I've updated the title post.
I've updated the title post.
Everybody loves a diplomat. Lines being drawn in the sand and clear absolutes make humans feel extremely uncomfortable. But what if the more extreme leader was actually right?
Being a leader seems to hurt your private life too much. You just want power so you just balance and streamline everything and nobody can tell what you really believe in anymore because you're 'in it for everybody.' And because you're in it for everybody, you think then everybody (or most people) will be in it for you, and it usually works. It's so selfishly deceptive. *grin* But lacks romance. =(
My solution is not to aim for a private life, or at least to remove cultural stigmas associated with private-life practices.Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
Governors are so nice. The marshmellow ones particularly I can fall in love with at first sight (if they are women lol). Well, not all of them are nice -- some of them will bait you in as pawns in their "games" -- but of the ones that are nice, man they are sweet. They always bring a smile to my face, and make me feel so secure. The brave ones are a little intimidating because they will impress their will in favor of their compromises, but the marshmellows... so nice.
Updated with (brief) collaborator descriptions.
Updated with improved negotiator and confronter descriptions.
But I think some of the descriptions still need work. The "Adventurer" description in particular seems a little biased towards introversion, which reflects an error on my part in that attitude towards group participation has nothing to do with the conflict res type. However, I meant to show that the X/confrontational types will basically not try to make themselves the center of an operation, and will strike out on their own unless someone brings them into their associated folds. Though again, it seems like only introvert X/confrontational types are really that way in that extrovert X/confrontational types will actively seek out a X/collaborator to pal around with.
Notice the negotiator threat res types: these are people who, even if introverted, will engage themselves with many people as a means of shoring up support for their initiatives. Now this is one of the definitions of "ambiversion" used in modern personality theories, in that they are people who spend time alone. So you might say there are two versions of "ambiversion" that are the inverse of each other, one for each attitude. The primary influence of the E/I attitudes is evident in the attitude towards the purpose of people: the introvert sees their associates as the means to an end, while the extrovert sees their own reflection as the means to the ends of their associates.
It's increasingly looking like it would be useful to consider the conflict res type in terms of introvert and extrovert variants.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 05-12-2011 at 05:53 PM.
I'm seeing a general attitude towards group participation as a dividing line between these types in cases of conflict:
- Confrontation: resist the group's focus and orientation
- Collaboration: resist assimilation to the group
- Negotiation: assimilate to the group
- Appeasement: accept the group's focus and orientation
Each type seems to hold its attitude towards group participation as a matter of personal importance and responsibility.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote