Calculus and difEQ were, part of our curriculum as well, but I truly didn't really understand any math, until I had my first engineering project requiring it. I didn't remember what to do, but remembered which book the formula was in and after applying it to a practical problem that was real one time, never ever had to look it up again. That was because I saw the relationship and understood what they were doing.
It is mostly by working in my field that I understand what I do, and have always made a point to cultivate relationships with bright folks expert in their own fields, to guide me in areas that I don't fully understand.
To the issue of conflict, my training and experience leading think tanks, leads me to believe that our individual personality types can be divided into at least three, if not four different groups. Some personality styles are diametrically opposed to one another, but each has its place in the overall scheme and without their balancing influence, the results are less perfect.
For instance, a Directive might be a big picture guy focusing on the big project picture, to make sure it is completed on schedule, within budget, and within spec, while a Precisive might be meticulously going over each detail twice, to make sure there is no possibility for error.
During that same period, any Emotives would be focused on keeping the group cohesive, by focusing more on interpersonal issues, that the other two styles.
The point is, that without anyone of the three styles, a project has less chance of success, because the Precisive will drive the Directives up a tree meticulously going over detail and adding to elapsed project time, but without the attention to detail, it may look like a widget, but it won't start up and run when you turn the key.
Without the Directive, the project might never be completely closed, much less on time, and without the Emotives, the Precisives may not stick around.
However you slice it, we produce a better thoughtout product, when we share and debate our views, as long as it is fair argumentation.
Fair argumentation says that we focus on the issue, not on the messenger. That keeps egoes and emotions from leaping into play, and diverting the central issue, besides squelshing valuble resoures.
The issue can be a scientific (??) fact, or even an action taken by a participant, but not the personal shortfalls of the individual themselves.
Also consider that most often someone that is highly gifted in a specific area, is not paying close attention to others, so they're not always socially graceful. Anyone paying attention to all areas, isn't very focused on any of them, even if they are neater to be around.
If we considered each other as cells of the same body, how would that change the way we treat each other?
