Friday, November 17, 2006
There are two types of people in this world: quick and slow.
The quick behave thus: they make swift decisions. They will take the nearest exit, even if it is wrong, because they are confident they will soon find out and be able to double-back on themselves swiftly. They learn immediately from their many mistakes and move on. They think about a lot of things, all at once, and sometimes get a little jumbled, but their brains are always on the move. They are quick-witted. In repartee, they are the ones coming up with one or two smart comments in rapid succession. A problem presented to them is solved quickly and effectively through trial and error, and they will also be able to add enhancements to it.
They are inventors, comedians, writers, politicians, teachers, actors, soldiers, day traders. They are the ones who won't loiter in crowded streets. They will always find a gap, a way through. They tend not to like things that they can't do immediately, and tend often to hate maths. They hate chess, but love trivial pursuit or tic tac toe.
They eat and drink quickly. Fall in love quickly. Have emotional ups and downs - sometimes several in a day. They rarely hold a grudge, and tend to forgive easily. They don't take "career breaks" or "relationship breaks." They either do, or do not. They hate being forced to stop or slow down. They tend to be fidgets, flirty, social butterflies. They like juggling projects, or doing lots of different things. They tend to be as close to jack of all trades as they can, but fight against what they think might bind them or tie them down. They will be the ones who get a seat on a crowded train, but also the ones to notice a pregnant woman or old person, and offer them a seat. Their conversations are animated, but disjointed.
Tend to be the ones who stare at maps to make sure they are going the right way, even if that means they hold other people up. They are the sort who stop immediately outside a train station or bus to look around and make sure they are where they should be. They sometimes have vacant expressions on their faces, but this does not mean they are stupid. They just take a while to process facts. They tend not to be social butterflies. They like to indulge in logical, streamlined conversations.
They like strategy games where they can take their time and think ahead - chess, Risk, etc. They hate being rushed and are usually the last to finish their meals, drinks, last to arrive at places (because they were checking everything). They are also the last to leave.
They like to tick boxes, diarise everything and make sure it's marked off. They make good engineers, theologians, counsellors, architects, investment managers, economists, golfers, snooker players. They like maths and languages, they might like writing but they are not essentially literary and creative. They won't read everything that comes their way because it takes longer for them to process stuff. Writing 3000 words in a day would horrify them.
They don't like trial and error because they want to take their time thinking everything through first, exploring all hypothetical alleyways before making a decision. They are savers, not spenders, but tend not to be sure what to spend on. They spend ages in shops working out what will be best, and do not have a strong sense of time.
They tend to hold grudges, place too much emphasis on what people think of them, dwell on the past and think things over too deeply. They tend to have sulks, or remain in a mood, good or bad, for a long time. They tend to be placid and don't get hot-headed so easily, but will ascribe too much significance to other people's reactions and actions. They don't people watch, and are unlikely to spot celebrities, seats on trains, what people are wearing. They rarely throw out clothes even if they are old. They will never wear Monday's pants on a wednesday. It would not feel right!
People I think fall into each category
Quick: Albert Einstein, Jeremy Paxman, the Duke of Wellington, Margaret Thatcher, Edward Jenner, Rommel
Slow: Charles Darwin, Napoleon, Winston Churchill, Mervyn King, Warren Buffet, Stephen Hendry, Rowan Williams,
Do the two necessarily gel? I think they grate on each other, yes. Whether they are incompatible or not, I do not know. A mutual understanding of themselves and the other person would go a long way to making them the perfect unit. Though I don't think Napoleon and the D. of Wellington would agree!
at 7:57 am