Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I have been thinking about this a lot lately and I wonder what you guys opinions are.

Would you rather be (or value in an individual) a proficient, awesome, best-in-the-land, and an all-around expert in 1 thing or would you like to be above-average or good at everything you try?

Why did you pick the one that you did?

I'd rather be an expert in investing / making money, then I could pay people to do everything else for me  .

I have been thinking about this a lot lately and I wonder what you guys opinions are.

Would you rather be (or value in an individual) a proficient, awesome, best-in-the-land, and an all-around expert in 1 thing or would you like to be above-average or good at everything you try?

Why did you pick the one that you did?

i'd be Expert At R3d3mp1i0n

I'm content with how God made me.  I am not super-skilled in anything, yet I also do not stink at anything.  I'm average.

But for the sake of your question, I can say that the younger I was the more I leaned toward being Numero Uno in something.  For instance, in my late twenties I worked for a company that had a golf, tennis, bowling and card game league.  I was the best and I won them all.  I also lost a couple of friends along the way.  I believe pride can slip too easily into someone's character who is an expert at something.


(Now that I think about it, I could be considered the best fisherman of our time.)

I have been thinking about this a lot lately and I wonder what you guys opinions are.

Would you rather be (or value in an individual) a proficient, awesome, best-in-the-land, and an all-around expert in 1 thing or would you like to be above-average or good at everything you try?

Why did you pick the one that you did?

Since I'm already the latter, can I pick (a) and keep (b)?

I'd choose to be amazing at the part of the mind that is memory/information-processing/focus. I'd be able to read, study, and master things a lot more at faster speeds and it would improve my musical abilities greatly. It also, because of my IQ break down (genius reasoning and logic, deficient processing and focus), would place me rather ridiculously high, even historically.

As for the question of valuing an individual, I usually like well-rounded individuals for company; however, I also value all-around experts in certain topics that interest me. I mean, an amazing football player/buff isn't of much interest to me but a history buff, a great actor, a great painter, a great programmer, a great doctor, (or what not) are usually rather interesting to me because I'm a well rounded person and can usually understand learn a lot from them. For one to be truly great in a field they have to be an artisan and not just well-read.

I'm especially fond of great philosophers, theologians, pastors, scientists, psychologists, and musicians (though for a musician to be great in my eyes is rather a high standard to make).

Also, my brother is pretty cool as he is both an amazing magician and well studied in con-artistry.

LOL.

Either that or could I become an expert at learning how to do everything else?

Good man.

(Now that I think about it, I could be considered the best fisherman of our time.)

You should meet my grandpa. He has a lake house in this small fishing community in Texas where he is simply known as "The Jedi Master of Fishing". He'll just randomly be like, "cast over there" and you'll end up catching something immediately.

Versatile.

Because I have a short att

Corollary question: can anyone be great at something without being subject to struggles with pride?

Corollary question: can anyone be great at something without being subject to struggles with pride?

Pride is only bad if it is extroverted or false. Egoism (introverted pride in one's individuality) is healthy, in my opinion. Jesus, for example, was extremely egoistic.

Expert. No one hires mediocre talent when there is something who is great.

However, I didn't say you were mediocre with your versatility.  I said you were good, above-average...you excelled.  Many companies do hire that.  Many colleges look for that on applications.  I agree with your mediocre sentiment, but that's not quite what I was referring too.

I think some of the older board members (30+) see what I'm getting at.  Is it worth it to each of us the sacrifice at being great like Tiger Woods or Roger Federer or do we want to be versatile and pretty good at everything we try (can't think of a famous person with this gift at the moment)?  Maybe I'm making more of a transition to what Prof and Stamp have already realized.  Now that several of you have answered.  I think each choice offers great ministry opportunities if you can avoid the pitfalls like pride and arrogance.

versatile is better. if i had to be smart or athletic i would choose smart though

With my question, you would be above average/good at both.

@ Colin, you feel you fall under the versatile category but you have given hints at your disdain of athletics.  So I would question your versatility in everything because you seem to lack sports from your resume'.  However, I have only met you once so I don't know if you are good at bowling, basketball, raquetball, or hunting.

Given that being a whole soul involves an even balance of mind, heart, and body, I'd say versatility is infinitely more valuable. The experts of the world are often also its greatest enemies, because their souls are underdeveloped in all aspects save one. Better to be the average, humble man who follows Christ with all his heart, mind, and strength than the man who attempts to follow Christ with just one; to be good in all things is to be great.

All of the great men of history until recently were great at a lot of things. Leonardo DaVinci, anyone?

All of the great men of history until recently were great at a lot of things. Leonardo DaVinci, anyone?

Aristotle too.