> My experience has been that it is easier to educate a Do-er than to motivate the educated So, if someone wants to do something to give that person tools to achieve it will be productive. If someone does Not want to do something it is very difficult to talk them into doing it. Makes sense. But I do not know in what context this is discussed our what is the supposed implications.
a) someone has an incentive to do something, but knows not how
b) someone is very agreeable or pliant in their personality, and is willing to carry out instructions if they don't already know how
c) someone's incentives are not well aligned to do the thing, or are not agreeable/pliant enough to do it anyway, but knows how to do it
If I know how to set up and administer a mail server, under c) I won't do it if there are no incentives (e.g. pay). If I need a mail server, but don't know how to do it, as under a) I will pay someone to do it, or to teach me.
b) is probably quiet and long-suffering, but may never understand the whys and wherefores.
So incentives are probably more important than analyzing things in terms of "doers" vs. "non-doers". Could have implications for hiring policies -- less important that candidate does not have 5 years of Frobnitz framework experience, more important to provide an incentive for the candidate to become proficient.
But I think this was not the point. He said "read what you love until you love to read" which sounds like Stockholm Syndrome. So, I don't really think he was saying anything deeper than "follow your bliss", unfortunately.