> The "CB's" he's describing are so incredibly transparent, they might as well be strawmen.
Strawmen or not, I've worked for two. Those aren't fond memories.
Strawmen or not, I've worked for two. Those aren't fond memories.
I'm confused why so many commenters are quick to shout "B.S" on this article (are they BSers in hiding?) but maybe he is oversimplifying too much. True S-W types are pretty rare and are probably evidence of some extreme psychological disorder. (E.g., malignant narcissism or sociopathy. Robert Hare is a researcher in criminal psychology and wrote a book on such people: https://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp...).
maybe he is oversimplifying too much
I think that's it. Even distilled down to two variables ("smart" and "work"), you're talking about three "extremes": [1.0S,1.0W], [1.0S,0.0W], and [0.0S,1.0W]. Most people are probably in the 0.25-0.75 range on both variables.There are almost certainly more variables, and "smart" and "work" are terribly named.
In other words, an individual's value is context-dependent. It's really hard to make such crisp distinctions as in the article.