When I was a college student, I decided to major in psychology because I was fascinated with human behavior. I spoke with a professor and thought that being a clinical researcher would be an interesting career path.
That professor set me up with a job in a sport psychology research lab. My role? I spent hours inputting data from a study into SPSS and helped perform regression analysis.
I quickly realized it was not for me and that I could not be a clinical researcher. I finished up my work in the lab, got cited in some cool research*, and then changed course with my plans.
So while actually doing research wasn’t my thing, I still started a career in the sports, health and well-being space and went on to work at at Tier 1 research institution in higher education, where I have been an administrator and program director.
I’ve also taught a class on research and information literacy for over 15 years.
I teach students how to think critically, how to dissect arguments and how to analyze research articles with a skeptical but open mind. We talk about peer review, Bloom’s taxonomy and the importance of citing actual sources (and not just whatever ChatGPT tells you).
I teach about research. But I’m not a researcher.
While I admire the world of research, it’s not where I thrive. I don’t have that particular kind of analytical brain.
But I know people who do. And thank goodness for them.
A Beautiful Analytical Mind
Remember Russell Crowe’s character in A Beautiful Mind? It’s the story of this brilliant mathematician (John Nash) who, among other things, uses his incredible analytical skills to crack codes. On the screen we see it represented like in the clip below.
In the movie, his character’s story journeys through his life and background in academia but then has a sad twist as it details his experience with Schizophrenia and hallucinations.
Regardless of how you feel about the plot and dramatic depiction, his mind is fascinating and there’s no denying how it’s a great example of the kind of thinkers who can see things in data that others are not able to process.
To me, his analytical genius and ability to thoroughly crunch numbers is what I like to imagine is going on in the thought process of people who meet the definition of Gallup’s Analytical talent.
People high in Analytical are not satisfied with vague explanations. They don’t settle for “just trust me, bro.” They want to take the idea apart and look at all the pieces to see how they can put it back together in order to best understand it.
Academia Under the Microscope
I’m going to veer just a bit from Analytical to talk about research just a little bit more.
Most of our most important research discoveries have taken place either directly or indirectly via academic research institutions. Sadly, more and more people don’t trust the world of Academia in 2025.
Gallup’s research shows a declining trust in higher education, and not just by a little. In the span of a decade, public confidence in colleges and universities has dropped sharply across all different demographics and belief systems.
Some of that skepticism is understandable. Higher Ed hasn’t always been transparent. We haven’t told our story as well as we should have. Many of us have harmed our image by simply not speaking plainly.
Media portrayals haven’t helped either. The Ivy League schools make up less than 1% of all college students, yet when you hear someone rant about “college kids today” and how they have it wrong — they are probably talking about the exception and not the rule.
But when people start to distrust not just institutions, but the very idea of academic research and peer review — that’s something that I can’t just gloss over. It’s bad. Real bad.
We can’t afford to lose our grip on truth. Not now. Not in the AI age, when tools like LLM’s can generate paragraphs with speed but also with a stunning lack of accuracy. Students are citing research with fake studies, quoting scholars with things they never said and even telling us that — yes — a dog did once play in the NBA.
Sorry Air Bud, but that didn’t happen.
Technology has evolved pretty rapidly since you were in school. On the balance, that’s a good thing. Every few years there’s a new panic about Google, Wikipedia and other web or app based tools. Universities play whack-a-mole and then the next advent of tech happens.
The AI applications feel different.
A lot of people who are much more knowledgeable about AI have written about its pros and cons and impact on society. I’ve linked a few of my favorites in the previous sentence.
I’ve used ChatGPT, Gemini and Copilot. I feel like I have to use it in order to fully understand what it is, and what it isn’t. To me, it’s a fine tool if you approach it skeptically and don’t simply copy and paste its outputs — represented as your own thoughts and work.
I guess it’s also ok if you use it to help you do something that you didn’t already know how to do, like code a script for your website or make your Excel formula more productive.
In my opinion, it’s not ok to use AI for simple things you should already know how to do. Like think critically. Like writing an essay, a LinkedIn post, or an email. But ultimately — the market will dictate AI’s future. It’s not sustainable in its current form. AI companies are burning through money, which won’t last forever. And it’s not having enough of an impact on productivity and profitability, which could pop the bubble at any moment.
And it’s not exactly good for the planet, either.
No matter what happens, we can’t lose the human analysis. We can’t let shortcuts erode our ability to think critically. Do you want to see a doctor who faked their way through school? Want to drive on a bridge designed by an engineer who let a bot do his math homework?
Not me.
Investing in Analytical
So let’s zag back to Analytical.
My sense is that the people with this talent are the most prone to not outsourcing their own critical thinking. If you were a great artist or musician, would you let a computer create your next piece of art? I think those with Analytical talent would similarly shudder at the thought.
So if you or someone on your team leads with Analytical, you should celebrate them. Encourage their probing questions. These are the folks who aren’t going just take what an algorithm spits out as the truth.
They will be the ones who do the important research and analysis that helps us figure out the difference between how humans speak and how chatbots speak.
The person with the analytical talent on your team may not be as lightning fast with a response or a report. They’re not trying to slow things down. They’re trying to make sure what you’re building is worth building. They need to understand, and make sure the numbers are correct.
And if you’re like me, someone who appreciates critical thinking but doesn’t naturally crave getting under the hood and seeing the data that underlies the process — stay close to your Analytical friends.
Let them run the numbers while you use your talents (hello influencing!) to help others make sense of the story those numbers tell.
Because in a world where the line between fact and feeling keeps getting blurrier, we need people who still believe that evidence matters.
We need our Beautiful Minds to keep asking the right questions and demonstrate that there’s no analysis quite like the good old fashioned human kind.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.