Agree with Psion in that the important part of the distinction is to recognize the different preferences in gamers (including yourself). Certainly that part is useful.
That being said- I don't trust anything about the Forge, and by the time I quit visiting I had the distinct impression that the theory was there to do two things: discourage anything but their interpretation of "narrativism", and to sell Ron's game. And their version of "narrativism" got convoluted to the point where you had to tackle a "narrative premise" such as "Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?" (as an example).
If you weren't tackling issues, in their world, it wasn't a story, and if it wasn't a story, then it wasn't narrativism. You had to stack this bit of crap on the unwritten but constantly hinted at idea that of the three preferences, narrativism was the most important, and that the most significant "narrativist" system possible that you could buy for only 10$ or so could only be.. what? Well, you probably guessed which one.
Anyhow, once I got past rejecting all of that and determining that for me- the most important part of gaming was the concept of the long term camapign and that nothing GNS applies to can really ever address a long term campaign type thing (which may encompass one of all three or different preferences depending on the date, session, activity or whatever- as any D&D player knows. Sometimes you're looking up how much water it takes to cross the desert. Sometimes your'e making an impassioned plea to the sultan. and sometimes you just want to kill some orcs. Or... you have to kill some orcs out of neccesity).
So I guess the point is, just keep a jaundiced and skeptical eye out for anything that comes from that direction. If you want to read something a bit more useful about roleplaying I recommend Robin's Laws.