diff pple diff styles

i guess i have to argue about it and pen it down (which is typical of type A).

yes, often type A is referred to the not street-smart, full of brain-knowledge and unable to cut corners at appropriate times. was in the van with amos and nick and they were talking about how this type of pple can't make good officers in army or have weird inappropriate handling techniques.

so what's their arguement? often type P are the one who can arrive at the final stage, skipping the intermediate steps (which deemed unnecessary to them) and achieving the same end-product. a far-fetch example and typical illustration: on the way back from marina in bp's car, ty (a typical type P), as usual, not wearing seatbelt, but hurried to put on one when a QX appear from behind.

end-result: not caught by QX. (achieved)
intermediate steps: wearing seatbelt (not done)

apparently, it's a well-done action, complimented by the alertness (typical of type P) and tactical actions (demostrated by type P), and the end result is still attained. but so what? yes, the intermediate steps aren't impt and can be skipped but is it true? and it can only be proven untrue when it's all too late.

so, what's going on in army? losing of equipments.. SAF1206? is that a bad choice and rigid manner to solve the loss? or G219, eliminating the cost burdened by the poor soldier but taxing the overall accounting dept and qm? being-people oriented may use G219, and hence, solving issues with human techniques, but imposing SAF1206 doesn't mean that it's not right.. there's so called responsibilty instilling process involved. okay.. this is still not a good example. but the idea is.. watever methods of solving, it's not about Can make it or Cannot make it.. it's just different.