• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Trying to determine what I'm best at

Ezra

Luctor et emergo
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
534
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Zergling

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,377
MBTI Type
ExTJ
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.

You are not good at computer games or military skills, but work better in some other area.

The Keirsey skills don't seem to be backed up well by how people actually seem to act, so I would take that method of dividing up skills with a big block of salt.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't know if there is no coordination.

Tactical behavior is definitely keyed for on the battlefield. (And not computer-game battlefields either... they don't count because you don't DIE irl if you screw up!)

A Strategic thinker is more likely to die on the battlefield if caught unawares or for something they didn't plan for.

Logistical thinkers seem to focus very well on specific details of getting one thing to another -- all the practical realities imposed on allocation of resources.

Diplomats would rather find a compromise than shoot the enemy, if they get a choice. Not great for them in battle either, then... they empathize too much. Either they don't bury it and end up getting killed (because they hesitate) or they bury it and end up with PTSS.

But in real-life, these things play out. I find in my own life that my problems now are mostly caused by trying to persist in Strategic thinking when the time for strategy is past, and what i really need to use are other types of thinking: Reacting appropriately in the moment to what is going on and figuring out how to apply to what resources (and sticking to plan!) I have to the situation.

I keep wanting to hold off and enter the situation in the way that provides the best outcome (strategic)... but sometimes it is more effective to go in.

Anyway, computer games don't count much due to the lack of permanent ramifications. If your life depended on it, would your strategy ability go up? I don't know. Right now you just might not be wasting energy thinking things out and playing more "P" style, relaxed.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
My ISTP husband is great at strategy games.
I usually (maybe always) lose games that require strategy.
 

OctaviaCaesar

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
211
MBTI Type
INFJ
Maybe it's not a question of what you are best at, it's a question of what you like the best--Kiersey often mentions in his book that his descriptions of type and temperament reflect optimal development in the best possible environment for a person. If you are not good at certain things, perhaps you weren't able to do them when you were younger, and can give yourself the chance now to develop as your personality leads you...I know I have spent the first part of my adult life being pushed into a Logistical frame of reference, when it's not (anywhere near!) as natural as my preferred Diplomatic mindset. Unfortunately for many of us Ns, there are few role-models that we can point to to convince others that we can be fine (i.e., successful, comfortable, fulfilled) being our own NF or NT selves...
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,981
You cannot pursue one type of skill to the exclusion of all others.

For instance, I would be a "strategist" from KTT.

However, anything that requires good strategy requires good tactics as well.
Whether it is a computer game, board game, solving a math-problem, putting together a computer program, or whatever. Poor tactics can ruin any strategy.

Actually I could say anything at all requires good tactical skills. Good diplomacy requires good tactics, as does good logistics. Perhaps that's why SPs are the most naturally talented people.

Anything that involves people requires "diplomacy," even if on a small scale. I am pretty sure in KTT, it is meant in broad terms (not specifically acting like a diplomat).

Anything that involves surviving, sustaining, or thriving in the long term requires good logistical skills. I am not military historian, but more wars in the olden days were lost due to bad logistics than any other reason. Run out of food, ammo, or other supplies, and the military will be hurting. Waste-not. Want-not.

Anything that involves improving a whole system to produce more results requires strategic thinking. Usually, at this point tactics, logistics, and diplomacy are all working at peak capacity ("capacity" is kind of a strategists way of thinking about things). Strategy, is often viewed by those with other main talents as "cheesy," "cheap," or "lazy" because the improvements can be immense for little actual effort while successful strategic improvements are few, and far between (with many "cheap" tricks failing to work). But imo, a successful strategic improvement share a few things, (1)it is pervasive, or themed, and seems to apply everywhere in a system, (2) it is cohesive in that the parts work well together, (3) it is open, in that it allows plenty of room for brand new forms of improvement from tactics, logistics, and diplomacy. For this reason, even those who believe they will make good strategists, will not be allowed to try out their ideas till the other skills are sufficient.

Did I make strategy sound too good? Well, I am biased. :D
 

millerm277

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
978
MBTI Type
ISTP
Anything that involves surviving, sustaining, or thriving in the long term requires good logistical skills. I am not military historian, but more wars in the olden days were lost due to bad logistics than any other reason. Run out of food, ammo, or other supplies, and the military will be hurting. Waste-not. Want-not.

Correct you are. Hell, a good portion of the reason the tide turned against Germany when it did is because they didn't give their soldiers much in winter clothing. (-40F and a few feet of snow, with you having trouble staving off frostbite is more demoralizing than the worst defeat).
 
Top