I liked this. Please expand all ideas further. (Seriously.)
@UHN: Ha, I forgot I had posted this...
To expand on the ideas
People are not only different in personality and makeup, but also in life experience and context. What might be very minor if it happened to one person could be emotionally catastrophic to another person. (For example, a spouse not bothering to call the other when she's held up at work or forgetting about a potential dinner arrangement with hubby and being two hours later with her explanation is not a HUGE deal to most people if it doesn't happen much, stuff happens in life... but it might be a catastrophe if the other spouse had grown up in a house where the parents constantly were failing to fulfill expectations/promises.) There are zillions of other examples that could be thought of. So in this case I would say the wife reasonably expects this to be "no big deal" but the hubby reasonably takes it really hard -- both are right.
Or what if one spouse takes practical family obligations very seriously, while another might internally respect them but not see the big deal in, let us say, not going to the in-laws for Memorial Day? If the first spouse sees that action as a necessary part of showing one loves their family -- attending family events -- while the other spouse is more personal and less regimented in their approach to family relationships, well, both of them could be JUST as committed to family in intention but the first could cause unnecessary drama if the other spouse seems to blow off the event, while the second spouse might blow the family obligation into some massive act of 'enslavement'. Lots of drama. And to one person it's warranted, although the situation is actually on the large scale of things not that big a deal.
Moving to the abstract vs. concrete: Tangible people tend to need tangible signs of commitment, obligation, activity, or whatever else. Those things become read as intention and motivation. Abstract people tend to see symbols and signs ... someone doesn't literally have to do something, nothing has to be specifically manifest, as long as the signs can be read to show good intention and commitment on the part of the other person. So again, what a person does or does NOT do, if the two people differ on this, can sometimes seem very large to the other.
More simple examples: Remember the NYC employee who got fired for being seen playing Solitaire on his computer during his break, a few years ago, when the mayor happened to come through? The young man saw it as his break, he was allowed to play (technically), no big deal... but to the mayor, it was representative of his work ethic and it became a media drama unnecessarily. The young man lost his job, unfortunately, but also acclaimed a bit of notoriety for his part in the unnecessary drama.
(And the mayor might have been over the top in general.... but then again, the press was coming through, there is an underlying context of political figures being challenged on the efficiency/professionalism of their office, etc. So in THAT context, the response might see less inappropriate; the young man failed to recognize the mayor's probable reaction and paid for it.)
As far as people using drama to influence:
- Talk Show Hosts (e.g., Oprah Winfrey).
- Televangelists.
- Political candidates for office.
- Company CEOs.
- Fiction writers
etc.
All of these people excel at taking mundane facts and shaping an engaging narrative out of them, to motivate or entertain people. Without the shaping, the events or the life being discussed might seem rather run-of-the-mill... but the shaping puts the event into a new context that adds dramatic arc and makes it relevant in some way to the listener. And we all know some people who are skeptical of these sorts of people, can just shrug off the offered narrative, don't much enjoy dramatic arc in their fiction, etc.
[Note: This is what I do in my blog. To some people, I think it might seem like unnecessary drama, taking events and blowing them out of proportion. To others, they can relate to the narrative and concepts I am emphasizing because it's similar to theirs in some way... hence not overly dramatic. I see both sides.]
In regards to function use:
- T's deconstruct and depersonalize. They tend to break things down into their component parts. They take stories, note the concepts and facts, then rubber-stamp or challenge them. S's can do this too, they're interested in the tangible ramfications and how things have seemed to "fit" in the past.
- F's tend to personalize and connect in some way with the narrator, while N's tend to construct and link things together or find bonds.
The most obvious way to highlight the differences I can think of right now is to suggest imagining two architects -- one an ST, the other an NF -- assigned to design a particular house without any particular parameters in mind. I am better they will look VERY different and try to fulfill different end goals. And the NF house will tend to evoke more drama or aura, the ST house will probably have more functional and utility ends in mind.
@Aer: <BIG FLAG WAVE>
Actually, no biggie... but you DID say to wave the flag!
@entropie: Can you please clarify whether your type codes are referring to MBTI or to Socionics? (You used Socionics notation.) It makes a big difference in how I understand your post, specifically because it exchanges INTP and INTJ. Thanks.
