Originally Posted by Xer H

Amen to that. It's very compelling.

How does it work as a predictor?

First the disclaimer: Generations do not act as a unit when it comes to political views. We might think of environmentalism as being a Boomer trait and fiscal conservatism as an Xer trait, for example, because those are the views that were popularized by those generations when coming of age. In other words, every political view is multi-generational. However, we can stereotype.

Therefore, we have Freedom-loving Boomers pitted against Challenge-loving Xers, creating an open society which is a mirror image of the last saeculum (Challenge-loving Missionaries pitted against Freedom loving Lost). Of course we also have the Comfort-loving Millennials. What we just had, then, was a Freedom-dominated 3T. In contrast, WWI/roaring 20’s was a Challenge-dominated 3T. [Note that Nomads are always the loyal opposition.]

Because the Boomers’ “second choice” is Comfort, they are able to guide the Millennials toward a Comfort society. (“Comfort,” in this case may simply mean the absence of new “advancement” ideas.) Xers, on the other hand, are diametrically opposed to this. Therefore it becomes a battle for the wills, which is the actual cause of the 4T. In this case, the Tea Party movement represents GenX, while the Left represents Boomers-Millennials.

Regardless of how events play out in this 4T, the following things should hold true:

1) The Xer preference for Challenge must be quenched. As society moves toward closure, Xers will feel a greater responsibility, preferring Structure. This will result in a Comfort-dominated 1T (thanks to Millennials and Homelanders), in which Xers will again be the odd generation out. [Note that the last 1T was Structure-dominated, with Comfort-preferring Lost.]

2) Millennials will ultimately be defined by the outcome of the 4T. Glorious were named for a glorious outcome; Republicans were named for the new republic that emerged; “Greatest” were so named because America felt great. (If America’s status is diminished, Millennials will NOT be called “New Greatest.”) Prophets are the soul of the Saeculum; Heroes are the embodiment.

3) A 1T following a major victory is a High; a 1T following a major defeat definitely is NOT. Either way, it will be a time of simplified political thought.

One major change to my thinking is that I now realize that a 4T has less to do with whether society is experiencing an actual crisis, than it does whether the societal tendency is to seek simplification in order to deal with the issues.

Concerning your point 3: some time ago in a discussion of High vs Austerity 1Ts, someone came up with the felicitous name "Recovery Period." I have used it ever since.

Strauss & Howe were a bit too focused on America's 1T in the last saeculum.

Originally Posted by JDW

First the disclaimer: Generations do not act as a unit when it comes to political views. We might think of environmentalism as being a Boomer trait and fiscal conservatism as an Xer trait, for example, because those are the views that were popularized by those generations when coming of age. In other words, every political view is multi-generational. However, we can stereotype.

Therefore, we have Freedom-loving Boomers pitted against Challenge-loving Xers, creating an open society which is a mirror image of the last saeculum (Challenge-loving Missionaries pitted against Freedom loving Lost). Of course we also have the Comfort-loving Millennials. What we just had, then, was a Freedom-dominated 3T. In contrast, WWI/roaring 20’s was a Challenge-dominated 3T. [Note that Nomads are always the loyal opposition.]

Because the Boomers’ “second choice” is Comfort, they are able to guide the Millennials toward a Comfort society. (“Comfort,” in this case may simply mean the absence of new “advancement” ideas.) Xers, on the other hand, are diametrically opposed to this. Therefore it becomes a battle for the wills, which is the actual cause of the 4T. In this case, the Tea Party movement represents GenX, while the Left represents Boomers-Millennials.

Regardless of how events play out in this 4T, the following things should hold true:

1) The Xer preference for Challenge must be quenched. As society moves toward closure, Xers will feel a greater responsibility, preferring Structure. This will result in a Comfort-dominated 1T (thanks to Millennials and Homelanders), in which Xers will again be the odd generation out. [Note that the last 1T was Structure-dominated, with Comfort-preferring Lost.]

2) Millennials will ultimately be defined by the outcome of the 4T. Glorious were named for a glorious outcome; Republicans were named for the new republic that emerged; “Greatest” were so named because America felt great. (If America’s status is diminished, Millennials will NOT be called “New Greatest.”) Prophets are the soul of the Saeculum; Heroes are the embodiment.

3) A 1T following a major victory is a High; a 1T following a major defeat definitely is NOT. Either way, it will be a time of simplified political thought.

One major change to my thinking is that I now realize that a 4T has less to do with whether society is experiencing an actual crisis, than it does whether the societal tendency is to seek simplification in order to deal with the issues.

This was a great read.

Originally Posted by JDW

One major change to my thinking is that I now realize that a 4T has less to do with whether society is experiencing an actual crisis, than it does whether the societal tendency is to seek simplification in order to deal with the issues.

That's a great insight. But we do have a history of fairly bloody 4Ts, so maybe that ties into the conversation about violence being an inherent part of humanity. And I'm sure someone can weigh in on the not-so-violent 4Ts in pre-American times.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Concerning your point 3: some time ago in a discussion of High vs Austerity 1Ts, someone came up with the felicitous name "Recovery Period." I have used it ever since.

That was certainly true of the post-Civil War 1T. I like "recovery period." I have a feeling this 4T is going to be followed by something less than a "high." Chances are, it will feel more like a hangover.

Originally Posted by Xer H

That was certainly true of the post-Civil War 1T. I like "recovery period." I have a feeling this 4T is going to be followed by something less than a "high." Chances are, it will feel more like a hangover.

A Hangover, huh?

Are you suggesting 20 years of us being in a cloudy morning after daze or head ache?

What a way to live out my mid life years...

LOL, and my Elderhood.

But, as with any turning, there are good times and bad times. Cue Chas' Micro-Turnings theory.

Originally Posted by JDW

First the disclaimer: Generations do not act as a unit when it comes to political views. We might think of environmentalism as being a Boomer trait and fiscal conservatism as an Xer trait, for example, because those are the views that were popularized by those generations when coming of age. In other words, every political view is multi-generational. However, we can stereotype.

Therefore, we have Freedom-loving Boomers pitted against Challenge-loving Xers, creating an open society which is a mirror image of the last saeculum (Challenge-loving Missionaries pitted against Freedom loving Lost). Of course we also have the Comfort-loving Millennials. What we just had, then, was a Freedom-dominated 3T. In contrast, WWI/roaring 20’s was a Challenge-dominated 3T. [Note that Nomads are always the loyal opposition.]

Because the Boomers’ “second choice” is Comfort, they are able to guide the Millennials toward a Comfort society. (“Comfort,” in this case may simply mean the absence of new “advancement” ideas.) Xers, on the other hand, are diametrically opposed to this. Therefore it becomes a battle for the wills, which is the actual cause of the 4T. In this case, the Tea Party movement represents GenX, while the Left represents Boomers-Millennials.

Regardless of how events play out in this 4T, the following things should hold true:

1) The Xer preference for Challenge must be quenched. As society moves toward closure, Xers will feel a greater responsibility, preferring Structure. This will result in a Comfort-dominated 1T (thanks to Millennials and Homelanders), in which Xers will again be the odd generation out. [Note that the last 1T was Structure-dominated, with Comfort-preferring Lost.]

2) Millennials will ultimately be defined by the outcome of the 4T. Glorious were named for a glorious outcome; Republicans were named for the new republic that emerged; “Greatest” were so named because America felt great. (If America’s status is diminished, Millennials will NOT be called “New Greatest.”) Prophets are the soul of the Saeculum; Heroes are the embodiment.

3) A 1T following a major victory is a High; a 1T following a major defeat definitely is NOT. Either way, it will be a time of simplified political thought.

One major change to my thinking is that I now realize that a 4T has less to do with whether society is experiencing an actual crisis, than it does whether the societal tendency is to seek simplification in order to deal with the issues.

Could you post some more on the differences between Advancement and Atonement Civic generations?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Concerning your point 3: some time ago in a discussion of High vs Austerity 1Ts, someone came up with the felicitous name "Recovery Period." I have used it ever since.

Strauss & Howe were a bit too focused on America's 1T in the last saeculum.

I can't claim exclusive credit, but I am one of the advocates of the use of the term recovery for 1T's. A 1T may be high or it may be austere, but as long as the society survives the crises there will be a recovery of some sort after the crises.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Concerning your point 3: some time ago in a discussion of High vs Austerity 1Ts, someone came up with the felicitous name "Recovery Period." I have used it ever since.

Strauss & Howe were a bit too focused on America's 1T in the last saeculum.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I can't claim exclusive credit, but I am one of the advocates of the use of the term recovery for 1T's. A 1T may be high or it may be austere, but as long as the society survives the crises there will be a recovery of some sort after the crises.

Regardless of who desrves the credit, I'm going to try and use the term Recovery High in the future; Keeping the term "High" so people don't get mixed-up. I've tried to do the same with Hero-Civic.

PoC67

PS: Thanks loads to both of you! Any Terminology that helps better describe the Concepts we discuss is VERY PRODUCTIVE IMO!

Wow! You both get Three Smilies!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Odin

Could you post some more on the differences between Advancement and Atonement Civic generations?

I 2nd this request

Originally Posted by Odin

Could you post some more on the differences between Advancement and Atonement Civic generations?

The only complete S&H history that we have for atonement heroes is Cotton Mather’s Glorious generation, which makes it hard to generalize. Therefore, we are mostly left to theory to describe how Millennials will be different from advancement heroes. The best that I can suggest is to go online and read about INTJ versus INFJ, comparing the former to the GIs and seeing how Millennials match up with the latter. Interestingly, I ran across a site suggesting that Jimmy Carter was INFJ. If that’s true, then it could give us a very good indication of a future Millennial president who doesn’t seem to “get” those who prefer advancement over atonement.

Originally Posted by JDW

The only complete S&H history that we have for atonement heroes is Cotton Mather’s Glorious generation, which makes it hard to generalize. Therefore, we are mostly left to theory to describe how Millennials will be different from advancement heroes. The best that I can suggest is to go online and read about INTJ versus INFJ, comparing the former to the GIs and seeing how Millennials match up with the latter. Interestingly, I ran across a site suggesting that Jimmy Carter was INFJ. If that’s true, then it could give us a very good indication of a future Millennial president who doesn’t seem to “get” those who prefer advancement over atonement.

Well, I am an INFJ, So I guess I fit.

Originally Posted by JDW

The only complete S&H history that we have for atonement heroes is Cotton Mather’s Glorious generation, which makes it hard to generalize. Therefore, we are mostly left to theory to describe how Millennials will be different from advancement heroes. The best that I can suggest is to go online and read about INTJ versus INFJ, comparing the former to the GIs and seeing how Millennials match up with the latter. Interestingly, I ran across a site suggesting that Jimmy Carter was INFJ. If that’s true, then it could give us a very good indication of a future Millennial president who doesn’t seem to “get” those who prefer advancement over atonement.

That actually does make sense IMO. Most of the people I know that are politically passionate are INFJs. However, a Millie President might do better than Carter because he'll be an Atoner in a generation of Atoners instead of one in a generation of Advancers.

I'm an INFJ too but, ironically, I find Atonement to be a waste of time right now. If we spend the next 30 years feeling sorry for ourselves, we'll be winging and consuming, consuming and winging until the Earth cannot handle it. Then the oil will run out and we'll actually have something to bitch about.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I'm an INFJ too but, ironically, I find Atonement to be a waste of time right now. If we spend the next 30 years feeling sorry for ourselves, we'll be winging and consuming, consuming and winging until the Earth cannot handle it. Then the oil will run out and we'll actually have something to bitch about.

Rose, thats because we are atonement types in an atonement world. INFJs like to grow and so it makes sense that we are ready to advance now.

Aren't INFJ's always the odd one out, anyway?

Try being an INTP in first, a Sensate-driven 1T, and then a Values-driven rest of the saeculum.

Originally Posted by JDW

The only complete S&H history that we have for atonement heroes is Cotton Mather’s Glorious generation, which makes it hard to generalize. Therefore, we are mostly left to theory to describe how Millennials will be different from advancement heroes. The best that I can suggest is to go online and read about INTJ versus INFJ, comparing the former to the GIs and seeing how Millennials match up with the latter. Interestingly, I ran across a site suggesting that Jimmy Carter was INFJ. If that’s true, then it could give us a very good indication of a future Millennial president who doesn’t seem to “get” those who prefer advancement over atonement.

I reread information on the Glorious Generation in Generations and still can't come up with a possible roll for the millennials.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

That actually does make sense IMO. Most of the people I know that are politically passionate are INFJs. However, a Millie President might do better than Carter because he'll be an Atoner in a generation of Atoners instead of one in a generation of Advancers.

I'm an INFJ too but, ironically, I find Atonement to be a waste of time right now. If we spend the next 30 years feeling sorry for ourselves, we'll be winging and consuming, consuming and winging until the Earth cannot handle it. Then the oil will run out and we'll actually have something to bitch about.

Honestly it won't happen, Gen X won't let it happen. Something I'm learning from doing The Cherry Orchard is that if the Idealists continue to throw the pity party and refuse to do what needs to be done, the Nomads push them aside and seize the moment. Lopakhin spends the entire play saying that Liubov and Leonid should chop down the orchard and develop the land for vacation homes, but Liubov and Leonid think it's an outrageous and vulgar idea that offends their sense of the past glory of their parents and grandparents that they cling to. However they don't do anything else to save the estate beyond depending upon the stingy Adaptive godmother of Liubov's daughter Anya. The play shows how Lopakhin eventually seizes the moment and makes his dream come true, they're just waiting for the moment, if the Idealists fail to heed their warning... they'll just take over.

The Civics then become the only refuge for the Idealists. The Civics take their parents away and promise things like Anya does here at the end of Act III & Act IV, after Liubov has just had a party (that they can't afford to hold) while the Cherry Orchard is being sold at auction:

Act III

Mama! Mama, you're crying. Mama dear, I love you, i'll take care of you. The cherry orchard is sold, it's gone now, that's the truth, Mama, that's the truth, but don't cry. You still have your life to lead, you're still a good person... Come with me, Mama, we'll go away, someplace far away from here. We'll plant a new orchard, even better than this one, you'll see, Mama, you'll understand, and you'll feel a new kind of joy, like a light in your soul... Let's go, Mama. Let's go.

Act IV

And you'll come back soon, won't you? You promise? I'll study hard and get my diploma, and then I'll get a job and help you out. We can read together the way we used to, can't we? (Kisses her mother's hands) We'll spend long autumn evenings together; we'll read lots of books and learn all about the wonderful new world of the future... (Dreamily) Don't forget, Mama, you promised...

However, if anyone knows Chekhov's other plays, work is an enslavement that kills spirit, especially the spirit of young girls.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Rose1992

That actually does make sense IMO. Most of the people I know that are politically passionate are INFJs. However, a Millie President might do better than Carter because he'll be an Atoner in a generation of Atoners instead of one in a generation of Advancers.

I'm an INFJ too but, ironically, I find Atonement to be a waste of time right now. If we spend the next 30 years feeling sorry for ourselves, we'll be winging and consuming, consuming and winging until the Earth cannot handle it. Then the oil will run out and we'll actually have something to bitch about.

If there are that many INFJs here, why the aversion to astrology? INFJ is the prophet, counselor, and highly intuitive; at least that's supposed to be so. INFJ is not a scientific type.

Originally Posted by JDW

I’d like to introduce a concept that occurred to me a few years ago that applies both to Myers-Briggs and to generations. I call it the “personality compass.” Here’s how it works:

People are generally motivated primarily by one of four things:

Comfort (or security)
Freedom (or pleasure)
Structure (or responsibility)
Challenge (or mastery)

Note that Comfort and Challenge are opposites, as are Structure and Freedom. Therefore, each individual (or generation) tends to prefer only two of them. Applying Myers-Briggs traits we get the following:

Comfort – FJ
Freedom – FP
Structure – TJ
Challenge – TP

I had some of my pick one of the four, and their choices matched their T/F and J/P preferences, for the most part. The next task was to pick two. Here’s how it generally turned out:

Comfort and Freedom – NF
Structure and Challenge – NT
Comfort and Structure – SJ
Freedom and Challenge – SP

On the subliminal side, the following is also generally true:

The NF’s need for Structure is satisfied by Comfort (Security), and his/her need for Challenge is satisfied by Freedom (Pleasure).
The NT’s need for Comfort is satisfied by Structure (Responsibility), and his/her need for Freedom is satisfied by Challenge (Mastery).
The SJ’s need for Freedom is satisfied by Comfort (Security), and his/her need for Challenge is satisfied by Structure (Responsibility).
The SP’s need for Comfort is satisfied by Freedom (Pleasure), and his/her need for Structure is satisfied by Challenge (Mastery).

Here’s how it relates to generations:

Missionary – Challenge (Mastery) seeking
Lost – Pleasure seeking, in youth; Comfort seeking in later years
GI – Structure seeking
Silent – Structure (Responsibility) seeking in youth; Freedom seeking in later years
Boomer – Freedom (Pleasure) seeking
Xer – Challenge seeking, in youth; Structure seeking in later years
Millennial – Comfort (Security) seeking
Homelander (think Progressive) – Security seeking, in youth; Challenge seeking in later years

Good start, but I think people need to get away from the mistake made by Kiersey. The four types are not combinations of either N/S or T/F with J/P.

F,T,N,S are psychological interior functions, and ways of processing information.
J/P/E/I are modes of energy and behavior.

I think the two are quite distinct. It would be nice if people came up with analyses that were based on a proportional and logical combination of the Myers-Briggs types.

That said, I think your four types are worth considering. There is something to it. I have a wheel symbol I work with based on philosophy, with four directions. Left and Right on the Wheel definitely have to do with freedom and structure. Up and Down have to do with spiritual vs. material. The material direction at least is similar to a desire for security. This is not an identical idea to yours, but it shows there is a basic universal pattern we are both hooking into.

For what it's worth, My approach would yield the following:

Challenge = spiritualist = NF and maybe I (perhaps predominantly prophets)
Comfort = materialist = ST and maybe E (some tendency toward nomads, maybe adaptives in later years)
Freedom = existentialist = SF and P (some relationship to adaptives, and nomads in early years)
Structure = rationalist = NT and J (some relationship to civics)

I think my definition of "challenge" would not be problem-solving, and so not T, but imagination and ability to have ideas and seek change to bring them into being. It would be like RFK's statement "I see things that never were, and say why not." That is most of all related to the N function, and is based on a spiritualist approach to life that says consciousness is the cause of or prior to objects, and to established, stable reality.

"Comfort" seeks security in the way things are, and desire for things and stability. That is primarily related to S = sensing. Rational thinking (T) is based on manipulating objects, so more akin to comfort (and also to structure = J), while Feeling is about empathy and subtle or sensitive ways of getting information, hence more spiritual and related to ideals (and also to freedom or openness = P), and therefore to challenge.

Originally Posted by JDW

First the disclaimer: Generations do not act as a unit when it comes to political views. We might think of environmentalism as being a Boomer trait and fiscal conservatism as an Xer trait, for example, because those are the views that were popularized by those generations when coming of age. In other words, every political view is multi-generational. However, we can stereotype.

True

Therefore, we have Freedom-loving Boomers pitted against Challenge-loving Xers, creating an open society which is a mirror image of the last saeculum (Challenge-loving Missionaries pitted against Freedom loving Lost). Of course we also have the Comfort-loving Millennials. What we just had, then, was a Freedom-dominated 3T. In contrast, WWI/roaring 20’s was a Challenge-dominated 3T. [Note that Nomads are always the loyal opposition.]

I don't agree much here. You may be using your own definitions for words and generations. Boomers, like all prophets, were challengers to established authority and structure. We are spiritual prophets, full of ideas first, last and always. Xers are nomads, and pragmatic (hence lovers of comfort, not challenge). At most, any deviation from this would be toward their love of freedom. I don't see Millennials as comfort-loving. They are not acquisitive, but interested in teamwork and civic action, like other civics. I also don't see any difference between this 3T and the last; both were freedom-loving in the sense of wanting the free-market (trickle-downer delusion). Nomads are not always the loyal opposition. Like any elder generation, they are the authorities during their elderhood; in their case the 1T. They are the ones who keep 1T's limited to a desire for security and stability.

Because the Boomers’ “second choice” is Comfort, they are able to guide the Millennials toward a Comfort society. (“Comfort,” in this case may simply mean the absence of new “advancement” ideas.) Xers, on the other hand, are diametrically opposed to this. Therefore it becomes a battle for the wills, which is the actual cause of the 4T. In this case, the Tea Party movement represents GenX, while the Left represents Boomers-Millennials.

Boomers have no second choice for Comfort. We are prophets = the opposite of that. Boomers will not guide the Millennials to comfort, and the Millennials don't want to go there. They are heroes, and will demand action. Xers are the ones who want comfort. However, your conclusion is correct anyway.

Regardless of how events play out in this 4T, the following things should hold true:

1) The Xer preference for Challenge must be quenched. As society moves toward closure, Xers will feel a greater responsibility, preferring Structure. This will result in a Comfort-dominated 1T (thanks to Millennials and Homelanders), in which Xers will again be the odd generation out. [Note that the last 1T was Structure-dominated, with Comfort-preferring Lost.]

I don't know about that. All 1Ts are stable, which means a preference for both comfort and structure. There is no need to quench the Xer desire for Challenge, since there isn't any. That is the Boomer province. So such a quenching of Boomer desire for challenge may indeed occur in the 1T-- in which Xers won't be the odd generation out, but the dominant one, as always in 1Ts; busy quenching both we older prophetic Boomers and the activist Millennials. Nomads are the biggest quenchers on the block. Xers certainly have already done their share of this.

2) Millennials will ultimately be defined by the outcome of the 4T. Glorious were named for a glorious outcome; Republicans were named for the new republic that emerged; “Greatest” were so named because America felt great. (If America’s status is diminished, Millennials will NOT be called “New Greatest.”) Prophets are the soul of the Saeculum; Heroes are the embodiment.

That seems true.

3) A 1T following a major victory is a High; a 1T following a major defeat definitely is NOT. Either way, it will be a time of simplified political thought.

I agree.

One major change to my thinking is that I now realize that a 4T has less to do with whether society is experiencing an actual crisis, than it does whether the societal tendency is to seek simplification in order to deal with the issues.

I don't know if simplification is the word; maybe. I see it as needing to come down to some basic decisions in order to survive as a nation. In a 4T people see whatever "crisis" is happening in those terms. So the choices and actions may be narrowed down. There comes a time in history when we must choose. These are crisis times, which are potentially heroic times. "Simple" could mean "simple answers"; they won't be that. It may be that we will be forced to consider solutions we have been afraid or not imaginative enough to consider before.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If there are that many INFJs here, why the aversion to astrology? INFJ is the prophet, counselor, and highly intuitive; at least that's supposed to be so. INFJ is not a scientific type.

I know plenty of INFJs that are interested in science including myself.

I do not have an aversion to astrology per se, I just feel like it does not control my life and never has.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I know plenty of INFJs that are interested in science including myself.

I do not have an aversion to astrology per se, I just feel like it does not control my life and never has. The way people reacted when the signs "changed" did not help in that regard.

Yup, there are plenty of INFJ scientists, especially in the biosciences.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I know plenty of INFJs that are interested in science including myself.

I do not have an aversion to astrology per se, I just feel like it does not control my life and never has.

Agreed. Now this does not speak for me...but most profiles I read on the type mention that other INFJs work in Science. Maybe its because of the observation skills.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I know plenty of INFJs that are interested in science including myself.

I do not have an aversion to astrology per se, I just feel like it does not control my life and never has.

Nothing should be allowed to control your life.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yup, there are plenty of INFJ scientists, especially in the biosciences.

My husband is an INFJ. He is an engineer. Recently his office was closed and he is now working from home. He set up an office for himself in our guest house which is in a totally separate building from our main house. He has never been the workaholic type person who stays late at work burning the midnight oil. When the work day was over at 5:00, he was out of there. But since has moved his office out into the guest house I've noticed he is in there by 6:30 or 7:00 every morning. When dinner is ready around 6:30 in the evening he is still out there and I have to send one of my boys to go out and get Dad for dinner.

Today I stopped in to visit. I made the comment that he seems to be really enjoying his own little space. He said, "Well, you know it's quiet and I can get things done. People just probably get more work done when they are working from home." I told him not necessarily. I think what is really going on here is that when you are in an office setting with other people or out on the job site, you are forced to interact with people all day long and it drains you. So by the end of the day, you are tired and ready to get out of there. Now that you have your own little quiet space, you actually have more energy and are a more effective worker.

So for all you INFJ's out there, this may be something to consider. Perhaps you are at your best in your career when you aren't working closely with other people around. I picture a bio-scientist to be sitting in a lab by themselves working on the data in front of them.