Recently I had the, um, opportunity to serve on a jury. There's a whole other story surrounding how I got there and what I felt/feel about it, but that's neither here nor there right now.
Those of us on the jury were given notebooks to help our memory recall of the various testimonies. Being a good citizen who also has usually found it not too hard to fulfill standardized expectations, I took copious notes. Being also apparently the type of person who ends up on socionics forums, I could not help but likewise note the behaviors, attitudes, interactions, and personality manifestations of the actors in the theatre presented before me - recording those notes within that same notebook. I particularly observed two characters.
I was a good girl and left my notes about the case in the jury room as instructed; I colored a bit outside the lines by removing the pages with my notes about the personalities (which I carefully kept separate from the case-related notes) and taking them home with me.
In short, if you're so inclined, please read my notes below and give me some feedback if anything strikes you as worth mentioning or analyzing. I might elaborate later if it seems there is enough interest.
- Wears one down by piling on info and details, repeating himself almost cyclically (though each cycle brings more info)
- The effect of his attempt to pull in a personal story (of familiar warmth bereft) makes me rebel, recoil from it. Feels like attempted emotional manipulation - and somewhat clumsy from my own perspective.
- Slow, steady, persistent, thorough
- Blunt yet forceful attacks
- Moves around a bit as he talks, not terribly erratically but definite extra movements
- "externalized energy"
- Gets more energetic when challenged, more animated
- Facial expressions not especially guarded; easy to see what he's feeling, though some emotions he pushes a bit on purpose
- Can get sarcastic, particularly toward people he seems to feel are incompetent, biased, or of bad character
- Jumps on the "less thoroughness" of others and finds holes in arguments that way
- Makes notes of relationships, points them out (though said relationships are usually already obvious to me)
- Gets annoyed and emotional when witnesses are not concrete
- Mildly disorganized (or the appearance of it) but that may be because he's trying to pull in a lot of data on short notice in reaction to unexpected new evidence/points
- Aggressive attack of witness credibility
- Not satisfied with the abstract
- Uses math/logic to force an answer he wanted ("x > 0" "Something is greater than nothing!")
- Data, data, data
- Gets impatient with slow helpers
- Seems inclined to yell or raise his voice (or increase the intensity) when frustrated or agitated
- Interested in etymology, almost to a fault
- Keeps going until the uncertainty is cleared
- Clarifies small details, even if they seem irrelevant, almost compulsively
- Not overly concerned with having exactly the right order
- "Snake" was the first word that came to me
- Manipulates with words
- Drives (or attempts to drive) the direction things are going in, but in a more subtle and less forceful way
- Uses rules to his advantage
- Appears experienced, confident, unflappable
- Very conscious of time
- Conscious of repetition and avoids it
- Subtle theatrics
- Uses a lot of connotative words and phrases; splendid vocabulary
- "Gather and strike"
- Does not tend toward sarcasm
- Demonstrates obvious attitudes of respect toward those he interacts with (I suspect it's largely a self-serving habit)
- Does not obviously attack anyone's character or credibility
- Calculated flows of info, in both gathering and providing
PS I call these notes "superficial" because they are exactly that - cursory observations with no extended input outside of the subjects' professional arena.