I think seeing the bigger picture is largely genetical/neurological.

[Vynce]

Coming from one of Leo's latest blog posts, I wanted to give a little insight about "big picture comprehension".

Because since I was a child I always wondered about the larger picture of a system. Thats usually where my fascination for any topic would lie in. I guess thats why Leo's content felt incredibly fascinating to me. So this is just my normal modus operandi so to say.

However when I got a temporary ADHD treatment with Methyphenidate I strongly noticed how my mind shifted from "open and large" to very "focused and hung up on details so on". Which wasn't pleasant, but it activated a specific mental state in me, that would make great for a great scientist: orderly, "strict", focused and accurate and so on. 

So in a sense that period allowed me to udnerstand the neurological mode that "strong-anti-ADHD" people have. And in that period my sense for metaphysical big picturing, deep contamplation, open minded discussions was basically nuked out to zero. 

So maybe my offer is that, scientist - people who get paid for this specific mental state - are genetically not ideal or fit to naturally dive deep and open in bigger picture contemplations. 

Again, I was struck how miserable I was at even "small" big picturing with another neurology. Stuff that just comes natural to me right now.

Of course psychedelics are rip that limitation apart. But that seems too scary for most scientiest I believe. 

Just my open thoughts on this..

[Vynce]

Btw. I'm not saying that "orderly, "strict", focused and accurate" are antithetical to big picture thinking. I just think that big picture thinkers are bad at the current job of being a scientist. Which promotes and rewards a speicific kind of neurology over other types of neurology.

[Ninja_pig]

Interesting perspective here. This is probably the reason why psychedelics work so well in terms of expanding consciousness and helping us to see the big picture. I personally have noticed that the more goal oriented, busy, and disciplined I become, the less my mind seems to randomly come up with mystical insights. 

[caspex]

For me it's been the opposite. Ever since I was a kid my instinct has been to go to the root of the issue. Looking at the big picture never really occurred to me. If I see a tree, I wanna find out where its roots are, not where it stands in reference to all the other trees, i.e. the forest.

Various people have said to me, and I have received this in multiple aptitude tests, that I would be a good researcher because I seem to get hung up on one thing until I can find its root cause.

But instead of setting me back in terms of metaphysical thinking and open minded discussions, it really aided me. This tendency of mine to go to the very root is what enabled me to ultimately see I am not real, that my perspectives are relative and that we are all one. 

I don't explicitly look for big picture connections, but because I have gone to the root of many problems, they seem to automatically connect eventually, because at its root reality itself is connected. 

I think Scientists' problem isn't that they don't try to see the big picture, rather it is dogma and strictness. That would hinder anybody, even those who do think big picture.

Edited Thursday at 10:46 AM by caspex

[Vynce]

3 hours ago, caspex said:

For me it's been the opposite. Ever since I was a kid my instinct has been to go to the root of the issue. Looking at the big picture never really occurred to me. If I see a tree, I wanna find out where its roots are, not where it stands in reference to all the other trees, i.e. the forest.

Various people have said to me, and I have received this in multiple aptitude tests, that I would be a good researcher because I seem to get hung up on one thing until I can find its root cause.

But instead of setting me back in terms of metaphysical thinking and open minded discussions, it really aided me. This tendency of mine to go to the very root is what enabled me to ultimately see I am not real, that my perspectives are relative and that we are all one. 

I don't explicitly look for big picture connections, but because I have gone to the root of many problems, they seem to automatically connect eventually, because at its root reality itself is connected. 

I think Scientists' problem isn't that they don't try to see the big picture, rather it is dogma and strictness. That would hinder anybody, even those who do think big picture.

Of course going towards the roots of any thing is part of the bigger picture. 

So in a way some part of your is very much interested in grasping a thing holistically (big picture).

Maybe I would have phrased it differently. The scientistic people I got to know just were so occupied with neither the roots nor the sky. They just got lost mentally in some minute details that didn't matter really in the grand scheme. -> which is what I noticed in myself with another neurology. Maybe thats a better way to say it. 

[Vynce]

Additional loose thoughts: 

ADHD is fundamentally your brain not giving you enough rewards for "ordinary" activities, ideas, impressions and so on. Which is why ADHD people rarely do "ordinary" jobs or have "ordinary" hobbies, ordinary friends and so on.

And you know what is also not ordinary? TRUTH. (Sounding like Leo now, mmh..)

So in a sense an ADHD brain is innately more wired towards exploring whackier things as it lives on. So you go around exploring all these things to their reward climax, till they get stale. Ideas, friends, hobbies, jobs . all get replaced in a ADHD persons mind sooner or later. The trial and error phases of such a person are way faster and harder on reality than others. 

But the thing that stays is Truth. A true thing stays true no matter how excited your brain is about it. 

I think this mechanic helped me a lot with truth seeking and is the same thing that might make it harder for more scientistic minds to get to larger truths.

[Carl-Richard]

Every day, a new thread on genetics.

 

21 hours ago, Vynce said:

So maybe my offer is that, scientist - people who get paid for this specific mental state - are genetically not ideal or fit to naturally dive deep and open in bigger picture contemplations. 

Again, I was struck how miserable I was at even "small" big picturing with another neurology. Stuff that just comes natural to me right now.

Of course psychedelics are rip that limitation apart. But that seems too scary for most scientiest I believe. 

Just my open thoughts on this..

I beg to differ, that the scientists who are capable of big picture thinking are the greatest scientists, the ones pushing paradigms ahead, the ones leading strong idealistic charges, the ones being driven by truly meaningful causes. Big picture vs detail focus is a constant flux, it happens all the time in our cognition. Some are more slanted to either side, yes, and yes some pharmacological states could impede certain aspects of either side (I avoid all stimulants, partially for this reason, but for other reasons as well; call it big picture).

Edited Thursday at 02:50 PM by Carl-Richard

[AerisVahnEphelia]

On 25/02/2026 at 6:03 PM, Vynce said:

Coming from one of Leo's latest blog posts, I wanted to give a little insight about "big picture comprehension".

Because since I was a child I always wondered about the larger picture of a system. Thats usually where my fascination for any topic would lie in. I guess thats why Leo's content felt incredibly fascinating to me. So this is just my normal modus operandi so to say.

However when I got a temporary ADHD treatment with Methyphenidate I strongly noticed how my mind shifted from "open and large" to very "focused and hung up on details so on". Which wasn't pleasant, but it activated a specific mental state in me, that would make great for a great scientist: orderly, "strict", focused and accurate and so on. 

So in a sense that period allowed me to udnerstand the neurological mode that "strong-anti-ADHD" people have. And in that period my sense for metaphysical big picturing, deep contamplation, open minded discussions was basically nuked out to zero. 

So maybe my offer is that, scientist - people who get paid for this specific mental state - are genetically not ideal or fit to naturally dive deep and open in bigger picture contemplations. 

Again, I was struck how miserable I was at even "small" big picturing with another neurology. Stuff that just comes natural to me right now.

Of course psychedelics are rip that limitation apart. But that seems too scary for most scientiest I believe. 

Just my open thoughts on this..

it's all genetic, awakening or being intelligent is all genetic.

destiny, configuration, geometry of god.

you cannot awaken to god, god awaken to you.
 

[Yimpa]

God’s genetics are not set in stone, unless your beliefs system soup is made up of cherry-flavored atoms and enlightened rat feces.

[Joseph Maynor]

Generally scientists are trained to limit their gaze and zero in to a specific question and find a stable and certain and verifiable empirical answer to that question. 

In direct contrast, generally philosophers (the great ones) zoom out and try to find the big picture by reacting to more or less to other philosophers who came before like artists being influenced by other artists (although they're reluctant to think about it this way). 

Scientists generally think identity and personality is irrelevant; whereas, Philosophers generally think their personality and identity is important in their philosophy.

[YIDIRYIDIR]

this is some interesting shit, slick perspective.
I also see this pattern a lot but never articulated it this way. 

it is also the difference between polymaths and specialists. 

in business, you find a lot of people specializing in one niche, one skill, one business model, copying what works and are results oriented. and you also find these generalists that combine a wide variety of skillsets by connecting dots and creating a unique brand and business that no one can replicate because it is authentic to them, and they were able to do that through big picture thinking and synthesizing. 

[Leo Gura]

On 2/25/2026 at 9:03 AM, Vynce said:

So maybe my offer is that, scientist - people who get paid for this specific mental state - are genetically not ideal or fit to naturally dive deep and open in bigger picture contemplations. 

Of course!

Thinking holistically is in a trade-off with thinking technically.

These are different mental architectures.

[YIDIRYIDIR]

On 2/26/2026 at 2:37 PM, Vynce said:

Additional loose thoughts: 

ADHD is fundamentally your brain not giving you enough rewards for "ordinary" activities, ideas, impressions and so on. Which is why ADHD people rarely do "ordinary" jobs or have "ordinary" hobbies, ordinary friends and so on.

And you know what is also not ordinary? TRUTH. (Sounding like Leo now, mmh..)

So in a sense an ADHD brain is innately more wired towards exploring whackier things as it lives on. So you go around exploring all these things to their reward climax, till they get stale. Ideas, friends, hobbies, jobs . all get replaced in a ADHD persons mind sooner or later. The trial and error phases of such a person are way faster and harder on reality than others. 

But the thing that stays is Truth. A true thing stays true no matter how excited your brain is about it. 

I think this mechanic helped me a lot with truth seeking and is the same thing that might make it harder for more scientistic minds to get to larger truths.

this is interesting, and got me curious more about ADHD, would you mind sharing more insights and thoughts like this? I like your perspective

[AtmanIsBrahman]

43 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Scientists generally think identity and personality is irrelevant; whereas, Philosophers generally think their personality and identity is important in their philosophy.

What philosophers are you thinking of? Most philosophers are shockingly lacking in introspection, personal development, and consciousness work. How many philosophers are doing serious work understanding themselves? Not many. 
The sad reality is that the current state of academic philosophy is just scientific rationalist thinking, but without the real-world consequences that science has. In that way, people are right to say philosophy is mental masturbation-- because the academic kind is. It's just that they're missing pure philosophy.

[Joseph Maynor]

7 hours ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

What philosophers are you thinking of? Most philosophers are shockingly lacking in introspection, personal development, and consciousness work. How many philosophers are doing serious work understanding themselves? Not many. 
The sad reality is that the current state of academic philosophy is just scientific rationalist thinking, but without the real-world consequences that science has. In that way, people are right to say philosophy is mental masturbation-- because the academic kind is. It's just that they're missing pure philosophy.

I think the point of reading philosophy is to be able to spot philosophy.  I can see a very large interplay of world philosophers almost like a musician sees a group of albums situated in a network of influences.  Ignorance of philosophy is where a lot of people get hung up because they don't know what philosophy is.  To do Pure Philosophy would imply that the philosophy you do sits outside the artform of philosophy, which is a bold claim, not saying it's wrong either though.