Jurgen, good post . . . however, I believe that you may not understand Dr. Karen Stephenson's theory on Network Archetypes. This is what I mean: Malcom Gladwell (in "The Tipping Point") spoke to network archetypes as they relate to creating *mass-change*. He wasn't listing all Human Beings into one of 3 categories alone. Likewise, Dr. Karen Stephenson is not doing that, either. It's important to keep in mind that she is speaking to common network archetypes that arise in every Human Network when evaluated through a SNA (Social Network Analysis). . . just as you understand that humanity is a series of Small-World Networks (Watts-Strogatz). Through the math, we identify the crucial individuals in a Human Network (or series of Human Networks) through their network position. This is NOT subjective, while Malcom Gladwell's characterizations are. When we evaluate all Human Networks through SNA, we identify these critical Network Archetypes mathematically (different individuals have varying algorithms, however they're largely the product of Linton Freeman). In doing so, it's worth noting that SNA is not the be-all, end-all . . . however illumination of Informal Networks is important because without being aware of them (and those individuals within them that hold critical roles), we are largely operating "in the blind" (i.e. relying in intuition, which is largely limited by our Network Horizon, or our 2nd degree). In closing, it's worth noting that SNA shows these Network Archetypes - they are not an attempt to put all Human Beings into one of three buckets. Feel free to come check us out (and Karen's work) at http://www.OODAfive.com. Thanks!!! - Josh Letourneau Director, Client Engagement & Solutions Delivery OODAfive.com jletourneau(at)OODAfive.com