I tend to think humans are mostly (~70%) defined by context. This implies that the core ideas behind things like personality, IQ, skills, etc. are delusions. Our identities and all the "derived traits" like introvertedness or kindness or sexuality are fluid. If these traits seem robust (obtain across multiple, seemingly different contexts), it is because there are deeper similarities to those contexts that we do/can/have not measured.
Part of the magic of complex life forms is our behavioral repertoire. And humans have a huge repertoire, at least compared to the less complex life forms. So, I would agree with you that those on this list have both tendencies, but go much much further and say every human, everywhere, has a large dose of _all_ tendencies. It simply takes the right context to bring out any given tendency. And that's the underlying message of the article. On 10/26/2016 05:31 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > This is naturally pretty anecdotal and roughly a sample of one, but since it > is *my* experience, I believe in it's relevance and veracity. While we > might have a wide spread of natures, experiences and conditions on this list, > I would propose that many here have a bit of both tendencies... high enough, > individualistic abilities and interests to become technologists (or choose > the technological realm to conduct your work), but also enough social > skills/tolerance/preference to function within one kind of institution or > another. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
