Being great at everything is being great at nothing

Notice this is not the usual saying. People say "being good at everything is being good at nothing," and I think that version is simply wrong. The difference sits in two words: good and great.

Good means you know how to do something - you can handle it at a decent, mature level. And getting good is cheap: about 20 hours of focused practice. I tested this myself by picking up a new skill, and it worked. So being good at many things isn't being good at nothing. It's very achievable, and it makes life more fun.

Great is a different animal. Great means real proficiency, and greatness is expensive because of one brutal rule: diminishing returns. The first 20 hours and the next 20 hours are totally different. In the first 20, progress pours in. After that, each hour buys you less and less. That's why athletes look almost boring from the outside - they repeat the same handful of things all day, all week, all year, grinding for improvements that get smaller each season. That's the true price of greatness, and nobody has enough hours to pay it in every field at once.

I say this as a recovering collector of skills. I used to want proficiency in everything. Over time I had to admit something uncomfortable: my time and energy are very limited, and I need to prioritize a few things. But I don't see this as giving up. It's taking on more responsibility for those few things, so I can be genuinely useful to the people I love - not mediocre at fifty things for nobody's benefit.

So here's my working rule. Never be afraid to try something new; 20 focused hours will make you good at it. But before chasing greatness in something new, pause and ask: does this matter more than what I'm already investing my time in for the people I love? If yes, go. If no, decline - and that's not pessimism, that's reality.

Try to be good at everything. Don't try to be great at everything.