Multidisciplines

[dlr1493]

After listening to interviews of Munger and reading 'Poor Charlie's Almanack', I became pretty fascinated by the benefits of 'multidisciplinarian' thinking. I also read a book called 'Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World' whose author, David Epstein, also advocates this idea. When I was driving home yesterday, I listened to an interesting discussion between Howard Marks and a chess grand champion who were discussing the parallels between chess and investing. Here's a link if anyone is interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igJTeeg6Ttw This put this idea back in my head and made me curious to put a few questions out to the community:

 

1) Has anyone got a story or anecdote of when knowledge in a different discipline helped them in another? (The more seemingly disconnected the more interesting to me!)

 

2) What topics or books have taught you lessons that you can apply to investing (or life generally!)?

 

 

 

[Eldad]

Yep lots of studies show liberal arts college graduates make the most $$ in the end, are more likely to be in a leadership role etc. 

 

Education is to learn how to think not to do a trade. Not a very popular idea presently. 
 

Another very unpopular idea presently. You can learn as much or more reading great fiction as compared to nonfiction.

 

I read a bunch of nonfiction last year and then also read Moby Dick. Got way more out of Moby Dick and I think about it often while all the others were good but rather forgettable.

[Rainier]

On 8/22/2025 at 11:14 AM, Eldad said:

Yep lots of studies show liberal arts college graduates make the most $$ in the end, are more likely to be in a leadership role etc. 

 

Education is to learn how to think not to do a trade. Not a very popular idea presently. 
 

Another very unpopular idea presently. You can learn as much or more reading great fiction as compared to nonfiction.

 

I read a bunch of nonfiction last year and then also read Moby Dick. Got way more out of Moby Dick and I think about it often while all the others were good but rather forgettable.

I agree regarding fiction. I subscribe to the idea that 99% (or some extremely large percentage) of everything produced by humans is in the range of terrible to mediocre. This goes for just about anything - fiction, nonfiction, movies, medical care, legal advice, corporate leadership, you name it. Very little in the world is truly excellent and worth spending time on. It seems very likely to me that I’d benefit more from reading a top 1% fiction book than I would from reading a bad to mediocre history/business/econ book. Obviously this is on the margins though - since someone who is ignorant of an important topic, say personal finance, would benefit a lot more from reading a mediocre personal finance book than they would from reading Moby Dick. But it’s all subjective. Some people just despise fiction altogether. 
 

As an aside, I think Moby Dick is underrated, largely because it gains a bad reputation for being forced down the throats of high school kids who don’t (yet) care about the underlying philosophical stuff.
 

As another aside, if you like Moby Dick and also like sci fi, I always recommend Gene Wolfe’s Book of The New Sun to people. Heavily inspired by Moby Dick and other similar stuff like Borges, Chesterton, Dickens, etc. It is a top 10 all time American work of fiction in my opinion with writing quality on par with something like Moby Dick.

Edited August 24, 2025 by Rainier

[Rainier]

On 8/22/2025 at 10:13 AM, dlr1493 said:

After listening to interviews of Munger and reading 'Poor Charlie's Almanack', I became pretty fascinated by the benefits of 'multidisciplinarian' thinking. I also read a book called 'Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World' whose author, David Epstein, also advocates this idea. When I was driving home yesterday, I listened to an interesting discussion between Howard Marks and a chess grand champion who were discussing the parallels between chess and investing. Here's a link if anyone is interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igJTeeg6Ttw This put this idea back in my head and made me curious to put a few questions out to the community:

 

1) Has anyone got a story or anecdote of when knowledge in a different discipline helped them in another? (The more seemingly disconnected the more interesting to me!)

 

2) What topics or books have taught you lessons that you can apply to investing (or life generally!)?

 

 

 

I am of two minds on this. 
 

On one hand, I think the multi discipline approach to life is more appealing. But I think that’s just related to me being curious and willing to go pretty deep down rabbit holes of learning/practicing topics and ideas that on the surface don’t seem to be obviously beneficial from a business standpoint. I think this has helped me tremendously from the standpoint of getting good at “learning how to learn” about various topics.
 

I stumbled into an academic decathlon type program in high school based on a teacher recommendation. It was really open ended, in terms of class time and study material, and pushed the students into learning foundational level content of a wide range of topics that weren’t covered in high school (like instead of just geometry or calculus, the math content was fractals and demographic statistics; there was a massive focus on theology and philosophy, the arts/music content was very nuanced compared to other classes, there was college level economic theory instead of just memorizing macro/micro definitions). The idea of this program was completely bananas to me at first and more than a little overwhelming, as my entire family was lower income working class - no discussion of school work at home, much less any talk of high brow ideas or philosophy or economics or anything. That experience was the single biggest advantage I had going into college and the workplace after college. Even though I had a cut and dried major (finance and accounting), that experience helped me in virtually every aspect of college and I got a lot more out of many of my classes because of it. Literally my entire life trajectory was probably altered substantially by that high school program. I wasn’t going to end up in jail or anything, but I think there’s a fairly decent chance that I would have dropped out of college due to being unprepared for the open-endedness and self study needed. Before that program, nothing in public school prepared me for the difficulty level, lack of hand holding, and relative ambiguity of university course work. 
 

So, when I read about Munger’s fascination with architecture and psychology, I can relate because I have several things that I’m very interested in and I feel are worthy of a lot of my time and brain power. And I think the concept of mental models/latticework is a great way to describe how I think. I have always struggled greatly with memorization and recalling facts. I need to “start at the beginning” with whatever I’m learning and then I can fairly quickly figure out how a system or business works. Munger’s obsession with incentives is a good example of what I’m talking about. Fully understanding an incentive structure (at the most basic level) can go along way in teaching me how a system works, what the economics of it are, and allows me to extrapolate knowledge about the system way way quicker than if I only read an analyst report or something.

 

So, I’ve figured out that “mental models” (although the term is so overused now, I feel corny using it) are helpful for me in learning the things I want to learn. Learning how people in other fields analyze/problem solve, improves my learning ability - even though I almost never come close to gaining exert level knowledge in most of the topics I read about.

 

On the other hand, there are people like Buffett and quite a few other top tier CEOs/money managers and business people that I’ve personally known, who are really almost myopically focused on the thing they do. Their minds don’t seem to wander all that far astray from the primary thing they practice. They have interests, like golf or fishing or hunting or wine or whatever, but those interests are all sort of recreational or to relax/decompress. Playing golf is not  necessarily the same as Munger giving lectures about psychology or trying to corner a university into using his architectural design for windowless dormitories. 

 

So, I think either mind frame can work. And I think that, like every other character trait, people are just somewhere on the spectrum and people should just lean into whatever is most effective/enjoyable for them.  Anecdotally, a couple of mentors of mine at the same company were good examples of both sides of the coin. Both high level executives, being number 3 and 4 behind CEO in the c-suite pecking order. Both loved what they did and were experts of the company from both in-the-weeds detail to high level capital allocation. But one of them would seem just as happy (if not happier) talking to you about books, military history, safari hunting, theology, etc. The other basically only thought/talked about work, with a sprinkling of conversation about college sports or his kids. Both were great at their jobs and a wealth of knowledge about the company. Just very different people.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2025 by Rainier

[Spekulatius]

Multidisciplinary is only helpful if you are really good at something already. There is no value in being at mediocre at many things. Also Art majors don't make the big bucks either. Sure, some be some but many end up as underemployed baristas. Engineers/scientists now working in AI can apparently make $100M pay packages just working for Zuck.

[dwy000]

50 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Multidisciplinary is only helpful if you are really good at something already. There is no value in being at mediocre at many things

I agree with this wholly on a career level but disagree on a life level.  I'd rather have 10 different hobbies and interests and past times that I'm mediocre or poor at than 1 that I'm dominant at but never try anything else. 

[dlr1493]

@Spekulatius I think it depends on what your career is. If you want to be a world class surgeon, then high specialization is obviously necessary and vital. It is a discreet activity and a tumor isn't worried about incentives or human psychology! But with something more broad like 'investing' which itself is influenced by many factors, then you can't really be successful without understanding the different factors that influence it. As a rule of thumb, the more you start adding in different factors that influence the outcome, especially with human behaviour playing a role, then the more value there is from having a broader understanding of topics. Furthermore, Munger often talks about the 'man with a hammer' error. There's obviously times when someone is trying to apply their specialisation to a context where it doesn't apply. Therefore, specialization Vs multidiscipline depends on the context and @Rainier's spectrum view is a good way to think about it. But I'd argue most areas aren't that discreet and having a multidisciplined approach is more valuable.

 

Moreover, I don't think you need to have incredible depth in the subject to derive value from it. Munger actually says this too when he talks about 90% of the heavy lifting is done from the more basic elements of an idea, or words to that effect. For instance, Munger's knowledge of evolutionary biology will not be as advanced as Richard Dawkins, but it's sufficient enough to grasp the key concepts. This then adds value to his mental models which he can apply to other endeavors, such as investing.

Personally, I think the concept of 'multidisciplines' has really helped my mindset. I agree with @Rainier that life is more fun this way. I now find that I am more open minded and interested in a wider range of topics because I can make connections and apply it to other topics where it might be helpful. I loved how you brought up incentives @Rainier. This is something that I probably always knew, and many people probably are aware of it, but I vastly underestimated their power! Anecdotally, this recently helped me out! A few months ago I visited the dentist for the first time in a while and was told I grind my teeth in the night and needed expensive Invisalign to address the problem. Sincerely, she convincingly demonstrated how this will lead me to grind my teeth down over time. However, my skepticism raised the bullshit detector. Why had my work collogues who recommended her had similar diagnoses? Why didn't she do X-Ray as a matter of protocol (this was my first time in years)? Something didn't sit right. Low and behold, I discovered she has a partnership with Invisalign and is thus incentivized to push their products. I went for a second opinion who basically confirmed this was bullshit and concurred there was nothing wrong. Without Munger being fresh in my mind, I'd have likely paid up thousands of $ for something I didn't need, trusting the professional! (Another colleague that saw her unbeknownst to me now has Invisalign - apparently he also grinds his teeth!) Here's to hoping mine don't fall out! 

 

Another point I would make @Spekulatius is that while I'd agree that certain degrees will lead to better economic outcomes than an art degree, that doesn't necessarily mean studying some of the arts is fruitless. For instance, Munger studied law which likely led to a better outcome than if he had studied psychology. But his understanding of psychology probably had just as much, possibly more, of an impact on his success in business than his law knowledge did. 

 

 

[Spekulatius]

I do not think liberal Art degrees are useless, but it is way easier for an engineer or scientist to understand any social science than for an liberal art major to understand science.

I studied physics back then and took some courses in marketing  (Kotler etc) and it just seemed me that the material is so easy and straightforward that it’s almost self evident. Of course boing a good marketer is probably and artisan itself in way and just the the material will not get you to be good one.
 

I have  dabbled in history , marketing, economics and other topics of interest over time and I think the main thing you should  learn in College is how to how and teach yourself and become knowledgeable in new fields, as well as critical thinking’s. That’s why computer science is a bit of an iffy field to me, because so much of what taught there has a short shelf life. So unless you learn to learn also, you might end up with knowledge that is obsolete in 5-10 years.

[dpetrescu]

I’m a strong believer in self education and generally a critic of authority bias - against deferring to someone solely because they have a degree or because they are recognized as an authority in that field. That is the benefit of multidisciplinary education - it forms a positive reflexive loop - getting inspiration and insights from one field to another. 

 

One criticism - I have found it fascinating how some of the most brilliant minds can have such massive flaws in thinking. The famous examples of Keynes lost almost all his investments in the 1929 crash, Isaac Newton lost a fortune in the South Sea bubble. But there is another example…

 

With investing I follow Munger’s approach much more than Buffett’s approach. I try to read Munger’s cognitive biases once a year to remind myself regularly. It’s amazing to me his one massive misstep - the danger of misuse of multidisciplinary and self education.

 

His “architectural” design for the UC Santa Barbara dorm is a massive failure. It was an inhumane design and was misaligned with every basic concept and every first principles of architecture and the design for human experience. And I say this not even as an architect, I’m saying this as a human being.

It’s still amazing to me how someone that I look up to so much for multidisciplinary thinking and investing wisdom can be the author of such a horrible design. And it’s not about the failure of design - I think failure can be a virtue and a benefit - it’s necessary. But it is the misguided thinking and those misguided architectural principles that led to the inhumane design. 

 

 

[dwy000]

25 minutes ago, dpetrescu said:

I’m a strong believer in self education and generally a critic of authority bias - against deferring to someone solely because they have a degree or because they are recognized as an authority in that field. That is the benefit of multidisciplinary education - it forms a positive reflexive loop - getting inspiration and insights from one field to another. 

 

One criticism - I have found it fascinating how some of the most brilliant minds can have such massive flaws in thinking. The famous examples of Keynes lost almost all his investments in the 1929 crash, Isaac Newton lost a fortune in the South Sea bubble. But there is another example…

 

With investing I follow Munger’s approach much more than Buffett’s approach. I try to read Munger’s cognitive biases once a year to remind myself regularly. It’s amazing to me his one massive misstep - the danger of misuse of multidisciplinary and self education.

 

His “architectural” design for the UC Santa Barbara dorm is a massive failure. It was an inhumane design and was misaligned with every basic concept and every first principles of architecture and the design for human experience. And I say this not even as an architect, I’m saying this as a human being.

It’s still amazing to me how someone that I look up to so much for multidisciplinary thinking and investing wisdom can be the author of such a horrible design. And it’s not about the failure of design - I think failure can be a virtue and a benefit - it’s necessary. But it is the misguided thinking and those misguided architectural principles that led to the inhumane design. 

 

 

I think there is some degree of self diagnosed invincibility in people who have been incredibly successful in multiple fields that makes them feel they have an edge or ability in everything (or most things).  True of Munger in your example and I saw it many, many times in VC with founders who had a couple of successful startups.  Probably true of someone like Elon Musk too.

[DooDiligence]

40 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

I do not think liberal Art degrees are useless, but it is way easier for an engineer or scientist to understand any social science than for an liberal art major to understand science.

I studied physics back then and took some courses in marketing  (Kotler etc) and it just seemed me that the material is so easy and straightforward that it’s almost self evident. Of course boing a good marketer is probably and artisan itself in way and just the the material will not get you to be good one.
 

I have  dabbled in history , marketing, economics and other topics of interest over time and I think the main thing you should  learn in College is how to how and teach yourself and become knowledgeable in new fields, as well as critical thinking’s. That’s why computer science is a bit of an iffy field to me, because so much of what taught there has a short shelf life. So unless you learn to learn also, you might end up with knowledge that is obsolete in 5-10 years.

 

Have you tried music theory?

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, dpetrescu said:

One criticism - I have found it fascinating how some of the most brilliant minds can have such massive flaws in thinking. The famous examples of Keynes lost almost all his investments in the 1929 crash, Isaac Newton lost a fortune in the South Sea bubble. But there is another example…

This is a bad example. Keynes as a life long learner. He wrote his  “The General Theory of Employment ,Interest and Money” in 1936 , 7 years after the crash where he lost most of his money along with many others. His book is in large part how the Great Depression could have been avoided   He also did later very well with pension funds he managed. He was not just an academic, he also was a practitioner. he is probably the greatest economist of all time and he was I some way a generalist as he understood how economics is related to politics and vice versa. 

[Spekulatius]

1 hour ago, DooDiligence said:

 

Have you tried music theory?

No, I have not and probably won’t. I do enjoy music a lot and make it a point to go to local gigs in coffee shops and brewpubs here. I have a wide interest from rock (all flavors), pop, Indy sometimes classical music, Americana , folks, blues and try to find new things on apple music or YouTube. The only styles I never could connect with are Hip hop and rap and related styles. I can read notes and learned to play piano but that was a long time ago and  have not played for at least a decade. My son is a natural and does pretty well on piano, keyboard and now saxophone in the college jazz band.

Edited August 24, 2025 by Spekulatius

[Rainier]

2 hours ago, dwy000 said:

I think there is some degree of self diagnosed invincibility in people who have been incredibly successful in multiple fields that makes them feel they have an edge or ability in everything (or most things).  True of Munger in your example and I saw it many, many times in VC with founders who had a couple of successful startups.  Probably true of someone like Elon Musk too.

I definitely think this is what was going on with Munger and the dorm designs.  

[Eldad]

16 hours ago, Rainier said:

I agree regarding fiction. I subscribe to the idea that 99% (or some extremely large percentage) of everything produced by humans is in the range of terrible to mediocre. This goes for just about anything - fiction, nonfiction, movies, medical care, legal advice, corporate leadership, you name it. Very little in the world is truly excellent and worth spending time on. It seems very likely to me that I’d benefit more from reading a top 1% fiction book than I would from reading a bad to mediocre history/business/econ book. Obviously this is on the margins though - since someone who is ignorant of an important topic, say personal finance, would benefit a lot more from reading a mediocre personal finance book than they would from reading Moby Dick. But it’s all subjective. Some people just despise fiction altogether. 
 

As an aside, I think Moby Dick is underrated, largely because it gains a bad reputation for being forced down the throats of high school kids who don’t (yet) care about the underlying philosophical stuff.
 

As another aside, if you like Moby Dick and also like sci fi, I always recommend Gene Wolfe’s Book of The New Sun to people. Heavily inspired by Moby Dick and other similar stuff like Borges, Chesterton, Dickens, etc. It is a top 10 all time American work of fiction in my opinion with writing quality on par with something like Moby Dick.

Thanks will check out New Sun

[Eldad]

1 hour ago, Eldad said:

Thanks will check out New Sun

Ah the executioner one. I have read about this before. Have always wanted to read. 

[schin]

5 hours ago, Rainier said:

I definitely think this is what was going on with Munger and the dorm designs.  

@Rainier I don't want to divert too much from the multidisciplinary discussion.  I know there's a sh*t storm about his dorm design, but I heard his rationale and the benefits of it.  Do you really mark that up as a failure?

[Rainier]

2 hours ago, schin said:

@Rainier I don't want to divert too much from the multidisciplinary discussion.  I know there's a sh*t storm about his dorm design, but I heard his rationale and the benefits of it.  Do you really mark that up as a failure?

Sorry, I wasn’t really clear. What I was trying to say was that it seems like Munger probably had the same mentality about designing dorms as he did about investing. My point was that someone whose spent their life being at least somewhat contrarian, suspicious of authorities, and willing to stick with or double down on his own convictions, would have no issue with not budging on his stipulations for an unpopular dorm design. And I don’t blame him. If it was my money, I’d do the same thing (i.e. not budge on whatever it was that I wanted to see happen with the money I’d spent a lifetime earning).

 

And to be fair, he may have been right about the design. I probably wouldn’t have minded having a windowless room if it meant it was cheaper or had more space or privacy or whatever. And there are plenty of historical examples of polymaths being right across multiple disciplines (just googling “notable polymaths” brings up Da Vinci, von Neumann, Leibniz, Franklin, Archimedes, Musk, Newton, Galileo, Aristotle…and a lot of these guys had a ton of friction from the established order about their unconventional ideas) So I wonder if Munger’s bet on dorms would have been right and been a big housing/education innovation, which would have given him another notch in his multidisciplinary/polymath belt.  

Edited August 25, 2025 by Rainier

[DooDiligence]

14 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

No, I have not and probably won’t. I do enjoy music a lot and make it a point to go to local gigs in coffee shops and brewpubs here. I have a wide interest from rock (all flavors), pop, Indy sometimes classical music, Americana , folks, blues and try to find new things on apple music or YouTube. The only styles I never could connect with are Hip hop and rap and related styles. I can read notes and learned to play piano but that was a long time ago and  have not played for at least a decade. My son is a natural and does pretty well on piano, keyboard and now saxophone in the college jazz band.

 

Playing at the collegiate level, your son likely has a good grasp of theory. It's not necessary but is extremely helpful, especially when playing with others. I found that going from a theory class directly to a math class, or vice versa, to be mind bending. The thought processes are so different, even though theory is math based (knowing there's 12 half steps in an octave is fundamental). Calculating chord qualities and functions within a harmony are very different than solving quadratic equations and doing statistical analysis, but if you can do one then you can do the other. Just don't schedule the 2 classes on the same day  unless you really want to stretch your head.

 

That said, we had a large class starting out, with less than half that number at graduation. Many dropped out because they simply couldn't keep up. It's a subject that builds on multiple small concepts and a student can get left behind quickly (undoubtedly true for engineering as well). TBF, 2 semesters is more than enough to enable most players. I'd honestly have to say that most would be better off switching majors after an AA and entering a field where they can make a stable living, then playing music as an enjoyable side hustle.

[SharperDingaan]

The talking point is that a Liberal Arts background teaches one to think; so how come the various trades (baker, plumber, brewer, etc.) are not considered Liberal Arts? Apparently, there is no think involved in determining how to do something?? Propaganda.

 

A Liberal Arts engagement is intended to ‘round out’ the learner, NOT be the degree that earns your crust. Many an aspiring Engineer or Quant is forced to take them for exactly this reason, and will fight through the entire process; me included! I ended up taking Anthropology, Political Science, and Economics/Music. Decades later; I’m glad I did … but at the time, they were an utter waste. Short-term vs long-term.

 

A Liberal Arts engagement is intended to complement ‘life experience’. Supposedly, you saw XYZ while you were experiencing life/working; this is how it works. You did the summer backpacking experience to both get that ‘life experience’ and cut the apron springs. Maturity.

 

Within business, most people are never going to make it to the senior levels; those that do will typically have further specialisation (MBA, Designation, etc.). At the lower levels, business is primarily about working with people (staff, customers, etc.), and a Liberal Arts engagement was relatively advantageous.  Less so today, as we use technology.

 

Liberal Arts courses are typically badly taught, the instructor often a PhD student teaching the course as part of their guaranteed funding, with a chip on the shoulder. Supplemented with the occasional tenured professor, either teaching as a condition of employment, or on the runway to retirement. Immature students, instructors with limited life experience.

 

Liberal Arts exposure didn’t go well for me! Way too much life experience, too much exposure to the more colourful people of the world, and far too practically orientated. Proudly thrown out of Political Science twice (Propaganda Course, Ethics Course) and Music. Sadly, I was beyond redemption, and was never going to be able to play the drums like Keith Moon (the original Animal ).

 

Anthropology was useful, primarily because it clearly demonstrated how to manipulate via the use of propaganda. Very different takeaways when you have actually lived in the area being studied, and your textbooks were written by the colonialist power of the times, for empire consumption. Mental models.

 

Similarly, Ethics was useful, primarily because it demonstrated how you could paralyse otherwise rational people, simply by repetitively citing from an iffy source (textbook). Very different thing when actual experience across cultures, and situations is quite different, and the focus is on how one might actually write that textbook  Mental models.

 

Point to all this? Liberal Arts isn’t going to support earning the daily crust, but it will aid with pattern recognition. However your ability to exploit it, is to you to work out, and compare against your own experiences. No textbooks.

 

SD

Edited August 25, 2025 by SharperDingaan

[DooDiligence]

4 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

The talking point is that a Liberal Arts background teaches one to think; so how come the various trades (baker, plumber, brewer, etc.) are not considered Liberal Arts? Apparently, there is no think involved in determining how to do something?? Propaganda.

 

A Liberal Arts engagement is intended to ‘round out’ the learner, NOT be the degree that earns your crust. Many an aspiring Engineer or Quant is forced to take them for exactly this reason and will fight through the entire process; me included! I ended up taking Anthropology, Political Science, and Economics/Music. Decades later; I’m glad I did … but at the time, they were an utter waste. Short-term vs long-term.

 

A Liberal Arts engagement is intended to complement ‘life experience’. Supposedly, you saw XYZ while you were experiencing life/working; this is how it works. You did the summer backpacking experience to both get that ‘life experience’ and cut the apron springs. Maturity.

 

Within business, most people are never going to make it senior levels; those that do will typically have further specialisation (MBA, Designation, etc.). At the lower levels, business is primarily about working with people (staff, customers, etc.), and a Liberal Arts engagement is relatively advantageous. Today, we use technology.

 

Liberal Arts courses are typically badly taught, the instructor often a PhD student teaching the course as part of their guaranteed funding, with a chip on the shoulder. Supplemented with the occasional tenured professor, either teaching as a condition of employment, or on the runway to retirement. Immature students, instructors with limited life experience.

 

It didn’t go well for me! Way too much life experience, exposure to the more colourful people of the world, and far too practically orientated. Proudly thrown out of Political Science twice (Propaganda Course, Ethics Course) and Music. Sadly, I was beyond redemption, and was never going to be able to play the drums like Keith Moon (the original Animal ).

 

Anthropology was useful, primarily because it clearly demonstrated how to manipulate via the use of propaganda. Very different thing when you have actually lived in the area being studied, and your textbooks are tomes written by the colonialist power of the times. Mental models.

 

Similarly, Ethics was useful, primarily because it demonstrated how you could paralyse otherwise rational people, by repetitively citing from an iffy source (textbook). Very different thing when actual experience across cultures, and situations is quite different! Mental models.

 

Point to all this? Liberal Arts isn’t going to support earning the daily crust, but it will aid with pattern recognition. However your ability to exploit it, is to you to work out, and compare against your own experiences. No textbooks.

 

SD

 

Spot on! 

 

Compassion + Wisdom

 

If a person develops only the emotional & neglects the intellectual, they risk becoming a good hearted fool, while to develop only the intellectual and neglect the emotional may turn a person into a hard hearted intellect with no feeling for others.

[Eldad]

44 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

The talking point is that a Liberal Arts background teaches one to think; so how come the various trades (baker, plumber, brewer, etc.) are not considered Liberal Arts? Apparently, there is no think involved in determining how to do something?? Propaganda.

 

A Liberal Arts engagement is intended to ‘round out’ the learner, NOT be the degree that earns your crust. Many an aspiring Engineer or Quant is forced to take them for exactly this reason, and will fight through the entire process; me included! I ended up taking Anthropology, Political Science, and Economics/Music. Decades later; I’m glad I did … but at the time, they were an utter waste. Short-term vs long-term.

 

A Liberal Arts engagement is intended to complement ‘life experience’. Supposedly, you saw XYZ while you were experiencing life/working; this is how it works. You did the summer backpacking experience to both get that ‘life experience’ and cut the apron springs. Maturity.

 

Within business, most people are never going to make it to the senior levels; those that do will typically have further specialisation (MBA, Designation, etc.). At the lower levels, business is primarily about working with people (staff, customers, etc.), and a Liberal Arts engagement was relatively advantageous.  Less so today, as we use technology.

 

Liberal Arts courses are typically badly taught, the instructor often a PhD student teaching the course as part of their guaranteed funding, with a chip on the shoulder. Supplemented with the occasional tenured professor, either teaching as a condition of employment, or on the runway to retirement. Immature students, instructors with limited life experience.

 

Liberal Arts exposure didn’t go well for me! Way too much life experience, too much exposure to the more colourful people of the world, and far too practically orientated. Proudly thrown out of Political Science twice (Propaganda Course, Ethics Course) and Music. Sadly, I was beyond redemption, and was never going to be able to play the drums like Keith Moon (the original Animal ).

 

Anthropology was useful, primarily because it clearly demonstrated how to manipulate via the use of propaganda. Very different takeaways when you have actually lived in the area being studied, and your textbooks were written by the colonialist power of the times, for empire consumption. Mental models.

 

Similarly, Ethics was useful, primarily because it demonstrated how you could paralyse otherwise rational people, simply by repetitively citing from an iffy source (textbook). Very different thing when actual experience across cultures, and situations is quite different, and the focus is on how one might actually write that textbook  Mental models.

 

Point to all this? Liberal Arts isn’t going to support earning the daily crust, but it will aid with pattern recognition. However your ability to exploit it, is to you to work out, and compare against your own experiences. No textbooks.

 

SD

The school of experience is the best school no doubt. And a wise individual can learn from almost anything.

 

I was thinking more about the educational philosophy of building a broad foundation that teaches big picture theory vs. “pragmatic” this is exactly what you will be doing for XX job. Oh by the way everything you learn in the nuts and bolts area will be obsolete in ten years. 

[LC]

St. John's college in Maryland has a Great Books curriculum for its liberal arts degree:

https://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs/undergraduate/great-books-reading-list

[SharperDingaan]

2 hours ago, Eldad said:

I was thinking more about the educational philosophy of building a broad foundation that teaches big picture theory vs. “pragmatic” 

 

It's 2025; both Google and Chat GTB already do this a lot better than many students  Now .... were some of reading list replaced with the likes of The Dictators Handbook, or The Rules of Power ... there might actually be something  Big picture application!

 

SD 

[Eldad]

14 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

 

It's 2025; both Google and Chat GTB already do this a lot better than many students  Now .... were some of reading list replaced with the likes of The Dictators Handbook, or The Rules of Power ... there might actually be something  Big picture application!

 

SD 

Disagree. Chat GPT understands nothing. Just a massive plagiarism/probability machine. 
 

Students that go down that road will be lost. As technology accelerates, flexible thinking and creativity will only increase in value. The pragmatic side of the coin is likely to be in much more trouble than the theory and understanding side.