Focus on strengths or improve weaknesses?

[ummmm........]

If you're not discussing specific situations, it's definitely got to be focusing on strengths. You could spend the rest of your life improving your weaknesses and you'd still not have enough time even to identify them all.

But you're likely to only have one or a few real strengths, and like everyone has said, it's better to be really good at something than not really bad at anything . . .

 

[(+) Influence]

Focus on strengths. The only way to compete is to be the best at what you do, not to be average on what everyone else is doing.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm never going to win at Wimbledon or sign at opera, so why focus on them.
They are not thing I'm interested in or things I'm good at, no need to punish myself.

What are you good at/interested in etc., Mathilda?

 

[Norseman2]

In single-player games, it tends to be better to focus on a strength and then use it. In any proactive activity, having strengths is better than not having weaknesses. You can apply your strengths in ways that will keep your weaknesses from ever being a problem. In a reactive activity, having no weaknesses is better. You don't know what's coming at you or when, so it's best to be prepared for anything. In something which is a mix of both, strengths are better if you're only going aganist the same opoonent for a short time (you have the advantage of knowing your strengths and weaknesses, where they won't pick up on them for a while, so it will help you win). Long term, no weaknesses is better, so that they don't get exploited. Enemies will invariably turn their strengths on your weaknesses as soon as they learn of them.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

The trick is not letting your opponents know that you have weaknesses.

 

[Eukaryote]

Usally it's best to improve weaknessess, but that's not true if you're some sort of specialist.

 

[Perfection]

Usally it's best to improve weaknessess, but that's not true if you're some sort of specialist.

Aren't most people specialists?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Focus on strengths or improve weaknesses?

By definition, your strengths are already strong. Focus more on weaknesses, theyre what will bring you down if ignored.

 

[Syterion]

I think Norseman2 perfectly analyzed it.

 

[Norseman2]

The trick is not letting your opponents know that you have weaknesses.

You can only hide your weaknesses for so long. Eventually trial and error will find them, and then you have to change everything or be defeated. In some games, that's easy, but you need to know what your enemies know about you, again, weaknesses are ok if you're proactive. You have the time to find out these things before they become a problem for you, because you choose when to fight. If you're in a reactive situation, your enemies have time to get info like this, and you just have to be prepared for anything.

 

[Sophie 378]

I instinctively focus on my strengths - science (particularly the bio side) rather than arts, languages rather than mathematics, cooking rather than shopping, singing rather than playing an instrument. Then I start trying to make myself better at the things that are harder for me; taking a maths-for-chemists course, start German instead of improving my Spanish or French, take more chemistry even though it's harder and less fascinating than biochemistry. I usually end up regretting going against my gut feelings: more work, less benefit.

 

[Arcadian83]

I wonder if focus on strengths or improve weaknesses can be compared to the exploration versus exploitation dilemma in Artificial Intelligence.

It goes like this: You're wandering around some world trying to get points (a good thing). You find when you walk onto a certain spot, you start accumulating points. Should you just stay there and exploit what you know is already getting points (like focusing on strengths)? Or should you explore around some more to hopefully find something even more rewarding (like improving weaknesses), even if it means not getting points during that time with no promise of anything? Simple AI's tend to get stuck on exploiting, but too much exploring will mean fewer points as well.

I guess it's a bit different because when you improve a weakness you don't expect it to become stronger than your current strengths. The exploiting part sounds a lot like focusing on strengths, though.

 

[plarq]

Strength up! Weakness can't be touched, and can't be saved. I have a terrible writing which forces me to use keyboard; I can't cook so I eat food from canteens in campus, etc.

However, if the weakness does hurt...like difficulty of dating and communicating with various people.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

You can only hide your weaknesses for so long. Eventually trial and error will find them, and then you have to change everything or be defeated. In some games, that's easy, but you need to know what your enemies know about you, again, weaknesses are ok if you're proactive. You have the time to find out these things before they become a problem for you, because you choose when to fight. If you're in a reactive situation, your enemies have time to get info like this, and you just have to be prepared for anything.

If your enemies need to find your weaknesses by trial and error, you should have plenty of time to defeat them using your strengths that you are exploiting.

 

[Norseman2]

If your enemies need to find your weaknesses by trial and error, you should have plenty of time to defeat them using your strengths that you are exploiting.

For the most part, yes. In the short-term, or if you initiate the encounter, they probably won't know anything about you. However, if you're doing something like a civilization world tournament, you'll only get so far without rapidly changing. People will be watching your every move, trying to figure out what your flaws are. The people who find those flaws may be people you have to go up against. Likewise in professional football, people may analyze the strengths, weaknesses and habits of a team. Without rapidly changing that, enemy teams will start to avoid your strengths, and use their strengths on your weaknesses, while taking advantage of your habits. In long-term, or in reactive situations, you can expect the opposition to know quite a bit about you, and that will make your weaknesses a big drawback.

 

[ummmm........]

At what point did enemies enter into this discussion?

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Focus on strengths is the way to go.
Your weaknesses are weaknesses for a reason - you don´t like to practice in these fields because it is not efficient, you are not suited for them, ect.
Your strengths developed because you liked to practice them in the past, because you have easy success in these fields. Working and practicing on existing strengths will make you happy as trying to improve weaknesses might be frustrating and unrewarding. It is better to achieve excellence in one field than mediocricity in lots of fields.

I do not exclude the chance that overcoming a fatal weakness might actually happen and be an extremely rewarding experience but that this actually happens is imo exetremely rare. Additionally even if you overcome a weakness you will never achieve a competetive level.

 

[Norseman2]

At what point did enemies enter into this discussion?

Strength and weakness are both relations to your ability to deal with challenges. Enemies would be a classic example of a challenge. You need strengths to fight them, you need to avoid weaknesses to them. But you're correct, strength and weakness are not necessarily restricted to enemies. So, I'll address that too. When other people can help you, strengths are better than having no weaknesses. A nerd and a jock can get more done together than two average Joes. Specializing works to the benefit of a group. By yourself, for example stuck out in the wilderness, it's better to have few or no weaknesses. Note that this situation is reactive. You're at the mercy of the wilderness, and you need to be able to deal with anything. The previous situation was proactive. You can choose who you work with and what you work on to get the most out of your strengths, while avoiding the disadvantages of your weaknesses. That rule seems to apply universally.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Strength and weakness are both relations to your ability to deal with challenges. Enemies would be a classic example of a challenge. You need strengths to fight them, you need to avoid weaknesses to them. But you're correct, strength and weakness are not necessarily restricted to enemies. So, I'll address that too. When other people can help you, strengths are better than having no weaknesses. A nerd and a jock can get more done together than two average Joes. Specializing works to the benefit of a group. By yourself, for example stuck out in the wilderness, it's better to have few or no weaknesses. Note that this situation is reactive. You're at the mercy of the wilderness, and you need to be able to deal with anything. The previous situation was proactive. You can choose who you work with and what you work on to get the most out of your strengths, while avoiding the disadvantages of your weaknesses. That rule seems to apply universally.

I was originally thinking about the game of Civilization. But that works too.