FILL: Writers POLL: Traits?

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

Original Posting: Sat, 9 May 1998 19:59:35 EDT

The best dimensions for describing a personality, according to McCrae and Costa...

Openness to Experience
Conscientiousness
Extraversion (outwardly directed, or just gazing at the navel)
Agreeableness
Neuroticism (emotional stability, moodiness)

Here's the thing...suppose that WRITERS had a personality. Suppose you wanted to describe it to us, to show us just what kind of personality was lurking here...

(don't forget that some of the most interesting personalities are somewhat complex, with some conflicts, some unifying themes, various layers, ids and egos and inner children--do you suppose there is a relationship between children and tubes? I mean, some rough riding tires have inner tubes, and some rough riding personalities have inner children?--anyway, feel free to make the personality of WRITERS a bit more complex than first appearances might indicate...)

What would you say? Feel free to use the OCEAN dimensions, if they help, or to rewrite the rules anyway that works...

(oh, and if you aren't sure about the WRITERS that is, you might tell us about the WRITERS you would like to see, the one that you would hope for, even write to help create...)

FILLER: Split the person and the position

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

Original Posting: Sun, 10 May 1998 23:57:55 EDT

Susannah asked:
:) Will someone please define the difference between flame and argument?
:) What's wrong with a good argument?

Okay, I'll take a crack at breaking this egg...not that this is necessarily the definitive version, but...

I think the main difference lies in how we treat the others in the exchange.

In a "good argument," there is room for the other person to make a few points, to win some points. And when there is a conclusion, it is possible for all concerned to shake hands and "make up."

Flame attacks, on the other hand, require that the other person be obliterated, that they be personally destroyed. Frankly, winning isn't necessary in a flame battle, merely overshouting, vilifying, destroying, and otherwise grinding the other into silence... when there is a conclusion to a flame battle, there are very few people left to do anything, let alone talking to each other.

I guess I would say that in argument, one assumes that the other person is "honorable" in some senses. In flamage, one simply intends to destroy.

[There's a tickle in the skull somewhere that suggests there may be a difference in the role of the audience, also, but I'll let someone else develop that nuance--or nuisance?]

I should probably avoid speculating about the personal security and insecurities behind each approach, although it may be obvious that I consider "good argument" as useful, even beneficial...