Right, I was sat in a class on Battle Procedure yesterday afternoon at the barracks, and our Sgt Maj was asking us how we might best approach a given situation. While listening to this, in the back of my mind was Keirsey and his four skills, relating to the four different temperaments; Tactics (SP), Logistics (SJ), Diplomacy (NF), Strategy (NT). Now, he mentioned both tactics and logistics. He says "think tactically about why you'd use diversionary fire", and he talks about the logistics of both the enemy and yourself. Evidently, there is little to no place for strategy here (it all comes down to battlefield tactics for a mere officer), and certainly no place for diplomacy. Since I'm mediocre (or I believe myself to be mediocre) at both tactics and logistics, I must be good at diplomacy and strategy. Yet I play online strategy games (Dawn of War and Age of Empires) and my win ratio is 30% which is below average. Now, I'm thinking "am I good at strategy, and these games are more about tactics i.e. what's right for the right situation and enemy, and they're incorrectly named 'strategy games', or is it that I am truly shit at strategy, and I might actually be better at tactics and logistics after all?"
My question to you is this: how would I determine what I'm best at? Preferably someone with experience of KTT (Keirsey Temperament Theory) could here aid me in my quest. Any help would be greatful.