Balancing Focus with Diversity with Humility

There's a great heuristic in nutrition that says to know if we're eating right, get lots of colour on the plate. If it's all monotone shades of white to yellow, then we know there's something - possibly a lot - missing. If it's vibrant in colour and texture, happy days, we're likely hitting all the bases.

In nature, we observe the same thing: we talk about rich ecosystems vs monocultures. Where diversity exists in the system, the ecosystem thrives. Monocultures on the other hand, are far more vulnerable, less able to adapt and thrive in the face of adversity.

In fitness we also apply a kind of diversity towards progress, whether this is swapping around a variety of compound exercises throughout the week, or periodizing the intensity of the day's efforts, variety is important to stave off plateaus or injuries from overuse, etc.

To go back to the nutrition analogy, it seems this same principle of diversity would apply to food for thought: lots of colour on plate means a healthy, nutritious, well balanced diet. That if our intellectual diet is monotonous, singular, lacking diversity, then we are ill nourished. As with monocultures, we are less adaptable; more vulnerable.

And yet while many folks know about nutritional diversity or diversity in their fitness programs, intellecutal diversity seems a foreign concept. I've been struck of late by the number of people who have read either just one book on a topic, or just one author on a subject and speak ex cathedra, as if because of this one book, one author, they now know the field and can proffer opinion. They will defend their corner vigorously, adamantly on the basis of this monoculture of information.

This phenomenon, it seems, is the opposite side of the coin of what sifu mark cheng recently described about RKC's who after the certification, instead of focusing on the basics themselves, and teaching them in strict form, become diversified too quickly, try to bring in too many moves. The consequence that recently manifested itself at an RKCII cert, apparently being that many instructors were not competent to perform the core curriculum.

In this case, we are seeking to master a skill in order to teach it, and so focus and practice practice practice are critical. Rannoch and i have disccused this too: the movement from the repetition of the skill so many times that it's into the bone where its expression becomes art. Will Williams performance of the kettlebell front squat, i've written about, is just so.


In the Tao is the Ten Thousand Things
How resolve on the one hand diversity is critical for health and well being and on the other a singular focus is critical for mastery?

It seems, again to go back to Mark's post, that humility is critical in each case. If we are humble before a topic, we will know that we are pretty ignorant, and need more than one book, one lecture, one web page, to come to grips with area of interest. IF we have read just one thing on a topic, we acknolwedge the source: according to x, this is what's happening, rather than stating "this is what's happening" Why? i teach my students this as basic scholarship: unless you are a recognized expert in a domain, your opinion is just that; an opinion. Why should your readers trust your opinion?

At least if all you have is one source, and you provide your readers that source, they can go check it out for themselves, where they might get more information. what will they get if they come back to you, assuming this is your knowledge, rather than the re-presentation of someone else's? But if all you have is one source, and you engage with someone else who may well have more expertise than you, know more (having read broader and deeper; practiced further and longer), then at least listen, and maybe learn something.

As Mark states in his post:

To use a martial arts analogy, it's as if a relatively new blue belt suddenly decides that his bollocks are too big for his belt and he decides to go & pick a fight with a bunch of brown and black belts. The smackdown is comin'.

It's not just that the brown/black belts know more than the blue belt; they have greater mastery of the same things the blue belt knows. The best have worked with many teachers; have studied broadly. Not all at once, but over time.

This still feels like i'm talking about a contradiction:
on the one hand, focus on mastery which means practice on a limited set of things rather than a vast array; on the other hand i'm talking about diversity of knowledge. What keeps coming to my mind is to know when to shut up.

Progress is most often linear.

In school, we learn the basics of math, then of geometry before getting to calculus. The basics are needed before getting to more advanced forms of expression. Once those basics are mastered, conversations can begin with other mathematicians about how problems may be solved. Techniques are shared, new techniques are built upon these; innovations happen. A mathematician interested in one particular problem will read a wide range of papers related to just that one topic. There is the diversity around the singularity, and there is growing expertise.

As another example, in computation, artificial intelligence work is informed by biological systems research, complexity theory and more recently gaming theory from economics. One problem to solve, influenced by multiple perspectives/disciplines.

Likewise, a martial artist who has a devastating punch will likely have studied many techniques from many masters on the punch to distill it into one perfect practice.

In these domains, if we do not have that rich expertise, whether practical or intellectual or both, we would not presume to tell someone else who knew as little or less than ourselves either how to do something or, with confidence, how something works. Our experience is thin; our practice shallow.

What's my point?
I guess that we might do well to own our own limitations better and speak/walk with more humility about our own knowledge/accomplishments. This is perahps why many of us put our credentials on our blogs/sig files, so that people can judge our statements and practice on their merits. Not that these credentials are a guarantee of excellence - hence why most have ongoing renewal/rectification processes. And where certifications do not exist, all the more reason to acknowledge sources and walk with humility, till our work speaks for us.

Clarence Bass is an excellent example of someone who is not a certified expert in health or nutrition: he is an intelligent person who has made his reputation by carefully presenting research in plain language, and checking out findings in one source against those of another; of talking with multiple experts, and from this putting together exceptionally valuable syntheses of this material. It's based on the demonstration of his analyses and syntheses of others' work, and the demonstration of his own practice and insights that has made him a respected expert in the community. He's my hero & inspiration in this regard.

This post all started as a rant about people who seem to have read one book or article and then speak on a topic as if they were experts.

My main point was that knowledge is not so thinnly founded.

Science and Wisdom both demand repetition across diversity before asserting a General Case or Accepted Practice. Do multiple respected sources agree with this position? Where is the disagreement? What are the conditions in which this is true vs where it is not?

My secondary point is that we need to feel unsatisfied with our intellectual fodder if we're interested in a topic and stop at one source - whether that's one book, one author, one site, one monoculture. We need to challenge ourselves to be open to multiple sources on our one topic.

The gift of a good teacher of course is to help chart the progress from the one to the other. The gift of a good student is rich curiosity, with respectful, humble, delightful engagement.