Breadth or Depth of Knowledge?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:19:31 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Breadth or Depth of Knowledge?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which type of knowledge foundation do you think is more useful?
#1
Breadth
 
#2
Depth
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 23

Author Topic: Breadth or Depth of Knowledge?  (Read 1030 times)
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,148
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 30, 2012, 07:42:14 PM »

Breadth: You know a decent amount about a wide range of topics but don't have anything you specialize in.
Depth: You are an expert in one or two things, but ignorant in a number of other areas.

I feel like my breadth of knowledge (but lack of depth) may be one reason I'm not a particularly successful person.  I can have a conversation about almost anything, but there's nothing in particular that I'm good at. 

What do you think?  Breadth or Depth?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2012, 07:56:07 PM »

the general idea is to have a great breadth of knowledge, yes, and use it when meeting somebody to dash from here to there... until you get to the topic with which you have depth, then lasso the conversation full-force into this topic (x), and talk about it at length, refusing to let go if you get anything at all back (continue to hold the other's attention).  then repeat until mutual trust is established.

the effect is you construct yourself as a genius in the eyes of the other; make it appear arbitrary that the conversation landed on topic x, of which you knew plenty, rather than on topic y or z, of which you only know the most skeletal of bullet-points.  they'll be under the impression that you know x, y, and z all in the depth that you displayed with x.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2012, 07:57:33 PM »

Breadth, of course.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2012, 12:44:43 AM »

Breadth through high school and maybe the first year of college until the Gen Ed requirements and depth after that. Our educational system is set up to delay specialization for a while, thus it helps to be good at everything prior to that, but eventually most people will end up picking a field and discarding the rest.  Toward my career in engineering, my breadth of knowledge in Ohio geography for example, isn't much of an asset. I will need to be good specifically at what I do.
Logged
Reginald
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 802
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2012, 12:56:25 AM »

Which is more useful? That’s really tough to say... there really are a number of contexts where such an intense specialization would be more beneficial, and likewise for a broad base of knowledge. Thinking offhand here, an expansive breadth of knowledge would likely play better in informal settings, whereas depth would be better suited for those that are more formal or scholarly (though it’s by no means so hastily clear-cut).

In the end, I voted for depth, but only because it’s been a wish of mine to really cultivate some semblance of an expertise on something that interests me (even if expertise is kind of an arbitrary threshold anyway). The problem – at least for me – is sifting through it all and finding out what exactly those most-beloved one or two disciplines are.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2012, 01:13:18 AM »

It's situational...

A broad knowledge means you can talk about a lot of different things, but not necessarily with the often required depth of knowledge to make your opinion more weighty.

A deep knowledge of one subject is great... but it makes your ability to engage with other issues more difficult.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2012, 09:33:08 AM »

Both?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2012, 10:00:48 AM »

the general idea is to have a great breadth of knowledge, yes, and use it when meeting somebody to dash from here to there... until you get to the topic with which you have depth, then lasso the conversation full-force into this topic (x), and talk about it at length, refusing to let go if you get anything at all back (continue to hold the other's attention).  then repeat until mutual trust is established.

the effect is you construct yourself as a genius in the eyes of the other; make it appear arbitrary that the conversation landed on topic x, of which you knew plenty, rather than on topic y or z, of which you only know the most skeletal of bullet-points.  they'll be under the impression that you know x, y, and z all in the depth that you displayed with x.

This is pretty much spot on. It helps to have the right kind of knowledge. Cursory knowledge of things one must know and then in-depth on certain obscurities. If you can quote at length from   The Death of Ivan Illiych people will assume you have read War and Peace, thus eliminating the need for you to actually do so. And so on.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2012, 11:10:54 AM »

...If you can quote at length from   The Death of Ivan Illiych people will assume you have read War and Peace, thus eliminating the need for you to actually do so. 

If you quote at length from The Death of Ivan Illiych, or for that matter any other book, people will ascertain you are a terrible bore, and there will be no need for you to continue speaking, as your interlocutors will have fled.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2012, 04:43:48 PM »

breadth of course
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2012, 08:31:30 PM »

...If you can quote at length from   The Death of Ivan Illiych people will assume you have read War and Peace, thus eliminating the need for you to actually do so. 

If you quote at length from The Death of Ivan Illiych, or for that matter any other book, people will ascertain you are a terrible bore, and there will be no need for you to continue speaking, as your interlocutors will have fled.

herein lies the great, irreconcilable schism between opeboism and Tweedism.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2012, 08:44:03 PM »

If you quote at length from The Death of Ivan Illiych, or for that matter any other book, people will ascertain you are a terrible bore, and there will be no need for you to continue speaking, as your interlocutors will have fled.

herein lies the great, irreconcilable schism between opeboism and Tweedism.

Yes, it is also why I'm not a bore.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.23 seconds with 14 queries.