by jsciv
DaviddesJ wrote:
jsciv wrote:
People don't think through stuff in the same way, and someone subject to an actual paralysis in their thinking are not going to be effective given more time (or less), while someone who is capable of methodical thought all the way to the end of the known probabilities is going to be able to more quickly find a "right" decision (when there is one)
I strongly disagree.
One of the biggest differences between personality types (or intelligences, if you prefer) is persistence. What do people do when faced with a hard problem? Some people think for a short time and then are paralyzed by indecision if there's no clear answer. Some people think for a short time and then come to a conclusion based on limited thought, which they will never go beyond even if given much more time to think. And some people will come up with better decisions and better analyses the longer they think.
The third type of people tend to be concentrated in certain professions that reward persistence. Much of academic research in math and the theoretical sciences, for example, requires the ability to keep working for hours (days, weeks, months, years) on a problem even once some has come to some preliminary impressions. To be able and willing to look deeper and challenge and possibly change those initial impressions.
I agree that, in my observation, the inability to persist on a problem and to translate more thought into better decisions, is a common human limitation. But it's not a universal one.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I didn't posit only those two types of thinkers, I merely used them as extreme examples of difference. In fact I suspect that most of us vacillate among many styles of thinking over the course of our gaming careers (possibly even within the same session of a game depending on the day and any outside factors).
I agree with what you've said here, but I don't see the relevance to what I said.