Presumably authors of articles holding such a view/opinion as to split people into two groups do not hold such a view/opinion as an inherent characteristic of their being.
"Someone wise once wrote 'Our world's divided into two types of folk. Now, theres the type of people who divide the world into different types of people, and then there's the type who don't.'"
This is the flaw in having an entirely hateful view of splitting, that view is itself an example of splitting. You have to instead believe that there is a time where it is appropriate and useful to split (e.g, war) and times where it isn’t (general thinking)
So you're saying that the splitters are split into two groups? One group which knows when it's a good time to split, and the other group which doesn't?,
This feels like a false equivalence. Splitting articles try to make broad generalizations about human behavior, but, as any social scientist knows, human behavior is extremely complicated and multidimensional. A critique of these articles is about falsity, which is binary.
There's so just room for some sort of splitting to represent truth.
The article talks about packers and mappers and that either is it isn't a useful distinction. I am open to either, but I wouldn't dismiss the idea because it's "splitting" by nature.
I get that splitting can be useful and logical in many particular situations. But when we talk about very general case like being a good engineer, it is definitely not a good way to reason.