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! 


          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+