“Mastery is the best goal because the rich can’t buy it, the impatient can’t rush it, the privileged can’t inherit it, and nobody can steal it. You can only earn it through hard work. Mastery is the ultimate status.”

This quote, attributed to Derek Sivers, caught my attention recently because it appears to have a strong message. It also roots for the common (wo)man, with the promise of good outcomes which only they can obtain by putting in the work needed to become “really really good at something”, with patience and perseverance, to the point of mastery. Lastly, it sounds really nice. So nice, it almost lights up a fire within you and your mind wants to accept it as fact without question, but, like many great-sounding quotes on the internet, it is false.

The world is heavily biased toward outcomes and not so much the processes and decisions that led to these outcomes. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on the situation, but it is the reality in almost all aspects of human interaction. The idea that acquiring a particular skill cannot be gamed and anyone who has the skill has to pay “the price” to have it, does not make it the best goal. Think master artist vs. random person with an iPhone camera. Most people opt for an iPhone with the ability to make 100+ actual photos in a minute over commissioning an artist, who has spent years to master his craft, to make a portrait every time they have the need to capture special moments. They choose speed, convenience, consistency, quality and value for money over the master artist who spent decades honing his craft.

I had an exchange with someone on the topic and they asked two questions which I will now address below in the rest of this post.

Is being wealthy or coming from privilege better than mastery?

To attempt to answer this, I would like us to think through a number of questions.

Firstly, what really is the point of mastery? Do people pursue mastery simply for the sake of mastery or do people obtain mastery in service of a different goal – Undying love for the discipline? To stand out from or get ahead of the crowd in pursuit of a solution to some real problem? In the hope of obtaining resources, wealth, prestige, fame or, as alluded to by Mr. Sivers, status?

Secondly, how many things can one truly master in a lifetime? Is it true that most people are only able to master or maintain true mastery of one or, for the fairly gifted, a handful of skills? I believe the ancient figure of speech “jack of all trades, master of none” has its roots in this reality.

In my experience, many people use the skills that they have mastered to acquire resources or wealth with which they purchase the benefits of mastery in other aspects of their lives. For them, mastery becomes a tool for achieving other life goals. Of course there is the occasional virtuoso who, out of sheer passion or raw talent, is able to master a specific discipline simply for the sake of it. This is an exception.

If the above premises are true, why should it matter that a person who comes from wealth and is able to acquire the benefits of mastery by hiring or engaging masters in different disciplines does not themselves possess the mastery of any particular discipline? Does their lack of mastery in any one discipline diminish them or their status in any way? I would say it should not matter and their status should not suffer.

Within the context of an individual’s overall welfare, being wealthy or coming from privilege has a higher utility than the mastery of a particular discipline.

Can mastery be bought?

Maybe not in its entirety, but it sure can be rented… for extended periods.

It is common knowledge that if you have enough resources at your disposal, you are generally able to assemble masters in almost every field that you’re interested in, from aspects of everyday life (such as those described above), to more industrious ventures – think Elon Musk building his own AI venture, Mark Cuban building his Pharmaceutical company, and all of the “oil money” that has flown out of the Middle East in the last decade or so into the purchase and assembly of football teams in Europe’s top football leagues.

We also see the rich use their considerable resources to smoothen their paths to mastery in new fields or areas of interest. An example would be Mark Zuckerberg picking up Brazilian jiu-jitsu and mixed-martial arts, and sparring with some of the best in the world to become really competent, to the point of mastery, while also raising beer-drinking Wagyu and Angus on his ranch in Hawaii, and at the same time finding the time to run Meta.

After adjusting for natural talent, which many would argue occurs randomly, the wealthy and privileged can more easily achieve mastery, because they are better able to afford the right quality of tools, instructors, nutrition, etc., and with much fewer constraints, including time constraints.

All the things that need to go right for an individual to get into an Ivy League school – a place that supposedly sets many on a path to achieving mastery – are more easily achievable with wealth & privilege. Many publications, including this New York Times article from 2023, confirm this. It explains that “…at Ivy League schools, one in six students has parents in the top 1 percent… For applicants with the same SAT or ACT score, children from families in the top 1 percent were 34 percent more likely to be admitted than the average applicant, and those from the top 0.1 percent were more than twice as likely to get in.” It went on to say that “being very rich is its own qualification in selective college admissions”.

Conclusion

Capitalism almost always rewards the individual who dares to combine the different factors of production or who owns factors of production more handsomely than it does individual contributors (masters) within the production process. If at this point you find yourself wondering “what if the individual has simply mastered being able to combine the different factors of production – being an entrepreneur, isn’t that mastery?”, It is, but firstly, I would refer you to the two broader questions above and the thought process that follows each question. Secondly, I would leave you with a question of my own – what about the owners of factors of production who simply inherited this wealth – is their status diminished compared to the master painter?

There is an argument for whether being a generalist – fairly good (good enough), but not achieving mastery, in a number of different but important disciplines – is a better way to go. I have not thought long enough about this. It is also well known that many highly intelligent people who, despite managing to master the more technical and complicated aspects of their fields, are less successful than their less-masterful peers, and this could be for a host of reasons, including inferior social skills / low likability ratings, etc. This reminds me of my early days in consulting where many of us were encouraged to become “T-skilled specialists” (to become masters in our main specializations / core competencies – the vertical line-, and knowledgeable / competent enough to collaborate and work effectively in a wide range of related disciplines – the horizontal line).

Don‘t get me wrong, working hard and taking the time to hone your skills to the point of mastery, sets you apart and has the potential to improve your outcomes in life. This is consistent with the fundamental laws that govern our universe. It is, in fact, one of the core principles which guide my pursuit of excellence and wellbeing. In addition, I strongly believe that the desire for continuous improvement and ultimate mastery has been an extremely important catalyst for innovation and the overall advancement of civilization. However, saying “mastery is the best goal to have because the rich can’t buy it… the privileged can’t inherit it… it is the ultimate status” is simply inaccurate. At best, it is a consolation for not being wealthy and privileged. A “cope”!