“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Coeruleum is in charge.
No, I try to surround myself with the highest quality people I can find. It's hard enough to get through the day without any help, so the better the help I can get, the better the output.
Two things.
One, many people believe that if they hire someone smarter than they are, that person will take over. Personality theory disproves that, but a lot of people believe it. That's why A people hire A people and B people hire C people.
Two, not everyone wants to be king. Some people just want to get something accomplished.
I'm actually surrounded by people from all quadras, but Gamma is over-represented. It's a natural thing to want to spend more time with people you like and understand, but it's not the best strategy in the long run. People from other quadras can cover bases that you didn't even realize were there. But most of the people I spend time with tend to be smart. It's just better for getting things done.
I was teasing you Adam. I didn't mean for you to take "king" or the rest of my response so literal.
If I hire someone to do a specific job I obviously want them to be smarter or, at the very least, better at it than me.
Remember, you were the one who claimed that most with an IQ over 100 didn't know what they were doing. That was why I teased you over it.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
OK, @Aylen, sorry to have misunderstood.
Actually, most people do know what they are doing in certain given areas, no matter their IQ. But people with high IQ's are particularly susceptible to thinking that they could be experts in all areas, and that is far from the case.
I believed that I could do anything well for a long time, and then I re-tiled my bathtub because, how hard can that be? Well, I found out. It looked perfect for two days, and then the grout discolored and eventually the tiles started falling off the wall.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
So A, B, and C just means first, second, and third quality for innate personality? I've never heard of this theory but I assumed it was type A, B, and C like As are anal and Bs are banal and Cs are canal or something. Yeah, equality of rank is good but capitalism depends on middle-managers as far as I can tell which is one of the problems with it.
I was using A, B, and C to refer to different levels of constructive behavior.
In this case, A people would be fairly healthy and would not be afraid to hire people who are more talented than they are because they place the welfare of the group over their own welfare.
B people would never hire anyone who was talented enough to displace them or who might place the welfare of the group over loyalty to their boss.
C people have no plan whatsoever. They are just putting in their time in exchange for some money.
A very good question, @ouronis.
I’d say, people hire B’s when they don’t know what they are doing. Or even which game they are playing.