Abstractly Forests

.........................................................

I came across this paragraph in a post on Less Wrong:
I’ve mentioned before that I like to think in very abstract terms. What this means in practice is that, if there’s some simple, general, elegant point to be made, tell it to me right away. Don’t start with some messy concrete example and attempt to “work upward”, in the hope that difficult-to-grasp abstract concepts will be made more palatable by relating them to “real life”. If you do that, I’m liable to get stuck in the trees and not see the forest. Chances are, I won’t have much trouble understanding the abstract concepts;
This is beautifully explained. I’m a very similar thinker to the writer. I prefer to think abstractly and then, proceed to the details. But to my surprise, it seems like most of humanity is actually oriented the other way around. Hence, every popular science book on the rack of every bookstore. One of the reasons I didn’t like reading I Am A Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstader (he’s a very quirky writer (whose writing style is actually somewhat similar to mine in many ways; case in point: this sentence) who you should definitely read if you haven’t) was because he used too many analogies to explain a particular concept that wouldn’t have been hard to grasp if he had condensed it to a single line at the start, rather than at the end of a thirty page chapter. Malcolm Gladwell annoys the hell out of me for the same reason. I could read the last paragraph of every chapter in Outliers and understand completely what the book is about.
I want to see the forest, not only the trees. I want to see the trees too, but only after the forest.

~ Voices ~

You should probably write something here…

~ Add your voice ~

Feel free to use <strong>, <em>, and <a href="">

[]