> I'm interested in so many disciplines, but what can I do with that?
> From psychology to history of science to anthropology and sociology, to economics and politics, to philosophy and religious studies and cultural studies, etc.
You guys may consider my comment as begging for down-votes but why to chose so lowball content only? Among the disciplines the topicstarter has chosen there is only one which may be awarded with Noble prize (Economy) and at least one which is considered harmful quasi-science (Religion). There is no any STEM and the formulation of the question does not seems like, for example, topicstarter has learned Economy and discover Bitcoin, or has learned Philosophy and discover Stoicism, or has learned religions and discovered Atheism. That begs one question:
> I find it intrinsically motivating to move from ignorance slowly towards understanding.
How do you know you are really moving anywhere but not standing?
There is no Nobel Prize in Economics. There is a prize in memory of Alfred Nobel, which is not the same thing.
And for the "not STEM" = "lowball" thing... "no math" does not mean "simple". Read through any serious sociology or anthropology work, you'll see what I mean.
If before they didn't know anything about economics, and now they have a basic understanding of how a country's economy works, I wouldn't call that standing. Same with all other topics, going from "zero knowledge" to "basic knowledge" is already more than what 99% of the people on the planet will know about any given topic.
Of course you are right but the devil is in details. How do you know the level of "basic knowledge" has been earned? Keep in mind that topicstarter is interested not in STEM when the question can be answered easily, like you can or can not solve that tasks in the end of some chapters of your Physics textbook.
> From psychology to history of science to anthropology and sociology, to economics and politics, to philosophy and religious studies and cultural studies, etc.
You guys may consider my comment as begging for down-votes but why to chose so lowball content only? Among the disciplines the topicstarter has chosen there is only one which may be awarded with Noble prize (Economy) and at least one which is considered harmful quasi-science (Religion). There is no any STEM and the formulation of the question does not seems like, for example, topicstarter has learned Economy and discover Bitcoin, or has learned Philosophy and discover Stoicism, or has learned religions and discovered Atheism. That begs one question:
> I find it intrinsically motivating to move from ignorance slowly towards understanding.
How do you know you are really moving anywhere but not standing?