I recently found a book called "Refuse to choose" by a Barbara Sher. It's about a certain kind of person, which she calls "scanners", and I must say, as I read the book it seemed to me that she was describing me with uncanny accuracy! What is a scanner? Put simply, a person with too many interests who can't just "pick one" to the exclusion of all others.
This is something that I've struggled with for many years, and this book has had the benefit of letting me know that it's not just a flaw of my character, moreover, that I could succeed in pursuing most of my interests and still thrive.
I hadn't read the whole book yet, and, frankly, I probably won't keep reading it. Such is what happens when you're a scanner like me (yeah, I've adopted the term, why not). The chapter on durations and rewards was particularly illuminating on this point: I got what I needed from this book and I can put it aside for now.
To be honest, this book comes somewhat late for me, as some of the main takeaways from it are lessons that I have already learned, being this way and struggling to work with my mind rather than against it. But, on the other hand, I think it's best this way: a lesson learned by oneself is stronger than one read in a book. In this regard, the book comes more as confirmation of my own learned lessons.
Still, it did give me some "validation" (usually I dislike that word but 🤷) about myself and how I operate, and to know that there is at least some acknowledgement for the kind of person that I am, that it is possible to succeed being this way, and even that my messy mind may be a positive rather than a negative. Foremost, it gave my situation a name which I can use as a foothold to write about it.
I didn't but skim the second part about what kinds of scanners there are out there. I don't usually deal with labels so much but adopting the framework I would say I fit into the "sybil" category of "cyclical scanners". Again, given a vocabulary, it's useful to put it to use even if one doesn't completely adopt the ontology that it pretends to delineate.
Having more or less read some of the results the author has come to in her study of "scanners", I would like to put forward some of my own strategies and solutions:
Having a wide array of interests has forced me, continually, to try to keep track of them somehow, partly to have a way to keep them within view, partly to priorize and try to make them work in synergy. So it is that I encapsulate them under certain "categories", the main of which are:
Each of which internally branch into several subjects, among which I must also priorize and pick some, and drop some (or put them off for later)
Languages, for example, being my main commitment, and within which I have two, no, tree, perhaps seven different areas:
Given that one of my primary criteria is usefulness, the position of Mandarin and Russian is not at all surprising, *especially* in the emerging world order. But Sanskrit? I've always been interested in "exotic" languages, especially those with unfamiliar (and even mysterious) writing systems, another criterion which is clearly visible in my choice of languages (ancient Greek is further down the list, and so is Farsi). There is also a somewhat uncommon motivation for learning this language. I have a friend who is particularly interested in vedic philosophy. While he knows no Sanskrit beyond some technical terms (and he can't read devanagari), the learning of Sansrkit provides me with some vector into the culture which in turn gives me some common ground to talk with him. I always have very interesting conversations with him, even though I get to see him at most once a year (I am looking forward to March next year!)
This is another rabbit hole on it's own. Even though I can come up with dozens of ideas and overly ambitious projects, and I have interests in many topics, especially OS design, OSdev, cybersecurity, and some skill with linux, I am focusing on two main (sub-)threads right now:
Interestingly, according to Barbara's book, a scanner is wholly unable to pick one thing to do for the rest of their lives, but in my case, I am close to thinking Common Lisp may prove deep enough to engage me for a lifetime, and I would gladly make it my career!
In fact, I am working on that, though it's a bit hard, me being a bit old for the "job market" already, and anyway, I hate corporate work, and corporations in general. I also hate the tech industry, so, I guess it's going to be an uphill battle.
Sigh... this one is a bit buried right now, I am still waiting to gather my thoughts on this topic which is the one I would most like to write about, as I have so much to say!
I mentioned usefulness being one of the main criteria by which I pick subjects. As much as I would like to dive deep into yijing scholarship or do nothing but learn ancient languages, my brain also resists doing something if it's not likely to be put to use somehow, if it's not useful for me or the world. Note I didn't say the market. The market can go fuck itself. I think it's more important to contribute to making the world a better place, if only by my own standards. And the market has consistently proved to be a negative force in the world.
Another criterion is depth. If a subject doesn't look like a bottomless rabbit hole, I won't care the least bit about it.
Another is complexity. It goes hand in hand with depth, but I tend to measure this one externally, at least in the initial stages. What I mean by this is that if something seems so hard that it makes other people too intimidated to even try, I'll jump in with both feet without looking.
One of the characteristis of scanners, according to the book's author, is an inability to commit to any one thing. I think it's the other way around. Why do scanners always end up with dozens of half-finished projects? It's not lack of commitment. All the topics I have mentioned above are things I am fully committed to, which is what allows me to keep my finger on them even if I let them rest for months.
Sometimes I do feel the pressure coming from all these topics when I am not doing them. When I study Russian, I am painfully aware that I want to take my HSK tests, when I am learning Chinese I am thinking that I ought to at least day 20 minutes of Russian each day, and Sanskrit is always somewhere in my field of view. But it is precisely because I am committed to all of them that I can manage to keep some progress in each of these, and honestly, the sense of progress is exactly what I always strive for, and what really releases that dopamine that we humans crave so much.
I've bored you enough with the contents of my mind, at this point, perhaps nobody is reading anymore, which is just as well. That gives me the freedom to write anything at this point. Ugh, I used that word again. I need to write my arguments against freedom soon, hopefully I will make some people mad.
Anyway, given that I've noticed so many people who gravitate towards the smol.pub are quite like me in some respects, I imagine there will be others who would identify themselves as "scanners" just as well, and if I found that book, or even just the notion of a "scanner" useful, perhaps they will, too.
Until next time!