Humans were earlier hunter gatherers and like animals, did not have anything to think about other than food. Growth in agriculture resulted in food surplus and humans got more time at their disposal and therefore could think about something other than food. This led to the rise of civilization. However, rise in agriculture did not mean that humans stopped having tendencies of being a hunter.
Traits of hunting and farming are still prevalent in humans. In business world, farmers are associated with creators and hunters with sellers ( or creators vs. fighters). In Naval Ravikant’s words, a person should either learn how to create or how to sell. If he can do both, nobody in the world can stop him.
Creators are nerds, good at problem solving, and are naturally non-zero sum. Sellers or fighters are motivated fighters, aggressive and naturally zero sum ( they can win only if other loses). If nerds help a company in establishing a monopoly, fighters tend to protect it. If company is built by fighters only, they will tend to enter in highly competitive business (like restaurants) as they are biased towards competing. Nerds tend to chose ideas which are novel and tend to think out of the box and as a result avoid fighting. Nerds can get slaughtered if they don’t fight. e.g. : They are likely to give away much of their ownership to VCs because they don’t care about who owns the company as long as they are solving the desired problems and building the technology. This approach is very noble but bad.
Creators work on increasing the size of the pie but it is sellers who ensure that the company owns larger share of that pie.
Question which further comes is that is it appropriate to have such a binary classification of humans? Can there be some other way to look at this problem? Can a person be both farmer and hunter?