Expert vs. do-all

Up until recently, I've held the belief that it is better to be really good at one thing, as opposed to decent at many. In a way, I still think this holds truth, but perhaps is not the way I want to go in life.

Why be an expert

So first, why would you want to be an expert at something, anyway? Well; many people are experts at their own niches, or at least proficient to the point "decent" becomes a disrespectful term to describe their abilities. If one chooses to obtain elementary skills in many subjects, then their skills are rarely useful because there'll always be people around that are better at it. This in general reduces your ability to contribute in certain situations. On the other hand, being an expert might not make you useful in general, but very desirable in cases where expertise on your field is needed. This train of thought is why I've always considered being a master as the preferable choice.

Chess; a change of heart

I like chess. I would say I'm decent at it; I can beat anyone in my life by virtue of them not being into chess, but one could not reasonably expect me to perform well against someone who's serious about chess. And for a while, I tried to become better. But as with a lot of things, this is largely a grind for experience. Especially with a ranking system, you will get better over time but not necessarily notice this improvement beyond just a higher rank; you are pitted against people of similar skill, therefore the amount of wins remain generally the same. This lack of perceived progression significantly reduced my drive to get better; I'm not actually very interested in becoming a master of chess. I just like the game. I don't want to study openings, I don't care for looking at historical games, etcetera. I just want to occasionally play against someone of similar skill level. And I think that this is a much more healthy way of looking at it for me, personally. I tend to get wound up in becoming better at things, which creates a bit of a toxic environment for myself because of the mental self-punishment that is needed to push forward. Losing a game of chess feels like a failure, a step back, when the attitude is to become a master; but when playing chess for the fun of it, losing a game means essentially nothing. As long as the process of playing is enjoyable, then a game of chess is an overall win regardless of the end result.

Choose your mastery

I still think it is good to try to be above-decent at something. For me, that would probably be front-end web development. This is also my livelihood; this is how I contribute to society. Personally, it makes me feel valuable in a way; I'm doing something not everyone could do. At least, not without taking a journey to reaching a certain skill level. But beyond that, I have recently felt an increasing need to be just decent, and nothing more, at everything else. I don't care to be a master of chess, mathematics, or anything else.

In a way, this revelation feels like a sign of weakness as well. "I don't want to get better" is not a good attitude to have in general. Especially when it comes to social issues. But I think in some cases, that stance is fine; as long as it's about something that does not affect others. For me personally, I think it could improve my overall well-being to think in this manner about my hobbies.