Another thing (usually) not discussed in such articles is that a group may benefit more from different types of thinking, which balance each other out naturally

Another thing (usually) not discussed in such articles is that a group may benefit more from different types of thinking, which balance each other out naturally. I’ve lost a link to the video about it, but it shows how a group of behaviors A and B is unstable and leads to either all-A or all-B, which then heavily underperform because of their traits. But if you add enough C proportion into this group, it eventually stabilizes, or cycles more effectively (depending on a definition of it). So you may be or not be foo/bar-ian, but in a sense of a system you live in, it may produce different results than if everyone were acting like that. This simulation was indeed very simplistic and cannot represent or predict reality, but neither can you. Until you test it, you won’t figure out if it’s beneficial or not to someone, everyone, anyone. Watching these dilemmas in isolation does nothing to your understanding, whichever philosophy you use. We don’t build our way to our goals, we explore the insanely complex network of possibilities and choose (and stick to) those which worked good enough. It’s like an edge of a fractal, sometimes a little change converges to nothing different, sometimes it turns everything upside down.