This is a discussion on People who seek to increase skills and knowledge, and people who seek to improve within the General Psychology forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; Originally Posted by Sparky Which do you prefer, improving yourself or improving systems? I can't choose, really; they're intertwined in ...
I feel like there needs to be a school for the creative individuals, and another school for skill- or technical-oriented individuals. The difference is that creative people are not suited for competitions, and like to ponder over things, instead of liking something then jumping to something new, accumulating ever more skills and information
There is always the question of depth and breadth of knowledge. But both are important. If you have breadth and not enough depth you cannot contribute as point or lead on something, because you lack the edge of depth to push past conventional inertia. If you have depth and not breadth then your contribution is likely to be misused or used by others and not you or used unwisely, which I argue is the single greatest issue in today's world.
Today's societies reward depth over breadth and so we are unwise, misused, and used poorly much more often than we find ourselves unable to make any contribution.
There are also people who quit at the first sight of something that they do not yet know how to do. People who ask questions, don't get an answer and are fine with it.
I do not agree with some people that say that creativity is possible for everyone. I think creativity is based on many things though. Often it is intuition that is mostly the creative seed. As such sensor activity is mostly creative in copycat ways or detail ways, rather than what I would refer to as truly creative, original, combining, etc. It is interesting because often ability to re-create detail as a copycat is seen as what is creative. It is NOT.
I think in this thread you are conflating many issues and I tried to relate them in the breadth vs depth statements. That is a more useful way to discuss it. Leaders often need breadth precisely because they need people skills or administrative skills in addition to the skill of the matter being worked on. But .. your model does not work, because those are skills number 1 and also each of those skills can be used creatively or mundanely.
The real issue is that truly creative people are fringe. They are outliers and odd. They DO NOT fit in the mainstream. As such, they make poor leaders not good ones as you suggest. They cannot or will not relate normally to others. In society there are far more mainstream people than other types. This is one factor that causes the norm scenario that defines the mainstream. Another is that the mainstream denies itself its emotional expression by tendency rather than maturity. This helps human groups to be stable which otherwise they would not be. So, again, both followers and leaders in effective groups are firstly formed based on mainstream aims and values. Only then, only after the fact, are bonus values and aims included like creativity and such. That is when the outliers are 'allowed' to step into the group and sadly it is why the outliers are FORCED to comply with mainstream virtues and aims in some ways in order to be allowed to participate. Otherwise they are left on the outside to rot, to cook in the their own frustrations, to be isolated and this often spurs their creativity and individuality even more. Wizards in towers, artists, scientists, philosophers, etc; are usually NOT part of the mainstream.
I want to mention here a special group. There are many of these fairly creative types that are also mainstream in most ways, specifically as you mention improperly, their competition. The mainstream UNDERSTANDS AND APPROVES competition. So, artists and scientists that SELL OUT to the mainstream are appreciated and rewarded. They are mostly the only ones. Others do not want to or are not appreciated because they do not.
The mainstream acceptance, in general, is what qualifies a potential leader. The ability to build consensus, inspire competition, and act loyally are the mainstream virtues. Although such people can be creative as well, I think it has far far less to do with leading that you wish to think it does.
There are creative people who are highly intelligent and skilled, who can "compete" with others, though they are still identified as cooperative and only compete on the job, like singing or as an athlete. The skill-oriented people are more likely to make themselves available to people in power or with wealth, so they are more likely to be promoted, when climbing a corporate or political ladder. This does not mean they are suited to be leaders, just that they can "outcompete" the creative individuals for attention.
Last edited by Sparky; 12-27-2017 at 11:04 PM.
I can give you what I consider to be a BETTER frame of reference. The enneagram. Within it the concept of the core types 6, 9, and 3 in particular answers to your so-called skill-oriented designation quite well. These are people that restrain their emotion by default, NOT, repeat NOT as a part of maturity. So even immature people of these types appear more in control, more stable. The motivations of these three types is also related to success in every way. They are organized (6), diplomatic and calm (9), and competitive and achievement oriented (3). Even more to the point, if they transition either in prosperity or stress, they only transition to the other types within that triangle. The effect is extremely stabilizing. That is WHY one could postulate evolution assures us that there are far more of these three enneatypes present than there are of the 6 other outlier types.
The effect you realize, the bullying, is normal. That is groupthink in general. They are more numerous and their ONLY intuitive type is type 6 which is intuitive about group status and groupthink. The external and internal intuition belong to outlier types. So, again, these core groups lend to the stability of groups of humans. But each and every aspect of bullying is also included; the gravitas and consensus building ability of the 9 and the straight up competitive streak of the 3. The 6 itself is the neutral middle group in that sense, but is also the absolute worst at resting its laurels on the numbers game. The 6s win by bringing MORE to the fight. They plan.
What you also conflate in many ways past just the term skill-oriented, is the term creative. That is because creative could mean creative with group dynamic. That is decidedly type 6 in flavor, those that happen to also be ... creative. But in general, you will find that creativity benefits from exposure at type 7 and expression at type 4. People without some strong input from those motivational vectors are only very rarely thought of as creative. For example the scientist types that are creative are most often the 5w4 types. The creative achievers are 3w4. They can also be as tritype, 3,7,X and 5,7,X; but the wings are still likely and contributory. In order to understand each other, we need to clearly define terms.
What do you mean by skill-oriented?
What do you mean by creative?
MBTI+ that Social Communist, Capital Communist, Neutral Social Communist, and Neutral Capital Communist are creative, while Capital Socialist, Social Capitalist, National Socialist, and National Capitalist are skill-oriented. While all sensors are skill-oriented, they bridge the gap between the creative intuitive people, and the skill-oriented intuitive people. The creative intuitive people are cooperative in nature, like the sensing people, while the skill-oriented intuitive people seek to outcompete others.
National Socialist (skill-oriented):
Capital Socialist (skill-oriented):
Social Capitalist (skill-oriented):
National Capitalist (skill-oriented):
Social Communist (creative oriented):
Capital Communist (creative oriented):
Social Neutral Communist (creative oriented):
Capital Neutral Communist (creative oriented):
Last edited by Sparky; 12-28-2017 at 07:50 PM.