The Power Of Shallow Knowledge: Better Than Deep Knowledge

Shallow knowledge of all disciplines makes a cultured individual. Deep knowledge of a single discipline makes an expert. To make the most out of these two types of knowledge, one would have to make a case on whether what one is an expert on is more or less relevant than the different areas one has shallow knowledge on. This all depends on opinion, and everyone has their own.

Greater spirituality and power in self comes with opinions, too, only this time it is only your own that counts. What I’m implying is that not everything has their purpose given to them, as it’s others that make it relevant. This point, in my opinion, also comes in handy on this topic. Having shallower knowledge about several other subjects may or may not help the holder/possessor, and that is based not only on what he or she likes but on others’ opinions, too. This doesn’t apply to all cases though, as people may also make themselves think what they do is right, and don’t need others’ validation. Many successful and self-made people have this mindset, such as Elon Musk or Richard Branson, however, to get where they are now, needed others’ validation. Validation is always a factor. (missing example)

There are professions that rely on having a shallow knowledge of many things. Lawyers often have to absorb a working knowledge of a subject that they might never use again. My grandpa was once a sailor and had to learn how to ask for a beer and ice cream in several languages, and some other important everyday phrases. Writers, for example, have to learn enough about items suited to particular characters in stories to make them sound convincing. The term “Jack of all trades and master of none” is misleading as it suggests that having a broad knowledge requires less intelligence than having a specialized and deep understanding of one subject. As a matter of fact, people often prefer geniuses who have deep knowledge in one area and will often be naive in areas that are common knowledge to people in general. Therefore, deep knowledge is preferred to be seen, but shallow knowledge is preferred to have.

Deep knowledge causes people to inquire more about the topic they excel in. An example would be that if someone has shallow knowledge in weather, they’re likely to comment on bad weather by saying stuff like: “Today there is going to be bad weather, so stay in bed and watch out for your kids.”. On the other hand, individuals with deep knowledge of the given subject would be more likely to ask questions and think critically about the topic. For example: “What kind of weather will there be? What’s the humidity like at the moment? How strong will the wind be?”. These are the types of questions that an expert is likely to ask. Experts use three categories/types of knowledge: declarative, procedural, and semantics. Declarative consists in detailed descriptions, procedural is essentially how to use the declarative knowledge, and semantics consists in breaking down words and what they mean. This all depends based on one’s mindset though, as not all experts tend to overcomplicate things. Everyone's an expert at least in one topic, but they all have different ways to show it.

In conclusion, deep knowledge in one discipline can be compared to shallow knowledge of all disciplines, but their different uses are very important to how you label and differ them. Everyone has their own way of doing things and that also goes to this statement I’m commenting on; everyone has their own way of expressing knowledge over certain topics. My final thought about this statement is that it is untrue to me. I think shallower knowledge of all disciplines is more important, as you can take whichever path you like, and can talk to anyone about any area of knowledge you have. Deep knowledge of one discipline is also important though, as you can become an expert in what you do and become more of a critical thinker.