Intelligence is specialization

[Cherry Cola]

Sorry I was attempting irony

 

[TBerg]

Is it possible to reinterpret Jung at all while remaining faithful to the phenomena to which he was pointing?

 

[Base groove]

Is it possible to reinterpret Jung at all while remaining faithful to the phenomena to which he was pointing?

uh yeah nobody said it wasn't. Everybody is entitled to their own interpretation but if they want to argue about it then they need to make a good argument.

I just said the interpretation was wrong. Remember? That's how this all started.

I don't care if it's a popular theory or if it sounds nice or even if you've been attached to it a little while you need to learn to let it go when you're wrong. "you" can be anybody,.... especially anybody who thinks Ti and Fe are the same function in a different hat.

 

[TBerg]

uh yeah nobody said it wasn't. Everybody is entitled to their own interpretation but if they want to argue about it then they need to make a good argument.

I just said the interpretation was wrong. Remember? That's how this all started.

I don't care if it's a popular theory or if it sounds nice or even if you've been attached to it a little while you need to learn to let it go when you're wrong. "you" can be anybody,.... especially anybody who thinks Ti and Fe are the same function in a different hat.

You never addressed my supposition. Care to do so? If what you claim is true, then you should be able to either augment or dismantle it pretty well.

 

[Base groove]

You never addressed my supposition.

State it in meaningful, assertive language instead of a rhetorical question that implies something vague and you might get the answer you want.

 

[Reluctantly]

I am under constant scrutiny to myself as well. Heck who isn't?

I'm going with extroverts.

I read what you wrote and I disagreed with it privately.

They don't operate in tandem; they are direct opposites, and as such they are in direct opposition. The use of one necessarily suppresses/neutralizes the other. The polarity between them is so strong that they are less compatible than any other two combinations.

For you to argue that Se and Ni are cooperative in any way is basically the same point he's making, yes, and I dispute it just as strongly.

Se is energized by seeking new sensory experiences and characterized by a consciousness that is indiscriminately attracted to stimuli, allowing all stimuli to enter consciousness without concern for its meaning or nature.

Ni is energized by synthesizing patterns and adding to its core and is characterized by a consciousness that seeks to ignore or repress all sensory stimuli, as they stand in direct opposition to what Ni is trying to passively achieve; in effect, it is overwhelming.

But that suppression is supposed to have an unconscious influence over the ego. Take love and hate; hate is logically the opposite of love, but in order to hate, one would need to know what it means to love in order to know that they hate. They are in some ways not opposite at all. And so, it's common to hear people say that hate is another kind of love - because what they share in common is in placing importance, whereas indifference neutralizes both. We could perhaps then argue that indifference is the opposite of hate and love, but then we'd have the same relationship that in order to be indifferent one must know what it means to hate and love and we would see that both require an understanding of placing importance. And so we could follow the rabbit hole and find these interesting relationships if we so chose.

And so what Jung did with his types is this same idea. If someone uses Ti, there's an understanding of Fe that must go with it. And it's this understanding of Fe then that has an influence over someone's Ti because they share things in common, just as love and hate shares in placing importance on things. And over time, through introspection, one consciously learns about these influences and can use that understanding to mitigate their negative effects and increase their positive effects, increasing their adaptability to existence through their awareness of these influences - Jungian individuation.

 

[Base groove]

I see no problem with your interpretation because you have made attempts to explain your rationale and it's logically coherent; it makes sense to me.

Furthermore I don't see any discrepancies between your interpretation and the text.

I do see a lot of difference between your explanation and the others that were offered.

 

[redbaron]

Jung makes no mention whatsoever about the interdependence of Ti and Fe. He writes that these functions are in opposition and they necessarily suppress each other due to their nature as polar opposites.

Now you're confusing tandem with interdependent. Yes, I've read Types as well, and the description I've used doesn't contradict Jung's either.

Tandem simply means, "working together". It doesn't imply simultaneously, or that there is any form of interdependence. None of what I'm talking about is referring to that.

 

[Base groove]

^ ok you're right.

Whatever you meant by "tandem" is precisely not what I thought you meant by "tandem".

Carry on with your theorizing and I'll leave you all be.

 

[Cherry Cola]

But Ni and Se are cooperative that is undisputable as far as I can tell, the same goes with Ne/Si (linking to my own goddamn post this time: http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=419189&postcount=2656). It's not as clear with the judging functions but how do you circumvent the problem that arises when you consider internal logic on its own?

Namely what I wrote before:

The agent of Ti needs a purpose to strive for in order to apply his Ti to anything at all. Ti and Fe sharing the same goal, how they strive to achieve it depends on which is master and which is servant. But regardless of functional positioning both are always present. Without Fe Ti's logical system would be static, closed off at maximum entropy. It's form intact but it's constituents devoid of semanticity.

If they are working together then if considered in a perpetuated state they are interdependent though. Interdependent because the one gives purpose and the other clears way. You cannot have purpose without application nor application without purpose. Canvas without paint etc. They balance each other out.

In Jungian terms one is knee deep in the primordial subconsciousness, taking on an archaic form and providing impersonal input so as to prevent the function active in the ego-sphere from running rampant by deviating too far from what human cognition allows, when that happens the balance is shaken and subconscious surfaces rendering the two functions into a state of opposition. In a balanced individual they do not function as opposites even if they may be described as such when considered discretely for the purpose of clarity.

I hope that "theorizing" remark wasn't intended to be demeaning, cause das wat fucken MBTI be bout.

 

[Base groove]

Ti and Fe sharing the same goal

Uh, no.

You're presupposing too many things here. Get back to basics.

 

[Cherry Cola]

No reply to what I wrote rather than cherry pick. I know my basics pretty darn well.

Internal Logic serves the purpose of breeding external harmony, likewise for Te and Fi.

Neither intrinsic meaning nor cold hard logic can survive on its own.

 

[Base groove]

I'm cherry picking out your chief axiom that I am disputing. My reply remains generic and unchanged from the original format it took the first time you posted the exact same argument.

Besides I'm not making the case that either "survives on its own".

 

[Cherry Cola]

Your case remains protected in the shadows indeed.

Edit: It would be fairer to say that their goals "are principally the same". But that's pretty much the same anyway.

 

[Base groove]

Your case remains protected in the shadows indeed.

Edit: It would be fairer to say that their goals "are principally the same". But that's pretty much the same anyway.

My case is not shrouded by any darkness or mystery. It's plain and clear.

I already explained everything in perfectly clear terms.

The case that is 'protected in the shadows' is the one you guys are making. The best counterpoint so far was a facepalm by RB who said I just didn't understand things the same way he did and he's read types already so he knows he's right.

""Oh no that's not what I meant by "tandem""" . This guy's big strategy is to just tell people they don't understand him when they argue with him.

Well, news flash, we've all read Types. When I mentioned that earlier it wasn't so I could flaunt my knowledge it was because you challenged me to "logic up". Remember that?

 

[Base groove]

Can anybody actually quote a section that lends to this interpretation? You might surprise me .


Oh no wait, let me guess, you guys don't actually have to prove your theory has any grounding, for as long as I argue against the group it is up to me to prove my point. You guys can just keep arguing by repeating yourselves until I give up. It is this way it is it is.

Edit - (later)

~

Just as I thought, you have nothing left.

 

[redbaron]

RB who said I just didn't understand things the same way he did and he's read types already so he knows he's right.

Well that's a lovely strawman.

I said that you're confusing terms, not that you don't understand the way I do. I also didn't say that, "I know I'm right".

"Oh no that's not what I meant by "tandem"

It's not about what I mean, it's what the word tandem actually means. It doesn't mean simultaneous or interdependent. I'm sorry that you apparently don't have access to a dictionary.

This guy's big strategy is to just tell people they don't understand him when they argue with him.

Um yeah, because our two arguments aren't mutually exclusive - we're actually in agreement. If you're arguing when I'm already agreeing with you, what conclusion am I supposed to draw from that other than that you've innocently misunderstood?

Would you prefer that I assume you're arguing for the sake of it? Trolling? Personal vendetta? Ego problem?

No, I'd prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and try to clarify my point than dismiss you as stupid, although it seems as though you'd prefer I do just that.

 

[Base groove]

lol you are so predictable.

yes I have a dictionary. Your use of the word tandem is still wrong. So is your theory. You can be as arrogant as you like.

 

[Base groove]

The best counterpoint so far was a facepalm by RB who said I just didn't understand things the same way he did and he's read types already so he knows he's right.

Well that's a lovely strawman.

I said that you're confusing terms, not that you don't understand the way I do. I also didn't say that, "I know I'm right".

OK, strawman you say?

Well,
proof:

Now you're confusing tandem with interdependent. Yes, I've read Types as well, and the description I've used doesn't contradict Jung's either.

'Confusing terms' is equivalent to 'not understanding things the same way'.

Furthermore, it does contradict Jung. This was my example for the argument I made which you called a strawman. It wasn't, in fact, because it was an accurate representation of your argument. For you to claim in an objective fashion that there exists no contradiction is equivalent to stating 'you know you're right'.

Tandem simply means, "working together". It doesn't imply simultaneously, or that there is any form of interdependence. None of what I'm talking about is referring to that.

'Working together' is exactly the kind of thing I'm saying is inaccurate. They don't work together, they oppose each other. They don't work in tandem. Where in the bloody fuck did you get that stupid idea and why are you clinging to it? It's wrong.

No matter how much of an ass you want to be or how much you want to take personal stabs at me for arguing with you, or your sly remarks about how you 'agree with me' so I'm only arguing for personal reasons/ego/axe to grind whatever.... shove it all up your cakehole because you know it's crap. It's all crap.

How could you possibly be agreeing with me? I said you're wrong and you're trying to defend that standpoint, and you're doing a rather poor job of it by making it about me personally now and not the quality of your arguments. You said some bullshit and now you're too much of a twat to face it head-on.

 

[redbaron]

Tandem (adverb)

Alongside each other; together.

(adjective)

Having two things arranged one in front of the other.

So let's be clear - you think functions don't work in tandem? They don't work together/alongside each other, and they aren't arranged one in front of the other?

Well, that's interesting. How then do you describe a functional stack? Is that not a series of things arranged one in front of the other, in terms of cognitive preference/dominance?

 

[Base groove]

Tandem (adverb)

Alongside each other; together.

(adjective)

Having two things arranged one in front of the other.

So let's be clear - you think functions don't work in tandem? They don't work together/alongside each other, and they aren't arranged one in front of the other?

Well, that's interesting. How then do you describe a functional stack? Is that not a series of things arranged one in front of the other, in terms of cognitive preference/dominance?

Now this is a real strawman.

So let's be clear - you think functions don't work in tandem? They don't work together/alongside each other, and they aren't arranged one in front of the other?

Strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman, STRAWMAN.

We are talking specifically about polarities between opposing functions such as Ni and Se or Ti and Fe.

So yes, I think they don't work in tandem. They oppose each other.

If you want to speak in metaphors ... then they are not facing the same way, which is also part of the definition of "tandem". They have their backs to each other.

"working together" is a necessary component of your use in terminology as well, and it is specifically the part which I argue is wrong. Ti and Fe do-not-work-together!!

It's funny how you mention the whole "functional stack" idea because I fucking posted a clarification on that on page 1 of this thread and now enough time has elapsed that you can conveniently ignore it for a chance to get a cheap shot of sarcasm in.

 

[Base groove]

Just have the last word and be done with it. Nothing can be gained by pressing on with this argument.

 

[redbaron]

'Working together' is exactly the kind of thing I'm saying is inaccurate. They don't work together, they oppose each other. They don't work in tandem. Where in the bloody fuck did you get that stupid idea and why are you clinging to it? It's wrong.

Again, working together does not imply that they do it at the same time as each other, where one is actively suppressing the other - in this we are in agreement.

However, the fact that they are opposite does not discount one from being used to fulfil the requirements of the other - which is what is meant by, "working together".

A Ti-dom for example is best suited to fulfilling the desires of their Fe, through the utilization of their Ti. Doing work that directly satisfies the desire for harmony and external realization of values (Fe) is a major drain on Ti-doms. They can only be so accomodating, before they revert back to being insular and detached.

So how then does an IxTP fulfil their inferior Fe needs? By using their direct opposite and dominant function: Ti. If we use the example of coaching or teaching. An IxTP is better suited to implementing systems that improve the quality of learning for students, than they are being an actual teacher. Coming up with an improved curriculum or finding ways to make better use of gifted or challenged students is something that fulfils the needs of Fe - without ever engaging Fe in the process.

So there we have an example of how Ti can work with the goals of Fe in mind, without ever contradicting the works of Jung who states that they are in opposition and when used, one suppresses the other.

Are we on the same page now?

 

[redbaron]

Now this is a real strawman.

No, it's a question. I'm asking if that's your argument, not representing it as if it was your actual argument.

 

[Base groove]

You still just think I didn't understand you.

The aim of the thinking function is to actively repress any sort of morality or values that would potentially hinder its pursuit of pure truth.

If one is consciously aware of the fact that they want to improve things for other people or implement changes that are altruistic or benevolent, if this is the actual motivation for their behavior, if this is really what they base their decisions on, THEN it is not the introverted thinking function that is being used. It is either Fe or Te. You lack a basic understanding. I'm sorry. This time I am actually walking away.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

...What if they do/can work at the same time?

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWaFqw8XnpA

Oh, and goats on sheet metal, which represents the Sisyphean endeavor this thread has become:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58-atNakMWw

 

[Base groove]

...What if they do/can work at the same time?

Well, "what if" is something that's not really being entertained here.

This whole thing started because I said he was wrong for outright stating they work in tandem and people just don't realize it.

There are no "what-ifs" involved. If we're going to discuss 'what-if' then how about this one:

'what if I never said anything at all?' because that's what would have happened if I knew it was a 'what-if' thread.

 

[redbaron]

THEN it is not the introverted thinking function that is being used. It is either Fe or Te.

Uh, yeah. That's exactly what CC and I are saying: Fe provides an altruistic motivation for Ti users to improve stuff - they just use Ti to carry out the actual improvements - because Ti is a better tool to use for that.

Like I said, we're in agreement =)

 

[EyeSeeCold]

-Psychological Types

For I have frequently observed the way in which a physician, in the case for instance of an exclusively intellectual subject, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. This attempt must always come to grief, since it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should such a violation succeed, there ensues a really compulsive dependence of the patient upon the physician, a 'transference' which can be amputated only by brutality, because such a violation robs the patient of a standpoint -- his physician becomes his standpoint.​

Jung described the functions as complementary in the psyche, but I don't think individuals themselves are willingly appreciative of both opposite functions. The whole idea of being a type is based on the supreme valuation / repression of a certain attitude.

But the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of itself, and with more adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development is via the secondary function-thus in the case of a rational type by way of the irrational function. For this lends the conscious standpoint such a range and prospect over what is possible and imminent that consciousness gains an adequate protection against the destructive effect of the unconscious.​

It's mentioned that "healthy" integration of the inferior is done through the auxiliary( then tertiary).

 

[Base groove]

^ty. I shouldn't have gotten so fired up.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Well, news flash, we've all read Types. When I mentioned that earlier it wasn't so I could flaunt my knowledge it was because you challenged me to "logic up". Remember that?

My intention was to be funny by blaming you not agreeing with me on your feeling function and then saying "logic up" as a bastardized version of "man up", obv that attempt failed though

Oh no wait, let me guess, you guys don't actually have to prove your theory has any grounding, for as long as I argue against the group it is up to me to prove my point. You guys can just keep arguing by repeating yourselves until I give up. It is this way it is it is.

^ The burden of proof is just as much on you. Now someone already went and got quotes but it's not like we couldn't've done that either, you're still biased in your own favor when it comes to where you put that there burden though. I don't see the need for the quotes anyway, both me and Redbaron presented arguments which you simply did not consider.

 

[scorpiomover]

If you equally value all kinds of intelligence (emotional, kinesthetic, etc), each kind of intelligence belonging to a function/type, then all types can be intelligent in their own way.

Thus it is sticking to a type and becoming a specialist (the best) in that type which is considered intelligent

The only way to become the best/specialist in something is to ignore all other options. (otherwise someone else will, and become the best, while you dabble around).

Intelligence = Specialization

I don't think I've seen such a compelling argument in a long time. I'll have to think about this. But I think you've just completely changed my world-view.

One that does not specialize and tries to practice all types and have a bit of all will actually lose from everyone: The Ti specialist will crush him in logic. The Te specialist will run over him. etc

Thus: those who do not psychologically specialize and wobble in type (not in their assessment of their own type, but in their real internal type calibration whether they know it or not) are less intelligent.

To an extent. It's true that "jack of all trades but master of none" is an English expression, that is meant to convey how there are many who aren't that smart who know a bit of everything, but few who are that smart who don't know a lot about at least a few subjects. A polymath is meant to convey those few who know a lot about a lot of subjects, i.e. "master of all".

But those who are really smart, do tend to try to know at least a bit about the subjects he isn't very knowledgeable about, because other subjects often contain ideas that would also apply to their chosen subjects of expertise, but that no-one has realised that yet.

So, in principle, yes, you are right, that being too broad is a disadvantage, but being too narrow, and refusing to learn about anything other than the subjects one knows a lot about, also seems to put one at a disadvantage in the intelligence stakes.

I'd suggest that one probably needs a bit of both.

However, your argument is compelling enough, that it is probably the case, that to become more intelligent, then the majority of one's efforts needs to be devoted to specialisation, and only a minority to breadth. Say, the 80-20 split. 80% specialisation (depth), and 20% breadth.

 

[pernoctator]

Strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman, STRAWMAN.

It was practically the opposite of a strawman, because if it was an accurate representation of what you were arguing, his position would have been disproved. Remember, his position is that you are not actually contradicting each other. It's not "this is what you're arguing"; it's "this is what you would be arguing if you disagreed". Do you dispute that?

 

[Base groove]

It was practically the opposite of a strawman, because if it was an accurate representation of what you were arguing, his position would have been disproved. Remember, his position is that you are not actually contradicting each other. It's not "this is what you're arguing"; it's "this is what you would be arguing if you disagreed". Do you dispute that?

I have already admitted I was too worked up for my own good.
Perhaps you are right.

"So let's be clear, you think ... ?"

"Well, then how do you ..."

I deceived myself into thinking he was trying to represent my argument in this way when in reality he was just double checking to make sure he understood me!

Perhaps he wasn't interpreting me to mean that any functions don't operate in tandem when I was actually arguing that these particular functions don't operate in tandem.

The final paragraph in the post of his, in this instance, simply poses questions of a hypothetical nature ... as he's replying to an argument I didn't make outright, yet he was explaining how he would interpret it in that way. So it's rhetorical, because I couldn't properly answer it, because he couldn't expect an answer to it until confirming it actually represented my point-of-view which up until that point he was not clear on. (It's hypothetical and rhetorical.)

~~

Actually, Pernoctator, after another review, I dispute it completely. The reason is simple: the hypothetical standpoint he issued which you claim disproved his own point was missing a critical detail. That's why I call it a strawman: because the missing critical detail changes the overall character of the argument; it is now a complete misrepresentation of my own, but is still in opposition to his.

By creating a third, nonexistent argument, to stand in my place, one which is easier to argue against, and makes him more likely to find his views prevalent (also providing more opportunity for sass), he has created what is known as a straw-man.

The "opposite" of a straw-man in my mind would be an accurate portrayal of another's argument and then arguing against it.

~~

 

[pernoctator]

^ Speaking of missing critical details: a strawman is a misrepresentation that is intended to be perceived as an accurate portrayal. So no, it wasn't, because there was no deception; the fact that it was a misrepresentation was expected to be obvious to both participants and the audience. It was an invitation to either confirm agreement or clarify the disagreement.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Is intention really that relevant in practice though? I mean sure you could just tell your opponent "you've missunderstood my argument" but why not just go with strawman instead? I think it's okay to use words a little losely unless it muddles what you're writing.

Then again strawman is one of those terms that comes up very often so substituting it when it doesn't fit completely is probs a good idea.

 

[pernoctator]

Well, you're talking about

intended to be perceived (by audience) as an accurate portrayal

versus

actually perceived (by self) as an accurate portrayal

which is a more subtle difference, sure. But neither apply here, because it was never presented as accurate whatsoever.

 

[clockwork]

This post was not about the particulars of the functions actually?

I noticed on this forum, that if you speak clearly about MBTI/functions, then everybody starts talking about other things, anything except functions. And if you have a subject that is not relevant to the details of functions than everyone starts talking about those details.

 

[Cherry Cola]

which is a more subtle difference, sure. But neither apply here, because it was never presented as accurate whatsoever.

True I kinda sidetracked the issue there

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I noticed on this forum, that if you speak clearly about MBTI/functions, then everybody starts talking about other things, anything except functions. And if you have a subject that is not relevant to the details of functions than everyone starts talking about those details.

Clearly this is because you're one of those dirty feelers.

(But honestly, just give us some guidance/interaction. Bowl for a strike. Braid us back into wherever you're taking us. *moar metaphors*)

 

[redbaron]

This post was not about the particulars of the functions actually?

I noticed on this forum, that if you speak clearly about MBTI/functions, then everybody starts talking about other things, anything except functions. And if you have a subject that is not relevant to the details of functions than everyone starts talking about those details.

Details are boring, general ideas are more interesting to more people. Being general means a wider range of people can respond/have input without requiring definite understanding/knowledge of specifics.

Maybe a bit annoying if one wants to discuss specifics, though to be expected on a forum full of intuitives perhaps.

Not sure if this makes sense since I'm awake at 5am.

 

[clockwork]

However, your argument is compelling enough, that it is probably the case, that to become more intelligent, then the majority of one's efforts needs to be devoted to specialisation, and only a minority to breadth. Say, the 80-20 split. 80% specialisation (depth), and 20% breadth.

In the way you say it / think about it, I think I could convince you its 100% specialization, 0% breadth….

Because…

The breadth you are after is probably more like 100% Ne or Se specialists.
For example, I am an ENTP and I am distracted easily by my dominant Ne seeing possible profit in any new situation/vision. So I might be very close to a 100% specialist in breadth.

Sometimes I discipline (Ti) myself to shut new info out and finally focus. Then I create situations for myself to shut it out such as an empty room with just a desk & PC, but in my core intent I'm still the same breadth specialist all the time.

If I may keep myself as an example: I know a bit of everything (Jung & AI in this case) and thats how I can connect dots well, as I (almost 100%) specialized in breadth all my life. An 80% focused ENTJ with" 20% breadth" will not be able to win it from me on dot-connecting anyway, and even if the ENTJ really did the 20% breadth >then it will make him a lesser focused ENTJ, thus a more "unintelligent ENTJ" and he will lose out both ways: he will suck in breadth and in focus


You have to look at this whole theory in layers (or dimensions or whatever you want to call it). The function layer is separate from the intelligence layer. Intelligence/specialization/limitation is a different kind of focus than the type-kind of focus like ENTJ-focus. They run in totally separate layers in my model.

 

[clockwork]

I need to correct my subject:

Intelligence is specialization (wrong)
\/ \/ \/
Intelligence requires specialization (right)

(And specialization = limitation / direction for your neural network)

 

[Cherry Cola]

That makes more sense, going in depth on a subject tends to highlight general principles which can only by detected after scrutinous analysis, once you got a principle down you can carry it over to other subjects, achieving intelligence of a general nature following narrow study.

Does that go along with what you mean? :O

 

[clockwork]

]It's mentioned that "healthy" integration of the inferior is done through the auxiliary( then tertiary).

Dear EyeSeeCold,

This is how I see this:

Strongest function simply has the strongest feedback effect on correcting the pathways in your neural network.
Weaker functions have weaker effect.
So if your neural network has to adapt, it will first adapt most quickly/roughly to your strongest feedback.
Once the neural network has a pretty stable solution for the strongest feedback, slowly the weaker feedback signals will start having their effect.
Then finally your neural network (e.g. your intelligence) has a good solution to your complete type-related-feedback (complete=from your stronger to your weaker functions), this is called "HEALTHY".

In fact your type has always been the same all along. It is just your neural network that has adjusted to your type. So the "integration" is just the adaptation of your neural network, not of your functions/type itself.

 

[redbaron]

I kind of prefer the idea that intelligence is speciation as opposed to specialization.

 

[clockwork]

I kind of prefer the idea that intelligence is speciation as opposed to specialization.

What do you mean exactly?
(I can only see that when genes collect themselves into species, that that is a form of specialization as well)

 

[QuickTwist]

Wow. There were a lot of posts in this thread without much being said since I was involved with it... err and before... and during. There is some things that were useful though.

I don't think I've seen such a compelling argument in a long time. I'll have to think about this. But I think you've just completely changed my world-view.

To an extent. It's true that "jack of all trades but master of none" is an English expression, that is meant to convey how there are many who aren't that smart who know a bit of everything, but few who are that smart who don't know a lot about at least a few subjects. A polymath is meant to convey those few who know a lot about a lot of subjects, i.e. "master of all".

But those who are really smart, do tend to try to know at least a bit about the subjects he isn't very knowledgeable about, because other subjects often contain ideas that would also apply to their chosen subjects of expertise, but that no-one has realised that yet.

So, in principle, yes, you are right, that being too broad is a disadvantage, but being too narrow, and refusing to learn about anything other than the subjects one knows a lot about, also seems to put one at a disadvantage in the intelligence stakes.

I'd suggest that one probably needs a bit of both.

However, your argument is compelling enough, that it is probably the case, that to become more intelligent, then the majority of one's efforts needs to be devoted to specialisation, and only a minority to breadth. Say, the 80-20 split. 80% specialisation (depth), and 20% breadth.

This is probably the best post regarding strictly the parameters of the OP.

One thing I would like to say is that as intelligence (only having to do with the knowledge gained, which is I think what is being argued) goes up in a specialized area of expertise so to does the intelligence go up for the rest of the subjects. This means that the more you know on a specific thing, the more you know about other things. The argument here is that in searching for this specialized knowledge you pick things up about other subjects. Furthermore, it may or may not be known to the specializer about the importance of having a broad spectrum of knowledge to draw from and how it can help them out in a tight spot. So I would say the more knowledge the specializer has in a given area the more they know about the vast majority of subjects.

Then there are people like me. I don't really specialize in any particular specialized knowledge but I do specialize in one area, reasoning (not to say that I am the best at it). I don't know a lot of detailed things about almost any subject but that does not mean that I am ill suited to be successful. But I will say the more information I pick up on a particular subject the better suited I am to know the inter workings of it. I believe that is why I want to peruse math, because I know that when you know enough math you can apply this knowledge to almost any situation and view things in the form of numbers. So does this make me a specializer or a jack of all trades?

 

[scorpiomover]

One thing I would like to say is that as intelligence (only having to do with the knowledge gained, which is I think what is being argued) goes up in a specialized area of expertise so to does the intelligence go up for the rest of the subjects. This means that the more you know on a specific thing, the more you know about other things. The argument here is that in searching for this specialized knowledge you pick things up about other subjects. Furthermore, it may or may not be known to the specializer about the importance of having a broad spectrum of knowledge to draw from and how it can help them out in a tight spot. So I would say the more knowledge the specializer has in a given area the more they know about the vast majority of subjects.

Then there are people like me. I don't really specialize in any particular specialized knowledge but I do specialize in one area, reasoning (not to say that I am the best at it). I don't know a lot of detailed things about almost any subject but that does not mean that I am ill suited to be successful. But I will say the more information I pick up on a particular subject the better suited I am to know the inter workings of it. I believe that is why I want to peruse math, because I know that when you know enough math you can apply this knowledge to almost any situation and view things in the form of numbers. So does this make me a specializer or a jack of all trades?

Still a specialist, because you're specialising in mathematics. The subject you are specialising in, applies to everything, and so is the most general subject of all. Being a "master of everything".

 

[clockwork]

Then there are people like me. I don't really specialize in any particular specialized knowledge but I do specialize in one area, reasoning

That simply sounds like a Ti specialist.

---

P.S. You guys should not think in specialization as in "subjects of interest", or as in "job roles".
YOU HAVE TO ZOOM OUT MORE!
I am talking about psychological specialization, which is simply at the root of it all. On top of psychological specialization one could focus on an area of interest (such as a job role), but I am looking at the psychological specialization which runs behind that curtain!