Discussion: "Big Picture" vs. "Details"

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe I'm not getting this, but 'big picture' thinkers look at the broad picture, and use whatever assumptions seem to fit the case. It's a quick and dirty method that works in most of your general situations.

That quick, dirty, 'broad thinking' is what most people define as 'common sense'. They have enough practice to make good use of it in ordinary situations. Their dependence on it also means that they'll freak out anytime they're thrown a curve ball.

I'm guessing that's why detail-oriented thought works so well in academics, and so horribly at your local grocery store. Assumptions can get you into big trouble when you're doing analytical work, but they're almost necessary a social gathering.

I'm guessing that's why a lot of intelligent people are also seen as 'weird'. They're intelligent because they rely so much on deductive reasoning, and so little on off-hand assumptions. They're 'weird' because social situations rely heavily on those off-hand assumptions.

Nothing says you can't be good at both, but that's definitely going to cause a few migraines before you actually pull it off.

This could also explain why a lot of NTs tend to see us as 'annoying', and why we get along so much better with the science geeks. We epitomize the 'social curveball' that your typical NT dreads.

i don't think there is anything broader than e=mc^2 . from what i saw good scientists are the ones with the "big picture" . most "common sense" that i encounter doesn't have anything with reasoning or logic. it is more of the "herd" type of thing like everyone is doing it so it must be good. and it probably is the most cost effective method for an average joe/jane.

I'm referring to 'big picture' as perceived by your typical NT. The definition I'm referring to may be a bit bastardized, but it's what I feel NTs tend to think of when talking about this subject.

Edit: Eh, I'm arguing semantics. We both seem to be onto the same idea.

yes, probably we are on the same page. i was thrown off by "detailed oriented" scientists because i have personal problems with them. sorry. actually most of them look NT to me, there is a huge herd-like behaviour in science too, following specific topics just because everyone does it.

I think that "broad thinking" has nothing to do with "common sense", much the opposite - think of the guy who is full of theories about the essence of mankind (or something similar), but usually forgets of paying the bills

EDIT: it is what you are saying in the other posts

Well, because I speak a different language, I am not familiar with the way expressions are used in English; however, my impression is exactly the opposite - that "normal" people does not claim to be "big picture", much the opposite - they claim to be concrete, and (in my language, at least) they use the expression "you see the forest but not the trees" to refer to the "absent-mindend, abstract thinkers".

To some extent yes. Common sense is a variation, but there are a lot of quick, dirty, forms of broad thinking. The more generic notion would be that of a paradigm. Paradigms are not necessarily common, but they are often so, and they can actually defy normal human intuition, but they regulate thought in a great sense so that way people can make sense of their world. In fact, in defining "quick, dirty, broad thinking" as common sense, I would think you used "quick, dirty, broad thinking", as I think an understanding of the psychology of most people would show that people use a *lot* of this, and psychologically I think people kind of have to given how poorly human beings handle uncertainty, and given how human beings have to work with information.

(and yes, I see two other posters attacked you on this)


That's probably also pretty true, but that being said, academics become *BIG* if they have enough experience doing detail work and have the ability to combine this with some big scale rethinking of assumptions to change a field. Theories and hypotheses are all about being ways to organize a lot of details with ease, and everybody knows that they aren't the reality itself.


Actually, I really doubt this. Intelligent people are weird because they question the common assumptions, but they don't all rely on deductive reasoning. Your hypothesis is quick and dirty, but it does not account for long-standing disagreements between intellectuals, as those would not make sense with deduction, as that has necessary conclusions. The issue is that being intelligent really gives the ability to question and modify quick and dirty accounts of reality with other ones, and even develop new quick and dirty accounts. After all, many high IQ people are atheist naturalist/materialists, which is a socially uncommon position, but it is still a quick and dirty account of reality, however, it is an uncommon one.


I do agree with your notion though. We are that social curveball that screws with the prevailing NT paradigm.

That is pretty true, and science is not really as "analytic" as people think it is, nor are most things. I know that a number of philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Michael Polanyi, and others have gone through this matter. As it stands, scientists regularly discard knowledge because it disagrees with what they accept as true, which is a big picture kind of action, but not a detail-oriented kind of action.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/f ... pt_defeat/

"Dunbar came away from his in vivo studies with an unsettling insight: Science is a deeply frustrating pursuit. Although the researchers were mostly using established techniques, more than 50 percent of their data was unexpected. (In some labs, the figure exceeded 75 percent.) “The scientists had these elaborate theories about what was supposed to happen,” Dunbar says. “But the results kept contradicting their theories. It wasn’t uncommon for someone to spend a month on a project and then just discard all their data because the data didn’t make sense.”"

Are you saying NT's are more accustomed to detail thinking or the other way round? I'm definitely a big picture thinker but on top of that I think almost entirely in pictures and I can use this method of thinking to rapidly create systems from the parts. For example I know PHP and ever since I fully learned the basics I automatically know how to build 70% of the PHP applications I decide to build and how I do it is by building a visual framework of what needs to be done in my head then I just go at it and it always works.. I could make a forum right now without having to look up anything apart from the odd PHP function or command which I haven't learned yet. I don't know much about electronics yet but I bet I'll be able to apply this to building circuits.

Big Picture vs Details

Big Picture = Right hemisphere

Details = Left hemisphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateraliza ... n_function

I didn't see anything in that wikipedia page that said left hemisphere is details and right hemisphere is big picture. What it did say, however, is probably something you should take note of: "Broad generalizations are often made in popular psychology about certain functions (eg. logic, creativity) being lateralised, that is, located in the right or left side of the brain. These ideas need to be treated carefully because the popular lateralizations are often distributed across both sides."

As far as the main topic goes... there's nothing necessarily saying a person can't do both.

And as regards intelligence, I don't think there's anything about intelligence as conventionally defined that makes a person capable (or incapable) of questioning common assumptions. Questioning common assumptions seems relatively rare regardless of a person's "intelligence", and occurs in all kinds of people when it does occur.

I do both. I prefer to understand both the "big picture" *and* the details. However, if there isn't time for both I'd rather understand the big picture without the details than remember details without understanding the big picture. I fact, the latter is rather tedious and unsatisfying to me. I guess this makes me a "big picture" thinker even though I also go into more detail than others when possible.