I can't remember when I didn't feel the need to understand how things worked. I'm not sure whether the dominant drive to understand was out of sheer curiosity, or need. Like usual it's probably a combination of things.

Computers came first. I had access to my first Wang "computer" when I was 8 or 9 via my Mom that worked at Wang labs. I even remember playing with desktop scanning capabilities in 1983 at her office. I think that was all part of Fred Wang's vaporware announcement that was part of the end for them.

My first PC was shortly thereafter, an NEC that my Dad's friend who worked for the company got a deal on. I spent nights at my friends house playing with his Mac as well. Fatbits in paint being my main interest. I was fascinated to understand how those pixel level changes looked when zoomed out.

Later I took logo classes, and some animation classes at the Boston Museum of Science in the late 80s. I animated fourth of July fireworks exploding over the Boston skyline with the Hancock building (my favorite IM Pei, and inspiration for the parallelogram in the Bostig logo) front and center.

I guessed that if I became good on computers, I could do anything I'd need to. That turned out to be mostly right. In the same way, once I got older and started to become interested in cars, I knew that somehow and for some reason it would be really important to understand how they worked. Afterall cars are important pieces of modern life as well.

I took several summers worth of classes at Minuteman Tech, and Leo DeSimone my instructor allowed me to move straight to the shop or to the wiring diagrams in the computer room (all on CD libraries) in lieu of classroom theory which I had a pretty good handle on. I always enjoyed when he would disable a vehicle secretly and then ask us to troubleshoot it.

I gained a very solid footing in mechanicals and electro-mechanicals, with software-electromechnicals coming later on my own. Not having to worry about car stuff, and being in control of as much of it as I could seemed to make sense. How could I depend on the car to get me around if I didn't truly know its state? It also bothered me to depend on something and not understand it. That idea never made sense.

Eventually after the computers had lead me into multiple jobs, and the cars had consumed the money I had earned, I decided that I really should understand something about health as well. There's no way I could become a Doctor, I don't have the patience (get it?). But I could become an EMT in a year. So I did. That was 10 years ago or so now. My stepdad was an EMT, my business partner Brady had been one, and our first hire at Bostig was a paramedic.

This is when I think things started to gel for me. The important piece was, the EMT knows only a tiny fraction of what a doctor knows, but the EMT can be just as important in saving lives. So the EMT knows enough to be able to perform the actions required at that point in time to mean the difference between success and failure. They don't need to be, and shouldn't be doctors.

Enter the Pareto principle. An Italian named Pareto observed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by only 20% of the population. The more that he and others looked around, the more this proportion starts to appear in all kinds of areas. The relevance here is that I think it applies to learning as well.

If you're talking about computers, and using them is your goal, then I think it's safe to say that you don't need to be a computer scientist or techie to use google, shop, research things, post on facebook etc. Most of the value of a computer can come learning only a small fraction of how it works, or how to use it. Maybe 20% of the knowledge to get 80% of the value? Perhaps.

What about cars? 20% of the knowledge to get 80% of the value of independence from others when it comes to cars? It's not immediately obvious that the supposition is wrong.

What about saving lives or dealing with medical emergencies? Does just 20% of what it's possible to know in the situation get you 80% of the way to a good outcome? Again, not really possible to definitively answer but it "feels" reasonable.

In any case, it's been dead obvious to me that you don't need to be an expert to get huge value out of knowing just enough of something. There is a catch of course. My grandpa always used to say to me "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". At the time I didn't have enough knowledge or experience to understand what that even meant, but boy is it true and obvious now.

The trick is in knowing when you've crossed into safe territory, and that is difficult. We are human and we are really good at tricking ourselves into beliefs that we merely desire to be true. But I'd be willing to bet that the line is right about 20% of the relevant knowledge in question, once you cross that line, you're much less susceptible to the danger that awaits.

Well I'm pretty satisfied with my own results so far. I work for myself, I don't need a mechanic, I've never paid anyone for computer help and earned money doing all three. I've saved a life, helped comfort people out of panic and didn't need to waste time for an ambulance transport when Brady mashed the end of his finger off in a motorcycle chain.

I think the point of this post is to highlight that if one were to learn about 20% of mastery of 20% of the most important dependencies in one's life, there would be a remarkable gain in one's independence. It seems unlikely most people make a concerted effort to do this. A pseudo-formula for bang-for-the-buck independence engineering. Is it right? Well try it and get back to me. Maybe I should pick up 20% of how to write next.