The Jack of All Trades is Master of One

"The essence of the beautiful is unity in variety." - W. Somerset Maugham

It’s no secret that society has increasingly moved toward specialization over time. The exponential complexity innate to technological advancement has created a need for people who can wade deeply into various fields, and work on the leading edge. Only those who have wholly immersed themselves in thorough study and practice in the related matter are equipped to do this. Mastership is not a new concept, nor an inherently inappropriate one; however, its application outside of professional circumstances has the potential to be far less benign.

In general, if you ask someone about their personal interests, they will usually name one or two things. Common replies are something like, ”I really like to cook” or “I’m into football and antique cars”. Some are utterly stumped by the question, unable to offer a suitable response (watching TV and falling asleep doesn't exactly qualify as an “interest”), though a rare few will find it difficult to answer because there are simply too many interests to name. Most people engaged in any meaningful activity lean more toward the mastery side of the spectrum – placing the majority of their attention upon a small handful of topics – even if they’re not truly masters in a larger sense.

This may be reasonable enough as it regards hobbies, etc., but when it comes to establishing a cohesive worldview, this tunnel-vision can be very dangerous. Focus on one or two areas of the landscape comes at the opportunity cost of other, highly relevant, information. Blind spots are created, which can severely inhibit our ability to understand our world. It’s like only looking one way when crossing the street - everything seems fine… until you get blindsided by an Ice Cream truck.

But how can we establish a worldview that’s all-inclusive when time is a limited resource? Even if we had 1,000 hours each day, we’re simply not interested in all the various topics, fields of study, and events happening around the world. Are we obliged to spend our attention on such things at the expense of what truly inspires us? Certainly not – at least not at length. But there is a way to cast a wide net without swimming to all four corners of the globe and placing it by hand…

Ducks in a Row

Imagine you have 12 angry ducks sitting on your backyard fence, and you wanted to be rid of them. You decide you’re going to shoot them from your bedroom window (don’t worry, these are terribly evil ducks who unquestionably deserve it). You have two choices – a sniper rifle, or a shotgun – which do you choose? The rifle is precise, but it only gets one fearsome foul at a time. You must focus on each individually, with careful attention. While looking through the scope at one, you can’t even see the others – maybe they’re flying away, or tossing their cigarette butts into your birdbath. You have no way of knowing.

The shotgun, however, can potentially rid you of all 12 in just a few shots. It doesn’t require you to close one eye and look carefully through a scope with the other. And the further away you move from the ducks, the wider the spread of the shot will be; possibly reducing the number of shots required to clear the yard. In theory, if you stood far enough away, you could hit all of them in a single shot, without ever focusing on a single duck.

Focused study on the particulars is the sniper approach. Maybe you can even zoom in on 2 or 3 fields, but much will remain utterly out of your perception, and you’ll never get a complete picture of the broader scene. “Root thinking” or principle-based thinking has a shotgun effect; providing informed access to all areas that spring forth from those principles, without knowing any of the details.

Consider the cultural discourse as promoted by the mass media. It’s all about names, places, and events – the particulars. It’s never about core, root principles. And while you’re trying to figure out who propositioned who 30 years ago, another guy is robbing everyone blind and sneaking out the back door. The focus is too narrow (not to mention largely irrelevant). Bill Clinton, O.J. Simpson, Paula Dean, Bernie Madoff, Harvey Weinstein… all distractions that yield no true understanding of what’s happening in the world.

To get focused on these things and build a worldview around them is what makes our political landscape so convoluted, as people are attempting to discern their world with insufficient understanding. Yes, Weinstein is a jerk, but if what he did was wrong, why is it wrong? How do you determine the difference between right and wrong in the first place? What principle guides your thoughts on these matters?

To say he’s wrong because “Those poor girls just wanted to follow their dreams and work in Hollywood, and he took advantage of his position” is an unprincipled perspective, even if the conclusion is correct. It’s a reaction to cultural taboos; it’s about him and them, and the particulars of the circumstances. It’s not about what makes actions right or wrong. It’s based on emotional responses - no doubt inspired by an intuitive knowledge of morality - but not a broad understanding of the various factors at play.

To truly understand that situation, one must be armed with a thorough understanding of fundamental morality, the nature of human need, how emotions motivate, cultural influences, money and capitalism, traditional gender roles, etc,, etc., etc. Thinking in a principled way will answer for much, often allowing us to discern with clarity, regardless of the particulars of the circumstance. Particulars can be relevant, but only as far as they allow us to develop and apply our understanding of principles.

Getting Jacked

And so the “Jack of all Trades” touches briefly on many different topics in an effort to form valid principles. Once this has been accomplished, it is no longer necessary to revisit old ground, or to “stay informed” about the most current examples. Once you know that ALL theft is wrong, it doesn’t matter who stole what, how much was stolen, or why they did it. Once you know that ALL external authority is invalid, it doesn’t matter who the president is, or what he/she said or did.

But figuring out this puzzling world and establishing a firm basis in this understanding will require an acquisition of every puzzle piece you can get your hand on. You don’t need every one, but the more, the better. You don’t have to examine them all thoroughly, but you have to have enough in place to see what picture is emerging.

You’ve got to start with an open mind; allowing all information to be subjected to honest critical evaluation - no matter how unlikely or irrelevant that information may seem at the outset. You’ve got to cast a wide net and use a shotgun approach; scanning the full landscape for information that can inform your principles, then leveraging that principled understanding to establish an all-encompassing worldview. You’ve got to discover the connections between a variety of seemingly disparate parts, such that their unity is revealed.

There’s always more to learn, and it’s ok to delve deep into areas of interest, but if you spend some time investigating outside your usual stomping grounds, you may be surprised by the relevance of what you find. And never believe the “Jack of all Trades” is a master of none when it comes to understanding the world around us (and effectively acting within it). In the end, he becomes master of the one thing which effects all others – wisdom – and transmutes a thousand grains of shifting sand into a foundation of solid stone.

Thanks for checking in!
Brian Blackwell

Relevant articles supporting a deeper understanding of the ideas presented above may be found here:

• Opening the Gate to Wisdom: The Ancient Trivium

• The Forgery of Truth

• Philosophy – What It Means, and Why It Matters

As an interesting side note, though this article was based upon the colloquial usage of the phrase “A jack of all trades is master of none”, the original saying is actually “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one.”

This contradicts the common usage (revealing it to be a perversion of the original phrase's intent) and indicates a recognition of the value in a broad approach.