2x2 of learning types I was making turned out to be isomorphic to bartle test with x axis flipped and unexpected identification of “killers” with “theological learning” 🤣
I was actually expanding to 3x3 when I noticed
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_ta
Bartle test labels in parentheses
Conversation
I rarely go 3x3 but sometimes it’s useful. The 5 extra boxes here allow useful distinctions.
The explore/build/exploit and early/growth/mature triads usefully label well-defined transitions.
2
1
14
Sometimes I have fun
1
5
is this expansion of the bartle test useful?
1
Feels like it better models motivations in games with strong build/grow mechanics
2
Replying to
Interesting - though it doesn't fully click with me (though maybe due to me not having enough context about the learning types)
It feels like there's a key variable (3rd axis): is the system / game / knowledge static or evolving?
1
1
If evolving, then a mature approach has a mix of explore / build / exploit. Even a sufficiently complex static state benefits from exploration (e.g. multi-armed bandit problem)
Building can be a form of exploration, especially in the lean startup or OODA loop sense. BTW, where would you put OODA in the matrix?
1
Replying to
OODA I think is the growth slice. Anywhere you can hack unreasonable leverage.

