What does it mean that mastering tools is not the point?

Tools serve goals — never lose sight of what you are trying to accomplish with the tool.

Example: A photographer spends three years learning every feature of Lightroom — batch processing, luminance masks, profile calibration, plugin development. He can process a raw file faster than anyone he knows. His presets are legendary in online forums. He teaches paid workshops on editing technique. But when you look at his portfolio, the images are technically competent and emotionally empty. Across town, a street photographer shoots on a ten-year-old camera body, does minimal processing — basic exposure adjustment, a crop here and there — and her work hangs in galleries. The difference is not that she is more talented. It is that she spends her hours looking at the world instead of looking at software. Her tool is a window. His tool became a mirror. She mastered seeing; he mastered sliders. The tool-master produced better histograms. The practitioner produced better photographs.

Try this: Conduct a purpose audit of your tool stack. For each tool you use regularly, write two sentences: (1) What am I trying to accomplish with this tool? State the goal, not the activity. Not "organize my notes" but "develop and connect ideas that improve my thinking." Not "manage my tasks" but "ensure I make progress on my three highest-priority commitments each week." (2) How much time this week did I spend using this tool versus configuring, maintaining, or learning this tool? Estimate a ratio. If the ratio of configuration-to-use exceeds 1:3 for any tool, you have likely shifted from using the tool to serving the tool. For any tool where you cannot clearly state the purpose in a single sentence, ask whether you are keeping it because it serves your work or because mastering it has become a substitute for doing your work.