I don't believe that you can only be good at a couple things. You can be _great_ at only a couple things. And you can only be the _best_ at a single thing. As it happens, I think you can actually be fairly good at _many_ things, which is something I am trying to achieve for myself.
Of course, you need not to be too competitive or perfectionist, but you can then enjoy lots of great things on this planet, while benefiting from the compounding interests of transferring what you learn in one discipline to another.
I play the trumpet at a fairly good level, I am a decent road and mountain biker, I have enough knowledge of mountaineering to plan and lead simple ascents in the alps, I have a PhD in computer science and I consider myself a decent software developper, I have a baby and a beautiful wife, I have enough depth in physics and philosophy to have an interesting chat with majors of these disciplines.
However, I had to give up on being truly great at any of these things. Yet, I found that you can then draw some fascinating parallels between brass playing and biking, physics and computer science, mountaineering and having a family.
So, yes, you need to know what to focus on, but your focus can definitely be on striking the very delicate balance that allows you to be 'just good' at lots of things.
Agreed. I'm reminded of a great blog I read (no bookmark, sorry) about "skill stacking" -- if you're top 10% in one thing and top 25% in another, you might be top 1% or better in their combination.
I agree and have a somewhat similar diversity of interests. I've found that a source of dissatisfaction for me is spreading myself thin in a way that means I'm not truly present when doing any of these things. So I find it's better to focus on a couple of things in the short term but switch out the hobbies in focus over the medium term. Family and work always need to happen, so really I can only pursue one hobby at any given O(months) time
One good test to see if you're doing it right, by the way: do these things with people who devote most of their time and energy to it, and see if you can still enjoy yourself. If so, you're doing it right ;-)
Range by David Epstein makes this argument well, and even argues that you don't have to give up being great, but rather the breadth of experience can make you great once you find the right opportunity.
Of course, you need not to be too competitive or perfectionist, but you can then enjoy lots of great things on this planet, while benefiting from the compounding interests of transferring what you learn in one discipline to another.
I play the trumpet at a fairly good level, I am a decent road and mountain biker, I have enough knowledge of mountaineering to plan and lead simple ascents in the alps, I have a PhD in computer science and I consider myself a decent software developper, I have a baby and a beautiful wife, I have enough depth in physics and philosophy to have an interesting chat with majors of these disciplines.
However, I had to give up on being truly great at any of these things. Yet, I found that you can then draw some fascinating parallels between brass playing and biking, physics and computer science, mountaineering and having a family.
So, yes, you need to know what to focus on, but your focus can definitely be on striking the very delicate balance that allows you to be 'just good' at lots of things.