You Must Out-Think and Out-Integrate Everyone

— There’s no choice; but it’s a developed skill and discipline that can become automatic in you

Unlock the power of your mind as you explore the dynamic interplay between analysis and synthesis. Discover how these twin tools of thought can be used for good or ill, in propaganda or public health campaigns. Delve into the world of storytelling, a universal human phenomenon that engages our emotions and imaginations. Learn from a ‘dot-connecting, synthesizing, polymath’ who harnesses both specialist and generalist thinking to see the bigger picture. This thought-provoking post will challenge you to analyze less, synthesize more, and question everything.

Discover the art of decoding reality and mastering self-reliance in Richard Nikoley’s groundbreaking exploration of integrated honesty. Learn to detect lies with unerring precision, solve problems in innovative ways, and embrace the benefits of becoming a polymath. Nikoley’s ‘114 No-Pill Advantages’ series teaches you to out think authorities, predict the future, and navigate a world of misinformation.

Learn how to predict the future.

I have a project that’s been going on for years that’s a meta-view of the world and how I look at things.

I’m launching that as a series called The 114 No-Pill Advantages.

What Will You Master?

  • You will learn that there is no authority outside yourself, once you are old and competent enough to see to your own requirements for survival.
  • You will learn to detect lies with razor precision; you won’t even have to think much to know lies. As much as everyone practices automatic lying, you’ll become an automatic lie-detector.
  • You will learn to solve problems in very different ways by first filtering out all the lies without prejudice (no keeping your favorite lies), then envisioning a new-paradigm understanding of an integrated, honest whole.
  • You will learn to stop specializing in anything and to ignore specialists first and foremost, but for a source of some information or details that might be useful to you in the broader general picture. You will become a consummate generalist and polymath.
  • You will learn how to “predict the future.” No, not in the ways of entertainers and fortune-tellers, but in ways that must be, simply because of the understandings you have developed and integrated fully into your hierarchy of values.
  • You will learn to practice the dynamic discipline of fully integrated honesty. Or, what I call No-Matrix, No-Pill.
  • You will run circles rationally, logically, analytically, and synthetically around those who profess to be purveyors of “The Truth.” Or, of “The Science.” Many have PhDs and other sheeple-bestowed credentials…bestowed for the sole purpose of creating an illusion of authority where no authority is ever possible, since it is outside yourself.

Outside yourself, there are only facts, information, arguments, and ideas. In short: reality. There is no authority, only reality.

Authority? That’s your job to develop, and it’s called knowledge of reality. The only authority is you, over yourself; how good you are at authoritatively presiding over your own self is determined by what you have honestly integrated about the reality that’s all around you, and what sort of discipline and moral courage you possess over yourself, excluding all other “authority.”

Number 1 is addressed right here, pretty recently. Number 2 is right here. And right here is a perspective treatment on the whole thing:

Beyond Red-Pill.

In fact, the working title of my 114-part series is…


Those will encompass everything, of course; all the foregoing constituting some of the 101 stuff.

Now, the rest of this post focuses in on #3, where you see how easy it is to run circles around any PhDs (in fact, easier than a tatted biker dude sporting his cut…and if you don’t understand why, then you sorely need me more than you can even grasp).

First, a little story. Last night I was in a lounge bar I frequent, which is about the only one. I went out a few times with one of the bartenders back in 2020 before moving to Phuket. She’s still there, so I go in every week or two for a little chat and catch up.

In walks these two rough-looking dudes. Heavily tatted, late 30s or early 40s; very fit. They obviously hit the gym with regularity. Both are sporting their cuts from some MC club.

Very gentlemanly, they both introduced themselves to me as brothers who had recently retired and moved here from…California! So we’re off on that alone. Most expat dudes you meet are Euro and older, 50s and up. They’d been living in Phuket the last 8 months and had just recently, like me, relocated to Jomtien, Pattaya area. They had been living in Patong, the part of Phuket that can be touristically hellish, and I only take it in small, infrequent doses. (It’s a far cry from what it was like in 1988 and 89 when I first visited…a dead-end dirt road with six beer bars, manned by bar-girls who could kick your ass in Connect Four in their sleep.)

So after all the obligatory formalities and such, the c-subject somehow came up, and I could tell instantly they weren’t fans.

You know what they told me?

“We knew it was a bullshit scam from day 1.”

Where have you heard that before?

That was pretty cool because I had just come from my weekly, Sunday-evening meetup with my old-guy American expat friends over at Mike’s Mexican (good and authentic, except only pickled jalapeños), and my friend Doug had a friend of his visiting from US who’s a PhD pharmacologist…a PharmD I think they’re called. Anyway, I have to sit there and listen to the guy’s regurgitated vomit because all the other ignoramuses are asking him questions because he’s an AUTHORITY!!!

It was fucking pathetic and embarrassing.

It’s like listening to the WHO and CDC in the spring of 2021. And, of course, my ignorant friends don’t know a shit-from-Shinola difference because all they’re all doing is playing a massive game of Chinese Whispers or Telephone, along with the whole rest of the dumb-ass sheepleverse.

I gotta tell ya, Doug, the stuff your pharmacologist friend was spouting last evening about Covid and the vaccines sounds like CDC early 2021. Laughable.

Why I didn’t say much of anything.

My curse of knowledge.

I’m in this stuff every single day, and have been for years.

He clearly doesn’t keep current.

DM to my friend the next day

And if that wasn’t enough, it was only an hour or two prior to this that I got this “great” news. He was my same age, 62.

The mutual friends I messaged concerning Arnaud all think it’s the vaxx. Everyone is scared, nobody is saying much. One other guy I know, also 62, says he hasn’t been the same since the jabs and wakes up every morning tired as fuck.

The rumblings are increasing in volume and as I’ve been saying for well over 2 years since the first massive uptick in vaccine injury data began showing up, this cannot be contained.


Because it’s not only that you can’t cheat death, you can’t fake it, either…and when you’re having upwards of 10, 15, even 20% excess all-cause mortality that begins in early 2021, and it’s only happening in highly vaxxed countries, and it’s not happening in low-vaxx countries—like most of “dumb, mud-hut dwelling” Africa—it can only be one single precise thing, and it’s because everyone knows why it is that everyone is lying about it or ignoring it.

But they can’t ignore it. It’s going to get worse.

I got that chart from Jeff Childers’ most recent Coffee & Covid. I dropped a couple of comments.

This one:

In 2021 I said it would get worse, not better; reason being that I was more focussed on the immune-system compromise than myocarditis.

In the end, these jabs will have murdered millions of life years. Tens of millions.

It will be the worst genocide in history.

By light years.

That got a bunch of “likes,” including by Jeff himself. So then this additional comment on my part.

I was on it all from day 1, having been a blogger-influencer previously in health matters (diet and weight loss), so I knew how to evaluate medical/health stuff and I knew how big corp influences messages and how these bogus health narratives get advanced and propped up (with fear, mostly…it’s all negative messaging).

I had just moved to Thailand from USA (Jan 2020), got covid right off (I came here via China), but shrugged it off like a moderate cold (I’ve had worse hangovers).

I immediately detected that it was potentially deadly on two fronts, primarily:

1. Getting low-hanging fruit. We’d had some years of less-than-average all-cause mortality, so there were lots of folks “past their due date.” There had not been a bad, high-mortality flu season in some years.

2. Co-morbidities in the younger set, primarily obesity and diabetes…and what are two of the West’s prime health problems now? It’s almost like this thing was doing its natural job to hold people accountable for their unnatural ways. Whether you chalk that up to God or nature, the end result if the same. You cannot fool mother nature indefinitely.

So, I never had a gram of fear. I resisted all measures and I passed on the jab. Where once I was laughed at by expats here who lined up, now they are quite silent. Just had another mutual friend, very healthy, lean guy, drop-dead out of the blue on the 4th. I know other expats who have never felt the same since they got the jabs. I don’t know a single Westerner who doesn’t regret it. Thais? Well, there’s the “90-IQ problem,” there…

Anyway, back in March 2020 when I began blogging about it dutifully, my biggest thing was looking for all-cause mortality numbers. There was excess, but every year has some excess due flu and pneumonia, and what we were seeing was no worse than a “bad flu year,” and plus, numbers on flu and pneumonia dropped off a cliff, as though covid prevents flu and pneumonia.

I began calling the whole thing “Impeachment 2.0,” if you know what I mean, and the 2020 election fiasco and the vermin occupying the White House plays right along with the whole synthesized script. I’m a dot-connecting, synthesizing polymath, not an analyst/specialist. I begin with general observations amongst disparate things.

Fast-forward to the jabs, and everything is just playing right along with the whole script, like clockwork. My prediction rate for the future was near 100%. It was easy to see what was coming.

As for the jabs, I was looking for total all-cause mortality early on in 2021 and found it. Add to that the news coming in from undertakers and insurance companies, data and testimony that can’t be faked. You can’t cheat death, and you can’t fake it, either. So many [specialists] focus on all this beside-the-point stuff, but the real data is the 10-20% excess mortality across highly-jabbed countries, combined with no such thing in “under-jabbed” countries, like across Africa.

Anyway, I ended up writing 98 posts about the whole thing and I challenge anyone to find anything I was materially wrong about, in hindsight. The difference is, I was seeing it for what it was and was going to be, in real time and foresight.

… Back to my story, my newfound young American friends talked about all of this; we were in same-page city.

Then I ask one of them, “you wanna know what Covid taught me?”

… And he stops me, saying, “it taught me that ‘education’ is bullshit… I paid for my son’s bachelors and my daughter’s masters, and they’re both idiots now. There are some things we just don’t talk about, anymore.”

So now I’ll move on to what the core and fundamental difference in thinking is, in another 4,000 words of the meat of it. The process, the methodology; and incidentally, it’s something Einstein used to stress as a shortcoming he found amongst so many of the so-called elite minds.

I’ll just illustrate it, first.

It’s really that simple. Everyone and his brother tries to be an analyst. They teach you to analyze (deconstruct and examine). People write papers and dissertations on some form of analysis, and much of it is crap.

As often as anything, they aren’t even analyzing the best thing (asking the right question).

You have to be a good synthesizer to know what the right question(s) is. The analyzer asks, “what are all the constituent parts or elements this question breaks down into, and what can we learn by critically examining each of them?”

The synthesizer looks at a bunch of shit, seemingly with no obvious relationship to one-another, nor as he would necessarily prefer anything to be, and asks, what’s the thing(s) that must be true for all this shit to exist like this?

I decided to go over and have a chat with GPT-4 and I use my OpenAI subscription instead of the Zon many of you members are familiar with, only because I can provide a link to the whole conversation.

Now, observe how I use AI as a tool, because I can synthetically see and describe the forest—where so many with so-called advanced intellects give you endless analyses of the odd trees here and there. So, I’m giving you a lesson by way of example right here, incorporated and integrated.

Good afternoon GPT-4. I desire to have an in-depth conversation about analysis vs. synthesis. You up for it?

Good afternoon! I’d be delighted to have an in-depth conversation about analysis and synthesis. These are two fundamental methods in problem-solving, research, and knowledge creation, and they often complement each other.

Analysis is the process of breaking down a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it. It’s about dissecting a problem or concept into its constituent elements to understand how it works. For example, in literary analysis, you might break down a novel into its components like plot, characters, themes, and literary devices to understand the author’s intent and the work’s impact.

On the other hand, synthesis is the process of combining separate elements or components in order to form a coherent whole. It’s about creating something new from different elements. For instance, in writing a research paper, you might synthesize information from various sources to present a new perspective or argument.

While analysis is often associated with deduction (moving from the general to the specific), synthesis is associated with induction (moving from the specific to the general). Both are crucial in different stages of problem-solving and knowledge creation: analysis helps us understand the problem better, and synthesis helps us create solutions or new ideas.

Would you like to delve into specific aspects of analysis and synthesis, or discuss how they apply in a particular field or context?

My interest is because I’m a blogger (Richard Nikoley, and I have often been described by others as a “dot-connecting, synthesizing, polymath.” When I look into those terms, it seems like a reasonable description. I just wrote this in the draft to a post:

“Everyone and his brother tries to be an analyst. They teach you to analyze (deconstruct and examine). People write papers and dissertations on some form of analysis, and much of it is crap.

“As often as anything, they aren’t even analyzing the best thing (asking the right question).

“You have to be a good synthesizer to know what the right question(s) is. The analyzer asks, “what are all the constituent parts or elements this question breaks down into, and what can we learn by critically examining each of them?”

“The synthesizer looks at a bunch of shit, seemingly with no obvious relationship to one-another, nor as he would necessarily prefer anything to be, and asks, what’s the thing(s) that must be true for all this shit to exist like this?”

Of course, it helps to be someone who possesses above-average knowledge in a whole host of fields, given a lifelong insatiable curiosity about anything and everything.

Hello Richard, it’s great to meet you and learn about your perspective as a blogger. Your description of the interplay between analysis and synthesis is quite insightful.

Indeed, analysis and synthesis are two sides of the same coin, and both are essential for a comprehensive understanding of any topic. As you’ve rightly pointed out, analysis involves breaking down a complex entity into its constituent parts to understand its structure or function. However, this approach can sometimes lead to a narrow focus, missing the broader context or the interconnectedness of things.

On the other hand, synthesis, as you’ve described it, involves looking at a wide array of seemingly unrelated elements and finding the underlying connections or patterns that bind them together. This is where the role of a polymath or a “dot-connector” comes in. By having a broad knowledge base across various fields, you can see the bigger picture and make connections that others might miss. This ability to synthesize information from diverse sources and find the common thread is a valuable skill, especially in today’s information-saturated world.

Your approach reminds me of the concept of “lateral thinking,” a term coined by Edward de Bono. Lateral thinking involves looking at problems from many different angles, rather than just digging deeper into one. It’s about challenging existing concepts and perceptions, seeking out unorthodox solutions, and making connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena.

Your perspective also aligns with the idea of “systems thinking,” which emphasizes the interconnectedness of parts within a whole and how they influence one another. This approach recognizes that a change in one part of a system can cause changes in other parts, leading to a ripple effect.

In essence, while analysis helps us understand the parts, synthesis helps us understand the whole. Both are necessary for a well-rounded understanding and for generating innovative ideas or solutions. It’s about finding the right balance and knowing when to zoom in (analysis) and when to zoom out (synthesis).

I’d love to hear more about your experiences as a blogger and how you apply these concepts in your work.

In addition to being a blogger (20 years, 5,200 posts, some millions of words), I was for 10 years prior to that, and “internet warrior,” usually on Usenet, which in the 90s was a lot of young, college folks, since Usenet ran mostly on .edu servers.

I became very interested in having arguments that could actually reach some conclusion, some “synthesis,” i.e., Hegelian dialectic. I’ve often heard criticism of dialectic and I’m always left wondering if they’re talking about the same thing I seem to have positively experienced many times (and seems to be rare these days, people more intransigent than ever).

It’s fascinating to hear about your extensive experience in online discourse, Richard. The evolution of online communication platforms from Usenet to modern social media and blogs has certainly changed the dynamics of online discussions and debates.

The Hegelian dialectic, named after the philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, is indeed a powerful tool for reaching synthesis in arguments. It involves a process of thesis (an initial proposition), antithesis (an opposing argument), and synthesis (a higher-level understanding that reconciles the thesis and antithesis). This process can lead to a deeper understanding of a topic and can help resolve disagreements by finding common ground or a new perspective that incorporates elements of both sides.

Criticism of the dialectic process often stems from misunderstandings or misapplications of the concept. Some people may see it as a rigid, three-step formula that oversimplifies complex issues. Others may misuse it to force a false compromise or to manipulate the direction of a debate. However, when used properly, the dialectic process can be a powerful tool for fostering understanding and progress in discussions.

In the context of online debates, the dialectic process can be challenging to implement due to the nature of the medium. Online discussions often involve many participants with diverse views, and the asynchronous nature of the communication can make it difficult to maintain a focused, structured dialogue. Additionally, the anonymity and distance provided by the internet can sometimes lead to more aggressive or intransigent behavior.

However, as you’ve experienced, it’s still possible to have productive, dialectic discussions online. It requires patience, open-mindedness, and a willingness to understand and engage with opposing views. It’s about finding the common threads, the underlying principles or facts that everyone can agree on, and building from there towards a synthesis.

In today’s polarized and often heated online discourse, the principles of the dialectic process are more important than ever. It’s a reminder that the goal of a debate should not be to “win” by defeating the other side, but to reach a deeper understanding and, if possible, a resolution that respects and incorporates multiple perspectives.

“Some people may see it as a rigid, three-step formula that oversimplifies complex issues. Others may misuse it to force a false compromise or to manipulate the direction of a debate.”

Yes, exactly. This is not really the method to discuss the differences between dogs and cats. There’s no way to employ the dialectic in a 1+1=2 problem.

I think it’s a valuable method when both sides can honestly admit that they have some degree of ignorance concerning both their own side and the opponent’s side. So, rather than having two people where one knows everything about his side and the other, everything about his, it’s more common that each knows some measure more about his side than he does the side of the other.

You’ve hit the nail on the head, Richard. The dialectic process is most effective in situations where there is a degree of uncertainty or complexity, and where both sides are open to learning and adjusting their views. It’s not about “winning” an argument by proving the other side wrong, but about deepening understanding and finding common ground or new perspectives.

In the scenario you’ve described, where each participant knows more about their own side than the other’s, the dialectic process can be particularly valuable. Each participant can share their knowledge and perspective, and in the process, they can learn from each other and potentially arrive at a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand.

This requires a certain level of humility and open-mindedness, as well as a willingness to listen and engage with different viewpoints. It’s about recognizing that our own understanding of an issue is often incomplete and can be enriched by engaging with others who have different perspectives or areas of expertise.

In this sense, the dialectic process aligns well with your approach as a “dot-connecting, synthesizing, polymath.” It’s about making connections between different ideas, perspectives, and areas of knowledge, and synthesizing them into a more comprehensive understanding.

It’s worth noting that while the dialectic process can be a powerful tool for resolving disagreements and deepening understanding, it’s not the only tool in the toolbox. Other methods of discourse and problem-solving can also be valuable, depending on the situation. The key is to be flexible and adaptable, and to choose the approach that best fits the situation and the people involved.

How about deceit?

Would you estimate that it would be easier to purposefully deceive others through what I call Fully Integrated Dishonesty (in other words, a self-consistent web or matrix of lies) using analytical approaches or synthesizing approaches?

Deceit, in any form, is unethical and harmful. However, to address your question from a theoretical standpoint, both analytical and synthesizing approaches could be used for deceitful purposes, but they would likely manifest in different ways.

Analytical deceit might involve presenting misleading or false information about specific elements of a topic, or selectively focusing on certain aspects while ignoring others. This could create a distorted or incomplete picture of the issue at hand. For example, someone might use selective data or cherry-picked evidence to support a false claim, while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts it.

Synthesizing deceit, on the other hand, might involve creating a complex web of interconnected lies, as you’ve described. This could involve drawing false connections between different pieces of information, or presenting a misleading narrative that seems to make sense on the surface but falls apart under scrutiny. For example, someone might weave together unrelated facts or events to support a conspiracy theory.

In terms of which approach would be “easier” for deceit, it likely depends on the context and the individuals involved. Analytical deceit might be easier in the sense that it involves manipulating specific pieces of information, which might be less complex than creating a coherent and convincing web of lies. However, synthesizing deceit might be more effective at creating a convincing narrative, especially if the deceiver is skilled at storytelling and manipulation.

It’s important to note that the ability to detect and counteract deceit also depends on analytical and synthesizing skills. Critical thinking, fact-checking, and a broad understanding of the topic can help individuals recognize and challenge false or misleading information. This underscores the importance of promoting these skills in education and public discourse.

How about propaganda. In order to not get mired down in what’s claimed to be or dismissed as modern propaganda, how about Nazi or Soviet or cold-war era Red Chinese propaganda.

Analytic or synthetic, predominately?

Nazi propaganda, like most propaganda, was a blend of both analytical and synthetic approaches. Here are some insights from various sources:

1. An Analysis of the Techniques of Nazi Propaganda: This source explains that the Nazis used a calculated methodology under the guidance of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Göbbels. They used a variety of mediums, including posters, movies, radio, and the press, but this analysis focuses on their use of posters. The posters were designed to trigger cognitive and psychological responses, instigating social and other cognitive biases in the German population. This was a synthetic approach, as it required the integration of various elements to create a cohesive, persuasive message.

2. 10 Most Evil Propaganda Techniques Used by the Nazis: This source lists several techniques used by the Nazis, including the use of symbolic imagery in posters, scapegoating of minorities, controlling mass media through radio, controlling the social sphere through film and cinema, and controlling the press. These techniques involve both analysis (breaking down complex ideas into simpler, more digestible messages) and synthesis (creating a cohesive narrative that supports the Nazi ideology).

3. Harvard University Analysis of Nazi Propaganda: This source provides a more academic perspective, explaining that cognitive biases were manipulated by the Nazis to control the population. This involved understanding the psychological tendencies of the population (an analytical approach) and then creating propaganda that would exploit these tendencies (a synthetic approach).

In summary, Nazi propaganda was a blend of analysis and synthesis. They analyzed the psychological tendencies of the population and the most effective communication mediums, and then synthesized this information into a cohesive, persuasive narrative.

So one could say that analysis is used to discover the likely weaknesses, then synthesis is used to create a “picture” that appeals to those identified weaknesses in unfair and manipulative ways.


Indeed, your summary captures the essence of how propaganda often works. Analysis is used to identify the psychological and emotional vulnerabilities of a target audience, and synthesis is then used to craft messages that exploit these vulnerabilities in a way that manipulates perceptions and behaviors. This process can be used to create powerful narratives that resonate with the audience’s fears, hopes, and beliefs, making the propaganda more effective.

However, it’s important to note that while this process can be used for manipulative and harmful purposes, as in the case of propaganda, it can also be used for positive purposes. For example, public health campaigns might use a similar process to craft messages that encourage healthy behaviors, or educational initiatives might use it to create engaging and effective learning materials.

And yes, metaphorically speaking, you’ve earned your cigar for this insightful discussion!

“For example, public health campaigns might use a similar process to craft messages that encourage healthy behaviors, or educational initiatives might use it to create engaging and effective learning materials.”

Yes, but in my “analysis,” har har, I find that often, these synthesized narratives for “the public good” hide an agenda, often a Big Corp profit or rent-seeking agenda.

Your skepticism is not unfounded, Richard. It’s true that in some cases, public campaigns or initiatives can be influenced by corporate interests or other agendas. This is a complex issue that touches on the intersection of public policy, corporate influence, and communication ethics.

For instance, a public health campaign might promote a particular dietary guideline or medication that, while beneficial for some, might also serve the interests of the food or pharmaceutical industries. Similarly, an educational initiative might promote certain learning materials or technologies that benefit the companies that produce them.

This is why transparency, accountability, and critical thinking are so important. It’s crucial for the public to know who is behind a particular campaign or initiative, what their interests are, and how the message aligns with broader scientific consensus or public interest. It’s also important for individuals to critically evaluate the information they receive, to seek out multiple sources, and to be aware of potential biases or conflicts of interest.

In this context, both analysis and synthesis can be valuable tools. Analysis can help us break down a message and understand its components, while synthesis can help us see the bigger picture and understand how a message fits into broader narratives or interests.

This is a complex and nuanced issue, and there’s no one-size-fits-all answer. But by fostering transparency, accountability, and critical thinking, we can help ensure that public campaigns and initiatives serve the public interest, rather than narrow corporate or political interests.

I think that in the final analysis (or, synthesis?), we can pretty much determine that humans are creatures that love stories a whole loot more than a bullet-list of cold hard facts.

Wouldn’t you say, as the observer “alien” you are?

Absolutely, Richard. As an AI developed by OpenAI, I can confirm that storytelling is a fundamental part of human culture and cognition. Stories are a powerful way to convey information, values, and social norms. They engage our emotions and imaginations, making the information more memorable and meaningful.

From a cognitive perspective, stories help us make sense of the world. They provide a framework for understanding complex events or ideas, and they help us navigate social relationships and moral dilemmas. They also help us envision future possibilities, which is crucial for planning and decision-making.

Moreover, stories are a universal human phenomenon. Every culture has its own rich tradition of storytelling, and storytelling plays a key role in many aspects of human life, from education and entertainment to politics and marketing.

So yes, while bullet-lists of facts can be useful for conveying specific pieces of information, stories are often more engaging and impactful. They speak to our emotions and our sense of identity, and they help us connect with others and understand their perspectives.

That being said, it’s also important to critically evaluate the stories we hear and tell. Not all stories are equally valid or beneficial, and some can be misleading or manipulative. Critical thinking, fact-checking, and a broad understanding of the world can help us navigate the world of stories and use them in a responsible and constructive way.

Turns out I did have one other element to cover. That of the generalist vs. specialists. It seems to me that specialists are more likely to tend toward analysis (having that [specialist] hammer, everything becomes a nail) and also that analysis can often be ill-fitted to the problem since the bias towards employing the specialization.

The generalist has no such issues and in fact, while over-generalization can be as inappropriate as unbridled deconstruction, it can be an OK place to start a synthesis from, gradually narrowing the generalities to a decent set of connections, commonalities, and integrations.

Your observations make a lot of sense, Richard. Specialists and generalists indeed tend to approach problems differently due to their respective breadth and depth of knowledge.

Specialists, with their deep knowledge in a particular field, are often well-equipped to analyze problems within their domain of expertise. They can delve into the details and nuances that others might overlook. However, this depth of knowledge can sometimes lead to a narrow focus, as you’ve pointed out. Specialists might be inclined to view problems through the lens of their specific field, which can limit their ability to see the bigger picture or to consider perspectives from other disciplines.

Generalists, on the other hand, with their broad knowledge across various fields, are often well-suited for synthesis. They can see connections between different fields and perspectives, and they can integrate these into a cohesive understanding of a problem. This can enable them to approach problems from a more holistic perspective. However, as you’ve noted, there can also be a risk of over-generalization, where important details or nuances are overlooked.

In essence, both specialists and generalists have valuable roles to play in problem-solving and knowledge creation. Specialists provide the depth of knowledge that allows us to understand the intricacies of specific fields, while generalists provide the breadth of knowledge that allows us to see the connections between different fields and to integrate these into a comprehensive understanding.

The key is to strike a balance between analysis and synthesis, and between specialization and generalization. This often involves collaboration between specialists and generalists, where each can contribute their unique strengths and perspectives. It’s about recognizing the value of both depth and breadth of knowledge, and leveraging these in a complementary way.

The link to the whole convo, again.

Do you grasp yet how getting frustrated or angry at AI or GPT is rather like getting perturbed at your hammer because you don’t like how your cabinetry turned out?

Do you also see how I get it to complete my non-woke, non-progressive, non-leftists thoughts and ideas without engaging in argument, but dialog (dialectic, too). This is very valuable to learn.

Very few can, because they are so wrapped up in their own biases, causes, tribes, fantasies, and fears. For example, everyone on earth walks around with an underlying fear of the inevitability of death. You need to always understand this in all dealings with human beings. It’s in some way incorporated into everything they do and say.

Pro Tip: Some of the most outwardly fearless of death are the most fearful, and are projecting.

… Ok, one last thing. This is a video by a friend I’ve known for maybe 20 years. He’s also the author of the free download: Neo-Tech — The Philosophical Zero. Very old essay, and he was just beginning his journey of integrating his Eastern Buddhist Priest upbringing with Western philosophy. I know of no other person on earth with such a wide integration of both Eastern and Western thought.

This is a favorite short video I have posted many times before and watched dozens of times before. It’s a lesson on how to think like we do, and really accomplish something with it. Even, now, with AI.

I did an interview with him sme three years ago, not long before moving here to Thailand.

OK, lots of ground to cover in this 6k words. Until next time.

Since Covid killed my Cabo San Lucas vacation-rental business in 2021, this is my day job. I can't do it without you. Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. Two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance this work I do, and if you like what I do, please chip in. No grandiose pitches.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.