It's like being right or left handed. And you wouldn't want to box against George Foreman even if he uses his off hand.
Intuitors just start with the big picture as their basic instinct, then fill in the details. Sensors start with detail and build up to the big picture.
Is that closer to the actual cognitive mechanics, or closer to a myth that's nevertheless useful for classifying people?
For example, in some empirical behavior research, person A seemed to have better snap decisions but poor at follow-though, and person B seemed to be asking about details... Has that nailed some key innate difference in how A and B actually think, or merely -- for purposes of, say, assigning military conscripts to jobs, or a huge corporate hiring machine that can't care beyond commodities -- at least it's a classification?
Maybe it's better than chance at predicting exhibited behavior (absent training), and we don't know that it reflects the actual cognitive mechanics?
What about someone who is strong intuitive, but starting the next moment they're very detail-oriented, and also the person you'd most trust for meticulous coding that had to work?
> But I find these letter rules make a great shortcut for 97% of people.
Do we want to try to hire people who have qualities that would spanning these headshrinker buckets? If so, maybe we're dealing a lot with that missing "3%", so trying to pigeon-hole people would frequently be counterproductive?