Thanks for letting us know?
Seriously, the whole piece is 800 words. You didn't have time to read because you'd prefer 50 words shaved off with tighter editing... well okay, I understand if you're a busy guy that likes dense information.
But then you have time to post a snarky comment? You lost me there.
That was my first guess – my first guess was that the difference between a generalist and a dabbler was that the generalist had some overarching theme or purpose, while the dabbler did not.
That was pretty redundant, even as a part of your thought process, since you'd already told us that earlier on. Just telling us that you don't think an overarching theme was it would have sufficed. And following that:
I don’t think that’s the answer.
You just said that a couple of sentences back. What I'm trying to say is that, while showing us your thought process did illustrate how you arrived at your conclusion, an outline of your thought process would still have read better if you had tightened it up some. Showing us your thought process by literally repeating it verbatim might strike some readers as self-indulgent.
Other than that, good points. :)
But I do agree that editing serves a purpose. There is a reason that good writers' essays, such as PG's, for example, are so durable through time: they have been finely honed, eliminating wasted words and poor analogies, to communicate an idea so purely that it captures the mind.
Sebastian's writing isn't poor. It's just not finished. There's a gem of an idea there, but it's still covered in the dirt and grime of poor syntax and wordiness. And like a diamond that goes unnoticed because it hasn't been polished, it will quickly be forgotten, under the massive heaps of poor syntax and crude wordiness that society, and the Internet in particular, generates every day.
He could find his ideas traveling farther if he polished his diamonds.