Or, again, consider his distinction on the basis of "scope." "Then there are two types--one of which likes to fuss with an intricate bit of mechanism, while the other wants the task of big dimensions--the watchmaker, the engraver, the inlayer, the painter of miniatures, on the one hand; the bridge builder, the steel-mill worker, the train dispatcher, the circus man on the other. One has small scope, the other large scope."
Basing his analyses mainly on the enterprises of manufacture, construction and transportation, and recognizing that other broad characteristics would probably be listed if different types of occupation were also considered, Schneider gives a list of sixteen classifications which may be applied either to the individual or to the type of work. These are as follows:
a--Physical strength; physical weakness. b--Mental; manual. c--Settled; roving. d--Indoor; outdoor. e--Directive; dependent. f--Original (creative); imitative. g--Small scope; large scope. h--Adaptable; self-centered. i--Deliberate; impulsive. j--Music sense. k--Color sense. l--Manual accuracy; manual inaccuracy. m--Mental accuracy (logic); mental inaccuracy. n--Concentration (mental focus); diffusion. o--Rapid mental coördination; slow mental coördination. p--Dynamic; static.
It must be said that the characteristics of the various types of work here enumerated are pretty much the features which have in the past guided such individuals as really chose their vocation rather than found it waiting for them, made a random selection, or seized the first available opportunity. The paired adjectives probably afford truer descriptions of various types of work than they do of types of individuals. Most individuals of one's acquaintance one would have to group neither under the one nor the other extreme, but in an average group which would show each of the opposed tendencies under special circumstances or would show no particularly marked degree of either tendency. Observation of such individuals for long periods of time and under a variety of circumstances would be required before these classifications could be made out by a stranger or by a professional counsellor. Even then such a classification could hardly be said to be psychological in any technical sense of the word, and it is not very probable that psychological training or experience would facilitate or render more reliable such classification. The question of to what degree the individual's judgment of his own characteristics may be relied on in such an analysis we must defer until a later section where that is taken up as the main subject of discussion.