Text 218, 91 rader
Skriven 2006-01-18 14:46:22 av Ardith Hinton (1:153/716.0)
    Kommentar till text 217 av James Bradley (1:134/77.0)
Ärende: What's in a Name?
=========================
Hi, James!  Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

JB>  It's all good fun, but I do find I have to prepare
JB>  people for how bombastic I can be. Sometimes I hurt
JB>  their feelings, as I thrust that dagger in the chink of
JB>  their armor, but there's a lesson to be learned. All I
JB>  can do, is put it out there. Then it's it up to the
JB>  targets' (Sorry, I'm still not sure about that 'possessive'
JB>  stuff, and  how apostrophes fit into the mix.) impetus to
JB>  take it from there. (Maybe *I* lack momentum? :-)


          Yes, you've used the possessive correctly above.  Now as for what you
were saying... I can relate.  I have a natural tendency to cut through the B.S.
& get right down to the nitty gritty, but not everybody appreciates it.  I need
to remind myself that when I've hit the nail on the head they may throw up more
defences.  I kept quiet when a certain person asked elsewhere why others are so
stupid, ignorant, and thoughtless because I'd be inclined to suggest she take a
look in the mirror... she'd probably regard it as a personal attack.  While she
was venting her anger about folks who don't understand xxx she couldn't get her
mind around yyy (which is actually very similar).  If she made such comments in
SURVIVOR I'd respond, but I guess I lacked momentum in this situation too.  :-)



AH>  I'm developing a greater appreciation of a reasoning
AH>  style which until lately wasn't familiar to me.
AH>  Although I am trying not to use "psychobabble", certain
AH>  technical terms might help to clarify the issue....  :-)

JB>  OK, if you "Don't see them here." spill the beans! <G>


          I'll try to be brief.  The analysis is based on an updated version of
the ancient Greek theory of temperament.  A lot depends on inductive reasoning,
i.e. observing how people behave & recognizing patterns.  As a result there are
no answers in the back of the book.  I find the theory explains many things I'd
hitherto found quite baffling, however....  :-)


          Here's an example I stumbled over recently.  Nora had been reading...
with my help... some excerpts from KIDNAPPED.  I glanced casually at a magazine
& the name "Alan Breck Stewart" jumped out at me.  I hadn't realized Alan was a
real person... so I read the article, then compared it with another.

 Article #1                             Article #2
 ----------                             ----------
 Colin Campbell was a good man, and     Colin Campbell was also known as the
 very fair... he even had one of the    Red Fox.  [In the novel, Alan refers
 Stewarts in his employ.                to this man by his nickname.]

 Somebody shot him from behind while    Somebody shot him from behind while
 he & his nephew were out collecting    he & his nephew were out collecting
 rents.  A cowardly deed, shooting a    taxes, accompanied by soldiers [not
 man from behind.  Tsk, tsk!            mentioned at all in Article #1].

 His nephew bravely stayed with him.    While his nephew stayed with him on
                                        the road, the soldiers pursued the
                                        lone assailant through the woods.

In both articles Alan was one of the suspects, but he could not be found.  That
would explain why, in the novel, Alan is trying to keep a low profile!  Anyway,
I've used this example because to me it clearly shows the differences between a
"J" (judgement) & a "P" (perception) thinking style.  The first author tells us
Colin Campbell is a Good Guy & his assailant is a Bad Guy.  He has done all our
thinking for us.  The second author gives us more information, and leaves it to
us to make judgements if that's what we really want to do.  For me, it would be
a lot more productive to examine the questions he's raised in my mind....  :-))

          In any given individual, these characteristics lie along a continuum.
I'm a "P" person... I suspect you are as well.  But neither of us is as extreme
as the guy who broke both legs & couldn't wait to get back to doing whatever he
was doing at the time!  And IMHO it's important to realize that one's preferred
thinking style doesn't necessarily have to be one's *only* thinking style.  The
intent is not to assign everybody to pigeonholes, but to make people more aware
of what's going on & thus enable them to be more mentally flexible.


          The other aspect which is significant for purposes of this discussion
is the continuum from "S" (sensation) to "N" (intuition).  I think I'm probably
more of an "N" person than you are.  A lot of what matters to me goes on inside
my head, whereas you seem more interested in physical activities such as biking
& yard work.  Again... neither of us is extreme.  You can see below the surface
without much prodding, and it didn't take much to get me into a kayak.  Now I'm
rediscovering an aspect of myself which I'd been neglecting for some time.  ;-)




--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver BC, CANADA [604-266-5271] (1:153/716)