What distinguishes a master in your field from someone who isn't?
What we usually find when we ask ourselves that question is that somebody who is a master in a field seems to do the thing and very complex things in that particular field very effortlessly. A master musician effortlessly plays the most difficult songs and compositions. A master football player effortlessly dribbles past his opponents. A master in business effortlessly builds a company (or what looks effortless from the outside), or he ventures into heights or sizes that we normally don't in a time that we normally don't.
We call masters people who achieve extraordinary skill in a particular domain. The masters of martial arts look effortless as they're throwing their punches, but what does it actually take to master something, and is mastery possible for you and me? When we wonder about a master and what it takes to be one, we often look from the outside and see what a master does. We see that the master has practiced 10,000 hours, and we hear about the 10,000-hour rule: that's the amount of time it takes to become a master in a particular field. Yet I have met people, and you have met people, who spent 10,000 hours in a particular field without becoming masters. So time alone doesn't seem to be what it takes to master your field. Then we might look at where the master studied. We might look at the kind of books she read. We look at where they are from and at the surroundings of the master. However, usually there are other people who have read the books, been in that environment, and grown up in the same area but don't master the same skills.
You might look at the genetics of the person. You might look at their brain. You might look at the composition of the master, but usually there are people with very similar compositions and conditions who don't master the thing.
So again, what does it take to master your field?
What I argue makes the difference is nothing you find externally. It is what happens in the master that determines mastery. Mastery is a function of the master paying attention to how things occur and having trained his or her perception to be as accurate as possible in seeing what's actually occurring. A master, so to speak, is closer to the reality of the situation than somebody who is not a master. Being closer to the reality of the situation depends on how the master looks at things, which determines how successfully he or she deals with what's occurring for us and what shows up in our world.
We need to have mastery over a variety of domains, one including ourselves. A master usually has learned to pay attention and hold his or her attention on what you have distinguished as important. Attention is crucial. Most of us will be distracted, drift off, or pay attention to the wrong things.
When it comes to attempting mastery, a master knows her internal workings and therefore can stay put on the object of attention. A master tennis player doesn't get distracted by loud noises in the crowd. He or she has learned to fixate attention on how the other plays the ball. A novice might be paying attention to the ball instead of the movement of the opponent but it's not the ball that determines the speed or where to go, but the opponent. A novice might only be looking at sales in the business but hasn't learned the distinctions between good service and how to spot signs of customer dissatisfaction.
There's another element: the master doesn't just absorb information. He or she makes finer and finer and finer distinctions in the domain of mastery. A novice is busy learning how to do it. The master, either by understanding or intuition, pays attention to where doing occurs. A master has understood that his or her perception is the central piece of leverage. A novice gets distracted by the movement out there. A master pays attention to the movement in here.
Mastery is a function of distinction and practicing attention. Mastery is non-reactive. It is responsive, as one has learned to stay centered, and staying centered is as much a function of what to pay attention to as a function of what not to. Instead of asking, "What does a master do to be a master?" we might wonder more about how he or she looks at things and what they pay attention to. In other words, "What is it to be a master?" As the doing of a master flows out of how each and every situation occurs to the master, what allows the master to see the way he or she sees? Doing will be a consequence of the way the master sees and not the other way around.
Having inquired into the question of mastery, we might start to ask ourselves different questions… Questions such as: What am I not seeing that a master would to make this effortless? What principles is a master operating from? How must this be occurring for myself so that I would handle it with ease? What am I seeing that the master isn't? What must be true about me to be a master in my field?
Have fun exploring!