5.1. Core components/skills-abilities: MO.O.N.s, complex dynamic principles

The useful and necessary foundations for grasping the complexity implied by the word “talent” have been established, and we are now ready to enter the field of “talent development”. We suggest the investigation of the different MO.O.N.s and their contiguity (correlation, coherence, combination) in order to propose methodology, advice and some useful recommendations for their development and actualization. By “development” we mean the rise in skills of natural operating modes, which we call “core components”, that is, intentional behaviors developed and trained from natural abilities.

Every MO.O.N. capable of autonomously producing a result is organized through a computational mode operating by polarity. The image we could present would be that of an engine that, without a gearbox, would run idly. Without its ability to interact, empathy is “idle”. This principle applies to each MO.O.N. and finds, as it seems to us, a certain similarity with the functional logic of Chinese thought, the principles of definition as previously discussed (to define X, define Y) and a certain way in which the brain “polarizes” in order to produce its multitude of activities. This key principle separates us from the principle of locating intelligence in a part of the brain or an isolated form of intelligence (we have shown why this way of thinking is as incorrect-incomplete as wanting us to think about a climber’s ability by looking into his brain to find at a glance where his “agility”, dexterity or safety lies). Let us specify four notions, polarity, correlation, coherence and combination:

• – the notion of polarity (magnetic dynamism), inherent to the core components, implies an activity that is coherent with the complexity of the realities observed in a professional situation. Polarity implies the in between, that is, what dynamism and tension can manifest, unfold and produce;
• – the correlated pairs underline the operating proximity of MO.O.N. between them, that is, a computational mode whose neural proximity and observation in a situation suggest similarities. Hence, for example, the interpersonal MO.O.N. is more closely correlated with the kinesthetic MO.O.N. because of the operative and neuronal proximities, as can be evoked, for example, by mirror neurons in how they imply similar responses in the execution of actions. Thus, in the assessment of a MO.O.N., it will be relevant to investigate the one correlated with it, in order to consolidate the reliability of the hypothesis placed. To put it another way, to assess a person’s skill of empathy (interpersonal MO.O.N.), we will assess, in parallel, their ability to physically synchronize with others (kinesthetic MO.O.N.);
• – MO.O.N.s also evoke coherence between themselves, for example between kinesthetic and spatial, mathematic and scientific or musical and linguistic. The mathematics MO.O.N. is coherent with scientific, but it correlates with linguistic, because its utility remains primarily speculative, abstract (rational) and organized by long chains of reasoning. Both use an abstract symbolic system (phonetics-figures) and can explain without “proving” (unpragmatic), whereas scientific, correlated with the naturalistic, cannot explain without observable and “acceptable” evidence (by assessment more than by measurement). Both are centered on reality and the comparative and categorical proximities, and they accept the “approximate” (the effective, but not perfect measure, stocházesthtai metrou tinos), not in terms of perfection but in terms of hypotheses;
• – finally, possible combinations such as linguistic “and” interpersonal, or extra-personal “and” mathematic are also observable principles that escape the usual principle of heredity or type. Diversity – often evoked in companies – is the ability to make MO.O.N.s collaborate by correlation, coherence and combination, in terms of utility and expected outcome.

We use the concurrence of coordination “and” cautiously because it induces the idea of an addition, a sum and a relation, where the Chinese “er” seems more appropriate to us by its impregnation, consecutive and adversarial principle. We observe how “and” causes many problems of interpretation in companies, such as in the educational system when we say “he has interpersonal ‘and’ linguistics skills”, or “he has logic-mathematics ‘and’ some linguistics skills”. We must again remind (insist?) ourselves that a natural operation mode is neither a sub-component of personality nor an isolated cognitive activity that can be observed in a part of the brain, nor is it a “remarkable” pseudo-skill that can be validated by a “measure”. A MO.O.N. only operates if it is attracted (attractor) by real (or emulated) utility, potential (actualizing forces) and configuration (moment-position).

5.2. Ten MO.O.N.s (to date) to grasp the sum of human activities

“Language, with its arbitrary system of signs and symbols, serves as an intermediary between this ‘language of thought’ and the outside world. It is used to translate stimuli or events into internal symbols or concepts, and then, from the new concepts produced, to translate them into external processes” [CHA 83, p. 170].

In Table 5.1, we show the ten MO.O.N.s that are observable and assessable to date. It should be noted that we have integrated, as part of our theoretical advances, the principle of a MO.O.N. “X” (not visible in the table) in the same way as the periodic table of elements (see Table A.1. in the Appendix: dynamic table of MO.O.N.s). It seems “obvious” to us, on the one hand, to keep in mind that nothing is written in a definitive manner on the issue of human skills-abilities, and on the other hand, concerning the issue of observable operating mode(s), that nothing is obvious and thus nothing can be subjected solely to speculations (argumentations) of the mind. We have come to the conclusion that like the same elements of the periodic table, the operating modes respect computational principles for which it is impossible to “replace-negotiate” with a few intellectual projections. We thus join Lorentz’s work (in animal ethology): deceiving by operating a bias is in fundamental disagreement with a logical and abstract analysis, just as empathy is not about “feeling” the emotions and experiences of another, but about observing a sum of indications that makes it possible to adjust one’s behaviors, so that this other is in a situation of “comfort” and calming, whether in our presence or not.

Table 5.1 presents MO.O.N.s, their correlated pair, operative coherence and core component. This work extends, refines and, if necessary, modifies the work initiated by Howard Gardner.

We represented these MO.O.N.s in the form of a wheel, primarily for an educational reason. It makes it possible to understand coherences (Co^h) and correlations (Co^r). However, it is not necessary to search for a “link” between the MO.O.N.s, for example the linguistic MO.O.N. and the intrapersonal MO.O.N., because the latter is the “opposite”. This is a possible combination, but not a rule. We specify that this wheel has a practical daily use. It is used for educational purposes in the actualization of skills of professionals. We therefore specify its limits in terms of reading. In fact, the MO.O.N.s cannot all be placed at the same level, in the same way that aquatic and terrestrial species cannot be equated. This wheel does not represent the complex reality with which operating modes operate, weave, combine and deploy. It best promotes an overall “vision” that practice-related competency and knowledge can “read” accurately.

In fact, MO.O.N.s cannot be “read” in the same logical mode. The “mathematical” operation mode has no similarity with the extra-personal operation mode (neither near nor far) and yet, although it is rare, we have observed people (less than five in the last 20 years) deploying this dynamic pair. The following chapters propose to investigate each MO.O.N. by concluding with a summary in the form of a table.