

Always Swim Downstream - kanamekun
http://uncrunched.com/2012/06/20/always-swim-downstream/

======
xiaoma
I've thought about this issue a lot. In some ways I'm the very model of
someone "swimming upstream" and I'm trying to reverse it. Growing up, I was
really good at math. Good enough that I demolished the SAT at the age of 12
(getting a 770 I think), and got into college as a 13 year old. I did well at
it for two years and then set it aside to be a normal high school student and
try to become more well rounded.

In the end, the one subject I really, _really_ sucked at was foreign
languages. And yet, when I did finally go back to college, I had no motivation
for working at or even attending math classes; I graduated as a Japanese
major. Then I moved to Taiwan to learn Chinese with _traditional_ characters,
not simplified. I learned Chinese, and I can read. But I'm certainly not one
of those foreigners with incredible language skills they put on TV for
everyone to oooh and ahhh at. Similarly with sports, I had a natural aptitude
for co-ordination based ones like bowling, fencing, etc... so I put myself
through absurd training on top of the regular team training to become an okay
distance runner.

Looking back on it now, in many ways I was an idiot. I could have done so much
more, _been_ so much more if I'd focused more on my strengths... which is why
I'm back in the US doing everything I can to get my foot in the door at a tech
company where I can return to the kind of work that's more of a natural fit.

That said, I think there's a clear separation between things which should be
improved if they're weak and things that aren't worth the time:

Improve the weaknesses that will hurt the rest of your life!

If you're in terrible cardio-vascular shape, that's worth improving. It will
affect your health, your energy and even your brain. If you have terrible
social skills, that's worth improving. They affect your work life, your
personal life, your happiness and even your health in the long run. If you are
terrible with money, that's worth improving. Poverty also affects the social,
physical spheres.

However, if you're just not that good at stringed instruments, sticking with
the piano is probably good for you. If you can't code, it's fine to become a
lawyer instead and focus on your verbal skills.

Many skills really can be overlooked in favor of a substitute that's a better
fit. Others are universal and worth the time to bring up to at least a 3 or 4
out of 10.

~~~
chipsy
In complement - I have a strong tendency to approach learning by "nibbling" at
problems and soaking up the low-hanging fruit, not diving into them and front-
loading all the effort. This isn't time-efficient, since with a lot of skills,
intense practice is eventually required to get any result. But it lets me
explore my interest in the subject, so that by the time I commit to serious
study, I've developed a feel for what I want to learn, and how good I intend
to become at it.

Addressing weaknesses does give you a certain kind of long-term flexibility,
and in my case, I tend to incrementally become more motivated as I detect
weaknesses in what I'm doing - so, for example, I haven't felt too motivated
to learn advanced mathematics or foreign languages until recently. But this
isn't the way to get a fast result. I'm in agreement that a prodigy's talent
is derived from the willingness to be unbalanced.

------
diego
Just what we need: generic advice from Michael Arrington. Sorry Mike, but you
are not the mold from which everyone else was made. It works for you, great.
Other people may do better focusing on addressing and improving their
weaknesses.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> Just what we need: generic advice from Michael Arrington.

"Hate Arrington" seems to be a common attitude on HN recently. What did he do
to deserve so much bad will on the Internet?

