- Joined
- Aug 8, 2020
I think it was on 4chan /pol/ years ago that someone made a post supposedly citing a French general who was not allowed to turn away candidates or something. Since this, on my end, is coming from "some dude on 4chan," just mentally add "supposedly" wherever applicable so I don't have to write it all over the place.
His observations of these people took the form of two dichotomies: smart/stupid and lazy/industrious. The main thesis is basically summarized by this graph I made just now:
The bottom left quadrant is where most people lie. He would place them in the infantry, where most people would go, and have them dig trenches and overall just do what they're told. While their stupidity isn't a virtue, their laziness is precisely because they're stupid. They won't do anything they're not told to do. They are motivated by the prospect of being done with a job. They are easily influenced by the logic of "do it right the first time or else you have to do it again."
In the civilian workforce, they do much the same. They are generally unmotivated but will do what they are tasked with given enough prodding/incentive. Their lack of motivation also means they will be happy enough doing whatever they're doing so long as they can afford their bread and circuses.
The polar opposite, the top right, is significantly rarer. Your "A-type personality:" he's a go-getter. He is best placed in command of a small unit where he can direct others to aide him in a task he needs to accomplish. He's fast paced and quick to respond to change. His industriousness does lend the unfortunate desire to micromanage. He knows what needs to be done and how to get it done but may fall victim to putting too much on his plate.
As a civilian, he's ideal in an environment where he has underlings but is doing the task along with them. The epitome of "not a boss: but a leader."
Rarer still are those in the top left. They belong in the upper echelons in the chain of command. Their laziness means they won't do anything that someone else can do, but their intelligence means they know where those responsibilities are best delegated. He's a "big picture" kind of guy who knows the details are best left to those on the ground. He will react to poor performance wherever it happens but all he really wants is to not have to worry about it. He's the ideal boss to work for in that he tells you what needs to be done and leaves you basically free to get it done however you can.
That leaves the bottom right quadrant: an unfortunately common type of person. They are absolutely useless. You can't do anything with them. It's one thing if a guy won't do what you want him to do; he's being unproductive. But the guy that will do what you don't want him to do is being counterproductive. The stupid and industrious are always looking for something to do and don't realize just how stupid they are. They will violate orders because they think their way of doing things is better. How this general would handle them is by pretty much inventing a battalion with an important sounding name and stationing them somewhere that will never see combat.
In civilian life, they just end up hopping from job to job, being resentful of their lot in life while honestly thinking it's everyone else who's stupid for not recognizing their brilliance. All of their fuck-ups are rationalized as someone else's fault and if only they were given the opportunity to lead, they could prove their worth.
Oh, and then a lot of them go into academia where none of their fuckups actually matter unless they're caught plagiarizing or something. Most school teachers fit in this quadrant as well.
Any thoughts? Anyone know what the source of this shit is?
His observations of these people took the form of two dichotomies: smart/stupid and lazy/industrious. The main thesis is basically summarized by this graph I made just now:
The bottom left quadrant is where most people lie. He would place them in the infantry, where most people would go, and have them dig trenches and overall just do what they're told. While their stupidity isn't a virtue, their laziness is precisely because they're stupid. They won't do anything they're not told to do. They are motivated by the prospect of being done with a job. They are easily influenced by the logic of "do it right the first time or else you have to do it again."
In the civilian workforce, they do much the same. They are generally unmotivated but will do what they are tasked with given enough prodding/incentive. Their lack of motivation also means they will be happy enough doing whatever they're doing so long as they can afford their bread and circuses.
The polar opposite, the top right, is significantly rarer. Your "A-type personality:" he's a go-getter. He is best placed in command of a small unit where he can direct others to aide him in a task he needs to accomplish. He's fast paced and quick to respond to change. His industriousness does lend the unfortunate desire to micromanage. He knows what needs to be done and how to get it done but may fall victim to putting too much on his plate.
As a civilian, he's ideal in an environment where he has underlings but is doing the task along with them. The epitome of "not a boss: but a leader."
Rarer still are those in the top left. They belong in the upper echelons in the chain of command. Their laziness means they won't do anything that someone else can do, but their intelligence means they know where those responsibilities are best delegated. He's a "big picture" kind of guy who knows the details are best left to those on the ground. He will react to poor performance wherever it happens but all he really wants is to not have to worry about it. He's the ideal boss to work for in that he tells you what needs to be done and leaves you basically free to get it done however you can.
That leaves the bottom right quadrant: an unfortunately common type of person. They are absolutely useless. You can't do anything with them. It's one thing if a guy won't do what you want him to do; he's being unproductive. But the guy that will do what you don't want him to do is being counterproductive. The stupid and industrious are always looking for something to do and don't realize just how stupid they are. They will violate orders because they think their way of doing things is better. How this general would handle them is by pretty much inventing a battalion with an important sounding name and stationing them somewhere that will never see combat.
In civilian life, they just end up hopping from job to job, being resentful of their lot in life while honestly thinking it's everyone else who's stupid for not recognizing their brilliance. All of their fuck-ups are rationalized as someone else's fault and if only they were given the opportunity to lead, they could prove their worth.
Oh, and then a lot of them go into academia where none of their fuckups actually matter unless they're caught plagiarizing or something. Most school teachers fit in this quadrant as well.
Any thoughts? Anyone know what the source of this shit is?
Last edited:
