maybe getting several promotions / beeing head of department etc...) but i say what will happen is... (and i KNOW very successful people who exactly experienced this)...he will be burnt out/ joyless / depressive not only if he failed to reach all of his (neurotic?) goals but EVEN IF!! he reaches his goals, because the goals are 99% just sublimations for something else that person realy wants! he is neuroticly onesided! (in lack of a better word)

The Alternative would be, to instead invest the 30+ extra hours into totaly unrelated areas, that seem to not benefit his "career" on the first look form our western goal-oriented point of view and short-term thinking what success is:

-learning an instrument!! (Crazy! what? ..no! better communication between left& right brain hemisphere)

-meditation!! (again better l&r communication, also more creativity, more "grounded" personality)

-going for walks (reducing stress hormones, beeing alone)

-investing in doing maybe 2 kinds of different sports, boxing and yoga or gym and swimming  (awakening the body-intelligence)

-having a fullfilling love-life & gratuitously help people ("total waste of time right"?? no! beeing emotionaly secure/connect )

In 5 years the same person, would instead of hoping for a promotion, have an amazingly expanded horizon and easily just start his own business/ create real value/ beeing confident of making his "own game" instead of trying to 80h/per week "suicide-working" himself to the top of a sick industry that means nothing to him really...

So what i mean by "universal genius" is NOT learning about everything the mind can learn, but seeing that the mind is only ONE part of a human, and now learn about everything that is HUMAN! Investing in equal parts into intellectual work (which i still hold realy important im not saying to become a neanderthal  ) , in emotional understanding, in creative expression, in love and comapssion, and in body & health ... a Person who can do THAT! is my defintion of the NEW TRUE UNIVERSAL GENIUS in the HUMAN sense! 

Because that´s what we are after all! PEACE!

I know this might sound crazy but i think it is quite beatiful  

[Leo Gura]

@Falk You cannot work sustainably for 80 hours per week anyways. So it's a false choice.

[electroBeam]

You need to be a generalist with a sprinkle of specialist. mainly focus on 'one area' that you particularly like, but also be PROFICIENT or slightly less in other related areas(or unrelated like personal development). Like what Leo said, its both. I don't think you can be a master at everything, but at the same time, being a master of one, and not knowing anything else will put you at an extreme disadvantage. 

I'm not even sure what being a 'master' of something really is. It seems like a loose subjective social construct that changes its definition depending on the times we live in, so to even assume that it is only possible to master 1 thing is shaky in itself.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2016 by electroBeam

[Ajax]

@Falk  Leo discussed this previously:

 

 

I forgot about this one, I came about it by chance on my mp3 player. One thing about these polymaths is that they generally choose  creative endeavors for mastery, in that way they can incorporate their interests in their work. I too do dream to be more of a universal genius which is why my mastery target is in writing. It is general enough to incorporate my wide array of interests and I can gain enough experience  with it to have an easier transition into more specialized fields of writing if I so chose.

The problem as you noted is both time and funds.  Most of those "renaissance" men also were either from wealthy families or had wealthy patrons. Therefore, they had nearly all the time they wanted to be studious without the inconvenience of having a "normal job" or having to work.  That is why one of your first goals should be discovering a way to generate some sort of income so that you can advance your intellectual pursuits. Fortunately, I was able to solve this problem by creating passive income. I was lucky in that I had family with business/economic backgrounds so I was much more educated in investing and in the art of wise spending.  Also, I relocated to my hometown where the cost of spending is impressively low, so I can support myself  on the cheap and I can use my funds and time for actualization.

Just like Leo said, to get where you want to go... you are going to need an extraordinary amount of time and work into self-education.  So  the first thing you must do is ensuring you have the time and the work ethic.

[Falk]

On 28.5.2016 at 2:39 AM, Leo Gura said:

@Falk You cannot work sustainably for 80 hours per week anyways. So it's a false choice.

Yes! agreed 80hours+ is quite unsustainable when "working" the onesided lifestyle of an expert. It is unhealthy, unfulfulling, incomplete.

For a person with a more complete, or a "holistic vision" for life (this is my point) "work" can mean engagement in different intellectual or physical areas, as well as inner work on consciousness & meditation , work on the own physical & psychological health (and when you do it right it IS work!) , Those areas all fertilize each other, so 80hours+ each week is just where the fun starts... "work" is nothing negative here... 

I guess this is mainly semanctics, after all it usualy is if we go deep enough  

@Ajax Thx! yep that´s pretty much what i tried to say, i like it  

Edited May 29, 2016 by Falk