Re: Interactive storytelling and me; and a challenge

[whitncom@lynx.eaze.net]

> 
> whitncom@lynx.eaze.net wrote:
> 
> >I was just thinking about Briggs-Meyers personality profiles,
> >and wondered if it could be used to derive "different" personalities
> >of characters in a story, or is it too "weak" for that?
> >
> >also, could we say that the 16 personality profiles are sixteen
> >different audiences for our stories, and we should target one
> >particular personality in writing our stories?
> >  
> >
Brandon J. Van Every replied:
> In my experience the MBTI is not as simple as this.  As an orthogonal 
> typing system, it is highly inadequate.  For instance on various MBTI 
> mailing lists the qualifiers x, X, and X* are used when describing type, 
> indicating "slightly expressed, moderately expressed, and extremely 
> expressed" respectively.  I for instance describe myself as IN*TP.  I 
> score overwhelmingly high on the iNtuitive test, which shows how 
> self-absorbed I am with my own ideas and formulations.  Also I don't 
> think the idea of opposed types being exclusive is valid.  For instance 
> I usually describe myself as 60% Perceiver / 40% Judger.  I think a 
> division of 7 types along any given axis would be reasonable.  That 
> would yield 7^4 = 2401 personality types, with more of a perceivable 
> continuum between them than the MBTI describes.
> 
I guess the seven on an axis:

1 E*  (100%E 0%I),                Extremely Outward Driven
2 E,  (83%E 17%I) 5/6=E 1/6=I
3 e,  (66%E 33%I) 2/3=E 1/3=I
4 ie, (50%E 50%I) 1/2=E 1/2=I     Balanced Outward/Inward Driven
5 i,  (33%E 66%I) 1/3=E 2/3=I
6 I,  (17%E 83%I) 1/6=E 5/6=I
7 I*  (0%E 100%I)                 Extremely Inward driven

This has the advantage of easy fractions, but I'm not sure what the
STORY difference would be between each of these.

I suspect the interesting stories would involve personalities that
are "pronounced", ie: on the extreme end of the scales.

> Then you have the question of what type interactions cause conflict.  
> It's not as simple as "different types conflict."  For instance, Thinker 
> vs. Thinker conflict took me a long time to recognize.  Thinkers who 
> share the same paradigms are highly compatible with each other.  
> Thinkers who, for reasons of environment and historical accident, have 
> come to operate within different paradigms will tend to kill each other 
> over the differences.  Judger is an important determinant of conflict, 
> probably the most important one.  Strong Judgers tell other people what 
> to do, and most people fight back.
> 
Okay, reading this, I now feel we some details that can form
the basis for some story conflict.

I assume your simple kind of conflict would be the extremes:
 E vs I, N vs S, T vs F, P vs J

and now you point out that conflict can happen within types:
 T vs T : when paradigms conflict
 J vs J : when "right" behaviour conflicts
 J vs * : when J's tells other what to do. (is this true for I??J people?)
 E vs E : when each wants to be "top dog"
 I vs I : 
 F vs F :
 P vs P :
 S vs S :
 N vs N : 

I only filled in some of this, because I don't know more.
Another idea I'd like to discuss is how do we capture these
insights in a way that a computer can aid us in drawing out all
the expected behaviours we want?

> A further complication: to what degree is a person naive about their 
> MBTI?  Do they just act on their raw impulses, without any knowledge 
> that other people are different, and that there are frameworks available 
> for describing the differences?  Or do they know that they're an IN*TP 
> and likely to get into fights with any J?  So now you have questions 
> about conflict potential vs. conflict avoidance.  Then there are people 
> who deliberately seek out conflict, at least of a sort.  There are many 
> shades of conflict one might have a taste for; I may like this much or 
> this kind of conflict, but not that much / that kind.

Hmm. I don't want my reader/player to have to know Meyers Briggs just
to enjoy the story-experience.
 
> So, I think it's probably possible to simulate these behavioral 
> interactions, but the range of expression is large.  Also, you'd need an 
> environment for people to have thoughts / feelings about and get into 
> conflicts over.  The nature of the environment is probably as important 
> a consideration as anything else.  For instance I get into tons of 
> internet conflicts, and few in real life.
> 
> 
> Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
> Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA
> 
> 20% of the world is real.
> 80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
>