Being the world’s best mathematician/musician is much easier, especially since there are multiple slots; an amazing mathematician who is also a competent musician, someone who is good at both, and a competent mathematician who is also an amazing musician can all find a niche.
Maybe not quite this easy to be literally the best, number 1 out of 8 billion.
I could see it however for a mixture of three aspects simultaneously, such as being a competent mathematician, an amazing musician, and a competent marine biologist.
Or perhaps more realistically a mixture of four aspects at only a level of reasonable competence, such as being a competent mathematician/musician/marine biologist/Judo instructor.
Assuming that it only takes 10000 hours of focused practice to reach a level of reasonable competence, that’s still 40000 hours of practice though to be literally the best at one very specific interdisciplinary niche. Or 20 years assuming 2000 hours of real focused practice per year.
So it’s clear why that doesn’t happen often, most people just don’t have that kind of self-discipline.
And out of those that are capable, most would benefit more from just putting those 40000 hours towards one field, an aspiring mathematician deciding to become a really amazing mathematician and win the Fields Medal for example.
In the end just a small group of bonafide interdisciplinary folks remain, who for whatever reason decided not to concentrate their time in one field.
I didn’t say it was easy, I said it was easier. Being the world’s best mathematician/musician is much easier than being the world’s best mathematician. If you haven’t yet, check out the prerequisite.
I think it takes a lot less than ten thousand hours to reach competence at most skills, though this might be down to our definitions of competence? That’s eight hours a day for three or four years, and it usually makes me think of Gladwell’s 10,000 Rule from Outliers which is about achieving expertise.
I think riding a bike took me a weekend to learn so maybe ten to twenty hours, learning to play first person shooter videogames took me a weekend or two so about twenty to thirty hours, I picked up massage over a semester or two of class so about eighty hours of class time? I’m not saying I mastered those subjects that fast. I do think I learned enough to make use of them; you likely only need to practice riding a bike for a weekend or two before you can use it to get around town faster than walking.
If you have ten thousand hours of practice as a guitarist, your next fifty hours could go into being better at playing guitar. They could go into being better at audio recording, or setting up a great website for your band, or into being a better teacher for people who don’t know guitar yet. If you’re an amazing biology researcher with thousands of hours in bio, a week or two of intense study on how to write really good grant applications is probably more useful to you than an additional week or two of intense study in biology. My understanding is mathematicians who also know a little computer programming have options even in math that you don’t have if you’re a pure mathematician.
I was responding to the requirement to be literally ‘the best’. Ranked number 1 out of 8 billion plus human beings.
‘Expertise’ is a similar concept, the point is that they are clearly capable of reliably doing whatever the title implies, and are recognized as such by their peers in that field.
At a lower standard I think it’s quite reasonable to assume there are many mathematicians cum guitarists cum computer programmers cum biologists. Of course the vast majority of these only dabble in one area or another, like you said with a small time investment.
However to be literally better than every single one of them would require a lot more time, so I picked 10000 as a nice round number.
Maybe not quite this easy to be literally the best, number 1 out of 8 billion.
I could see it however for a mixture of three aspects simultaneously, such as being a competent mathematician, an amazing musician, and a competent marine biologist.
Or perhaps more realistically a mixture of four aspects at only a level of reasonable competence, such as being a competent mathematician/musician/marine biologist/Judo instructor.
Assuming that it only takes 10000 hours of focused practice to reach a level of reasonable competence, that’s still 40000 hours of practice though to be literally the best at one very specific interdisciplinary niche. Or 20 years assuming 2000 hours of real focused practice per year.
So it’s clear why that doesn’t happen often, most people just don’t have that kind of self-discipline.
And out of those that are capable, most would benefit more from just putting those 40000 hours towards one field, an aspiring mathematician deciding to become a really amazing mathematician and win the Fields Medal for example.
In the end just a small group of bonafide interdisciplinary folks remain, who for whatever reason decided not to concentrate their time in one field.
I didn’t say it was easy, I said it was easier. Being the world’s best mathematician/musician is much easier than being the world’s best mathematician. If you haven’t yet, check out the prerequisite.
I think it takes a lot less than ten thousand hours to reach competence at most skills, though this might be down to our definitions of competence? That’s eight hours a day for three or four years, and it usually makes me think of Gladwell’s 10,000 Rule from Outliers which is about achieving expertise.
I think riding a bike took me a weekend to learn so maybe ten to twenty hours, learning to play first person shooter videogames took me a weekend or two so about twenty to thirty hours, I picked up massage over a semester or two of class so about eighty hours of class time? I’m not saying I mastered those subjects that fast. I do think I learned enough to make use of them; you likely only need to practice riding a bike for a weekend or two before you can use it to get around town faster than walking.
If you have ten thousand hours of practice as a guitarist, your next fifty hours could go into being better at playing guitar. They could go into being better at audio recording, or setting up a great website for your band, or into being a better teacher for people who don’t know guitar yet. If you’re an amazing biology researcher with thousands of hours in bio, a week or two of intense study on how to write really good grant applications is probably more useful to you than an additional week or two of intense study in biology. My understanding is mathematicians who also know a little computer programming have options even in math that you don’t have if you’re a pure mathematician.
I was responding to the requirement to be literally ‘the best’. Ranked number 1 out of 8 billion plus human beings.
‘Expertise’ is a similar concept, the point is that they are clearly capable of reliably doing whatever the title implies, and are recognized as such by their peers in that field.
At a lower standard I think it’s quite reasonable to assume there are many mathematicians cum guitarists cum computer programmers cum biologists. Of course the vast majority of these only dabble in one area or another, like you said with a small time investment.
However to be literally better than every single one of them would require a lot more time, so I picked 10000 as a nice round number.