An interesting experiment I'd like to see would be a cataloging effect of transactional memory. For instance, if our brains are adapting to the fact that we can look up information, could we possibly be improving the breadth of knowledge we are aware of.
As an example, say we have X objects. Of X objects, there are Y properties. There are also N folders. We have two classes of subjects participating in the experiment.
Subject class A is tasked with memorizing the Y properties of X objects.
Subject class B is tasked with memorizing which folder of N the Y properties of X object is located.
If for example, X = 100 and Y = 5 then N = 100.
An example result for A subjects might be an average of 5 objects where each of the 5 properties were memorized correctly. [That's 5 properties x 5 objects = 25 memory units]. The question I have, is if B subjects would remember an average of 25 objects stored in which folders correctly, or might they remember less/more correctly? If the Y properties vary in type (from color, to weight, to appearance, etc) do they require more memory power than a consistent X is in N folder memorization?
If it turns out you can memorize more about where information can be found, than you can about the actual information then it would seem that [for so long as the information can be looked up] it is more practical to catalog that information exists and where it can be found, than to engage in memorizing the information itself.
Then the idea of "being a jack of trades, master of none" has a slightly different caveat. In that one could be more-so a jack of all trades than one could master a single trade. Ie, the sum of knowledge held by the jack is greater than that held by the master.
Yes, the abstract thinker does hold onto more actual knowledge then the concrete detail thinker. Breadth really does outway depth in terms of true thought, but in the mechanized specialty world of now limiting the brain to be concerned with only a certain set of repeatable, hard to perfect or continually repeat procedures is what is rewarded for most people. We don't pay you to think, ya know ;)
As an example, say we have X objects. Of X objects, there are Y properties. There are also N folders. We have two classes of subjects participating in the experiment. Subject class A is tasked with memorizing the Y properties of X objects. Subject class B is tasked with memorizing which folder of N the Y properties of X object is located.
If for example, X = 100 and Y = 5 then N = 100. An example result for A subjects might be an average of 5 objects where each of the 5 properties were memorized correctly. [That's 5 properties x 5 objects = 25 memory units]. The question I have, is if B subjects would remember an average of 25 objects stored in which folders correctly, or might they remember less/more correctly? If the Y properties vary in type (from color, to weight, to appearance, etc) do they require more memory power than a consistent X is in N folder memorization?
If it turns out you can memorize more about where information can be found, than you can about the actual information then it would seem that [for so long as the information can be looked up] it is more practical to catalog that information exists and where it can be found, than to engage in memorizing the information itself.
Then the idea of "being a jack of trades, master of none" has a slightly different caveat. In that one could be more-so a jack of all trades than one could master a single trade. Ie, the sum of knowledge held by the jack is greater than that held by the master.