So being arrogant/assertive/aggressive can really be helpful in various situations (to a point; looking like a fool is not helpful).
Some people get turned off by assertiveness. The assertive person is moving too quickly for the more mellow one to participate, something like that.
So this could be problematic if the mellow person has something worthwhile to offer the assertive one. And I assume that the mellow person usually does. So I have this idea of a balancing act, a push and pull: to be aggressive enough to cut through bullshit and receive leeway from people, but to be receptive enough to soak up what the people around you have to offer.
The balancing act is expensive; one must pay attention both to maintaining and qualifying the assertion and to remaining receptive so they do not miss out on opportunities and details.
An alternative is to just kinda ignore people who do not 'step up'. This approach is clean and less expensive than the 'balancing act'. NTJs can be an example of this approach. But I dont like this option; maybe its because I am an F or maybe its because its Better to consider as much information as possible (read: the balancing act is more useful than ignoring people).
Thoughts? This isnt especially reasoned out, but, well, out of time