Overvaluation of being well rounded

[Architect]

I've come to believe that being well rounded is overrated in the general culture. It was in vogue when I was young too and I picked the idea up. Seemed natural enough, learn to be good at a lot of things means you're more adaptable, right? And so I did it, became an expert in music, science, engineering and also developed expertise in many other areas.

In our schools today it runs rampant. The ideal child is one who plays an instrument, gets straight A's, plays on a team (or two, or three), and takes all AP courses. By the way I'm sure you know what AP means - All the more Pressure. They can't really teach you more advanced material, at least around here AP just means a bigger workload. So we're creating grinds, the ones that do well in this system are SJ types who can grind through the material.

I think this is a disservice to the kids and to society in general. If you look back people who tend to make contributions are usually ones that would be considered unbalanced. Too focused on one or two things. Taking the big examples, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates aren't particularly well rounded, they both were highly focused on what they did. All the top scientists were only good at doing science, same for music.

There's a simple reason for this; there's only so much brain and attention to go around. Since you've got only so much, you can go shallow and wide, or narrow and deep. It's the narrow and deep approach that has a chance to do something really good.

Given that, I'll make an INTP plug here and say that I think it is good for INTP's to get pushed outside their comfort zone on occasion. Being IN's our tendency is to go narrow and deep (same for all the other IN's like INFJ's). But we can go overboard and fall off a cliff at times.

Personally at my point in life I'm not afraid to go narrow and deep. I've been dropping hobbies left and right (it was the hobby thread that got me thinking about this). The last one was photography. I was basically a crappy photographer - no time or energy. Too busy with a life and doing computer work. Nowadays I stick to computers with music as a hobby, and combine the two even by listening to music while I work. I read a bit too, watch a few movies and do a little writing by posting on internet forums and am writing the AA compendium. It's still too much frankly.

Discussion welcome.

 

[Hadoblado]

Speciality = idea producer

Generality = idea absorber

There are no longer many low hanging fruit that non-specialty can attain.

Producing new novel ideas requires narrow deep thinking as defined by the size of the giant on who's shoulders you sit. It's much harder than just understanding the work of others, and while you are the one that the absorber's need, your personal body of knowledge and perspective suffer.

The absorber maintains society without being the driving force behind its advancement. Sure they do the leg work, and they look good under most criteria, but the distinction here is that between priest and prophet.

I don't know which I prefer. One seems better for society, and one seems better as a person. Do I even care about society? I'm not sure at times. I'm naturally more inclined towards specialty, but it feels like a sour deal.

 

[~~~]

Societies tend to be faddish though. My own view is that peoples' circumstances are different and so what is appropriate will be different for everyone. Is there any benefit at all from an INTP having more than one interest (to take an extreme case)?

 

[nanook]

Overvaluation of well roundedness is like when religious people are trying to fake a "holy" (awakened) appearance by being "lovely". It's a version of pre-trans fallacy if anyone falls for this. Well rounded people, who don't fake well roundedness by imitating the lowest common denominator in all areas of status quo, but who actually transcend the idiocy (narrowness) of specialization in creative (deep) ways, are incredibly rare and precious. We call that genius.

 

[redbaron]

I don't think it's possible to claim that people who contribute are typically unbalanced. I think this is a lot more to do with the skewed perception people have of them because they get the most attention for their contributions.

On top of that there's the consideration of individual differences, especially when it comes to people higher on the autism spectrum. They naturally end up specialising in something because they're wired in such a way.

Then one also needs to find the distinction between people being inherently specialised or being specialised as a result of environment. I've been put in situations of high responsibility, where I've specialised not because I felt I needed to. I could have easily ridden the train of success and I'm sure many people often just, "end up" where they are because they never get off the ride. I chose not to follow that path further.

There's also the consideration to make that a lot of people who've contributed massively are people who deliberately stopped specialising. Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins have both been scientific researchers, who took a less specialised approach to science and who balance research with public speaking, writing books and so on. Their contribution actually comes from not specialising.

So if you ask me this concept is all a bunch of bullshit. It's not about whether you specialise or generalise, it's how well you do it. There's great contributors whose contributions depend on their specialisation and others whose contribution depends on their ability to marry multiple concepts together.

 

[Architect]

So if you ask me this concept is all a bunch of bullshit.

I love it when we're having a civil discussion of an idea and somebody decides to lob a stinkbomb into the middle of it. To your credit there is some thought given to your answer.

I don't have any data for this idea, but I'm coming at it more from a qualitative perspective rather than quantitative. In the schools and among parents well roundness is highly prized. There's also a subtle Ludditeism implicit in this. I hear parents talk about their kid who is in a million activities but "they don't let them play video games". Somehow being over subscribed to mindless experiential activities is better than working in interactive and creative imaginary worlds. That's my perspective.

I think it's the S-N divide ultimately. Personally we took a big risk (from the opposing camps perspective) in letting our kid play lots of video games, and not pushing him into extra-curricular activities. However he's getting straight A's (except in PE), which is the child raising ideal, isn't it? At any rate other than doing poorly at PE (his one B) and not having a good enough non online social life (he is an early teen INTP after all) it seems to be working out.

Also on this thread people are jumping to the conclusion of looking at "great" individuals which wasn't my point. People who make significant impact on society are accidents, I don't think you can plan or predict for that. I'm mainly pointing out the fallacy in the common thinking of being well rounded. Again, "shallow and wide" versus "narrow and deep".

 

[CharlesRivers]

I have had frequent problems with the idea of well-roundedness as of late. Personally, my preferred genres, sci-fi/fantasy and philosophy, are all that I like to read. I may stray off the path with one or two books a year but I am staunchly committed to those two. It is a prominent belief that one should indulge themselves in the classics but those normally put me to sleep. As a result, I have not read many classics which causes to me to feel like I'm lacking something.
I'm also caught between mental and physical exercise, which I would sooner have the former. Whether I like it or not, I find myself immersed in social situations that quickly become exhausting. I'm cognizant of the need to push myself out of my comfort zone but I am a solitary creature and care very little about being social. Yet, I feel forced to appear as such. Summarily, I feel pressured to be many things that I am not and have no problem being limited in knowledge or skills, as long as I push those skills as close to mastery as possible. Sadly, other people view me as disproportionate, which causes me to seek out even those things that I detest. Every person does not aspire to be Leonardo Da Vinci.

 

[nanook]

good inventive science requires combination of N and S, N for smart hypothesis, S for honest testing of hypothesis. very few people could pull this off.

many people can specialize on one of those areas. be all about theory and thinking that everything is possible or all about testing and knowing some mundane shit for sure. but no one will remember your name for accomplishments.

you may be remembered, if you are very entertaining with your fantastic theories. like haramein, emoto. or you blow up things boasting your concrete knowledge, like these mentos experimenters on youtube. i didn't even remember their names.

areas other than inventive science don't call for a combination of both qualities. nobody expects nutritional experts to have a single intuitive bone in their body. that ability to discover the "obvious" big picture process of diseases of civilisation. it's perfectly fine, if they are wrong about "everything" (recommending you animal products) as long as they know the exact amount of calcium contained in milk. same is true for most engineers who work at monsanto, nobody expects them to understand eco systems of human health. they may be seen as inventive, but it's not what i mean by inventive science. a few of them may be inventive, the rest is rather just productive following an established formula.

if you go by red barons logic, these experts are probably well balanced individuals, because they learn theory, they teach theory, the do sports, they have sex, they have children, they pay taxes maybe even go to church. but it's fake exoteric balance. their minds are often excessively onesided.

yes, it's how well you do things. but you become a "good" nutritional expert, by NOT having a mind that is specialized on only one interest or agenda. such as the machoism of "carb the fuck up". or the paleo concept of being primitive and conservative, down to earth. if you can combine two areas, like psychology and health, your understanding of health will already be miles ahead of those, who only try to understand health as a physiological concept. psychology helps with navigating the world of misinformation. but also with understanding what leads to a certain questionable physiological behavior. the more perspectives you can take into account, the better you are at anything particular.

your behavior must be specialized, if you want to accomplish something, but your mind must become broader, unless you want to accomplish a lot of harm to the world, in the most concentrated way possible.

 

[RaBind]

Could the overvaluation be a product of the type of work most prevalent in the job market? Narrow and deep is too riskey an investment for most institutions really, as well as the fact that the narrow and deep types are outnumbered.

 

[redbaron]

I love it when we're having a civil discussion of an idea and somebody decides to lob a stinkbomb into the middle of it.

Is anyone really so sheltered as to find that statement offensive?

I don't have any data for this idea, but I'm coming at it more from a qualitative perspective rather than quantitative. In the schools and among parents well roundness is highly prized. There's also a subtle Ludditeism implicit in this. I hear parents talk about their kid who is in a million activities but "they don't let them play video games". Somehow being over subscribed to mindless experiential activities is better than working in interactive and creative imaginary worlds. That's my perspective.

In the schools and parents you've observed and interacted with, and the way that you've chosen to interpret it you mean.

I see more evidence of it being the opposite. Nowadays more than ever people are being expected to specialise at an early age. I remembe being told that we had to decide our careers now or be forever lost at the age of 14. We were actually forced to choose our speciality early, because further studies had prerequisites based upon core units. So if we wanted to study science, we had to choose which discipline before we even had any clue as to what any of them entailed in the real world.

Further to that more schools and education systems are employing careers and pathways counsellors to guide children into their chosen field of speciality.

Which is why I avoid pointless anecdotal arguments. One person experiences one thing, the other experiences something different.

I think it's the S-N divide ultimately. Personally we took a big risk (from the opposing camps perspective) in letting our kid play lots of video games, and not pushing him into extra-curricular activities. However he's getting straight A's (except in PE), which is the child raising ideal, isn't it? At any rate other than doing poorly at PE (his one B) and not having a good enough non online social life (he is an early teen INTP after all) it seems to be working out.

I actually don't think what you're talking exists anywhere but in the perceptions of people who choose to interpret things that way. Probably because they lack a wider perspective of global education systems and/or base their ideas on the limited representation of the education system and its proponents in their local community.

Also no offense but isn't your kid like 12? Yeah, I and a lot of my friends were video-game playing, straight A students at that age too. Doesn't really mean anything to be honest.

Also on this thread people are jumping to the conclusion of looking at "great" individuals which wasn't my point. People who make significant impact on society are accidents, I don't think you can plan or predict for that. I'm mainly pointing out the fallacy in the common thinking of being well rounded. Again, "shallow and wide" versus "narrow and deep".

I think the real fallacy is the false dichotomy that one must choose between, "shallow and wide' and, "narrow and deep". Different careers or lifestyles demand varying degrees of depth or breadth of knowledge. One can make a happy living anywhere along the spectrum if they so choose.

In fact in the teaching profession, teachers who possess breadth of knowledge are statistically the highest paid. Being multi-lingual or being a verified curriculatory planner earns one a higher salary than specialisation.

Also what about workplaces who employ people for being cross-skilled? Many workplaces are doing it now, where the tasks for the job are multi-faceted and require varying degrees of comprehensive vs. specialised knowledge.

The whole dichotomy breaks down when you apply it to the real world, since the world doesn't exist as a neatly dichotomous comprised of "shallow and wide" vs. "narrow and deep" people.

 

[redbaron]

Perhaps we should get some actual figures involved in this discussion.

IIRC the countries with the best rate of literacy, numeracy and problem solving skills are Japan, Finland, Norway, Australia and Sweden. In Australia, programs have started to become more and more specialised and yet rates of numeracy and literacy are dropping (unlikely to be in the top5 much longer).

Still that doesn't mean a lot in and of itself. Maybe someone with access to a PC can investigate the various education systems and find a correlation between level of specialisation and outcomes.

 

[nanook]

the real fallacy is probably trying to understand everything through the lense of typology, where entp means broad and shallow and intp means deep and narrow. what i'm trying in this thread is adding the aspect of development.

a deep and narrow type has to use his narrow focus and flow to create more and more deep areas in his mind, systematically, over time, and the product of that will be a broadness of this depth.

a shallow and broad type has to use his 'all over the place focus' to accumulate some deep areas, in seemingly random manner maybe, and the product of that may also be a broadness of total deep areas.

you individuate your type and differentiate it from other types. but you don't individuate your idiocy (limit of perspectives) by insisting on it. you must try to understand more and more of reality. and utilize the understanding as an individual.

 

[redbaron]

Not sure who you're directing that towards Nanook, but I was pretty much saying the same thing. I agree regarding ENTP/INTP and viewing complex matters through the lens of typology and giving it more credit than it deserves.

I worded it differently but yes, the aspect of development is one way of putting my skepticism towards the dichotomous way Architect thinks.

 

[scorpiomover]

There's a simple reason for this; there's only so much brain and attention to go around. Since you've got only so much, you can go shallow and wide, or narrow and deep. It's the narrow and deep approach that has a chance to do something really good.

Definitely.

I've come to believe that being well rounded is overrated in the general culture. It was in vogue when I was young too and I picked the idea up. Seemed natural enough, learn to be good at a lot of things means you're more adaptable, right? And so I did it, became an expert in music, science, engineering and also developed expertise in many other areas.

The idea of being well-rounded, came about because in the academic world, particularly in the sciences, people were becoming so specialised, that they'd develop a really clever theory to explain something in their field, that predicted something about the next field, that had been known by everyone in the next field to be almost always wrong for over 50 years. There's a serious disadvantage to being too narrow.

If you look back people who tend to make contributions are usually ones that would be considered unbalanced. Too focused on one or two things. Taking the big examples, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates aren't particularly well rounded, they both were highly focused on what they did. All the top scientists were only good at doing science, same for music.

Gates was a Congressional Page. He'd also started his own business before he'd even been to university, and was so successful at it, that he'd convinced his parents to let him drop out, even though he came from a family of lawyers and bankers. But he wasn't the head programmer. That was probably Paul Allen. Even his early stuff wasn't his own invention, and was bought/copied from the work of others. Most likely, he was a good businessman with a good understanding of computers and programming. A well-rounded person, indeed.

Jobs, I know much less about. But I do know that he had an eye for ergonomics and art and beauty in his devices, which was sorely lacking in the products of his competitors. PCs and mobile phones were functional, but used to be very ugly. The iMac, the iPhone, etc, changed all that. If money was not an issue, it was a no-brainer which one you'd buy. Again, well-roundedness won out, hands down.

In our schools today it runs rampant. The ideal child is one who plays an instrument, gets straight A's, plays on a team (or two, or three), and takes all AP courses. By the way I'm sure you know what AP means - All the more Pressure. They can't really teach you more advanced material, at least around here AP just means a bigger workload. So we're creating grinds, the ones that do well in this system are SJ types who can grind through the material.

The combination that tends to be more successful, is the guy who has a bit of both, i.e, he has 1 or 2 subjects that he's really good at, and several subjects that he's mediocre at.

E.G. Abert Einstein, who said that the difference between him and his peers, was that they did Physics for a degree, while he did Physics and a History of Mathematics. That's not the same as doing a dual-degree in Physics AND Maths, which others have done. It's more like taking a minor in listening to the topics that have been studied by mathematicians. Not nearly enough to know how to come up with a new type of geometry such as non-Euclidean geometry. But enough to know that mathematicians had studied non-Euclidean geometry, and to know enough about it to know that it might explain the anomalies in physics in Einstein's day, and enough to be able to ask a mathematician to help you with the calculations to prove it.

Being really good at several subjects, is called a "polymath", which is incredibly rare, even amongst high achievers. People like Leonardo da Vinci. It's just too much work for 99% of people.

I think this is a disservice to the kids and to society in general.

The intention of well-roundedness started off great. But then success became about getting the better grades.

Over time, so many parents were pushing their kids to do so well in their specialities, that there were too many competing. So parents began to push their kids to do well in their well-rounded subjects. So instead of getting 1 A and 5 Cs, they were being pushed to get 5 As, which would make one a polymath, and very few have the ability to good at several subjects at once.

Something had to give. What was lost was taking the time to understand the material thoroughly, even on the one subject that one did take that time on, i.e. one's speciality. So the result was many people who could recite the material on 12 subjects. But didn't really understand it all that well, and thus couldn't advance within it. OK for high school, because high school was about gaining the minimum competency. But when they got to university and were expected to solve problems they hadn't been told how to solve, they'd be completely out of their depth.

Be a great programmer and an amateur photographer. Even if you do get good at it, try to ensure it's just a hobby for fun. You'll probably not be a great photographer that way. But the things that you see and realise while doing photopgraphy, will be utilised by your Ne to help solve your more intractable programming problems with "out-of-the-box" thinking, that will stump your more-focussed peers.

 

[nanook]

i don't care to direct anything at anyone. just picking up creatively on thoughts that appear in me, while i am cross reading. i realize that my language may imply differently. I'm sloppy about some aspects of communication. don't want anyone to feel belittled or threatened or similar. i'm not on a side, because i'm not even into it. at least i'm trying to look at it that way.

 

[redbaron]

Oh okay, that's probably why I couldn't figure out if you're agreeing with anything or not...you're not not...

 

[Teax]

I've come to believe that being well rounded is overrated in the general culture.
(...)
In our schools today it runs rampant. (...)

I'm not sure, does the school system reflect the view of the general culture? I'm too disconnected to even speculate. the feedback I've seen here does make sence only in most general of terms, but Architect well described the problems with the early education system. for example:

you individuate your type and differentiate it from other types. but you don't individuate your idiocy (limit of perspectives) by insisting on it. you must try to understand more and more of reality. and utilize the understanding as an individual.

yes! - but schools do this all backwards. You are forced to learn more and more of tiny factoids that may or may not be of any use to your brain at this particular time(or ever) - which in turn does depend on your type. yet you get graded on this, which often blocks the future that would have been ideal for your type for further development. perfect system to kill motivation. Of course, to be any good at what you do you will have to grab knowledge from adjacent fields; eventually. But by that time you will have realized that fact for yourself and done it.

There's a simple reason for this; there's only so much brain and attention to go around. Since you've got only so much, you can go shallow and wide, or narrow and deep.

I agree, this sort of specialization is like the no-free-lunch theorem.

The combination that tends to be more successful, is the guy who has a bit of both, i.e, he has 1 or 2 subjects that he's really good at, and several subjects that he's mediocre at

the names of our fields are highly arbitrary anyway, so you automatically specialize in at least 2 subjects (but usually more) if you just follow your interests without respect to how it all was named by society.

Personally at my point in life I'm not afraid to go narrow and deep. I've been dropping hobbies left and right (it was the hobby thread that got me thinking about this). The last one was photography. I was basically a crappy photographer - no time or energy.

the world is deeply interconnected. a former hobby is a late tool and/or source of insight. the only hobby that never fades is one's own specialization.

 

[Architect]

In the schools and parents you've observed and interacted with, and the way that you've chosen to interpret it you mean.

No I don't mean. I'm not sure what to make of your position, but I do think you don't have a sense of how prevalent this meme is, in the US at least. Its an obvious, not a personal bias to anybody with a school age kid.

Interestingly the tide may be shifting a bit. It turns out that the best schools are looking beyond the kids who have taken nothing but AP classes. The reason is because those kids don't do so well often when they get to college. Many of them are so "advanced" that they forget it by the time they get there. Better to have a kid who took things at the right pace.

I'm not sure, does the school system reflect the view of the general culture?

I don't think so. That's the odd thing, look at any job posting, they all specify a specific set of skills that nobody could possibly have. So the way it works is that employers ask for the moon, and take the best candidate that gets closest. In other words a specialist.

I'm a long time software veteran who does it in his free time, I've worked on a lot of different stuff. At that most job listings are too specific for me, especially in web or game. The reality is that it doesn't matter, I can come up to speed on any technology in no time, but that often won't get me past the resume screening.

Be a great programmer and an amateur photographer. Even if you do get good at it, try to ensure it's just a hobby for fun. You'll probably not be a great photographer that way. But the things that you see and realise while doing photopgraphy, will be utilised by your Ne to help solve your more intractable programming problems with "out-of-the-box" thinking, that will stump your more-focussed peers.

Agree. I'm tackling this from the viewpoint of my kid but it applies to any INTP including myself. For us adult INTP's the issue is finding a good balance of our dominant and auxiliary.

My boss knows MBTI but goes more by the seat of his pants (ESFP). He figures me for the crazy genius so I always get the far out projects. The rest of the team are all S's who grind out the base system (ISFP, ISTJ^3, ISTP and ISFJ). As Lenore Thompson says the dominant-auxilary balance is always a somewhat uncomfortable one.

On my personal bit about photography it was always a given that I was going to be mediocre, I had no plans to do it well. I would be happy if I could just get competent at it. Maybe when I 'retire' - whatever that means, I'll have a bit more time. But managing computers and music seems to be as much as I can handle.

 

[Analyzer]

Few if any people are truly well rounded. This meme you mention seems to be the inferior Ne from the SJ's giving credence to a shallow understanding of being well rounded. I was in the the US public school system and it was acknowledged to choose your career and interests early so you can develop them and pick the right college by 12th grade. This democratization of education is the real culprit here. Not everyone is equal and everyone has different abilities when it comes to learning and the digestion of knowledge.

You mention parents having their kids do a million activities, but I believe this is all a very superficial idea of being well rounded that doesn't last past high school. A lot of it is just to get into a certain university, as this is the commonly accepted path for people to become successful. Like nanook said, it's being "well rounded by imitating the lowest common denominator...". How does doing things that others do in the same basic manner set you apart? As they get older, the kids and parents realize and come to accept that most jobs society "needs" are specialist orientated not general. When was the last time you saw a job description not asking for specific skill sets? Generalists start businesses or do something more high level like becoming executives or do creative work. It all just seems like parents are appealing to their unconsciousness(Ne), that the well rounded people give society it's most value.

 

[nanook]

i guess for teenagers the basic idea is, that neither they nor their parents understand the talents of their teens, so they have to be involved everywhere to find out, what resonates with them. this may seem annoying, but is a grace compared to how it used to be on lower, pre-hippy-stages, where everyone had to inherit the business of their parents and adapt to the external needs of these businesses. old school authority is still sneaking in, through the back-door, suggesting that a teen can't just intuit their own path prior to being tested and having to adapt to (random) external demands. it's two paradigms mixed up by democratic force. but many teens may benefit from such authority, because they have no intuition about their path. perhaps most.

 

[Architect]

This meme you mention seems to be the inferior Ne from the SJ's giving credence to a shallow understanding of being well rounded.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that.

You mention parents having their kids do a million activities, but I believe this is all a very superficial idea of being well rounded that doesn't last past high school.A lot of it is just to get into a certain university, as this is the commonly accepted path for people to become successful.

Agreed on this, I suspect more careerism than anything.

 

[Red myst]

Interesting, I hadn't thought of that.



Agreed on this, I suspect more careerism than anything.

It could also be that some parents just want to be able to expose their children to a wider variety of experiences to help them develop their interest and see what they take to and what they don't.

 

[Architect]

It could also be that some parents just want to be able to expose their children to a wider variety of experiences to help them develop their interest and see what they take to and what they don't.

That's the advertising at least.

 

[k9b4]

I think that encouraging kids to try a bunch of different things is a good thing. How do you even know where your natural talents lie until you try it and either fail or succeed?

EDIT: Also, a child might not even want to develop their natural talents. They might want to pursue an area that they are naturally bad at, for a challenge, or something.

 

[TimeAsylums]

AP?
Noob try accelerated
Accelerated?
Noob try IB
IB? Noob skip grades?
Skip grades?
Noob try autodidact
Autodidact?

Change the world mahn



Dafuk



I'm jking.


For some of you (not OP)

Well rounded =\= generalists vs specialists

Abs made a not too idiotic post too long ago in the chatbox about "being good at humantieis vs scienes " a false dichotomy (which is true , tho he was dead fucking wrong about "learning greek and latin being advanced" [that fucking pretentious cunt], anyway he was half right...on the right track...


Anyway...yawn

 

[Absurdity]

Abs made a not too idiotic post too long ago in the chatbox about "being good at humantieis vs scienes " a false dichotomy (which is true , tho he was dead fucking wrong about "learning greek and latin being advanced" [that fucking pretentious cunt], anyway he was half right...on the right track...

... so in case anyone is having trouble deciphering this, what I (think I) said was that the idea that you're either "good" at the humanities or "good" at STEM subjects is bullshit. Intelligences correlate with one another strongly, so if you have high mathematical reasoning it is very likely you'll have high mathematical and spatial reasoning as well. You may prefer one subject or another, but it isn't likely that you are truly deficient in one and gifted in another.

Part of the problem I think is that both the humanities and math have been dumbed down with the advent of compulsory education. The reason math is "hard" is because you can only dumb it down so much, but ideally you should teach it with a strong grounding in logic and proof, and not through rote memorization. The humanities are "easy" because they don't include a rigorous grounding in grammar and rhetoric (historically aided by learning Greek and Latin), because it's only optional to learn foreign languages (and I mean really learn, not just half-ass a few Spanish classes), and because reading the Western canon is so unhip. English classes in American public schools today mostly seem to focus on reading books about the Holocaust and slavery in order to make kids maximally sensitive to all instances of racism and other forms of thoughtcrime.

 

[Jennywocky]

I think that encouraging kids to try a bunch of different things is a good thing. How do you even know where your natural talents lie until you try it and either fail or succeed?

EDIT: Also, a child might not even want to develop their natural talents. They might want to pursue an area that they are naturally bad at, for a challenge, or something.

I think that first part is good, and that's from my experience as a parent + what makes sense to me. I wish I had had more opportunity to explore when I was young.

But I wish also that I had been given assurance to just do something I really really liked and thought I was good at, so I wandered for a long time.

I don't think general "well-roundedness" is bad, as all information can be potentially useful in a given situation -- you're pulling in understanding from various disciplines and getting a larger more composite picture. Congratulations, you might be one of the last survivors if you are stranded on a desert island with others.

But in general, the advice I've seen to executives (for example) and what makes sense to me now -- get "well-rounded" just to the point where your weaknesses are not a major hindrance, then focus on your strengths and find others to carry the stuff you're bad at. It of course depends again on context -- if you're the only person running things or you want to work for a small business, multiple skills and understandings can be very important -- but in a workforce built on specialization, to excel you need to be more of a specialist with simply an understanding of how your work meshes with others in a general way.

I think it involves an assessment of your energy and time resources and how to get the "most bang for your buck." It might not take a ton of energy to shore up really weak spots in your skillset and personality, but after it's "leveled out" you will get more return by dumping energy into the stuff you shine at.

 

[Architect]

I think that encouraging kids to try a bunch of different things is a good thing. How do you even know where your natural talents lie until you try it and either fail or succeed?

EDIT: Also, a child might not even want to develop their natural talents. They might want to pursue an area that they are naturally bad at, for a challenge, or something.

It's also person/type dependent. I couldn't be pushed in to anything, I had to discover my path by myself. My kid is the same. With most or all of these kids I see S types being pushed into becoming overachievers, who will ultimately become doctors and lawyers but not do much else with themselves perhaps.

 

[clarkew]

I think that I most agree with the comment made by the 'stink bomb.' The concepts of generality and specialty may prove difficult to define, especially in terms of a human life. Steve Jobs may have been a specialized, but only in the scope of his career choices. Questions come to mind like, "what if Steve Jobs was secretly the best father in the world?" No one would ever really know this 'other' talent. Again touching on the visibility of some 'specialists' that was also brought up. I believe that before this discussion can be worth anything of value, we need some focus, boundaries, etc.

great discussion! Maybe next we could talk on specialization in the parameters of human evolution?

 

[computerhxr]

I've come to believe that being well rounded is overrated in the general culture. It was in vogue when I was young too and I picked the idea up. Seemed natural enough, learn to be good at a lot of things means you're more adaptable, right? And so I did it, became an expert in music, science, engineering and also developed expertise in many other areas.

Discussion welcome.

Balance is important, not well roundedness.

Personally, I am very balanced between left and right braindedness. This allows me to compare mathematical concepts to abstract concepts as if they were the same. I can abstract concrete math formulas into easy to understand abstract ideas, and vise-versa. This has been a huge advantage to me so I would assume balance is better.

Someone that is out of balance will understand either abstract or concrete concepts easier. They will have a difficult time comparing abstract with concrete.

You are trying to be a well-rounded person. The purpose of being well rounded is to train your brain to be balanced from the MBTI perspective. Not to be confused with trying to learn to do everything, as this is impossible and ineffective. Variety and specificity both have advantages, so you should strive for both. Strengthen your strengths and strengthen your weaknesses.

 

[Coolydudey]

I've come to believe that being well rounded is overrated in the general culture. It was in vogue when I was young too and I picked the idea up. Seemed natural enough, learn to be good at a lot of things means you're more adaptable, right? And so I did it, became an expert in music, science, engineering and also developed expertise in many other areas.

In our schools today it runs rampant. The ideal child is one who plays an instrument, gets straight A's, plays on a team (or two, or three), and takes all AP courses. By the way I'm sure you know what AP means - All the more Pressure. They can't really teach you more advanced material, at least around here AP just means a bigger workload. So we're creating grinds, the ones that do well in this system are SJ types who can grind through the material.

I think this is a disservice to the kids and to society in general. If you look back people who tend to make contributions are usually ones that would be considered unbalanced. Too focused on one or two things. Taking the big examples, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates aren't particularly well rounded, they both were highly focused on what they did. All the top scientists were only good at doing science, same for music.

There's a simple reason for this; there's only so much brain and attention to go around. Since you've got only so much, you can go shallow and wide, or narrow and deep. It's the narrow and deep approach that has a chance to do something really good.

Given that, I'll make an INTP plug here and say that I think it is good for INTP's to get pushed outside their comfort zone on occasion. Being IN's our tendency is to go narrow and deep (same for all the other IN's like INFJ's). But we can go overboard and fall off a cliff at times.

Personally at my point in life I'm not afraid to go narrow and deep. I've been dropping hobbies left and right (it was the hobby thread that got me thinking about this). The last one was photography. I was basically a crappy photographer - no time or energy. Too busy with a life and doing computer work. Nowadays I stick to computers with music as a hobby, and combine the two even by listening to music while I work. I read a bit too, watch a few movies and do a little writing by posting on internet forums and am writing the AA compendium. It's still too much frankly.

Discussion welcome.

Quite trivially there's a narrow/deep dichotomy in how you'll live your life. Quite trivially the school system is one of the biggest pieces of shit you'll ever encounter. This doesn't imply that being well-rounded is a bad thing, let alone over-valued. For starters, simply think about how few people can make a significant contribution that would require being truly narrow. People specialize anyway in life, and for somebody of average ability they specialize to the extent where it makes sense, i.e. not all that much really. Your average Jo working in an office wouldn't contribute much more by being narrower. He, by his very nature and position, is probably better suited to absorbing ideas and appreciating different aspects of life. A very strong case can hence be made for him being well-rounded.