More generally, the age of brilliant machines seems to reward a few traits. First, it rewards enthusiasm. The amount of information in front of us is practically infinite; so is that amount of data that can be collected with new tools. The people who seem to do best possess a voracious explanatory drive, an almost obsessive need to follow their curiosity. Maybe they started with obsessive gaming sessions, or marathon all-night study sessions, but they are driven to perform extended bouts of concentration, diving into and trying to make sense of these bottomless information oceans.

Second, the era seems to reward people with extended time horizons and strategic discipline. When Garry Kasparov was teaming with a computer to play freestyle chess (in which a human and machine join up to play against another human and machine), he reported that his machine partner possessed greater “tactical acuity,” but he possessed greater “strategic guidance.”

Third, the age seems to reward procedural architects. The giant Internet celebrities didn’t so much come up with ideas, they came up with systems in which other people could express ideas: Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, etc. That is to say they designed an architecture that possesses a center of gravity, but which allowed loose networks of soloists to collaborate.

One of the oddities of collaboration is that tightly knit teams are not the most creative. Loosely bonded teams are, teams without a few domineering presences, teams that allow people to think alone before they share results with the group. So a manager who can organize a decentralized network around a clear question, without letting it dissipate or clump, will have enormous value.

Fifth, essentialists will probably be rewarded. Any child can say, “I’m a dog” and pretend to be a dog. Computers struggle to come up with the essence of “I” and the essence of “dog,” and they really struggle with coming up with what parts of “I-ness” and “dog-ness” should be usefully blended if you want to pretend to be a dog.

These are awesome. 

Number 3 really speaks to me. Systems are stronger than ideas. 

#1 nails me the most, especially this sentence:  "The people who seem to do best possess a voracious explanatory drive, an almost obsessive need to follow their curiosity."  Once I get on something, I don't let it go, and I'm usually pretty good at finding stuff, also searches lead into other discoveries :)

That's true from what I've seen.

The most interesting thing about what you do is that you put it back out there for others to see and comment on, which accelerates the cycle of discovery and knowledge creation, both for you and for others.

What happened to "Fourth"?  

Seems Brooks or the NYT editorial staff are holding out on us, or they just can't count... 

Another thing machines can do pretty well.

I think this is 4th?

One of the oddities of collaboration is that tightly knit teams are not the most creative. Loosely bonded teams are, teams without a few domineering presences, teams that allow people to think alone before they share results with the group. So a manager who can organize a decentralized network around a clear question, without letting it dissipate or clump, will have enormous value.

I was trying to be generous and wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt on that too.  But it's really just a more thorough explanation of the previous point on collaboration, not a new one.

I think they just forgot to put in the Fourth point... or mistakenly numbered it the fifth.

Oopsy! Yep, most likely only 4 points.

Haha! All that being said, they're a pretty insightful batch of Four points.  Nice stash!