Not quite sure what diyukim you’re talking about.
Trying to understand why each rishon/acharon had to use every step that he did and say each word that he did. This is the type of iyun that I believe is WAY overdone. This style of learning is very recent, only about 200 years old, and I don’t really believe it is emes. I have a very hard time believing the underlying assumption that the Rishonim are malachim* and every word they wrote contains a chidush.
1)Is analyzing the process by which someone reached their conclusion equal to believing that their every word contains a chiddush?
2)Sorry, but you don’t really know what you’re talking about. The methods of analyzing and understanding may have innovations, and so you won’t find the modern terminology in older seforim. But they are very often doing the same thing, using different language. On just about every page of Rishonim, besides logical questions and discussions, you will find discussion on why the Gemara needed certain steps to reach where they did, and interpretations based on nuances. And so in sifrei achronim about the rishonim. Either I’m just not understanding your references, or you just don’t know how to learn.
3)As there is so much iyun and understanding to be done evenwithout whatever diyukim you’re talking about, I don’t find your point relevant to your general issue with bekius and iyun. You think more bekius should be learned – that’s one thing. I happen to agree. But it’s another issue altogether.
Maybe we live in different universes. Just as an example that I know about – have you analyzed the marks that extremely smart, dedicated talmidei chachamim get on tests, such as Dirshu ? Sorry, but your average (and even above-average) person has a problem with long-term retention of large quantities of information. And when you spend time delving into and understanding something, you certainly retain the ideas much better.
Knowing the shakla v’tarya of a Gemara is barely even skimming a sugya. It is superficial to the extreme – as far as knowing the sugya is concerned. It is certainly worthwhile and necessary to have knowledge of many Gemaras and their shakla v’tarya. But as far as understanding goes – what you have after the rishonim and (even early) achronim are done with the sugya is often radically far from what you have after learning the daf on its own. So no, that’s not what I’d call ‘decently well’ for the point we’re discussing.
Finding fault with someone in a debate in an irrelevant point (such as grammar) is not exactly the sign of a strong position.
And is there any reason you are mocking the Ohr Zarua ? Perhaps because I’m actually showing you a Rishon who explicitly says that which you’d rather not believe ?