181–190 of 325 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extra knowledge can't possibly be a weakness.
If you frame it as just "extra knowledge" then, sure, it's not a weakness. The problem is when extra knowledge is acquired at the expense of deeper focus (knowledge) in another area.
How it this a problem? It is just another way.
Don't quit your day job - ya gotta pay the rent. And in the meantime, if you gain satisfaction from satisfying your curiosity about myriad things, go with that. It doesn't have to have an end or a greater purpose. Everybody you know has a head filled with things they'll never "usefully apply" to the greater world around them: it's a fact of life. So if you end up on your deathbed with nothing having really clicked fo…
Seconded. As you grow older you may find that you actually did lift some of the subjects to a "marketable level". For example, I'm now 40, studied molecular biology but my dedication to my home server, HN and tech podcasts is now paying dividends because I can talk with the big boys about infra-as-code, higher level system architecture and software development. This is really nice as the healthcare company I work for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I might have to check this out. Im skeptical of it being a strength in today's world. So far, it seems to only be a weakness for me.
I fall into this group. I've so far found it to be a strength (mostly). R&D/prototype style work benefits highly from having generalists around. Most normal people just don't have a lot of breadth in terms of knowing what else is out there or what's been done outside of a narrowly defined field. 95% of the time you'll be greeted with a "huh...interesting" and no follow up, but in my experience that remaining 5% can b…
That sounds great, but it also sounds rare and potentially low paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I might have to check this out. Im skeptical of it being a strength in today's world. So far, it seems to only be a weakness for me.
I think it works best if you have a core field. The cross discipline knowledge would prevent group think and result in more original ideas.
> I like writing and can imagine having some sort of blog, but that's seems so cliche?
Writing on blogs might be commonplace. Good writing is not. Spend a little time thinking about writing well and you'll be ahead of the crowd.
That said, I don't think you should worry too much about how other people will see your writing. I treat my blog as a sort of public notebook. The articles are primarily for me; they are what I'd want to have read if I hadn't done the research myself, and/or a year later when I've forgotten everything. That takes off the pressure to be perfectly original or polished.
Read a couple of books by Barbara sher: Refuse to choose [0] She calls people like us "Scanners" and claims that our diversity of interests is not a weakness, but a strength. Then goes on techniques to make this skill work for us. [0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594863032/
I'm very similar and would just give you two pieces of advice: (1) buy books compulsively and don't do your research predominantly online, and (2) make sure you write often, whether or not you publish your work or keep it to yourself. I think the latter is the most important advice for those trying to pursue an intellectual path outside of academia -- if you don't develop a habit of writing, you aren't really synthes…
Best wishes trying to find a useful outlet for your interests (but beware of spreading yourself too thin)
Investing might be an area where you can profit from being the way you are. I am very similar, having read way over 1k books in the last ten years or so, on a perversely wide array of subjects. I’ve also done everything from tinkering with Arduinos all the way to marriage counseling. But I quickly get bored and move on to the next field. An early disciple of CG Jung, Marie Louise von Franz, wrote that the life of our…
What is the value of that, though? When it comes to social sciences, everyone believes they have a special intuition or a sense about how the world works. It's impossible to distinguish who actually does, and who is self-delusional. You cannot even be certain for yourself.
In tech, in contrast, you can build a product that can prove you are valuable, despite being an un-credentialed autodidact.
I can think of only a few paths that can really realize the value of genuine brilliance of this type:
1) With your special intuition of how the world works, predict the course of society and make money off of that. That can be difficult, though, since nobody is going to bankroll you, and this would also require knowledge of finance.
1.1) Gamble on the nascent event markets instead. Not sure if they are going to exist in the long term, though.
2) Write compelling fiction. However, if your conclusions about society are true, but unintuitive to the general public, it's going to be tricky to convince them you're right, and they're wrong.
3) Become political analyst/pundit/substack writer. Same downsides as above.
4) Identify key trends in society and start a business in a field that is likely to dramatically explode. This strategy requires tech or business skills, and is high variability.