Is your comment related to the highlighted text or the article in general?
Let me address both, just in case.
“It can take less than 20 hours of “smart” practice. The idea is that you learn 20% of the material that will yield 80% of the result.”
That’s a technique to be proficient in a skill in a shorter timeframe. If anything, I’d say it’s a way to reach mastery faster, as it brings you the motivation you need to keep going by seeing results faster. The pareto principle is something top performers in any field apply to get better at what they do.
If the point was that the article is anti-mastery, then I did I poor job of making my point.
Isn’t it true that your favourite artist or athlete have a varied skillset, allowing the to perform better than their peers? It is as Robert Greene says in his book, Mastery: “The future belongs to people who learn more skills and combine them in creative ways.”
Given that, 80% of 10 skills is likely better that 95% of one skill. As for pride and quality, that can be subjective, especially pride.
Otherwise, the article promotes finding time (up to 1.5 hours) to practice outside of regular profession hours, stipulating that you already have a main thing you’re already doing at professional level.
So we both agree that there’s value in being proficient at at least one thing. The problem I have with the one thing is how do you know what that one thing is unless you’ve tried other things? I personally find life too short to not try and see what sticks.
Also, who said you cannot be a master of some? A polymath?
Here’s an awesome answer to that by Michael Simmons:
People Who Have “Too Many Interests” Are More Likely To Be Successful According To Research
The most comprehensive case that has ever been made for why nearly everyone should become a polymath in a modern…
Anyway, I hope that it clarifies the article’s point.
Thanks for the comment.