1) If this composite (32-3) is mainly driven by gender, with boys being "reactive" and girls being "reflective," could the categories be gender biased, and perhaps misleading in their implications? Or could these behaviors in any way be biological artifacts of 7-year-old hormones and attention spans?

2) Could these behavior clusters be conditioned by games, parents, media, etc. and if so, how?

3) Should we try to teach both kinds of writers how to use the techniques of the other kind? Or is it so preconditioned by culture or biology that we should divide them into two different classrooms? Or do they work better together?

4)  If you are interested in teaching, consider what this difference in "learning styles" might mean were your class of 15 or 20 students to be equally divided between reactive and reflective learners.  Can you imagine class exercises in which both would be able to fulfill their learning goals while still working beside one another, or even helping one another?

5)  This difference has obvious implications for the necessity, not just the mere "importance," of peer tutoring in the college and even K-12 setting.  If otherwise successful writers' composing processes can be driven by such radically differing cognitive preferences, discussing writing one-on-one seems like the obvious way to interact with both kinds of writers because tutors can adjust their questions and expectations  to the writers' natural inclinations.  How do you think this might affect the first questions you might ask a writer when starting a session?  How might it modify Gilmartin's suggestions?