High-level concepts vs low-level details

It won't be a secret which one I favor, but there are disadvantages to both sets of framing. Explanations of high-level concepts invites suspicion whether you are competent enough to execute effectively. Recitations of low-level details suggests you follow the rules but you do not understand why the boundaries of the penalty box exist. It might seem like mastery of both is necessary, but that is even more inefficient for progress to goals. People are either stronger at high-level concepts or low-level details because these frameworks reflect their personalities, and how they perceive the world. While it is certainly possible to employ one framework or the other at different points, eventually the "true" personality will surface, and the role and responsibility of that person must be suited to that personality, or they risk being unsuccessful in their forward progress. Question is, why is that?

Growth mindset and fixed mindset are two other common frame of references for how situations can be perceived and processed.

Low-level details are absolutely critical if you want to focus on flawless quality and iterable results. The most minute differences in your experiments can change the entire outcome of your hypothesis. It is worth noting the details.

High-level concepts are the details, zoomed out, to become clouds that vaguely resemble shapes, but those shapes are mutable and fickle. They are difficult to grasp, but the moments when they are whole, they create a wonder like no other, and that experience helps you believe in dreams again. Faith is reinstilled, because that moment of clarity proves the value of the hypothesis. A cloud in detail is mist and fog, and it is too easy to get lost.