Steve Rubel Wants To Be A Polymath, And Blames The Internet

I don't know if it was one of those weird association posts or just linkbait, But Rubel steams ahead into contentious waters, asserting that he's no polymath and it was the Internet what did it to him:

[from Micro Persuasion: What's the Future Like for a "Renaissance Man" in a Connected World?]

I have seen this vividly in my own life. I used to read three newspapers a day. I also never missed the local 11 o'clock news every night. I excelled at current events quizzes in school. No more. Since I started living in my feed reader, I became blissfully ignorant about the world, facing an ever-pressing need to stay current in my domain of expertise.

News flash, Steve: Leonardo Da Vinci did not become a master of engineering, art, and architecture by reading newspapers. True mastery of any creative calling require a long, long period of study, practice and reflection (see The Costs Of Being A Creative), usually under the tutelage of others who have already attained mastery, not reading USA Today and People magazine.

Investing 10,000 hours into some skill -- like architecture, guitar, or karate -- is a general rule of thumb for mastery at the 'black belt' level. Being a polymath simply translates into someone who has invested 10,000 hours -- 3 hours per day, 333 days per year for 10 years -- into more than one discipline.

Reading the paper is just as likely as fooling on the internet to pull you away from writing code, painting, or trying to make the perfect chocolate mousse. In my experience, the biggest barrier to investing sufficient time in some activity is people: they are a much bigger diversion and time sink than the Web. Even including the porn sites.

Steve Baker makes an argument for breadth instead of the narrow focus that Rubel seems to call for:

Funny, I’m seeing the other side: the need for more Renaissance types. In a world of converging technologies, many exciting breakthroughs take place across disciplines, boundaries and borders.

[...]

True, winners today need deep knowledge. They cannot be dilettantes. But they must also learn to communicate with and learn from people in other domains. They must venture out. Leonardo would fare just fine today. In fact, this world is made for people like him.

I agree. I am not suggesting that people work to acquire a superficial awareness of a wide variety of things, but that we should, each of us, become deeply invested in a number of disciplines. We should learn music, deeply, how to play an instrument or sing, not just passively listening to the radio. We should learn to cook, not simply to appreciate great food. We should learn foreign languages, not just marvel at those who are polyglots.

Certainly, we cannot learn everything, and we do not have the time to master every art, craft, and science. But we can certainly learn a few, deeply, and we can certainly commit ourselves to be creative in a world where creativity has become a necessary path to making deep contributions.

Comments

[Matt]

This seems like a bizarre opinion to have, to me. Feed readers did the opposite to me - whereas before my experience of the internet was constricted, and any other use of it was shallow surfing at best - now, if I'm interested in American history, I can dig up a few academic blogs and follow them for a year. I can follow much more with less effort, and in turn have a greater field of knowledge. Feed readers have made me more widely 'aware' than before! Of course, I'm still not an expert or a polymath. But by no means ignorant about the world. That seems like a personal choice.

[Brent Dixon]

Thanks for this awesome post. Its easy to rationalize distraction by calling it "breadth of knowledge," I do it often and it makes my head fuzzy.

Your advice to zero in on and pursue passions in a fragmented and (overly?) accessible world is important for anyone who's looking for impact instead of shallow craziness.