Who is someone alive, regardless of field, that seems to be a master, one of the best, in their craft?
Musicians: which is the most technically competent?
Writers, actors, directors: who is the most competent?
It's easy for me to think of the greats after they are done - Jackie Chan, Mozart, etc. Who's currently among the greats?
Terrence Tao in Mathematics, Elon Musk in Entrepreneurship, Warren Buffet in Investing, Dalai Lama in Buddhism and Putin in Statecraft.
level 2
Five_Decades
5 points·4 days ago
I agree with some answers but not others.
I admire how musk has become successful in a wide range of ventures. People shit on him, but most entrepreneurs are lucky to succeed in one endeavor. Musk has at least half a dozen going on.
He put the yellow pages online, then he revolutionized online banking. Then he built electric cars, then he advances space travel. Then he helped create the hyperloop, now he is creating space based broadband. He is also working on computer/brain interfaces. Granted he himself didn't do it all alone, he had a lot of highly talented workers under him. But the point is that he isn't like most entreprenurs who succeed at one thing. He has a list of a few things he deems important (renewable energy, space travel, AI, the internet and genetics). All his companies are designed to advance these five things.
Hopefully before he dies he will have advances 20+ different kinds of technology.
As far as Putin, I'm not sure. I think Putin may be overplaying his hand and will eventually face a massive pushback from europe due to his behavior.
level 2
bbqturtle
2 points·5 days ago
Can you elaborate on the dalai lama? I've literally never heard of him outside his title.
Yeah so he passed his Geshe degree (which is something like PhD in Tibetan Buddhism) back in old Lhasa before the Chinese invasion and met the highest standards of scholarship in front of thousands of monks.
He does 5 hours meditation per day, even in his 80's, so yeah he's a complete master of Buddhist theory and practice.
And then as head of the government he overthrew himself and peacefully established a democracy for the Tibetan people in exile.
What's most mad is I was watching a film about him recently and he doesn't harbour ill will towards the Chinese. He said he met Mao and liked that he was a zealous reformer and he believes that equality and economic development are good goals.
He just has this really impartial vision for all human beings to be happy, even those who have caused him and his people so much suffering he just sees them as confused, like a mental patient who ends up hurting those they love without understanding.
And yeah he doesn't proselytise Buddhism and works for religious harmony, he actively promotes scientific understanding and says when science and Buddhism conflict science should take precedence. He talks a lot about non-religious spirituality where the most important thing is to have a warm heart of compassion.
He's not without controversy, but people say power corrupts and he has had intense power all his life and he's come out of it looking pretty amazing.
Guitar: Mark Knopfler
level 1
mrspecial
14 points·5 days ago
As a guitarist and someone who works in the music business I would posit that most household name guitarists wouldn’t even crack the top ten. People like knopfler, Clapton, Hendrix probably couldn’t keep up at all matched with the abilities of studio players like Brent Mason, Dean Parks, Tommy Tedesco.
level 2
leworthy
4 points·5 days ago
Although in the cases mentioned I agree, I think there is a larger concern here, which is how to define "technically competent". Because I think it is not clear, at the cutting edge of any art, where technique ends and other things begin.
I mean, we all know what "technical skill" is in a guitarist - but we also all know that thousands of session musicians around the world have it maxed out to 100. As do Korean teenagers. Can creativity be a technical skill? Can originality? My issue is, if we measure "technical skill" in its trivial sense, we will end up with maybe 500,000 "best guitarists" in the world - and no way to pick between them (this is a conservative estimate).
I do realise that extending the definition of "technical skill" like this is going beyond the op's question, but I think the wider point the op makes about mastery is more important.
In short, I am saying that technical mastery (even at the highest level) is an insufficient definition for mastery proper in any art - and that adopting it as a working definition will result in an enormous number of "masters" - most of whom will never make a meaningful impact on their area of expertise.
Musicians: which is the most technically competent?
Writers, actors, directors: who is the most competent?
It's easy for me to think of the greats after they are done - Jackie Chan, Mozart, etc. Who's currently among the greats?
level 2
Five_Decades
5 points·4 days ago
I agree with some answers but not others.
I admire how musk has become successful in a wide range of ventures. People shit on him, but most entrepreneurs are lucky to succeed in one endeavor. Musk has at least half a dozen going on.
He put the yellow pages online, then he revolutionized online banking. Then he built electric cars, then he advances space travel. Then he helped create the hyperloop, now he is creating space based broadband. He is also working on computer/brain interfaces. Granted he himself didn't do it all alone, he had a lot of highly talented workers under him. But the point is that he isn't like most entreprenurs who succeed at one thing. He has a list of a few things he deems important (renewable energy, space travel, AI, the internet and genetics). All his companies are designed to advance these five things.
Hopefully before he dies he will have advances 20+ different kinds of technology.
As far as Putin, I'm not sure. I think Putin may be overplaying his hand and will eventually face a massive pushback from europe due to his behavior.
level 2
bbqturtle
2 points·5 days ago
Can you elaborate on the dalai lama? I've literally never heard of him outside his title.
Yeah so he passed his Geshe degree (which is something like PhD in Tibetan Buddhism) back in old Lhasa before the Chinese invasion and met the highest standards of scholarship in front of thousands of monks.
He does 5 hours meditation per day, even in his 80's, so yeah he's a complete master of Buddhist theory and practice.
And then as head of the government he overthrew himself and peacefully established a democracy for the Tibetan people in exile.
What's most mad is I was watching a film about him recently and he doesn't harbour ill will towards the Chinese. He said he met Mao and liked that he was a zealous reformer and he believes that equality and economic development are good goals.
He just has this really impartial vision for all human beings to be happy, even those who have caused him and his people so much suffering he just sees them as confused, like a mental patient who ends up hurting those they love without understanding.
And yeah he doesn't proselytise Buddhism and works for religious harmony, he actively promotes scientific understanding and says when science and Buddhism conflict science should take precedence. He talks a lot about non-religious spirituality where the most important thing is to have a warm heart of compassion.
He's not without controversy, but people say power corrupts and he has had intense power all his life and he's come out of it looking pretty amazing.
------
Guitar: Mark Knopfler
level 1
mrspecial
14 points·5 days ago
As a guitarist and someone who works in the music business I would posit that most household name guitarists wouldn’t even crack the top ten. People like knopfler, Clapton, Hendrix probably couldn’t keep up at all matched with the abilities of studio players like Brent Mason, Dean Parks, Tommy Tedesco.
level 2
leworthy
4 points·5 days ago
Although in the cases mentioned I agree, I think there is a larger concern here, which is how to define "technically competent". Because I think it is not clear, at the cutting edge of any art, where technique ends and other things begin.
I mean, we all know what "technical skill" is in a guitarist - but we also all know that thousands of session musicians around the world have it maxed out to 100. As do Korean teenagers. Can creativity be a technical skill? Can originality? My issue is, if we measure "technical skill" in its trivial sense, we will end up with maybe 500,000 "best guitarists" in the world - and no way to pick between them (this is a conservative estimate).
I do realise that extending the definition of "technical skill" like this is going beyond the op's question, but I think the wider point the op makes about mastery is more important.
In short, I am saying that technical mastery (even at the highest level) is an insufficient definition for mastery proper in any art - and that adopting it as a working definition will result in an enormous number of "masters" - most of whom will never make a meaningful impact on their area of expertise.
From the SSC sub-reddit (more):
