Stories That Bring Technology To Life

The vast majority of men, over a third of the distribution of personality traits tend to rely on logic, rule by thought rather than emotion, and place facts over other people’s feelings.

Are all men cruel, especially when it comes to competition in the boardroom, field, or gameboard? In my experience, many men feel so inadequate about their position in life, that they put other men down to build themselves up. In the world of competition, tactics that appear mean-spirited are even welcomed. They cheer the champion as he defeats the opponent all the while thankful not to be the one facing the king of the hill.

There are some, however, who understand there is power in vulnerability. 8.1% of men are kind-hearted, gentle, and value harmony. Some realize that more is accomplished through mutual cooperation than through competition. These men bring out the best in others.

How many Psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but it’s gotta wanna change. Significant changes occur in people’s lives only when they are ready to face the fact that they are not perfect, not the best, don’t have to be the king of the dung-hill. Those that facilitate those changes, however, are the real heroes.

There is a war-champion somewhere in all men. We love to cheer on the underdog, scream in excitement when the miracle play, the hail-Mary, is up for grabs and through sheer force of will and determination is caught, and the tides turn. We sit on the edge of our seats rooting for our team and the closer the score, the more we scream at the screen against the unjust referee, the blatant call, the obvious missed opportunity.

There is also somewhere deep in the recesses of every man the magician bearing the wisdom of the ages. Generosity feels good, even more so when there are no strings attached.

The difference between men who rely on logic and those concerned with others feelings come down to one thing, I believe. Do each of us have the brass knuckles to find and live with passion. What is the difference between passion and anger, an excitement that creates opportunities and ferocity that cowers? Attachments. Those who live without attachment to outcomes are free to experience the world. Those who do things, everything, with an expected outcome, especially when those expectations concern other people, will always live with disappointment. And it is often those disappointments, and the fear of continual disappointment, that turn passion into outbursts.

Little boys are taught to ignore their emotions and push them deep inside. Since emotions unattended eventually seek out the light, they come out of us in waves of torrent and frustration; passions with nowhere to run.

The third most common personality type for women is the Performer (ESFP): Extraverts who love being the center of attention. While they almost crave the spotlight, they can also be thoughtful explorers who love learning and sharing new insights with others.

Never underestimate a performers’ ability to read people, who use their interpersonal tool set to acquire loyalty. Because they are warm, generous, friendly, and sympathetic, they can appear to be concerned about others’ well-being. While underneath, they may harbor such qualities as greed, lust, power-lust from the majority of their associates.

This combination could make for some very interesting villains, don’t you think?

8.5% of men fall into this category. This may seem like a small number, considering it’s number three on the most common personality type list. Just remember that the number one and two are 16.4 and 11.2 respectively. This third group of men share a couple of things in common with the first two groups, however. All three prefer facts, specifics and details. All three are ruled by the head and not the heart.

Yes, an increasing number of men have been taught to lock our feelings away, not show emotions. And certainly don’t cry; it’s a sign of weakness.

But why?

First, in no particular order, is the fact that in our formative years we are connected primarily to women: mothers, female teachers, cub scout leaders, Sunday school teachers are primarily women. Furthermore, absent fathers doesn’t contribute to the mix.

Contrast that with our DNA. From the early days of man’s awakening, men bonded together in the ritual hunt, and the rights of manhood (think walk-about). It is in bonding with the older males in life struggles that a boy learns what it means to become a man.

Am I suggesting that women aren’t capable of teaching a young boy virtues of manliness? Not at all. Women are capable in every way.

What I am suggesting, however, is, biologically speaking, infants, toddlers, and young men bond with their mothers and other women in their life differently than with men. It’s built into our DNA; from eons of selective breeding certain types of DNA strands evolved through the years.

Am I suggesting that men are incapable of developing other traits such as intuition, or change the way we perceive and accept the world around us? Certainly not. I whole heartedly believe in the human being’s ability to change, to grow, to adapt and progress.

Does this information change how we, as story tellers, approach our craft? Probably not. Tropes exist in stories because tropes exist in nature. Men are men. As long as we continue to be men, we will continue to be portrayed in stereotypical stubborn, heartless, and calculating. I don’t see that changing in any dramatic way anytime soon. Prove me wrong.

Whether introverted or extroverted, the majority of women are Sensing, Feeling, and Judging. Nearly seventeen percent of women are of the extrovert variety. Social butterflies with a predominant need to connect to others, they organize households, neighborhoods, and communities around great causes. They gather specific details about others and turn this into supportive messages making people feel good about themselves.

In this nurturing way, the feminine supports and strengthens the masculine making it possible to fulfill his goals, thus fulfilling her innermost needs. Behind every successful man, they say, is an xSFJ.

What would happen, though, if the Sensing, Feeling, Judging person were evil, cowed into darkness by major heartbreak, abandonment, and abuse of every kind? Wouldn’t that make a truly malevolent antagonist?

Do you have a favorite dark character that fits into these descriptions?

If men aren’t the inspector (ISTJ), they are next likely to be ESTJ – The Supervisor. It’s interesting that, regardless of whether they look inside or out, majority of men rely on senses and facts rather than feelings, logic over emotions, and judgments before perceptions. We tend to have strong habits and focus on what is or has happened rather than what might happen. We see efficiency as more important than cooperation and prefer planning to spontaneity. Sounds like just about every male protagonist I have ever read about.

What would happen to our stories if our male protagonist was open minded or curious? What if he sought out cooperation or maintained social harmony instead of causing strife? What if they were a relaxed nonconformist who made laid back decisions while keeping options open? Would our stories be less compelling? Would tension in our plots slacken? Would we bore our readers into purchasing more vampire date-night plots and our bank accounts into overdraft?

As expected, the majority of women are ISFJ-Nurturers. Their introspective nature empowers them to find generosity within themselves. This, in turn, generates mercy, kindness, and empathy.

These are strong emotions for a writer to work with. A woman’s sensitivity to others emotions can shed light on the darkest problems, and even find their solutions. Though Nurturers aren’t solely focused on resolutions and goals, their ability to bring out the best in others provide mechanisms that lead to the end of conflict and the reuniting of lost souls.

In my own writings, I often find myself using the nurturing capabilities of women to clarify emotional conflicts and unite people with their lost goals.

How do you use nurturers, either male or female, in your stories?

The majority of men, seventeen percent according to Career Planner (see https://www.careerplanner.com/MB2/TypeInPopulation-Males-Females.cfm) are The Inspector (ISTJ). This means that most men are bright, logical, and direct. Their focus on concrete facts and data make them good analysts. A tendency towards thoroughness and attention to detail means that they are rarely wrong.

In my experience, most of my coworkers seem to fall into this profile. To a point.

But under pressure of deadlines and intense scrutiny of their managers, most lose interest in the fine details, favoring simplicity over finesse, quick and easy over made from scratch, regardless of the long term costs and effort.

In other words, under pressure, most men favor inexpensive duct tape and bailing wire to a polished product, because the latter requires more effort – in the short term.

Sadly, most of us are the children in the behavior test who eat the cookie in front of us rather than wait the five minutes with a promise to receive two.

In the stories that we write, do our characters primarily stay within the prescribed profile, or do we let them drift, and show us their weaknesses? At the risk of clarity, giving our characters personality defects makes them more real and, therefore, easier to accept and identify with.

How have you introduced character flaws?

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton

Some scientists say that over ninety percent of all communication is non-verbal — tone, inflection and volume of voice, gestures, facial expressions, and body positions. As a writer of prose, I have often wondered about how to include this in a scene.

On one hand, I might describe the gestures one character uses in reaction to a statement or event, e.g. Manny folded his arms across his chest and glared at Alice. When she didn’t react, his lips melted into a frown. If left alone, the reader must then make their own conclusion about the Manny’s reaction.

Or I could simply state the character’s reaction, e.g. Manny glared at Alice, vitriol casting his face into an ugly frown. This, however, garners many a critique: “Show me, don’t tell me!”

Personally I prefer a combination of the two, even at the cost of a few readers telling me to show them Manny’s reaction.

Manny folded his arms across his chest and glared at Alice. Vitriol melted his eyebrows and lips into an ugly frown. The tilt of his chin darkened his eyes.

What do you think? I’d love to hear your opinion.