/lit/ - Literature

Papert's Principle - that the greatest leaps in development often come from how to administer and combine already acquired skills and processes, not to acquire new ones.
I know Scott Adams is a grifter but the the idea of 'Talent Stacking' is so tantalizing, especially the self-effacing manner he uses himself as a example of it. He admits he's not a great comedian or illustrator but it's the combination of these mediocre skills that creates a whole that is greater than the sum of it's parts.
This appeals to me because I've always been a jack of all trades, master of none, I come from a long line of all-rounders. Men who never particularly attained success in any one field, yet were competent across many, who could switch careers like switching lanes on the highway.
That cunt Steve Jobs pretends that his dropping in on a calligraphy class at Reed University was some kind of fateful teleological moment that changed the course of U.I. however he was a high functioning narcissist who was very good at bullying and persuading people, and amongst tech nerds his Charisma seemed 10 fold. But it seems to me that he's another jack-of-all-trades who found the right combination of mediocre skills and folded them into a meteoric rise.
It's tempting to think that if I just found just the right combination of marketable skills that I already have I could live a comfortable and satisfying life. I don't need or want to be a Steve Jobs. But to not have to be a wagecuck is all I desire.
It all goes back to Aristotle, that the hyle and the morphe, the material and the form both contribute to what something is, that the same material can be changed in form. When we first play with Lego or Mechano we intuit this.
Is it true of humans? Is it true of me: do I simply need to recombine the my skills and processes into a new morphe? Probably.