BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > Miscellaneous > Miscellaneous Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 05-05-2017, 11:31 AM
lostmyoldaccount lostmyoldaccount is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 879
Default Specialization and cognitive skills

I remember Lyle saying that specialization will win out athletically instead of being a jack of all trades, i.e. power lifting vs Crossfit. The average powerlifter who specializes can pick-up Crossfit and do well but a Crossfit guy can't do the opposite.

At least I think I'm remembering what he said correctly.

Does this apply to cognitive skills? For example a physicist being able to switch over to something easier like biology?
__________________
Half-way measures don't get very far. You can only do one thing well at a time. Trying to gain muscle while losing fat will result in failure.

Get to 10% bodyfat first while lifting weights heavy 3x a week with reduced volume. Two weeks maintenance. Bulk up slowly (1 lb weight gain per week max), focus on getting stronger, measure body composition changes often.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 05-05-2017, 10:28 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 818
Default

No because they require totally different knowledge base sets and that's not the same as transferring a physical capacity one direction or the other.\

for me to switch from physiology to physics would require a decade plus of study of based and advanced concepts to get anywhere close.

For a powerlifter to be able to do crossfit takes about 3 weeks of conditioning.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 05-09-2017, 02:23 AM
BigPecsPeter BigPecsPeter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,004
Default

OP's analogy is flawed/incomplete.

What you're meaning to ask, essentially, is whether specialisation in academics would enhance somebody's potential for generalisation more so than would be the case for a generalist trying to turn to specialisation.

I guess the problem with this line of enquiry is pinning down precisely what a generalist is in the context of academia. What is the academic equivalent of a cross fitter, if you will?

Even so, notwithstanding these difficulties of classification, I think the answer is clear: somebody who has specialised and attained a deep knowledge in one particular subject, is probably more likely to be able to easily and more rapidly acquire a general understanding of many subjects, than a 'general knowledge expert' will be able to turn his mind to the deep understanding of one subject.

I think the reasons for this are obvious.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 05-09-2017, 05:41 AM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,280
Default

Knowledge and expertise is domain specific, there's no 'general knowledge expert' really.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 05-09-2017, 06:12 AM
Totentanz Totentanz is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 82
Default

I think calling crossfit a 'jack-of-all-trades' equivalent is flawed anyway. Despite the whole focus on GPP, I've met approximately zero of them who actually have a physical ability to meet most general situations. Heck, strongman competition training would probably be better for general stuff than crossfit.

Crossfit is quite good at helping you break your spine in half though.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 05-09-2017, 09:47 AM
Aathar Aathar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 332
Default

There is no academic equivalent to a crossfitter these days. Even in interdisciplinary fields, people specialise within those fields. You can't compete otherwise. The whole nature of academia is becoming a specialist, from your dissertation to your publications, and even hiring. It is the only way to deal with the sheer amount of information, make novel contributions, and distinguish yourself for hiring committees.

As for specialists becoming generalists more easily, that is true, but only because they have already demonstrated ability to research well. It's like comparing NFL athletes to crossfit games competitors. The former are preselected to be exceptional, so they are better able to be generalists than the latter. But that's because they were better in the first place. The barrier of entry for generalists is lower, so it is harder to separate wheat from chaff, and attracts lower quality applicants anyway.

As for specialists transferring to other fields, it does happen. But there is usually large overlap, such as math and economics, or the specialist fills an underserved niche that benefits from their specialty. When those don't apply you get stuff like Linus Pauling thinking that vitamin c cures cancer.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 05-09-2017, 10:01 AM
w1cked w1cked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,280
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aathar View Post
There is no academic equivalent to a crossfitter these days. Even in interdisciplinary fields, people specialise within those fields. You can't compete otherwise. The whole nature of academia is becoming a specialist, from your dissertation to your publications, and even hiring. It is the only way to deal with the sheer amount of information, make novel contributions, and distinguish yourself for hiring committees.

As for specialists becoming generalists more easily, that is true, but only because they have already demonstrated ability to research well. It's like comparing NFL athletes to crossfit games competitors. The former are preselected to be exceptional, so they are better able to be generalists than the latter. But that's because they were better in the first place. The barrier of entry for generalists is lower, so it is harder to separate wheat from chaff, and attracts lower quality applicants anyway.

As for specialists transferring to other fields, it does happen. But there is usually large overlap, such as math and economics, or the specialist fills an underserved niche that benefits from their specialty. When those don't apply you get stuff like Linus Pauling thinking that vitamin c cures cancer.
So much this. Basically, if knowledge is a circle, a bachelors is at thin slice of pie coming outta the center towards the edge of the circle. A masters is a little more. A doctoral degree is creating a bump on the circumference of the circle.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 05-09-2017, 01:44 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPecsPeter View Post
OP's analogy is flawed/incomplete.

What you're meaning to ask, essentially, is whether specialisation in academics would enhance somebody's potential for generalisation more so than would be the case for a generalist trying to turn to specialisation.

I guess the problem with this line of enquiry is pinning down precisely what a generalist is in the context of academia. What is the academic equivalent of a cross fitter, if you will?

Even so, notwithstanding these difficulties of classification, I think the answer is clear: somebody who has specialised and attained a deep knowledge in one particular subject, is probably more likely to be able to easily and more rapidly acquire a general understanding of many subjects, than a 'general knowledge expert' will be able to turn his mind to the deep understanding of one subject.

I think the reasons for this are obvious.
I think the reasons for this are not obvious because they are wrong.

At best my 30 year specialization in say, physiology, gives me the background to do time efficient research in another field.

But in that I have exactly zero background in say, geology, I couldn't pick it up any faster than if I didn't have my specialization. I'd still have to start from jump ball and the beginning to get even the basic background.

And yet someone who is strong can dominate a crossfit workout in about 2 weeks if it takes that long. Plenty of videos showing some top ranked Ol'er outperforming crossfitters the first time they do the workout.

So the onyl thing obvious is that you're wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 05-09-2017, 01:46 PM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totentanz View Post
I think calling crossfit a 'jack-of-all-trades' equivalent is flawed anyway. Despite the whole focus on GPP, I've met approximately zero of them who actually have a physical ability to meet most general situations. Heck, strongman competition training would probably be better for general stuff than crossfit.

Crossfit is quite good at helping you break your spine in half though.
I guess that depends on what you mean by general situation.

Xfitters at best have moderate strength, endurance, etc. they are a jack of all trades in that sense; they have basic development in each capaacity. And like circuit training, they have no good deveoopment in anything. They are mediocre at a lot of stuff.

A strongman can develop endurance more quickly than an xfitter can develop strength. Becuase the former is far easier to develop than the latter and a guy who can flip a 600 lb tire can automatically do a 300 lb tire easily. A guy who can flip a 300 lb tire for 60 seconds can't move the 600 lb tire
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.