The beavers, especially, remind me of a classification of preferred action modes—people who are happiest developing and following procedures. (The other three were implementers, who want to make something happen, improvisers, and planners.)
The whole system wasn’t that people fit one category, but that most people have one mode that they strongly prefer, two that they tolerate, and one that they hate. A few people have equal preferences for at least three.
I’m curious about whether beavers split into bird-like and frog-like, with some wanting to develop theory of algorithms, and others wanting to focus in on improving particular algorithms.
The whole article seems like a counterexample to the idea of g (general intelligence)-- in math, even (especially?) the smartest people aren’t generally good at all sorts of math. There is strong specialization.
The beavers, especially, remind me of a classification of preferred action modes—people who are happiest developing and following procedures. (The other three were implementers, who want to make something happen, improvisers, and planners.)
The whole system wasn’t that people fit one category, but that most people have one mode that they strongly prefer, two that they tolerate, and one that they hate. A few people have equal preferences for at least three.
I’m curious about whether beavers split into bird-like and frog-like, with some wanting to develop theory of algorithms, and others wanting to focus in on improving particular algorithms.
The whole article seems like a counterexample to the idea of g (general intelligence)-- in math, even (especially?) the smartest people aren’t generally good at all sorts of math. There is strong specialization.
Good, interesting comments, thanks.