I have a fantastic professor who insists that his dream student is one who double majors in physics and history. He's never had the combination yet. If I was independently wealthy that's where I'd be, no question.
Anyway, these sorts of articles hit me harder because I have convinced myself that I'm not good enough and my drive to learn stems from that. Keep going, flagamuffin!
Personally I wanted to go for Physics + Philosophy. I don't really have the time, money or mental acuity to be a top dog in either of those (to say nothing on doing them both at the same time), so I just settle for my hobbyist interest in them while studying to become a linux system administrator in my free time.
That is, if I'm not reading or writing, or appreciating classical music, or styding the history of art, or better yet trying to LEARN to play music, or learn a language or some other thing.
I have a lot of interests, but I don't have a lot of time or money. I think that's also a big reason why people are more monopathic these days: We simply don't have the time to exert the effort to learn new things. When we were children, it was easier to learn because we, for the most part, didn't have to worry about the bills or other larger social traps we fall into when we're older. All children have to do is play and learn, with the occasional chore here and there. If you're unlucky, you might be born in a poor family where your learning or playtime gets inhibited by circumstances beyond your control.
As an adult, you spend hours at work, then go home to perhaps a family and then there are social situations that you need to do, and then at the end you might have maybe one or two good hours to yourself. All those other things start to weigh down your mind and you feel as though you are mentally "tapped out", even though in reality you did very little mental or physical work.
That was a good article.